[House Report 114-102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-102
________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1735
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 5, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
114th Congress
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
114-102
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1735
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 5, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Fourteenth Congress
WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
ROB BISHOP, Utah RICK LARSEN, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOHN GARAMENDI, California
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado Georgia
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JACKIE SPEIER, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
MO BROOKS, Alabama DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
PAUL COOK, California MARK TAKAI, Hawaii
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama PETE AGUILAR, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the Legislation....................................... 1
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 8
Committee Position............................................... 8
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 8
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 8
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill.............. 8
Budget Authority Implication..................................... 9
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 9
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 9
OVERVIEW....................................................... 9
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 9
Overview................................................... 9
Items of Special Interest.................................. 10
AH-64 Apache helicopter multi-year production contract... 10
Armed aerial scout rotorcraft............................ 10
Army UH-60A to UH-60L conversions for the National Guard. 10
Improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications.................. 11
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 11
Overview................................................... 11
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 11
Overview................................................... 11
Items of Special Interest.................................. 12
Bradley Fighting Vehicles................................ 12
Combat vehicle industrial base management................ 12
Hercules recovery vehicle................................ 14
M1 Abrams Tank Fleet Configuration....................... 14
M240 production and industrial base sustainment.......... 15
Modular Handgun System................................... 15
Small arms production industrial base.................... 16
Stryker lethality upgrades............................... 16
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 17
Overview................................................... 17
Items of Special Interest.................................. 17
Cost assessment of decommissioning lead-based ammunition
and associated components.............................. 17
Joint Hydra 70 guided rocket acquisition strategy........ 18
M3 Multi-role Anti-Armor Anti-tank Weapon System......... 18
Small caliber ammunition industrial base................. 19
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 19
Overview................................................... 19
Items of Special Interest.................................. 19
Army radio modernization................................. 19
Civil Support Team Information Management System......... 20
Mine resistant ambush protected family of vehicles
enduring requirement................................... 20
Personal protective equipment modernization and
industrial base sustainment............................ 21
Rough Terrain Container Handler recapitalization......... 22
U.S. Army Europe garrison communications................. 22
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 22
Overview................................................... 22
Items of Special Interest.................................. 23
Airborne electronic attack low band transmitter
consolidation.......................................... 23
MH-60R and MH-60S service life extension plans........... 23
MQ-8 Fire Scout.......................................... 23
Reporting of the April 8, 2000, MV-22 mishap at Marana,
Arizona................................................ 24
V-22 for carrier on-board delivery....................... 24
V-22 medical evacuation capability....................... 25
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 25
Overview................................................... 25
Items of Special Interest.................................. 25
Joint Standoff Weapon sustainment........................ 25
Tomahawk Block IV........................................ 26
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 27
Overview................................................... 27
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 27
Overview................................................... 27
Items of Special Interest.................................. 27
Advance procurement for Afloat Forward Staging Base...... 27
Air and Missile Defense Radar Testing Evaluation......... 27
Amphibious ship construction............................. 28
Coast Guard polar icebreaker............................. 28
Joint High Speed Vessel Build Specification.............. 29
National Defense Sealift Fund............................ 29
Naval electric weapons systems fielding plan............. 30
Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement....... 30
Shipbuilding and industrial base......................... 31
USS John F. Kennedy two-phase acquisition strategy....... 31
Virginia Payload Module.................................. 32
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 32
Overview................................................... 32
Items of Special Interest.................................. 32
Aegis Refurbishment and Ship Modernization............... 32
Air and Missile Defense Radar............................ 33
Destroyer modernization.................................. 34
Littoral Combat Ship simulation training................. 34
Radar Obsolescence and Availability Recovery Upgrades.... 34
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 35
Overview................................................... 35
Items of Special Interest.................................. 35
Garrison Mobile Engineering Equipment.................... 35
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 35
Overview................................................... 35
Items of Special Interest.................................. 36
A-10 aircraft............................................ 36
Air National Guard Wildfire Assistance................... 36
Air Refueling Recapitalization Strategy.................. 37
Battlefield airborne communications node................. 37
C-130 modernization plan................................. 37
C-130H Modernization..................................... 38
EC-130H Compass Call aircraft............................ 39
F-15 and F-16 spare engine shortfall..................... 39
F-16 block 40/50 mission training center................. 40
F-35 aircraft program.................................... 40
Joint surveillance and target attack system sustainment
report................................................. 42
KC-10.................................................... 42
KC-46A quarterly report.................................. 42
RQ-4 and U-2 high-altitude intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance capabilities........................ 43
UH-1N replacement program................................ 43
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 44
Overview................................................... 44
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 44
Overview................................................... 44
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 44
Overview................................................... 44
Items of Special Interest.................................. 44
Air Force Fire Emergency Services and Personal Protective
Equipment.............................................. 44
Civil engineers construction, surveying, and mapping
equipment.............................................. 45
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 45
Overview................................................... 45
Items of Special Interest.................................. 45
Procurement of Standard Missile-3 block IB interceptors.. 45
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 46
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 46
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations............... 46
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 46
Section 111--Limitation on Availability of Funds for AN/
TPQ-53 Radar Systems..................................... 46
Section 112--Prioritization of Upgraded UH-60 Blackhawk
Helicopters within Army National Guard................... 46
Section 113--Report on Options to Accelerate Replacement of
UH-60A Blackhawk Helicopters of Army National Guard...... 46
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 47
Section 121--Modification to Multiyear Procurement
Authority for Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers and
Associated Systems....................................... 47
Section 122--Procurement Authority for Aircraft Carrier
Programs................................................. 47
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 47
Section 131--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Executive Communications Upgrades for C-20 and C-37
Aircraft................................................. 47
Section 132--Backup Inventory Status of A-10 Aircraft...... 47
Section 133--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Retirement of A-10 Aircraft.............................. 48
Section 134--Prohibition on Retirement of EC-130H Aircraft. 48
Section 135--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Divestment or Transfer of KC-10 Aircraft................. 48
Subtitle E--Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters.... 48
Section 141--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Joint
Battle Command-Platform.................................. 48
Section 142--Strategy for Replacement of A/MH-6 Mission
Enhanced Little Bird Aircraft to Meet Special Operations
Requirements............................................. 49
Section 143--Independent Assessment of United States Combat
Logistic Force Requirements.............................. 49
Section 144--Report on Use of Different Types of Enhanced
5.56mm Ammunition by the Army and the Marine Corps....... 49
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 50
OVERVIEW....................................................... 50
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army............ 50
Overview................................................... 50
Items of Special Interest.................................. 50
Acoustic mixing technology for energetic materials....... 50
Active protection system................................. 51
Advanced tactical shelters............................... 51
Army airborne networking radios.......................... 52
Army Energy Efficiency Research and Development Programs. 52
Army Warfighting Assessment and network experimentation
activities............................................. 52
Ballistic Resistant Adaptive Seating System.............. 53
Composite barrel technology development.................. 53
Detection and threat identification technologies......... 54
Fuel system survivability technology and standards....... 54
Geo-Enabled Mission Command Enterprise................... 55
High-resolution 3-D topographic terrain data supporting
tactical operations.................................... 55
Human performance research............................... 56
Improved Turbine Engine Program.......................... 56
Indirect Fire Protection Capability...................... 56
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool.......... 57
Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile Program..................... 57
Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System.................. 58
Lithium ion super-capacitors............................. 58
Material development, characterization, and computational
modeling............................................... 58
Medical evaluation of anthropomorphic data on vehicle
blast testing.......................................... 59
Mobile camouflage systems development.................... 59
Next-Generation signature management system.............. 59
Pacific Theater High Performance Computing Capabilities.. 59
Rotorcraft Degraded Visual Environment................... 60
Simplified Army Radio Network............................ 60
Situational Awareness Prototype Constellation for
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction................. 61
Soldier Enhancement Program.............................. 61
Soldier Protection System and weight reduction technology 62
Technology for countering enemy unmanned aerial systems.. 62
Ultra-light combat tactical vehicle test and evaluation.. 62
Vehicle occupant protection technology development....... 63
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy............ 63
Overview................................................... 63
Items of Special Interest.................................. 64
Advanced Low Cost Munitions Ordnance..................... 64
Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel.. 64
Anti-surface warfare missile capability for Littoral
Combat Ship............................................ 64
Automated Test and Retest................................ 65
Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range.................. 66
Continuation of Brimstone missile assessment............. 66
F414 Engine Noise Reduction Research and Development..... 67
Five-inch precision guided projectile development for
naval surface fire support............................. 67
Fully homomorphic encryption............................. 68
National Sea Based Deterrence Fund....................... 68
Navy communications experimentation...................... 69
Requirements maturation and developmental planning....... 69
Service life extension program for Auxiliary General
Purpose Oceanographic Research......................... 69
Spectral Warrior......................................... 70
Tactical Combat Training System program.................. 70
Unmanned carrier aviation................................ 71
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force....... 72
Overview................................................... 72
Items of Special Interest.................................. 72
Adaptive engine transition program....................... 72
Advanced manufacturing for low-cost sustainment.......... 73
Advanced pilot training family of systems................ 73
Air Force Minority Leaders Program....................... 73
Airborne sensor data correlation......................... 74
B-52 radar modernization program......................... 74
Conformal phased array antennas.......................... 75
Digital polarimetric radar development................... 75
Experimentation program.................................. 75
F-16 active electronically scanned array radar upgrade... 75
F-35 dual-capable aircraft development program........... 76
Fifth generation tactical data link enterprise........... 76
KC-135 auto throttles.................................... 77
KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program........... 77
Long-range strike bomber................................. 77
Long-range strike bomber program......................... 78
Next Generation Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
System Electro-Optical, Infrared Sensor Capability..... 78
Next Generation Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
System operational concepts............................ 79
Technology transfer...................................... 79
Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar......... 80
Wide area surveillance................................... 80
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.... 81
Overview................................................... 81
Items of Special Interest.................................. 81
Advanced semiconductor platform.......................... 81
Assessment of the directed energy industrial base........ 81
Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office............. 82
Comptroller General review of advanced semiconductors and
microelectronics....................................... 83
Comptroller General review of technology transition
efforts of the Department of Defense................... 83
Computational Research and Engineering Acquisition Tools
and Environment........................................ 84
Corrosion control and prevention......................... 85
Department of Defense infectious disease research and
development............................................ 85
Electronic Warfare Executive Committee................... 86
Enhancing situation awareness for military aircraft...... 86
High Power Directed Energy research...................... 86
Language Translation Technology.......................... 87
Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle............................. 87
Report on the Special Operations Command Development of
Directed Energy........................................ 87
Research and development work with biosafety facilities.. 88
Ribonucleic acid technology research..................... 88
Simulation training for emerging health threats.......... 89
Special Operations Forces Combat Diving Program.......... 89
Strategic Capabilities Office transitions of technology.. 89
Technology supporting information operations and
strategic communications............................... 90
U.S. Special Operations Command Terrain Following/Terrain
Avoidance Radar program for MC-130J aircraft........... 91
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 92
Overview................................................... 92
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 92
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 92
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 92
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 92
Section 211--Extension of Defense Research and Development
Rapid Innovation Program................................. 92
Section 212--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Medical Countermeasures Program.......................... 92
Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for F-15
Infrared Search and Track Capability Development......... 93
Section 214--Independent Assessment of F135 Engine Program. 93
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 94
Section 221--Expansion of Education Partnerships To Support
Technology Transfer and Transition....................... 94
Section 222--Strategies for Engagement with Historically
Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving
Institutions of Higher Education......................... 94
Section 223--Plan for Advanced Weapons Technology War Games 94
Section 224--Comptroller General Review of Autonomic
Logistics Information System for F-35 Lightening II
Aircraft................................................. 95
Section 225--Briefing on Shallow Water Combat Submersible
Program.................................................. 96
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 96
OVERVIEW....................................................... 96
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 97
Budget Request Adjustments................................... 97
Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft Training and Operations 97
Base Realignment and Closure 2017.......................... 98
Energy Issues................................................ 98
Analysis for Additional Uses of Energy Savings Performance
Contracts................................................ 98
Briefing on Energy Performance Initiatives................. 99
Briefing on Military Installation Readiness................ 99
Collaboration on Operational Energy........................ 100
Progress and Savings from Net Zero Installation Initiatives 100
Tubular Light-Emitting Diode Technology.................... 101
Logistics and Sustainment Issues............................. 101
Auxiliary Personnel Lighter Barracks Ships................. 101
Combat Footwear for Female Service Members................. 102
Continuous Technology Refreshment.......................... 102
Decision Analysis Using Readiness Cost Analysis Tool....... 103
Defense Personal Property System........................... 103
Defense Supply Single Point of Failure Assessment.......... 104
Department of Defense Corrosion Control Efforts............ 104
Depot Maintenance Capability............................... 105
Humidity-Controlled Shelters and Temporary Buildings....... 105
Laser Ablation of Coatings................................. 106
Marine Corps Systems Command Engineering Support........... 106
Planning for Critical Organizational Clothing and
Individual Equipment Innovation.......................... 107
Report on Asset Tracking................................... 107
Service Life Extension of Emergency Vehicles............... 108
Readiness Issues............................................. 108
Advanced Foreign Language Proficiency Training Systems..... 108
Air Combat Training Range Upgrades......................... 108
Analysis of Continuous Bomber Presence on Guam............. 109
Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal........................... 109
Aviation Support to the Joint Readiness Training Center.... 110
Comptroller General Assessment of Army and Air Force
Training Requirements.................................... 110
Comptroller General Assessment of Plans to Rebuild
Readiness................................................ 111
Initial Flight Training.................................... 112
Marine Corps Search and Rescue............................. 113
Optimizing National Guard Training......................... 113
Performance and Effectiveness of Department of Defense's
Joint Exercise Program................................... 114
Review of the Navy's Optimized Fleet Response Plan......... 114
Synthetic Training for Small Arms Weapons Skills and Combat
Readiness................................................ 115
U.S. Army Pacific Pathways Program......................... 116
Use of Service Contracts for Simulated Training and
Associated Equipment..................................... 117
Uses of Modeling and Simulation............................ 117
Other Matters................................................ 117
Arctic Investments and Capabilities........................ 117
Briefing on Retirement and Storage of Air Force One (VC-25) 118
Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle.................................. 118
Deep Water Unexploded Ordnance............................. 119
Flame Retardant Military Uniform Safety.................... 119
United States Special Operations Command Global Inform and
Influence Activities..................................... 119
Weather and Geographic Impacts on Aerospace Control Alert
Missions................................................. 120
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 120
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 120
Section 301--Authorization of Appropriations............... 120
Subtitle B--Energy and Environment........................... 120
Section 311--Limitation on Procurement of Drop-In Fuels.... 120
Section 312--Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas... 120
Section 313--Revision to Scope of Statutorily Required
Review of Projects Relating to Potential Obstructions to
Aviation so as to Apply Only to Energy Projects.......... 121
Section 314--Exclusions from Definition of ``Chemical
Substance'' under Toxic Substances Control Act........... 121
Section 315--Exemption of Department of Defense from
Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement................. 121
Section 316--Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or
Construction of Biofuels Refineries...................... 121
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 121
Section 321--Assignment of Certain New Requirements Based
on Determinations of Cost-Efficiency..................... 121
Section 322--Inclusion in Annual Technology and Industrial
Capability Assessments of a Determination about Defense
Acquisition Program Requirements......................... 121
Section 323--Amendment to Limitation on Authority to Enter
into a Contract for the Sustainment, Maintenance, Repair,
or Other Overhaul of the F117 Engine..................... 122
Section 324--Pilot Programs for Availability of Working-
Capital Funds for Product Improvements................... 122
Section 325--Report on Equipment Purchased from Foreign
Entities that Could be Manufactured in United States
Arsenals or Depots....................................... 122
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 122
Section 333--Improvements to Department of Defense Excess
Property Disposal........................................ 122
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 123
OVERVIEW....................................................... 123
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 124
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 124
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 124
Section 402--Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End
Strength Minimum Levels.................................. 124
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 124
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 124
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 125
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 125
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2016 Limitation on Number of Non-
Dual Status Technicians.................................. 126
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized
To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 126
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 126
Section 421--Military Personnel............................ 126
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 127
OVERVIEW....................................................... 127
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 127
Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft Manning Issues......... 127
Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs.......................... 128
Assistance to Local Education Agencies..................... 128
Commissary Transportation Costs............................ 128
Comptroller General Report on Nutrition Assistance for
Active Duty Service Members and Their Families........... 129
Comptroller General Review of the Federal Voting Assistance
Program.................................................. 129
DACA Impact on Military Readiness.......................... 130
Diversity in Department of Defense Advertising............. 130
Improvements to the Transition Assistance Program.......... 130
Increasing Diversity in Military Academies................. 131
Inspector General Report on Separation of Members who Made
a Sexual Assault Report.................................. 131
Installation Access for Regular College Student Counseling. 131
National Military Dependent Student Identifier............. 132
O-6 Command Selection Board Processes...................... 132
Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who
Are Members of the Armed Forces.......................... 133
Recognizing the Value of the Military Commissary Benefit... 133
Religious Accommodations in the Armed Forces............... 134
Report on Female Muslim Garb Policy........................ 134
Report on Performance and Efficiency of Incorporation of
Community-based Transition Programs in the Department of
Defense Transition Assistance Program.................... 135
Report on Prisoner of War and Missing in Action
Declassification Procedures.............................. 135
Rulemaking Under the Military Lending Act.................. 135
Support Ongoing Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps
Programs and Encourage Existing Participation............ 136
The Reverent Treatment of Remains.......................... 137
Timely Access to Child Care on Military Installations...... 137
Tracking for Non-Disability Mental Conditions.............. 137
Transfer of Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits........... 138
U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force
and Families Program..................................... 138
United States Government Accountability Office Study on
Gambling and Problem Gambling in the Armed Forces........ 139
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 140
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 140
Section 501--Equitable Treatment of Junior Officers
Excluded from an All-Fully-Qualified-Officers List
Because of Administrative Error.......................... 140
Section 502--Authority to Defer Until Age 68 Mandatory
Retirement for Age of a General or Flag Officer Serving
as Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Army, Navy,
or Air Force............................................. 140
Section 503--Implementation of Comptroller General
Recommendation on the Definition and Availability of
Costs Associated with General and Flag Officers and their
Aides.................................................... 140
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 140
Section 511--Clarification of Purpose of Reserve Component
Special Selection Boards as Limited to Correction of
Error at a Mandatory Promotion Board..................... 140
Section 512--Ready Reserve Continuous Screening Regarding
Key Positions Disqualifying Federal Officials from
Continued Service in the Ready Reserve................... 141
Section 513--Exemption of Military Technicians (Dual
Status) from Civilian Employee Furloughs................. 141
Section 514--Annual Report on Personnel, Training, and
Equipment Requirements for the Non-Federalized National
Guard to Support Civilian Authorities in the Prevention
and Response to Non-Catastrophic Domestic Disasters...... 141
Section 515--National Guard Civil and Defense Support
Activities and Related Matters........................... 141
Subtitle C--Consolidation of Authorities to Order Members of
Reserve Components to Perform Duty....................... 141
Section 521--Administration of Reserve Duty................ 141
Section 522--Reserve Duty Authorities...................... 141
Section 523--Purpose of Reserve Duty....................... 142
Section 524--Training and Other Duty Performed by Members
of the National Guard.................................... 142
Section 525--Conforming and Clerical Amendments............ 142
Section 526--Effective Date and Implementation............. 142
Subtitle D--General Service Authorities...................... 142
Section 531--Temporary Authority to Develop and Provide
Additional Recruitment Incentives........................ 142
Section 532--Expansion of Authority to Conduct Pilot
Programs on Career Flexibility to Enhance Retention of
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 143
Section 533--Modification of Notice and Wait Requirements
for Change in Ground Combat Exclusion Policy for Female
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 143
Section 534--Role of Secretary of Defense in Development of
Gender-Neutral Occupational Standards.................... 143
Section 535--Burdens of Proof Applicable to Investigations
and Reviews Related to Protected Communications of
Members of the Armed Forces and Prohibited Retaliatory
Actions.................................................. 143
Section 536--Revision of Name on Military Service Record to
Reflect Change in Gender Identity After Separation from
the Armed Forces......................................... 143
Section 537--Establishment of Breastfeeding Policy for the
Department of the Army................................... 144
Section 538--Sense of the House of Representatives
Regarding Secretary of Defense Review of Section 504 of
Title 10, United States Code, Regarding Enlisting Certain
Aliens in the Armed Forces............................... 144
Subtitle E--Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and
Domestic Violence Prevention and Response................ 144
Section 541--Improvements to Special Victims' Counsel
Program.................................................. 144
Section 542--Department of Defense Civilian Employee Access
to Special Victims' Counsel.............................. 144
Section 543--Access to Special Victims' Counsel for Former
Dependents of Members and Former Members of the Armed
Forces................................................... 144
Section 544--Representation and Assistance from Special
Victims' Counsel in Retaliatory Proceedings.............. 144
Section 545--Timely Notification to Victims of Sex-related
Offenses of the Availability of Assistance from Special
Victims' Counsel......................................... 145
Section 546--Participation by Victim in Punitive
Proceedings and Access to Records........................ 145
Section 547--Victim Access to Report of Results of
Preliminary Hearing under Article 32 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice...................................... 145
Section 548--Minimum Confinement Period Required for
Conviction of Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 145
Section 549--Strategy to Prevent Retaliation Against
Members of the Armed Forces Who Report or Intervene on
Behalf of the Victim in Instances of Sexual Assault...... 145
Section 550--Improved Department of Defense Prevention and
Response to Sexual Assaults in which the Victim is a Male
Member of the Armed Forces............................... 145
Section 551--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Training for Administrators and Instructors of the Junior
and Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps.............. 146
Section 552--Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to
Require Consistent Preparation of the Full Record of
Trial.................................................... 146
Section 553--Inclusion of Additional Information in Annual
Reports Regarding Department of Defense Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response.................................. 146
Section 554--Retention of Case Notes in Investigations of
Sex-Related Offenses Involving Members of the Army, Navy,
Air Force, or Marine Corps............................... 146
Section 555--Additional Guidance Regarding Release of
Mental Health Records of Department of Defense Medical
Treatment Facilities in Cases Involving any Sex-related
Offense.................................................. 146
Section 556--Public Availability of Records of Certain
Proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice... 146
Section 557--Revision of Department of Defense Directive-
Type Memorandum 15-003, Relating to Registered Sex
Offender Identification, Notification, and Monitoring in
the Department of Defense................................ 147
Section 558--Improved Implementation of Changes to Uniform
Code of Military Justice................................. 147
Subtitle F--Member Education, Training, and Transition....... 147
Section 561--Availability of Preseparation Counseling for
Members of the Armed Forces Discharged or Released After
Limited Active Duty...................................... 147
Section 562--Availability of Additional Training
Opportunities under Transition Assistance Program........ 147
Section 563--Enhancements to Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
Program.................................................. 147
Section 564--Appointments to Military Service Academies
from Nominations Made by Delegates in Congress from the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands............. 147
Section 565--Recognition of Additional Involuntary
Mobilization Duty Authorities Exempt from Five-Year Limit
on Reemployment Rights of Persons who Serve in the
Uniformed Services....................................... 148
Section 566--Job Training and Post-Service Placement
Executive Committee...................................... 148
Section 567--Direct Employment Pilot Program for Members of
the National Guard and Reserve........................... 148
Section 568--Program Regarding Civilian Credentialing for
Skills Required for Certain Military Occupational
Specialties.............................................. 148
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters........................................ 148
Section 571--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local
Educational Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members
of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian
Employees................................................ 148
Section 572--Extension of Authority to Conduct Family
Support Programs for Immediate Family Members of Members
of the Armed Forces Assigned to Special Operations Forces 148
Section 573--Support for Efforts to Improve Academic
Achievement and Transition of Military Dependent Students 149
Section 574--Study Regarding Feasibility of Using DEERS to
Track Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees Who are
Elementary or Secondary Education Students............... 149
Section 575--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces Attending
Specialized Camps........................................ 149
Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards........................... 149
Section 581--Authorization for Award of the Distinguished-
Service Cross for Acts of Extraordinary Heroism During
the Korean War........................................... 149
Section 582--Limitation on Authority of Secretaries of the
Military Departments Regarding Revocation of Combat Valor
Awards................................................... 149
Section 583--Award of Purple Heart to Members of the Armed
Forces who were Victims of the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
Bombing.................................................. 149
Subtitle I--Reports and Other Matters........................ 150
Section 591--Authority for United States Air Force
Institute of Technology to Charge and Retain Tuition for
Instruction of Persons Other Than Air Force Personnel
Detailed for Instruction at the Institute................ 150
Section 592--Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve
Components as Veterans................................... 150
Section 593--Support for Designation of 2015 as the Year of
the Military Diver....................................... 150
Section 594--Transfer and Adoption of Military Animals..... 150
Section 595--Coordination with Non-Government Suicide
Prevention Organizations and Agencies to Assist in
Reducing Suicides........................................ 150
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 151
OVERVIEW....................................................... 151
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 151
Military Allotment Prohibition Briefing to Congress........ 151
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 152
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 152
Section 601--Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary
Increase in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under
Certain Circumstances.................................... 152
Section 602--Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reductions
Based on the Duration of Temporary Duty Assignment or
Civilian Travel.......................................... 152
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 152
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 152
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals.... 153
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus
Authorities for Nuclear Officers......................... 153
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and
Bonus Authorities........................................ 153
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays....... 153
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Annual Amount of Nuclear
Officer Bonus Pay........................................ 153
Section 617--Modification to Special Aviation Incentive Pay
and Bonus Authorities for Officers....................... 154
Section 618--Repeal of Obsolete Special Travel and
Transportation Allowance for Survivors of Deceased
Members of the Armed Forces from the Vietnam Conflict.... 154
Subtitle C--Modernization of Military Retirement System...... 154
Section 631--Full Participation for Members of the
Uniformed Services in Thrift Savings Plan................ 154
Section 632--Modernized Retirement System for Members of
the Uniformed Services................................... 154
Section 633--Continuation Pay for Full TSP Members with 12
Years of Service......................................... 155
Section 634--Effective Date and Implementation............. 155
Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................. 155
Section 641--Preserving Assured Commissary Supply to Asia
and the Pacific.......................................... 155
Section 642--Prohibition on Replacement or Consolidation of
Defense Commissary and Exchange Systems Pending
Submission of Required Report on Defense Commissary
System................................................... 155
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 155
Section 651--Improvement of Financial Literacy and
Preparedness of Members of the Armed Forces.............. 155
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 156
OVERVIEW....................................................... 156
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 156
Access to Mental Health Care............................... 156
Alcohol Prevention and Monitoring Programs................. 157
Compound Drug Prescriptions................................ 157
Comptroller General Report on Army Warrior Transition Units 157
Dietary Guidelines for Military Nutrition Programs......... 158
Direct Hire Authority for Critical Health Care Occupational
Shortages................................................ 158
Medical Readiness.......................................... 159
Meeting the Needs of Female Service Member Amputees........ 159
Military Doctors of Podiatric Medicine..................... 159
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder............................. 160
Screening, Prevention and Treatment of Hepatitis A, B and C 160
Status and Impacts of Reductions in TRICARE Prime Service
Areas.................................................... 160
Study and Report on the Use of Equine Therapy.............. 161
Transport Telemedicine..................................... 161
Trauma Care................................................ 162
Wounded Warrior Recovery Care Coordination................. 162
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 163
Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits........... 163
Section 701--Joint Uniform Formulary for Transition of Care 163
Section 702--Access to Broad Range of Methods of
Contraception Approved by the Food and Drug
Administration for Members of the Armed Forces and
Military Dependents at Military Treatment Facilities..... 163
Section 703--Access to Contraceptive Method for Duration of
Deployment............................................... 163
Section 704--Access to Infertility Treatment for Members of
the Armed Forces and Dependents.......................... 163
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 164
Section 711--Unified Medical Command....................... 164
Section 712--Licensure of Mental Health Professionals in
TRICARE Program.......................................... 164
Section 713--Reports on Proposed Realignments of Military
Medical Treatment Facilities............................. 164
Section 714--Pilot Program for Operation of Network of
Retail Pharmacies Under TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program 164
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 165
Section 721--Extension of Authority for DOD-VA Health Care
Sharing Incentive Fund................................... 165
Section 722--Extension of Authority for Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund....................................... 165
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 165
OVERVIEW....................................................... 165
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 168
Additions to the Department of Defense's Small Business
Policy Website........................................... 168
Contracting Activities to Employ Disabled Persons.......... 168
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund............. 168
Department Management of Unobligated Funds................. 169
Department of Defense Oversight of Non-Major Defense
Acquisition Programs..................................... 170
Education and Training Related to Commercial Item
Procurements............................................. 171
Education and Training Related to Setting of Requirements.. 171
Education and Training Related to the Conduct of Market
Research................................................. 172
Enabling Systemic Review of Acquisition Laws and
Regulations by Establishing Sunset Dates for Acquisition
Statutes................................................. 172
Ethics Awareness and Training.............................. 173
Exchanges with Industry.................................... 174
Foreign Military Sales Procedural Improvements............. 174
Impact of Rescinded Solicitations on Efficiency and
Innovation............................................... 175
Importance of the North American Defense Industrial Base... 175
Improvements in Accountability for Contracted Services
Spending................................................. 176
Improving the Acquisition of Contracted Services........... 176
Improving the Efficiency of the Defense Contract Audit
Agency................................................... 177
Improving the Financial Auditability of the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service................................... 178
Improving the Goals and Metrics for Contracted Services.... 179
Improving the Requirements Development for and Acquisition
of Contracted Services................................... 179
Improving Transparency of Defense Contracted Services
Budget Information....................................... 180
Increased Transparency in Non-Appropriated Fund Contracting 181
Inspector General Review of Requirements for Senior
Department of Defense Officials Seeking Employment with
Defense Contractors...................................... 182
Joint Exercises in Operational Contract Support............ 182
Mentor-Protege Program..................................... 183
Operational Test and Evaluation Processes and Activities of
the Department of Defense................................ 183
Report on the Effect of Delays in First-Article Testing.... 184
Requirements Process....................................... 184
Secretary of Defense Review of Implementing Guidance and
Regulation............................................... 185
Shared Savings through Value Engineering................... 185
Small Business Implications of the Department of Defense
Use of OASIS Contract Vehicle............................ 186
Strategic Minerals Domestic Production Research............ 186
Streamlining Acquisition Reviews by Reducing Unnecessary
Documentation............................................ 187
Study and Report Related to Mandates regarding Suitability
for Selection as a Senior Official in the Acquisition
Workforce................................................ 188
Tracking of Contractor Personnel During Contingencies...... 188
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics Assessment of the Value, Feasibility, and Cost
of Greater Utilization of HALT/HASS Testing.............. 188
Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Source
Selection Processes...................................... 189
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 190
Section 800--Sense of Congress on the Desired Tenets of the
Defense Acquisition System............................... 190
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 190
Section 801--Report on Linking and Streamlining
Requirements, Acquisition, and Budget Processes within
Armed Forces............................................. 190
Section 802--Required Review of Acquisition-related
Functions of the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces..... 191
Section 803--Independent Study of Matters Related to Bid
Protests................................................. 191
Section 804--Procurement of Commercial Items............... 192
Section 805--Modification to Information Required to be
Submitted by Offeror in Procurement of Major Weapon
Systems as Commercial Items.............................. 192
Section 806--Amendment Relating to Multiyear Contract
Authority for Acquisition of Property.................... 192
Section 807--Compliance with Inventory of Contracts for
Services................................................. 193
Subtitle B--Workforce Development and Related Matters........ 194
Section 811--Amendments to Department of Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund................... 194
Section 812--Dual-Track Military Professionals in
Operational and Acquisition Specialties.................. 194
Section 813--Provision of Joint Duty Assignment Credit for
Acquisition Duty......................................... 194
Section 814--Requirement for Acquisition Skills Assessment
Biennial Strategic Workforce Plan........................ 194
Section 815--Mandatory Requirement for Training Related to
the Conduct of Market Research........................... 194
Section 816--Independent Study of Implementation of Defense
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Efforts................ 195
Section 817--Extension of Demonstration Project Relating to
Certain Acquisition Personnel Management Policies and
Procedures............................................... 195
Subtitle C--Weapon Systems Acquisition and Related Matters... 196
Section 821--Sense of Congress on the Desired
Characteristics for the Weapon Systems Acquisition System 196
Section 822--Acquisition Strategy Required for Each Major
Defense Acquisition Program and Major System............. 196
Section 823--Revision to Requirements Relating to Risk
Management in Development of Major Defense Acquisition
Programs and Major Systems............................... 196
Section 824--Modification to Requirements Relating to
Determination of Contract Type for Major Defense
Acquisition Programs and Major Systems................... 197
Section 825--Required Determination before Milestone A
Approval or Initiation of Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................. 197
Section 826--Required Certification and Determination
before Milestone B Approval of Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................. 198
Subtitle D--Industrial Base Matters.......................... 198
Section 831--Codification and Amendment of Mentor-Protege
Program.................................................. 198
Section 832--Amendments to Data Quality Improvement Plan... 199
Section 833--Notice of Contract Consolidation for
Acquisition Strategies................................... 199
Section 834--Clarification of Requirements Related to Small
Business Contracts for Services.......................... 199
Section 835--Review of Government Access to Intellectual
Property Rights of Private Sector Firms.................. 200
Section 836--Requirement that Certain Ship Components be
Manufactured in the National Technology and Industrial
Base..................................................... 200
Section 837--Policy Regarding Solid Rocket Motors Used in
Tactical Missiles........................................ 200
Section 838--FAR Council Membership for Administrator of
Small Business Administration............................ 200
Section 839--Surety Bond Requirements and Amount of
Guarantee................................................ 200
Section 840--Certification Requirements for Procurement
Center Representatives, Business Opportunity Specialists,
and Commercial Market Representatives.................... 201
Section 841--Including Subcontracting Goals in Agency
Responsibilities......................................... 201
Section 842--Modifications to Requirements for Qualified
HUBZone Small Business Concerns Located in a Base Closure
Area..................................................... 201
Section 843--Joint Venturing and Teaming................... 201
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 202
Section 851--Additional Responsibility for Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation.......................... 202
Section 852--Use of Recent Prices Paid by the Government in
the Determination of Price Reasonableness................ 202
Section 853--Codification of Other Transaction Authority
for Certain Prototype Projects........................... 202
Section 854--Amendments to Certain Acquisition Thresholds.. 203
Section 855--Revision of Method of Rounding when Making
Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Dollar
Thresholds............................................... 203
Section 856--Repeal of Requirement for Stand-Alone Manpower
Estimates for Major Defense Acquisition Programs......... 204
Section 857--Examination and Guidance Relating to Oversight
and Approval of Services Contracts....................... 204
Section 858--Streamlining of Requirements Relating to
Defense Business Systems................................. 204
Section 859--Consideration of Strategic Materials in
Preliminary Design Review................................ 204
Section 860--Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment.. 204
Section 861--Amendments Concerning Detection and Avoidance
of Counterfeit Electronic Parts.......................... 204
Section 862--Revision to Duties of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and
Evaluation and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Systems Engineering.................................. 205
Section 863--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual
Amount Available for Contract Services................... 205
Section 864--Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable
Evaluation Method for Procurement of Audit or Audit
Readiness Services....................................... 205
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 206
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 206
Improving Agility in Shaping the Workforce................. 206
Productivity Goals......................................... 207
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 207
Section 901--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as
the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.............. 207
Section 902--Change of Period for Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Review of the Unified Command Plan....... 207
Section 903--Update of Statutory Specification of Functions
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Relating to
Joint Force Development Activities....................... 208
Section 904--Sense of Congress on the United States Marine
Corps.................................................... 208
Section 905--Additional Requirements for Streamlining of
Department of Defense Management Headquarters............ 209
Section 906--Sense of Congress on Performance Management
and Workforce Incentive System........................... 209
Section 907--Guidelines for Conversion of Functions
Performed by Civilian or Contractor Personnel to
Performance by Military Personnel........................ 209
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 210
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 210
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 210
Counter-Drug Authority Regarding Support to Certain Foreign
Governments.............................................. 210
Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy............... 210
National Guard Counterdrug Programs........................ 211
Unaccompanied Alien Children............................... 212
Western Hemisphere Maritime Intelligence................... 212
Other Matters................................................ 213
Adequacy of Support Assets for Asia........................ 213
Attendance at Professional and Technical Conferences....... 214
Comptroller General Review of Drawdown Authority........... 215
Comptroller General Review of Homeland Response Forces..... 216
Comptroller General Review of Pandemic Civil Support
Planning................................................. 217
Comptroller General Review of Transferring Improvised
Explosive Device Knowledge and Technology Gained by
Department of Defense to Civil Authorities............... 217
Congressional Review of Federal Acquisition Regulation
Rulemaking............................................... 218
Counter Threat Financing and Analytic Tools................ 218
Defense Innovation Initiative.............................. 219
Defense Strategy........................................... 219
Department of Defense Installation Security................ 220
Electromagnetic Spectrum Roadmap........................... 220
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account....................... 221
Importance of the Department of Defense Meeting Audit
Deadlines................................................ 222
Navy's Proposed Transition to an Evolved Contracting
Strategy................................................. 223
Notifications of Changes to the Defense Federal Acquisition
Supplement to Congress................................... 224
Pacific Command Operational Plans.......................... 224
Proposed Retirement of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 84
and 85 Aircraft.......................................... 224
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Briefing.................. 225
Strategic Vision and Plan for an Effective Global Response
Force.................................................... 225
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 226
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 226
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority................... 226
Section 1002--Authority to Transfer Funds to the National
Nuclear Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear
Weapons Modernization and Naval Reactors................. 226
Section 1003--Accounting Standards to Value Certain
Property, Plant, and Equipment Items..................... 226
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 226
Section 1011--Extension of Authority to Provide Additional
Support for Counter-drug Activities of Certain Foreign
Governments.............................................. 226
Section 1012--Statement of Policy on Plan Central America.. 227
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 227
Section 1021--Restrictions on the Overhaul and Repair of
Vessels in Foreign Shipyards............................. 228
Section 1022--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of
Expenses for Certain Navy Mess Operations Afloat......... 228
Section 1023--Availability of Funds for Retirement or
Inactivation of Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock
Landing Ships............................................ 228
Section 1024--Limitation on the Use of Funds for Removal of
Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities from Ticonderoga
Class Cruisers........................................... 228
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 228
Section 1031--Permanent Authority to Provide Rewards
through Government Personnel of Allied Forces and Certain
Other Modifications to Department of Defense Program to
Provide Rewards.......................................... 229
Section 1032--Congressional Notification of Sensitive
Military Operations...................................... 229
Section 1033--Repeal of Semiannual Reports on Obligation
and Expenditure of Funds for Combating Terrorism Program. 229
Section 1034--Reports to Congress on Contact between
Terrorists and Individuals Formerly Detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............... 229
Section 1035--Inclusion in Reports to Congress Information
about Recidivism of Individuals Formerly Detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba........ 230
Section 1036--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the
Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba............... 230
Section 1037--Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or
Modify Facilities in the United States to House Detainees
Transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba................................................ 230
Section 1038--Prohibition on Use of Funds to Transfer or
Release Individuals Detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Combat Zones........... 231
Section 1039--Requirements for Certifications Relating to
the Transfer of Detainees at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Foreign Countries and Other
Foreign Entities......................................... 231
Section 1040--Submission to Congress of Certain Documents
Relating to Transfer of Individuals Detained at
Guantanamo to Qatar...................................... 232
Section 1041--Submission of Unredacted Copies of Documents
Relating to the Transfer of Certain Individuals Detained
at Guantanamo to Qatar................................... 232
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 232
Section 1051--Enhancement of Authority of Secretary of Navy
to Use National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund................ 232
Section 1052--Department of Defense Excess Property Program 233
Section 1053--Limitation of Transfer of Certain AH-64
Apache Helicopters from Army National Guard to Regular
Army and Related Personnel Levels........................ 233
Section 1054--Space Available Travel for Environmental
Morale Leave by Certain Spouses and Children of Deployed
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 233
Section 1055--Information-Related and Strategic
Communications Capabilities Engagement Pilot Program..... 234
Section 1056--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Retirement of
Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 84 and 85 Aircraft........ 234
Section 1057--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Destruction of Certain Landmines......................... 235
Section 1058--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Modifying Command and Control of United States Pacific
Fleet.................................................... 235
Section 1059--Prohibition on the Closure of United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...................... 235
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports.............................. 235
Section 1061--Provision of Defense Planning Guidance and
Contingency Planning Guidance Information to Congress.... 235
Section 1062--Modification of Certain Reports Submitted by
Comptroller General of the United States................. 236
Section 1063--Report on Implementation of the
Geographically Distributed Force Laydown in the Area of
Responsibility of United States Pacific Command.......... 236
Section 1064--Independent Study of National Security
Strategy Formulation Process............................. 237
Section 1065--Study and Report on Role of Department of
Defense in Formulation of Long-term Strategy............. 237
Section 1066--Report on Potential Threats to Members of the
Armed Forces of United States Naval Forces Central
Command and United States Fifth Fleet in Bahrain......... 238
Subtitle G--Repeal or Revision of National Defense Reporting
Requirements............................................. 238
Section 1071--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements
Related to Military Personnel Issues..................... 238
Section 1072--Repeal or Revision of Certain Reports
Relating to Readiness.................................... 239
Section 1073--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements
Related to Naval Vessels and Merchant Marine............. 240
Section 1074--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements
Related to Nuclear, Proliferation, and Related Matters... 240
Section 1075--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements
Related to Missile Defense............................... 241
Section 1076--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements
Related to Acquisition................................... 241
Section 1077--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements
Related to Civilian Personnel............................ 241
Section 1078--Repeal or Revision of Miscellaneous Reporting
Requirements............................................. 241
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 242
Section 1081--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 242
Section 1082--Executive Agent for the Oversight and
Management of Alternative Compensatory Control Measures.. 242
Section 1083--Navy Support of Ocean Research Advisory Panel 242
Section 1084--Level of Readiness of Civil Reserve Air Fleet
Carriers................................................. 243
Section 1085--Authorization of Transfer of Surplus Firearms
to Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and
Firearms Safety.......................................... 243
Section 1086--Modification of Requirements for Transferring
Aircraft within the Air Force Inventory.................. 243
Section 1087--Reestablishment of Commission to Assess the
Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse
Attacks.................................................. 243
Section 1088--Department of Defense Strategy for Countering
Unconventional Warfare................................... 244
Section 1089--Mine Countermeasures Master Plan............. 244
Section 1090--Congressional Notification and Briefing
Requirement on Ordered Evacuations of United States
Embassies and Consulates Involving the Use of United
States Armed Forces...................................... 244
Section 1091--Determination and Disclosure of
Transportation Costs Incurred by Secretary of Defense for
Congressional Trips Outside the United States............ 245
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 245
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 245
Assessment of Hiring Authorities for Personnel at the Major
Range and Test Facility Base............................. 245
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 245
Section 1101--One-Year Extension of Temporary Authority to
Grant Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Civilian
Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone.............. 245
Section 1102--Authority to Provide Additional Allowances
and Benefits for Defense Clandestine Service Employees... 245
Section 1103--Extension of Rate of Overtime Pay for
Department of the Navy Employees Performing Work Aboard
or Dockside in Support of the Nuclear-Powered Aircraft
Carrier Forward Deployed in Japan........................ 246
Section 1104--Modification to Temporary Authorities for
Certain Positions at Department of Defense Research and
Engineering Facilities................................... 246
Section 1105--Preference Eligibility for Members of Reserve
Components of the Armed Forces Appointed to Competitive
Service; Clarification of Appeal Rights.................. 246
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 246
OVERVIEW....................................................... 246
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 248
Central American Police Forces............................. 248
Combatant Commander Requirements for Directed Energy
Weapons.................................................. 249
Command and Control within Operation Inherent Resolve...... 249
Comptroller General Inventory of Department of Defense
Security Cooperation Programs............................ 250
Department of Defense Training Programs on Military Justice
and Accountability....................................... 251
Foreign Military Financing in U.S. European Command........ 252
Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation.............. 252
Multilateral Sales to Allies............................... 253
National Guard State Partnership Program................... 253
Nonlethal Military Support for Ukraine..................... 254
Operation United Assistance................................ 254
Oversight of Assistance to the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan.............................................. 255
Report on Government Police Training and Equipping Programs 256
Russian Unconventional Warfare............................. 257
Support to Coalition Partners Conducting Military
Operations within Operation Inherent Resolve............. 258
The Transition or Termination of the Mission to Counter the
Lord's Resistance Army................................... 259
The Utilization of General Purpose Forces to Meet U.S.
Africa Command Requirements.............................. 259
U.S.-Philippines Defense Cooperation....................... 260
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 260
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 260
Section 1201--One-Year Extension of Logistical Support for
Coalition Forces Supporting Certain United States
Military Operations...................................... 260
Section 1202--Strategic Framework for Department of Defense
Security Cooperation..................................... 260
Section 1203--Modification and Two-Year Extension of
National Guard State Partnership Program................. 261
Section 1204--Extension of Authority for Non-Reciprocal
Exchanges of Defense Personnel Between the United States
and Foreign Countries.................................... 262
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan..... 262
Section 1211--Commanders' Emergency Response Program in
Afghanistan.............................................. 262
Section 1212--Extension and Modification of Authority for
Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support
Provided to United States Military Operations............ 262
Section 1213--Sense of Congress on United States Policy and
Strategy in Afghanistan.................................. 263
Section 1214--Extension of Authority to Acquire Products
and Services Produced in Countries along a Major Route of
Supply to Afghanistan.................................... 263
Section 1215--Extension of Authority to Transfer Defense
Articles and Provide Defense Services to the Military and
Security Forces of Afghanistan........................... 263
Section 1216--Sense of Congress Regarding Assistance for
Afghan Translators, Interpreters, and Administrative Aids 264
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria and Iraq............... 264
Section 1221--Extension of Authority to Support Operations
and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in
Iraq..................................................... 264
Section 1222--Comprehensive Strategy for the Middle East
and to Counter Islamic Extremism......................... 264
Section 1223--Modification of Authority to Provide
Assistance to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant................................................... 265
Section 1224--Report on United States Armed Forces Deployed
in Support of Operation Inherent Resolve................. 266
Section 1225--Modification of Authority to Provide
Assistance to the Vetted Syrian Opposition............... 266
Section 1226--Assistance to the Government of Jordan for
Border Security Operations............................... 267
Section 1227--Report on Efforts of Turkey to Fight
Terrorism................................................ 267
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Iran......................... 267
Section 1231--Extension of Annual Report on Military Power
of Iran.................................................. 267
Section 1232--Sense of Congress on the Government of Iran's
Nuclear Program and its Malign Military Activities....... 267
Section 1233--Report on Military Posture Required in the
Middle East to Deter Iran from Developing a Nuclear
Weapon................................................... 268
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation....... 268
Section 1241--Notifications and Updates Relating to
Testing, Production, Deployment, and Sale or Transfer to
Other States or Non-State Actors of the Club-K Cruise
Missile System by the Russian Federation................. 268
Section 1242--Notifications of Deployment of Nuclear
Weapons by Russian Federation to Territory of Ukrainian
Republic................................................. 269
Section 1243--Non-Compliance by the Russian Federation with
its Obligations under the INF Treaty..................... 270
Section 1244--Modification of Notification and Assessment
of Proposal to Modify or Introduce New Aircraft or
Sensors for Flight by the Russian Federation under Open
Skies Treaty............................................. 270
Section 1245--Sense of Congress on Support for Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania.................................... 271
Section 1246--Sense of Congress on Support for Georgia..... 271
Subtitle F--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region...... 271
Section 1251--Sense of Congress Recognizing the 70th
Anniversary of the End of Allied Military Engagement in
the Pacific Theater...................................... 271
Section 1252--Sense of Congress Regarding Consolidation of
United States Military Facilities in Okinawa, Japan...... 271
Section 1253--Strategy to Promote United States Interests
in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region.......................... 271
Section 1254--Sense of Congress on the United States
Alliance with Japan...................................... 272
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 272
Section 1261--Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery
Capabilities............................................. 272
Section 1262--Amendment to the Annual Report under Arms
Control and Disarmament Act.............................. 272
Section 1263--Permanent Authority for NATO Special
Operations Headquarters.................................. 273
Section 1264--Extension of Authorization to Conduct
Activities to Enhance the Capability of Foreign Countries
to Respond to Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass
Destruction.............................................. 273
Section 1265--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force,
for Arms Control Implementation.......................... 273
Section 1266--Modification of Authority for Support of
Special Operations to Combat Terrorism................... 273
Section 1267--United States-Israel Anti-Tunnel Defense
Cooperation.............................................. 273
Section 1268--Efforts of the Department of Defense to
Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally.... 273
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 274
OVERVIEW....................................................... 274
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 274
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Funds.................................................... 275
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 275
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 275
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 275
Assessment of Current State of Global Tantalum Supply...... 275
Insufficient Working-Capital Fund Rate Calculations........ 276
Review of Electronic Waste Recycling....................... 277
Review of Non-Navy Workload within Navy Working Capital
Fund Activities.......................................... 277
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 278
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 278
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................ 278
Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund................ 278
Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense.................................................. 278
Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 278
Section 1405--Defense Inspector General.................... 279
Section 1406--Defense Health Program....................... 279
Section 1407--National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund........... 279
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 279
Section 1411--Extension of Date for Completion of
Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical
Agents and Munitions..................................... 279
Subtitle C--Working-Capital Funds............................ 279
Section 1421--Limitation on Furlough of Department of
Defense Employees Paid Through Working-Capital Funds..... 279
Section 1422--Working-Capital Fund Reserve Account for
Petroleum Market Price Fluctuations...................... 279
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 280
Section 1431--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...................... 280
Section 1432--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed
Forces Retirement Home................................... 280
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS....................................... 280
OVERVIEW....................................................... 280
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 280
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund......................... 280
Funding and Support for the European Reassurance Initiative 281
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account..... 282
Support to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to Counter the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant..................... 282
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 283
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 283
Section 1501--Purpose...................................... 283
Section 1502--Procurement.................................. 283
Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 283
Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance.................... 283
Section 1505--Military Personnel........................... 283
Section 1506--Working Capital Funds........................ 283
Section 1507--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 283
Section 1508--Defense Inspector General.................... 284
Section 1509--Defense Health Program....................... 284
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 284
Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations....... 284
Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority................... 284
Subtitle C--European Reassurance Initiative and Related
Matters.................................................. 284
Section 1531--Statement of Policy Regarding European
Reassurance Initiative................................... 284
Section 1532--Assistance and Sustainment to the Military
and National Security Forces of Ukraine.................. 284
Subtitle D--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters.......... 285
Section 1541--Continuation of Existing Limitation on Use of
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund......................... 285
Section 1542--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 286
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS... 286
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 286
Army Space Programs........................................ 286
Calibration of Space Sensors............................... 287
Combatant Command Commercial Imagery Tasking............... 287
Commercial Space-based Environmental Monitoring............ 287
Comptroller General Review of Patriot System............... 288
Continuing Oversight of Missile Defense Discussions with
the Russian Federation................................... 289
Cyber Defense Network Segmentation......................... 289
Cyber Support to Civil Authorities......................... 289
Department of Defense Cyber Mission Forces................. 290
Deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Battery
in the Republic of Korea................................. 291
Development of Missile Defense Targets Related to the
Hypersonic Threat........................................ 291
Distributed Common Grounds System-Army GAO Report.......... 292
Evaluation of Missile Defense Options to Confront
Hypersonic Missile Systems............................... 292
Evaluation of National Security Space and Missile Test
Ranges and Infrastructure................................ 293
Funding for Pilot Program for Acquisition of Commercial
Satellite Communication Services......................... 294
Funding Mechanism for Department of Defense Priorities at
the National Nuclear Security Administration............. 294
Global Positioning System.................................. 294
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent........................... 295
Imagery Analysis and Acquisition........................... 296
Improving Contract Cost Data Collection and Analysis at the
Missile Defense Agency through Evaluation of Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense Multiyear Procurement......... 296
Integrated Air and Missile Defense Strategy................ 297
Interagency Collaboration on Physical Security for Nuclear
Weapons.................................................. 297
Joint Integrated Lifecycle Surety.......................... 298
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System............... 298
Mission System Cybersecurity............................... 299
Mobile User Objective System............................... 299
Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear Targeting and Planning. 300
Multi-source Cyber Intelligence Analysis Needs............. 300
Multiyear Procurement of Commercial Satellite
Communications........................................... 301
National Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Resilience.... 301
National Security Space Acquisition........................ 302
Network Access Control Technologies for Secure Facilities.. 302
Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Budget
Displays................................................. 303
Nuclear Detection Capability............................... 303
Nuclear Enterprise Review.................................. 304
Operationally Responsive Space............................. 304
Organization of the Military Service and Technical
Intelligence Centers..................................... 305
Patriot Product Improvement................................ 305
Programmable Embedded Information Security Product......... 306
Protected Tactical Satellite Communications................ 306
Quarterly Briefings on Strategic Forces.................... 307
Report on Current and Anticipated Global Demand for U.S.
Missile Defense Systems.................................. 308
Report on Improving Discrimination for Missile Defense..... 308
Report on Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile Tactical
Ballistic Missile Recertification for Allied Inventory... 308
Report on Strategic Missile Commonality.................... 309
Responsive Launch.......................................... 310
Roadmap for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System...... 310
Satellite Communications Interference...................... 311
Satellite Ground Systems and Overhead Persistent Infrared
Data..................................................... 311
Science and Technology Intelligence........................ 312
Smart Building Cyber Vulnerability Assessment.............. 313
Space Situational Awareness................................ 313
Spaceports................................................. 313
Strategic Deterrence Research and Education................ 313
Strengthening National Security Space...................... 314
Study on Left-of-Launch.................................... 315
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 317
Subtitle A--Space Activities................................. 317
Section 1601--Major Force Program and Budget for National
Security Space Programs.................................. 317
Section 1602--Modification to Development of Space Science
and Technology Strategy.................................. 317
Section 1603--Rocket Propulsion System Development Program. 317
Section 1604--Modification to Prohibition on Contracting
with Russian Suppliers of Rocket Engines for the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle Program........................ 318
Section 1605--Delegation of Authority Regarding Purchase of
Global Positioning System User Equipment................. 318
Section 1606--Acquisition Strategy for Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle Program................................... 319
Section 1607--Procurement of Wideband Satellite
Communications........................................... 320
Section 1608--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Weather Satellite Follow-On System....................... 320
Section 1609--Modification of Pilot Program for Acquisition
of Commercial Satellite Communication Services........... 320
Section 1610--Prohibition on Reliance on China and Russia
for Space-Based Weather Data............................. 321
Section 1611--Evaluation of Exploitation of Space-based
Infrared System Against Additional Threats............... 321
Section 1612--Plan on Full Integration and Exploitation of
Overhead Persistent Infrared Capability.................. 321
Section 1613--Options for Rapid Space Reconstitution....... 322
Section 1614--Sense of Congress on Space Defense........... 322
Section 1615--Sense of Congress on Missile Defense Sensors
in Space................................................. 322
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related
Activities............................................... 322
Section 1621--Executive Agent for Open-Source Intelligence
Tools.................................................... 322
Section 1622--Waiver and Congressional Notification
Requirements Related to Facilities for Intelligence
Collection or for Special Operations Abroad.............. 322
Section 1623--Prohibition on National Intelligence Program
Consolidation............................................ 323
Section 1624--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Distributed Common Ground System of the Army............. 323
Section 1625--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Distributed Common Ground System of the United States
Special Operations Command............................... 323
Section 1626--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 323
Section 1627--Clarification of Annual Briefing on the
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Requirements of the Combatant Commands................... 324
Section 1628--Department of Defense Intelligence Needs..... 324
Section 1629--Report on Management of Certain Programs of
Defense Intelligence Elements............................ 324
Section 1630--Government Accountability Office Review of
Intelligence Input to the Defense Acquisition Process.... 324
Subtitle C--Cyberspace-related Matters....................... 325
Section 1641--Codification and Addition of Liability
Protections Relating to Reporting on Cyber Incidents or
Penetrations of Networks and Information Systems of
Certain Contractors...................................... 325
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces................................... 325
Section 1651--Organization of Nuclear Deterrence Functions
of the Air Force......................................... 325
Section 1652--Assessment of Threats to National Leadership
Command, Control, and Communications System.............. 326
Section 1653--Procurement Authority for Certain Parts of
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Fuzes................. 326
Section 1654--Annual Briefing on the Costs of Forward-
Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Europe...................... 326
Section 1655--Sense of Congress on Importance of
Cooperation and Collaboration between United States and
United Kingdom on Nuclear Issues......................... 326
Section 1656--Sense of Congress on Organization of Navy for
Nuclear Deterrence Mission............................... 327
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs......................... 327
Section 1661--Prohibitions on Providing Certain Missile
Defense Information to Russian Federation................ 327
Section 1662--Prohibition on Integration of Missile Defense
Systems of China into Missile Defense Systems of United
States................................................... 328
Section 1663--Prohibition on Integration of Missile Defense
Systems of Russian Federation into Missile Defense
Systems of United States and NATO........................ 328
Section 1664--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Long-
Range Discriminating Radar............................... 328
Section 1665--Limitations on Availability of Funds for
Patriot Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Capability of
the Army................................................. 328
Section 1666--Integration and Interoperability of Air and
Missile Defense Capabilities of the United States........ 329
Section 1667--Integration of Allied Missile Defense
Capabilities............................................. 329
Section 1668--Missile Defense Capability in Europe......... 330
Section 1669--Availability of Funds for Iron Dome Short-
Range Rocket Defense System.............................. 331
Section 1670--Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Program
Co-Development and Potential Co-Production............... 331
Section 1671--Development and Deployment of Multiple-Object
Kill Vehicle for Missile Defense of the United States
Homeland................................................. 332
Section 1672--Boost Phase Defense System................... 332
Section 1673--East Coast Homeport of Sea-Based X-Band Radar 333
Section 1674--Plan for Medium Range Ballistic Missile
Defense Sensor Alternatives for Enhanced Defense of
Hawaii................................................... 333
Section 1675--Research and Development of Non-terrestrial
Missile Defense Layer.................................... 333
Section 1676--Aegis Ashore Capability Development.......... 333
Section 1677--Briefings on Procurement and Planning of
Left-of-Launch Capability................................ 334
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 334
PURPOSE........................................................ 334
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW.............. 334
Section 2001--Short Title.................................. 335
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to be Specified by Law.......................... 335
Section 2003--Effective Date............................... 335
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 335
SUMMARY........................................................ 335
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 335
Defense Generator and Rail Equipment Center................ 335
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 336
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 336
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 336
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 336
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 336
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 337
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Project......................... 337
Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects....................................... 337
Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Projects....................................... 337
Section 2108--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain
Fiscal Year 2016 Projects................................ 337
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 337
SUMMARY........................................................ 337
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 338
Explanation of Funding Adjustment.......................... 338
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 339
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 339
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 339
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 339
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 339
Section 2205--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects....................................... 339
Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Projects....................................... 339
Section 2207--Townsend Bombing Range Expansion, Phase 2.... 339
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 340
SUMMARY........................................................ 340
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 340
Explanation of Funding Adjustment.......................... 340
Former Norton Air Force Base, California................... 340
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 341
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 341
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 341
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 341
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 341
Section 2305--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2010 Project......................... 341
Section 2306--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project......................... 341
Section 2307--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Project......................... 342
Section 2308--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Project........................................ 342
Section 2309--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Project........................................ 342
Section 2310--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry
Out Certain Fiscal Year 2016 Project..................... 342
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 342
SUMMARY........................................................ 342
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 343
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 343
Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility................. 345
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 345
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 345
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects...... 346
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 346
Section 2404--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2012 Project......................... 346
Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects....................................... 346
Section 2406--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Projects....................................... 346
Section 2407--Modification and Extension of Authority to
Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project............... 346
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM...................................................... 347
SUMMARY........................................................ 347
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 347
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 347
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 347
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 347
SUMMARY........................................................ 347
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 347
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 347
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 348
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations........................................... 348
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 348
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 348
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps
Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects....... 348
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 348
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 349
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National
Guard and Reserve........................................ 349
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 349
Section 2611--Modification and Extension of Authority to
Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Project............... 349
Section 2612--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Projects....................................... 349
Section 2613--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Projects....................................... 349
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 350
SUMMARY........................................................ 350
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 350
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Realignment and Closure Activities Funded through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account............... 350
Section 2702--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round..................... 350
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 350
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 350
Collaboration on Electromagnetic Pulse Threats to the
Electrical Grid.......................................... 350
Conveyance of Water and Wastewater Systems on Guam......... 351
Defense Laboratory Enterprise Infrastructure............... 351
F-35 Stationing, Basing, and Laydown Selection Process..... 352
Facilities Sustainment and Recapitalization Policy and
Funding.................................................. 352
Impact of Wind Energy Developments on Military
Installations............................................ 353
Improvement of Design-Build Selection Process.............. 354
Intergovernmental Support Agreements....................... 354
Joint Basing............................................... 355
Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization........................ 355
Major Range and Test Facility Base Military Construction
Assessment............................................... 355
Non-Federally Connected Civilian Children Residing in
Military Privatized Housing.............................. 356
Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations...... 357
Utility Privatization...................................... 357
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 358
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes.......................................... 358
Section 2801--Revision of Congressional Notification
Thresholds for Reserve Facility Expenditures and
Contributions to Reflect Congressional Notification
Thresholds for Minor Construction and Repair Projects.... 358
Section 2802--Authority for Acceptance and Use of
Contributions from Kuwait for Construction, Maintenance,
and Repair Projects Mutually Beneficial to the Department
of Defense and Kuwait Military Forces.................... 358
Section 2803--Defense Laboratory Modernization Pilot
Program.................................................. 358
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 358
Section 2811--Enhancement of Authority to Accept
Conditional Gifts of Real Property on Behalf of Military
Service Academies........................................ 358
Section 2812--Consultation Requirement in Connection with
Department of Defense Major Land Acquisitions............ 359
Section 2813--Additional Master Plan Reporting Requirements
Related to Main Operating Bases, Forward Operating Sites,
and Cooperative Security Locations of Central Command and
Africa Command Areas of Responsibility................... 359
Section 2814--Force-Structure Plan and Infrastructure
Inventory and Assessment of Infrastructure Necessary to
Support the Force Structure.............................. 359
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military
Realignment.............................................. 360
Section 2821--Restriction on Development of Public
Infrastructure in Connection with Realignment of Marine
Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region...................... 360
Section 2822--Annual Report on Government of Japan
Contributions toward Realignment of Marine Corps Forces
in Asia-Pacific Region................................... 360
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 360
Section 2831--Land Exchange Authority, Mare Island Army
Reserve Center, Vallejo, California...................... 360
Section 2832--Land Exchange, Navy Outlying Landing Field,
Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida................ 360
Section 2833--Release of Property Interests Retained in
Connection with Land Conveyance, Fort Bliss Military
Reservation, Texas....................................... 361
Subtitle E--Military Land Withdrawals........................ 361
Section 2841--Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land,
Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California......... 361
Section 2842--Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military
Lands Efficiency and Savings............................. 361
Subtitle F--Military Memorials, Monuments, and Museums....... 361
Section 2851--Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage
National Historical Park, Ohio........................... 361
Section 2852--Extension of Authority for Establishment of
Commemorative Work in Honor of Brigadier General Francis
Marion................................................... 361
Section 2853--Amendments to the National Historic
Preservation Act......................................... 361
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 362
Section 2861--Modification of Department of Defense
Guidance on Use of Airfield Pavement Markings............ 362
Section 2862--Protection and Recovery of Greater Sage
Grouse................................................... 362
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 362
SUMMARY........................................................ 362
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 363
Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Project...................................... 363
Section 2902--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 363
Section 2903--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 363
Section 2904--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 363
Section 2905--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 363
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 363
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 363
OVERVIEW....................................................... 363
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 364
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 364
Overview................................................... 364
Weapons Activities......................................... 364
Advanced Radiography..................................... 364
B61-12 and W76-1 Life Extension Programs................. 364
Defense Nuclear Security................................. 365
Deferred Maintenance..................................... 366
Funding prioritization within Weapons Activities......... 367
Funding related to execution of life extension programs.. 367
Governance and management of the nuclear security
enterprise............................................. 368
Plutonium strategy....................................... 369
Primary Assessment Technologies.......................... 369
Stockpile Surveillance and Assessment.................... 370
Uranium for national security purposes................... 370
W78/88-1 Life Extension Program.......................... 371
W88 Alt 370 and W80-4 Life Extension Program............. 371
Weapons dismantlement and disposition.................... 372
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... 373
Comptroller General assessment of Nonproliferation
Research and Development Program....................... 373
Funding prioritization within Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation....................................... 373
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program... 374
Verification and detection technology.................... 375
Naval Reactors............................................. 376
Naval Reactors and Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization
Project................................................ 376
Federal Salaries and Expenses.............................. 376
Classification guidance.................................. 376
Director for Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation...... 377
Improvements to National Nuclear Security Administration
budget structure....................................... 377
Labor cost review........................................ 378
Provision of information to Congress by management and
operating contractors.................................. 378
Reforming and streamlining access authorizations for
Restricted Data........................................ 379
Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 379
Overview................................................... 379
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............................. 379
Hanford and Savannah River............................... 379
Report on Pension Adjustments............................ 380
Technology development................................... 380
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.............................. 380
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............................. 381
Defense nuclear waste repository......................... 381
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 381
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 381
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 381
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................ 381
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 382
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 382
Section 3111--Authorized Personnel Levels of National
Nuclear Security Administration.......................... 382
Section 3112--Full-time Equivalent Contractor Personnel
Levels................................................... 382
Section 3113--Improvement to Accountability of Department
of Energy Employees and Projects......................... 382
Section 3114--Cost-Benefit Analyses for Competition of
Management and Operating Contracts....................... 384
Section 3115--Nuclear Weapon Design Responsiveness Program. 384
Section 3116--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium...... 385
Section 3117--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Fixed Site Radiological Portal Monitors in Foreign
Countries................................................ 385
Section 3118--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Provision of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Assistance
to Russian Federation.................................... 385
Section 3119--Limitation on Authorization of Production of
Special Nuclear Material Outside the United States by
Foreign Country with Nuclear Naval Propulsion Program.... 385
Section 3120--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Development of Certain Nuclear Nonproliferation
Technologies............................................. 386
Section 3121--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Unilateral Disarmament................................... 386
Section 3122--Use of Best Practices for Capital Asset
Projects and Nuclear Weapon Life Extension Programs...... 387
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports................................ 387
Section 3131--Root Cause Analyses for Certain Cost Overruns 387
Section 3132--Extension and Modification of Certain Annual
Reports on Nuclear Nonproliferation...................... 388
Section 3133--Governance and Management of Nuclear Security
Enterprise............................................... 388
Section 3134--Assessments on Nuclear Proliferation Risks
and Nuclear Nonproliferation Opportunities............... 389
Section 3135--Independent Review of Laboratory-Directed
Research and Development Programs........................ 389
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 389
Section 3141--Transfer, Decontamination, and
Decommissioning of Nonoperational Facilities............. 389
Section 3142--Research and Development of Advanced Naval
Nuclear Fuel System Based on Low-Enriched Uranium........ 390
Section 3143--Plutonium Pit Production Capacity............ 391
Section 3144--Analysis of Alternatives for Mobile Guardian
Transporter Program...................................... 391
Section 3145--Development of Strategy on Risks to
Nonproliferation Caused by Additive Manufacturing........ 392
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 392
OVERVIEW....................................................... 392
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 392
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 392
Section 3202--Administration of Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board............................................. 392
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 393
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 393
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 393
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 393
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 393
Merchant Mariner Workforce................................. 393
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel..................... 393
Small Shipyard Grants...................................... 394
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 394
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National
Security Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year
2016..................................................... 394
Section 3502--Sense of Congress Regarding Maritime Security
Fleet Program............................................ 394
Section 3503--Update of References to the Secretary of
Transportation Regarding Unemployment Insurance and
Vessel Operators......................................... 395
Section 3504--Reliance on Classification Society
Certification for Purposes of Eligibility for Certificate
of Inspection............................................ 395
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 395
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables... 395
Summary of National Defense Authorizations for Fiscal Year
2016..................................................... 395
National Defense Budget Authority Implication.............. 401
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 403
Section 4101--Procurement.................................. 403
Section 4102--Procurement for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 445
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 453
Section 4201--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 453
Section 4202--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
for Overseas Contingency Operations...................... 487
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 489
Section 4301--Operation and Maintenance.................... 489
Section 4302--Operation and Maintenance for Overseas
Contingency Operations................................... 504
Section 4303--Operation and Maintenance for Overseas
Contingency Operations for Base Requirements............. 514
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 523
Section 4401--Military Personnel........................... 523
Section 4402--Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 524
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 525
Section 4501--Other Authorizations......................... 525
Section 4502--Other Authorizations for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 529
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 531
Section 4601--Military Construction........................ 531
Section 4602--Military Construction for Overseas
Contingency Operations................................... 544
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 545
Section 4701--Department of Energy National Security
Programs................................................. 545
Department of Defense Authorization Request...................... 557
Communications from Other Committees............................. 560
Fiscal Data...................................................... 572
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 572
Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act............... 575
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 575
Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 575
Oversight Findings............................................... 575
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 575
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 577
Federal Advisory Committee Statement............................. 577
Applicability to the Legislative Branch.......................... 577
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 578
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 578
Committee Votes.................................................. 578
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 607
Dissenting Views................................................. 608
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-102
====================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
_______
May 5, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thornberry, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1735]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2016 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, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the
reported bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
to the text of the bill.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The bill would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2016 for procurement and for research, development, test,
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2016 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2016: (a) the
personnel strength for each Active Duty component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed
Forces; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for
military personnel and impose certain requirements and
limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment;
(5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military
construction and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations
for Overseas Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for the Department of
Energy national security programs; and (8) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for the Maritime
Administration.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year 2016, is a key mechanism through which Congress
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States,
which grants Congress the power to ``provide for the common
defense''; to raise and support an Army; to provide and
maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the government and
regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of
Representatives provides the House Committee on Armed Services
with jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally and
over the military application of nuclear energy. The committee
bill includes the large majority of the findings and
recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in the
current year, conducted through hearings, briefings, and
roundtable discussions with Department of Defense and
Department of Energy civilian and military officials,
intelligence analysts, outside experts, and industry
representatives, and informed by the experience gained over the
previous decades of the committee's existence.
Notable events of the last year, including the rise of the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, growing instability
across the Middle East and Africa, and a revanchist Russian
Federation, are a reminder of the continuing need for U.S.
military engagement, presence, commitment, and strength to
defend U.S. interests, deter would-be aggressors, and reassure
allies and partners. Additionally, with the continued diffusion
of advanced technology, U.S. military technological superiority
is no longer assumed and the dominance U.S. forces have long
enjoyed in the air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no
longer assured. Such a security environment demands that the
Nation's Armed Forces are agile, efficient, ready, and lethal.
The bill reflects the committee's steadfast support of the
courageous, professional, and dedicated men and women of the
U.S. Armed Forces and the committee's appreciation for the
sacrifices they make to accomplish their required missions. The
committee understands that the capabilities of the Armed Forces
are underpinned by the dedicated civilian employees of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration, as well as the defense
industrial base. Each of these elements is required to enable
the U.S. military to be the guarantor of peace and economic
security that it has been for generations.
In addition to providing the vital funding and authorities
the Nation's military requires, the bill would implement major
reforms within the Department of Defense, as the committee
recognizes the need to get more defense for the dollar
regardless of the fiscal environment. The bill also seeks to
provide the funding required to restore the readiness of the
military; enhance the quality of life of military service
members and their families; support ongoing military operations
and U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, and elsewhere
across the globe; sustain and improve the Armed Forces; and
properly safeguard the national security of the United States.
While the funding authorized in the bill matches the
President's request, the committee acknowledges that this level
has been described by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
as the ``lower ragged edge'' of what is necessary. The
committee believes that defense sequestration must be addressed
and the committee will continue its bipartisan work to ensure
that resources provided for the Nation's defense are sufficient
to protect the safety and security of the American people and
our vital interests around the world.
Reforming the Department Of Defense
The committee believes that reform of the Department of
Defense is necessary to increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the defense enterprise to get more defense for
the dollar. This is necessary to improve the military's agility
and the speed at which it can adapt and respond to the
unprecedented technological challenges faced by the Nation. The
bill reflects the committee's 18 month long comprehensive
reform effort, which included multiple hearings and briefings,
as well as consultation with Department of Defense officials,
outside experts, industry representatives, and other
stakeholders. While this bill is the first substantive step
towards comprehensive reform, the committee recognizes that
instituting lasting reform is a long-term, collaborative
effort, and therefore, it looks forward to working with all key
stakeholders to build upon this product.
In the area of acquisition reform, the bill seeks to inject
greater flexibility and accountability into the acquisition
system. It incorporates many of the reform proposals contained
in the bipartisan bill, H.R. 1597, the Agile Acquisition to
Retain Technological Edge Act, which was introduced on March
29, 2015. Many of these proposals have since been adjusted
based on stakeholder input, prior to inclusion in H.R. 1735. In
particular, the bill seeks to reform the acquisition system and
streamline the acquisition process by empowering program
managers and other Department of Defense decision makers to
make judgments in the best interests of U.S. troops and the
taxpayer. It also reforms the Department's development of
acquisition strategies to include consolidating at least six
separate reporting requirements into a single, living document
that would be updated as a program moves through the
acquisition life-cycle. In addition, it makes the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund permanent; requires
training on the commercial market, including on commercial
market research; expands ethics training for the acquisition
workforce; and simplifies the chain-of-command for acquisition
decisions, reforming a process currently mired in layers of
bureaucracy.
In the area of compensation and benefits reform, the
committee recognizes that an agile military depends on
recruiting and retaining the best and brightest. More and more
that means competing with the private sector to bring in or to
hold onto top talent. To compete effectively, the Department of
Defense must offer benefits on par with or better than the
private marketplace. The bill incorporates the work of the
Military Personnel Subcommittee in implementing many of the
reforms recommended by the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission. However, the committee is also
mindful of the potential for unintended consequences, and
therefore proposes to delay implementation of its legislated
reforms until 2017 to allow the Department and relevant
stakeholders time to fully assess and provide feedback on these
recommendations.
In the area of organization and management reform, the
committee shares the concerns expressed by the Secretary of
Defense and other current and former senior defense officials
that the Department must do a better job balancing its ``tooth-
to-tail.'' The committee is supportive of efforts by the
Department to reduce its management headquarters budgets and
personnel by 20 percent, and recognizes that the Department has
made some progress towards achieving this goal. The bill would
therefore require certain reductions in management headquarters
budgets and personnel, require a baseline from which to hold
the Department accountable to its reductions, and seek to
ensure that any reductions are done in a strategic manner,
preserving key functions and skillsets.
Lastly, the committee is aware that Congress can often be
the source of inefficiency in the Department. Thus, H.R. 1735
would, over the next 6 years, eliminate over 460
congressionally mandated reports.
Resources for Warfighters and Families
The committee believes that caring for the troops and their
families is the cornerstone of readiness. H.R. 1735 would build
upon the bipartisan work of the Military Personnel Subcommittee
in providing the troops the benefits they need, deserve, and
have earned. The committee appreciates the valuable work of the
Military Compensation and Retirement Reform Commission in
ensuring that military compensation and benefits continue to
attract and retain the best and brightest. Of the 15
recommendations made by the Commission, the bill would act on
11 of them. However, the committee is mindful of the potential
for unintended consequences, and therefore proposes to delay
implementation of some of its legislated reforms until 2017 to
allow the Department and relevant stakeholders time to fully
assess and provide feedback on these recommendations.
One concern raised by the Commission, and shared by the
committee, is the lengthy backlog of families waiting to take
advantage of military childcare. It is not evident from
extensive committee oversight that the backlog is related to
funding or military construction. The bill would therefore
direct the Secretary of Defense to cut the backlog in half by
the end of fiscal year 2017, and to provide a mid-point
progress report to Congress, as well as require the Comptroller
General of the United States to examine the adequacy of
nutrition subsistence programs for military families.
The committee continues to focus on supporting members of
the Armed Forces who transition from military service and H.R.
1735 would establish a Job Training and Post-Service Placement
Executive Committee within the current Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Joint Executive Committee. The
bill would further direct a joint uniform formulary between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs
for medications to treat psychiatric conditions, sleep
disorders, and pain management to ensure that transitioning
veterans continue to receive the best care when they leave
military service.
The committee recognizes that extended deployments are a
strain on military families that can be mitigated by visits to
deployed family members. The Commission noted that current
Space A regulations only allow for spouses and children to
visit troops on deployments longer than 120 days. H.R. 1735
would shorten that time to 30 days.
Lastly, the committee continues its vigorous oversight and
protection of military personnel from sexual assault.
Bipartisan proposals from Members of the committee to improve
the Special Victims program are reflected in the bill,
including the expansion of sexual assault prevention training
to the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) and Junior ROTC
programs, access to Special Victims Counsel for civilians who
are victims of sexual assault, and a requirement for the
Department to enhance sexual assault prevention for male
victims in the Armed Forces. The Department would also be
required to develop a strategy to deal with retaliation against
those who intervene on behalf of victims.
Readiness, Force Structure, and Support to Ongoing Military Operations
The committee recognizes that the current threat
environment is placing growing demands on the U.S. Armed
Forces, and continues to require the Armed Forces to be called
upon to support military operations across the globe. In the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, deployed U.S. forces are
continuing to conduct training and assistance, as well as
counterterrorism operations, as part of Operation Freedom's
Sentinel and Operation Resolute Support. In the Republic of
Iraq and Syrian Arab Republic, deployed U.S. forces are
participating in coalition operations against the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), conducting airstrikes, and
providing training and assistance to Iraqi security forces and
vetted moderate Syrian opposition forces as part of Operation
Inherent Resolve. U.S. forces are also forward-deployed across
the Greater Middle East to enable these ongoing military
operations; to enhance the defense of regional allies and
partners against the ballistic missile, nuclear, and malign
military activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran; and to
protect U.S. interests in the region.
On the Continent of Africa, deployed U.S. forces continue
to conduct counterterrorism operations and provide training and
assistance to partners combating violent extremist
organizations. In Europe, U.S. forces and capabilities have
been enhanced as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve to deter
aggression by the Russian Federation and reassure U.S. allies
and partners in Europe. In Asia, U.S. forces are forward-
deployed to reassure allies and partners concerned about the
territorial assertiveness and regional intimidation by the
People's Republic of China and the nuclear and ballistic
missile capabilities of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea. In Central and South America, U.S. forces are providing
key capabilities to detect and interdict illicit trafficking
that has driven violence and instability to the southern border
of the United States. Meanwhile, U.S. forces stationed at home
are working to maintain force readiness and are defending the
homeland.
The committee recognizes that while the Department's
missions and requirements have increased, its resources have
not. As the National Defense Panel noted in its July 2014
report to Congress, ``To lessen risk in an environment that is
becoming more challenging over time, it is important to err on
the side of having too much rather than too little.'' Along
this line, H.R. 1735 would take several steps towards
preserving the necessary end strength, readiness, and force
structure to ensure the Armed Forces can continue to meet both
the operational demands of today and the future. The bill would
seek to better balance the Department's personnel in the field
and in management headquarters. Furthermore, it would
reallocate resources to higher priority programs and provide
funding to address the Department's shortfalls and unfunded
requirements.
In the area of readiness, the bill would fully fund the
Operation and Maintenance accounts for an 11th carrier and a
10th air wing, aircraft carrier maintenance reset, ship
operations, and collective training exercises, which would
allow for 19 Combat Training Center rotations for Brigade
Combat Teams. It also would authorize additional Marine Corps
resources to meet unfunded aviation readiness requirements,
ensure adequate numbers of mission-capable aircraft, and
provide additional Air Force training resources for high-demand
areas such as unmanned systems pilots and joint terminal
controllers.
In the area of force structure, H.R. 1735 would preserve
key capabilities by identifying lower priority areas and areas
where funding is early-to-need or cost savings have been
identified. The bill would fully resource and enable Special
Operations Forces and U.S. Special Operations Command
activities and programs. It would restore funding for the A-10,
as the committee recognizes the continued use of the A-10,
including in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, and the
unique protective capabilities it provides to Soldiers and
Marines on the ground. It would also restore funding for the
EC-130H Compass Call, in recognition of the unique electronic
warfare capabilities provided by this aircraft.
The bill would authorize additional strike fighters (F-18s
for the Navy and F-35Bs for the Marine Corps) and provide
increased funds for the protection of deployed Apache
helicopters and to accelerate rotorcraft modernization for the
Army National Guard. It would reduce the layup time for the
refit of Navy cruisers to maximize the number of cruisers in
the fleet, expand the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to
appropriately resource the Ohio-class replacement submarine
program and maintain a reliable nuclear triad, and reverse the
Department's proposal to terminate Tomahawk Block IV missile
production. The bill would also authorize the full amount for
the Long-Range Strike bomber and KC-46A tanker programs that
the Air Force can execute in fiscal year 2016. Lastly, it would
authorize additional funds for National Guard and Reserve
equipment to address significant equipment shortages.
While the committee recognizes tough choices have to be
made in the allocation of limited resources, the committee
believes it has taken prudent steps to preserve and invest in
readiness and needed capabilities for the warfighter. However,
should sequestration-level budget caps remain in effect for
fiscal year 2016 and beyond, the committee recognizes that even
harder choices will have to be made. The committee agrees with
former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, who testified before
the committee in March 2014, that ``The result would be a
military that could not fulfill its defense strategy, putting
at risk America's traditional role as a guarantor of global
security and, ultimately, our own security.''
Addressing emerging threats and challenges
The committee recognizes that it must focus not only on
addressing current threats, but also on preparing for emerging
and evolving challenges in an increasingly uncertain global
security environment, and it must ensure that defense resources
are balanced between the two objectives. In particular, with
the continued diffusion of advanced technology, U.S. military
technological superiority is no longer assumed.
The committee recognizes that the cyber domain of modern
warfare continues to grow in scope and sophistication. The
country has witnessed recent, bold cyber attacks against
Google, large financial institutions, congressional computer
systems, and the Pentagon. H.R. 1537 provides for stronger
cyber operations capabilities, seeks to safeguard U.S.
technological superiority, and includes incentives to improve
the sharing of information on threats and defensive measures
between the defense industrial base and the Department of
Defense. The bill fully resources and authorizes U.S. Cyber
Command programs and activities, as well as all Military
Service cyber programs and Cyber science and technology
initiatives to enhance a Cyber mission force that defends U.S.
national security objectives.
The committee also believes that robust military
intelligence collection and analysis capabilities are essential
to ensuring the Department of Defense is postured to address
current and future threats, is investing in the right
capabilities, and able to protect its forces in the field. The
bill would take steps to ensure military intelligence analysis
remains a priority at the national level and that the
Department is thinking hard about how it collects and analyzes
intelligence to support the needs of the Combatant Commanders
and warfighters. The bill would further direct the Department
to examine the science and technical intelligence and foreign
material exploitation work being done by various military
intelligence organizations, identify redundancies, and make
changes where necessary.
The committee remains focused on assuring access to space,
given the military's dependence on the capabilities provided
from satellites. Thus, it remains concerned about the
Department's continuing reliance on Russian-designed rocket
engines. The bill would authorize an increase in funds for the
development of a new, U.S. rocket propulsion system and direct
the Air Force to move faster than it is planning to end
reliance on Russian rocket engines. It would further take
actions to promote greater competition within the space launch
industry.
Lastly, in the area of missile defense, the bill would
accelerate the development of a next-generation missile defense
interceptor; modify the Aegis Ashore sites in Romania and the
Republic of Poland to provide them with anti-air warfare
capability for self-defense; provide additional funds for
Israeli missile defense; and authorize additional funds for an
East Coast missile defense site to add to the defense of the
United States, specifically against long-range ballistic
missiles from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 results from hearings
that began on February 3, 2015, and that were completed on
April 15, 2015. The full committee conducted nine sessions. In
addition, a total of 16 sessions were conducted by 6 different
subcommittees.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On April 29, 2015, the Committee on Armed Services, a
quorum being present, approved H.R. 1735, as amended, by a vote
of 60-2.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1735. The title of
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as
amended.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not provide budget authority. This bill
authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriations acts will
provide budget authority. However, the committee strives to
adhere to the recommendations as issued by the Committee on the
Budget as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee.
The bill addresses the following categories in the
Department of Defense budget: procurement; research,
development, test, and evaluation; operation and maintenance;
military personnel; working capital funds; and military
construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the
Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National
Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve, and the
Maritime Administration.
Active Duty and Reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for military
personnel.
SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL
The President requested discretionary budget authority of
$604.2 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the
committee for fiscal year 2016. Of this amount, $534.2 billion
was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense programs,
$50.9 billion was requested for the Overseas Contingency
Operations requirements covering the entire fiscal year, and
$19.0 billion was requested for Department of Energy national
security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board.
To comport with the Concurrent Budget Resolution for fiscal
year 2016, the committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $604.2 billion in fiscal year 2016. The base
committee authorization of $515.0 billion is a $0.2 billion
increase above the levels provided for in the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). The authorization
provided in Title XV totals $89.2 billion for Overseas
Contingency Operations, of which $38.3 billion is authorized in
support of base budget requirements.
The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in
division D of this report summarizes the committee's
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation
account for fiscal year 2016 and compares these amounts to the
President's request.
BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
The President's total request for the national defense
budget function (050) in fiscal year 2016 is $620.2 billion, as
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to
funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050
request includes discretionary funding for national defense
programs not in the committee's jurisdiction, discretionary
funding for programs that do not require additional
authorization in fiscal year 2016, and mandatory programs.
The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in
division D of this report details changes to the budget request
for all aspects of the national defense budget function.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $106.96
billion for procurement. This represents a $12.36 billion
increase over the amount authorized for fiscal year 2015.
The committee recommends authorization of $109.74 billion,
an increase of $2.76 billion from the fiscal year 2016 request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
procurement program are identified in division D of this Act.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $5.68
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $5.86 billion, an increase of
$179.8 million, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Aircraft Procurement, Army program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
AH-64 Apache helicopter multi-year production contract
The budget request contained $1.4 billion in aircraft
procurement, Army, for the AH-64 Apache Block IIIA program.
The committee notes that the AH-64 Apache Block IIIA
program is increasing production to 64 aircraft in fiscal year
2016, and that the Army plans to maintain a production rate
between 52 and 68 aircraft per year in fiscal years 2017-20.
The committee believes that the production line is now stable
enough for the Army to pursue a multi-year contract for the
program, and that such a multi-year contract could potentially
save over a hundred million dollars over a 5-year period.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to seek
congressional approval of such a multi-year contract award in
the fiscal year 2017 budget request.
The committee recommends $1.4 billion, the full amount
requested, in aircraft procurement, Army, for the AH-64 Apache
Block IIIA program.
Armed aerial scout rotorcraft
The committee understands the Army has an enduring
requirement for an Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) platform.
Additionally, the committee is aware that the Army's decision
to utilize AH-64 Apache Attack helicopters in conjunction with
current unmanned aerial systems was a recommended course of
action from the official AAS Analyses of Alternatives. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015, the committee directed the Secretary of the Army to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services on
the Army's interim Apache scout implementation plan, as well as
the concept for the follow-on plan to replace this interim
solution. Based on the information provided to it, the
committee continues to have concerns regarding the Army's long-
term strategy to address the AAS requirement.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to brief
the House Committee on Armed Services by February 15, 2016, on
the conclusions and recommendations of the AAS Analysis of
Alternatives. The committee also expects this briefing to
address and examine any joint multirole technologies that could
be implemented as part of an AAS platform. The committee notes
that the Joint Multirole Technology Demonstration program is
currently informing the Army's ability to implement potential
technologies in Future Vertical Lift aircraft.
Army UH-60A to UH-60L conversions for the National Guard
The budget request contained $46.5 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army and $227.9 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army for 40 UH-60A to UH-60L conversions.
The committee notes that based on the Army's current budget
projections that Army National Guard units will not be able to
replace their aging UH-60A Blackhawk aircraft until the end of
fiscal year 2023. The committee further notes that this
timeline depends on three separate Army programs: production of
new UH-60M helicopters; the UH-60V upgrade program; and the UH-
60A to UH-60L conversion program. The committee supports
acceleration of all three programs in order to accelerate the
timeline for replacement of UH-60A helicopters in the Army
National Guard. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes
legislation that would further explore acceleration options.
However, the committee also supports action in fiscal year 2016
to generate additional upgraded UH-60 helicopters. The
committee understands that the maximum number of UH-60A to UH-
60L conversions in fiscal year 2016 is 48 helicopters.
The committee recommends $55.4 million, an increase of $8.8
million, in Aircraft Procurement, Army and $314.6 million, an
increase of $86.7 million, in Operation and Maintenance, Army
for 48 UH-60A to UH-60L conversions.
Improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications
The budget request contained $276.9 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army for the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned Aerial
System.
The committee notes that the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Unmanned
Aircraft System provides critical intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities to combatant commanders.
The committee understands that the Army has already implemented
upgrades to modify the current Gray Eagle platform in order to
provide extended range capabilities. This capability, known as
the ``Improved Gray Eagle,'' includes significant expansion of
the fuselage to accommodate larger fuel capacity and additional
payloads, as well as integration of an improved heavy fuel
engine to support takeoff at heavier weights. However,
additional funding is required to upgrade the last 17 legacy
Gray Eagle aircraft to the Improved Gray Eagle configuration.
The committee believes the increased endurance of a modified
Gray Eagle provides combatant commanders greater employment
options at increased ranges, expanded payload options, and
improved basing flexibility in support of the Global ISR
mission.
The committee recommends $293.9 million, an increase of
$17.0 million, for improved MQ-1C Gray Eagle modifications.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $1.41
billion for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.49 billion, an increase of $76.0 million,
for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Missile Procurement, Army program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $1.88
billion for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,
Army. The committee recommends authorization of $2.03 billion,
an increase of $148.6 million, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
program are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Bradley Fighting Vehicles
The committee is aware that the US Army is working to
standardize its fleet of Bradley Fighting Vehicles to two
digital configurations; the M2A3 and the M2A2 ODS-SA. The
committee understands that the majority of Active Duty and
National Guard units are equipped with the most advanced
versions of these vehicles that include digitized fire control
and communications systems. The committee is aware that two
units in particular, the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment and the
Nevada National Guard, as well as several other active duty
Brigade Engineer Battalions are equipped with the least
modernized M2A2-ODS variant.
The committee acknowledges that the Bradley Family of
Vehicles, to include the M2A2 ODS, M2A2 ODS-SA, and M2A3, share
the same materiel engineering and construction with no
differences in protection or survivability and that all three
variants are deployable for combat. The committee is concerned
that soldiers in the units M2A2 ODS versions lack the technical
proficiency necessary to operate the advanced Bradley vehicles
utilized in combat operations. The committee is concerned that
this could degrade combat effectiveness and pose additional
risk to units who deploy with the older Bradley variant.
The committee understands that the Army provides new
equipment training for units scheduled to fall-in on equipment
with unfamiliar capabilities upon deployment to combat theaters
of operation. The committee also understands that the Army
maintains a program of record for remanufacturing M2A2-ODS
Bradley's that ceased production in 2014 and notes that the
budget request did not include funding to modernize these
remaining vehicles. As such, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services by February 15, 2016 on what resources would be
required to maintain the readiness and technical proficiency of
these units as well as current and long terms plans for
modernizing the remaining vehicles.
Combat vehicle industrial base management
The committee notes that as a result of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), the Army is in the process of
reducing its Active Duty end strength to 420,000, unless
sequestration is resolved. Additionally, the Army will have
reduced Active Component Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) from 45 to
32 by the end of fiscal year 2015. In 2012 the active Army had
17 Armored BCTs (ABCT), 20 Infantry BCTs (IBCT), and 8 Stryker
BCTs. Notably, by the end of fiscal year 2015, the Army will
have reduced active Army ABCTs to 9, nearly half the number it
had in 2012. The committee notes that the ABCT, which is
comprised of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, is the
only full-spectrum force in the Army's force structure. With
regard to the future utility of armored forces, the committee
notes that a RAND Corporation report from 2010 concluded that,
``Heavy forces-based on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles-
are key elements of any force that will fight hybrid enemies
that have a modicum of training, organization, and advanced
weapons. Light and medium forces can complement heavy forces,
particularly in urban and other complex terrain; they do not
provide the survivability, lethality, or mobility inherent in
heavy forces. Quite simply, heavy forces reduce operational
risks and minimize friendly casualties.''
The committee is encouraged by the restoration of a third
maneuver battalion in Armored and Infantry BCTs, and notes that
in the committee report (H. Rept. 109-452) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the
committee opposed the Army's original decision to have only two
maneuver battalions per BCT. The committee remains concerned
about the reduction of active ABCTs and the Army's ability to
have sufficient numbers of fully ready active ABCTs to meet
combatant commander steady state and contingency plan
requirements. Additionally, the committee has concerns about
the mobility, protection, and lethality of IBCT, and encourages
the Army to pursue rapid incremental solutions to address these
shortfalls.
In addition to the mix of BCTs, the committee continues to
need a better understanding of the ramifications to the future
combat vehicle industrial base capabilities with regard to the
Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Paladin howitzer,
Hercules recovery vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, and
the Stryker combat vehicle. The committee commends the Army for
making positive progress in information collection and analysis
of long-term sustainment of the combat vehicle industrial base,
and also its use of the analytical information collected to
mitigate risk at both the prime and vendor level using
congressionally appropriated funds. Moreover, the committee
acknowledges that this information has helped inform the Army's
position that Foreign Military Sales alone is not sufficient to
sustain the viability of the combat vehicle industrial base.
Such a position poses an unacceptable level of risk at both the
prime contractor and vendor level and Congress has been
consistently vocal on these risks in previous years.
The committee supports the Army's decision to accelerate
the 4th Stryker Double-Vee-Hull conversion and Stryker
Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) program for Stryker combat
vehicle, as well as continuing its efforts in ECP production of
the Bradley fighting vehicle, and M1 Abrams tank, to include
development of six pilot M1A2 SEP V3. In addition, the
committee understands that the Army awarded an Engineering
Manufacturing Development contract for the Armored Multi-
Purpose Vehicle in December 2015, a program the committee has
encouraged the Army to accelerate for several years. The out-
year funding reflected in the budget request for fiscal year
2016 indicates a commitment by the Army to move forward with
the next major technology upgrades for the existing fleet of
weapon systems that would ensure fielding of the highest
quality combat vehicles to a smaller force and also sustain the
fragile industrial base. However, the committee remains
concerned about the stability of Army modernization funding in
fiscal year 2017 and beyond given the implications of
sequestration. In particular, and verified by the Army's
industrial base analysis, the committee is concerned about the
viability of select vendor base suppliers, such as the Forward
Looking Infra-red and transmissions sectors. The committee
encourages the Army to continue to monitor these two sectors
closely and to take necessary actions to maintain their
viability.
Hercules recovery vehicle
The budget request contained $123.6 million for the M88A2
improved recovery vehicle program.
The committee is aware that in order to provide greater
protection for soldiers, the Army's current and future fleet of
combat vehicles has grown significantly in weight. As a result,
the current fleet of M88A1 recovery vehicles is approaching its
maximum capability, which will be greatly exceeded by the
future fleet of combat vehicles. The committee notes that the
M88A2 is the only vehicle that can single-handedly recover a
main battle tank, and that it was the only vehicle in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that could recover larger mine-
resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The committee understands
that the Army has recently increased the M88A2 acquisition
objective to 933 systems, of which only 825 have been funded
for procurement through fiscal year 2018. The committee
supports the Army's decision to pursue a ``pure fleet''
strategy. However, the committee believes additional funds are
needed in order to achieve Army requirements sooner and to
provide manufacturing workload beyond fiscal year 2016. The
committee also notes that the M88A2 is on the Army's unfunded
priorities requirements list.
The committee recommends $195.6 million, an increase of
$72.0 million, for the M88A2 improved recovery vehicle program.
M1 Abrams tank fleet configuration
The committee notes that the M1A2 System Enhancement
Program (SEP) v2 Abrams tank is the Army's premier ground
combat system and has demonstrated its value on the
battlefields of Iraq. Its built-in test system ensures that
diagnosis and repair are fast and efficient, improving combat
availability and saving operational costs. Improved digital
displays provide tank commanders and crews with a better
understanding of their tank's operational status and their
situation on the battlefield.
However, despite the capabilities of the M1A2 SEP v2, the
committee is aware that the Army maintains two configurations
of Abrams tanks, and believes that this dual configuration is
inefficient and increasingly expensive. The committee further
notes that all Armor Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT) in the active
component are equipped with M1A2 SEP v2 tanks, but that only
two out of seven ABCTs in the National Guard are equipped with
new M1A2 SEP v2 tanks. The other five ABCTs in the National
Guard, and the three separate Combined Arms Battalions, are
equipped with less-capable M1A1 Situational Awareness (SA)
tanks. The committee is also aware that Army schools currently
provide training solely on M1A2 SEP v2s, meaning that Army
National Guard soldiers attending an Army armor school are
trained on M1A2 SEP v2 tanks, which is not the vehicle they
will operate in their units. Finally, the committee also notes
that the Army intends to begin fielding a new version of the M1
Abrams tank, the M1A2 SEP v3, in 2018. The committee
understands that this tank will be an incremental improvement
from the M1A2 SEP v2 and retain significant commonality.
The committee believes that the Army should take advantage
of upcoming changes to its ABCT force structure to achieve a
pure fleet of M1A2 SEP v2 tanks across both the active duty
Army and Army National Guard. The committee believes that
maintaining only one type of tank in the Army will reduce
support and training costs, allow better integration the Army
National Guard, and provide a more capable overall tank fleet
for the Army. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by January 30, 2016, on the potential force structure changes
and production programs necessary to achieve a pure fleet of M1
Abrams tanks across the Army.
M240 production and industrial base sustainment
The budget request included $1.4 million for M240 medium
machine gun modifications.
The committee is concerned that the budget request for the
M240 medium machine gun does not provide adequate resources to
maintain the capability of the industrial base workforce. The
committee notes the M240 medium machine gun inventory is aging
significantly. Consistent with previous committee activity
regarding the need for small arms modernization, the committee
encourages a general top-line increase for the M240 medium
machine program across the Future Years Defense Program in
order to sustain the U.S. small arms industrial base, as well
as to ensure continued optimal M240 production for the military
services. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2016, on the Army's long-term sustainment strategy and life-
cycle sustainment plans for the M240 medium machine gun.
The committee recommends $1.4 million, the full amount
requested, for M240 medium machine gun modifications.
Modular Handgun System
The budget request contained $5.4 million for the
procurement of 7,106 new Modular Handgun (MHS) weapon systems.
The MHS is projected to be a non-developmental item,
commercial-off-the-shelf replacement handgun for the current M9
pistol. The committee understands the MHS is intended to
provide soldiers with improved lethality, accuracy, ergonomics,
reliability, durability, and maintainability over current
systems. The committee has consistently encouraged the military
services to modernize the current inventory of small arms
through new procurements, product improvement programs (PIP),
or dual-path strategies that consist of new procurements and
PIPs. The committee supports the MHS program, but remains
concerned over the continued delay in releasing the official
request for proposals (RFP). The committee understands that the
Army is still finalizing performance requirements, and that the
program's schedule is dependent upon final release of the RFP.
According to notional schedules reviewed by the committee, the
committee notes that the bid sample test program for the MHS
could last up to 1 year. Due to the continued delay in
releasing the RFP, and the extended bid sample test program,
the committee believes the procurement request for the MHS in
fiscal year 2016 is ahead of need.
Therefore, the committee recommends no procurement funding
for the MHS program due to funding ahead of need and current
schedule delays.
Small arms production industrial base
The committee recognizes that a robust and viable small
arms production industrial base (SAPIB) is essential to the
long-term sustainment of reliable and capable sources that can
develop, produce, and maintain military performance
specifications for small arms parts and components, as well as
to maintain competitively priced small arms property and
services for use by the military services. In the interest of
full and open competition, the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
repealed section 2473 of title 10, United States Code, which
had required the Department of Defense to only procure certain
small arms repair parts and components from a limited number of
industry sources that the Department had identified as
comprising the SAPIB.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the senior military services acquisition
executives, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 1, 2016, on the current state of the
SAPIB, as well as on the effect the repeal is having on the
current SAPIB.
Stryker lethality upgrades
The budget request contained $74.0 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for Stryker modifications and
$257.1 million in PE 23735A for the Combat Vehicle Improvement
Program.
The committee notes that U.S. Army deployments in Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom placed a strain on
the Army's combat vehicle fleet and prompted a significant
investment in the force protection and survivability of M1
Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and the Stryker family
of wheeled combat vehicles to defeat mines, improvised
explosive devices and other threats. One notable example is the
success of the Double V Hull on the Stryker vehicle. The
committee understands that this necessary investment in vehicle
survivability did degrade vehicle mobility and may have caused
the Army to defer investments in vehicle lethality.
The committee notes that the Army is addressing the
mobility issues with Abrams, Bradley and Stryker with
Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) modernization programs that
are funded in the fiscal year 2016 request. The committee
understands that the Army is also resourcing lethality
improvements in later phases of the Abrams and Bradley ECP
programs. The committee also notes that the Army is interested
in pursuing lethality upgrades within Stryker Brigades, but has
not yet resourced these upgrades. The committee understands
that the Army has an emerging urgent operational requirement
for Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles that have a direct fire
weapon system. The committee also understands the Army
initially wants Stryker vehicles with improved lethality to be
fielded to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, a Stryker Brigade Combat
Team forward deployed to Europe, to increase formation
lethality against threat vehicles and dismounted infantry. The
committee supports this urgent need and believes the Army
should continue to pursue lethality upgrades of its Stryker
Brigade Combat Teams in order to meet combatant commander
requirements.
Further, the committee notes that the Stryker lethality
upgrade program will use existing Stryker chassis that are
leftover from the Stryker exchange process that creates Double
V Hull Strykers, which will reduce the cost of the lethality
upgrades.
Finally, the committee encourages the Army to conduct
appropriate live fire testing as soon as possible on any
potential Stryker survivability enhancements that have the
potential to improve crew protection and overall vehicle
survivability.
The committee recommends $118.5 million, an increase of
$44.5 million, for Stryker modifications procurement and $292.1
million, an increase of $35.0 million, in PE 23735A for Stryker
lethality upgrades.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $1.23
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The committee
recommends authorization of $1.22 billion, a decrease of $11.0
million, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Procurement of Ammunition, Army program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Cost assessment of decommissioning lead-based ammunition and associated
components
The committee is concerned about the potential impact the
Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601-2629) could have
on military ammunition and associated components containing
lead components. Specifically, the committee notes that the
Toxic Substances Control Act could potentially be used to ban
conventional lead-based ammunition which would result in
significant increases in the price of conventional ammunition
for both ammunition manufacturers and the Department of
Defense. The committee is aware that the U.S. Army and the U.S.
Marine Corps are now procuring enhanced performance non-lead
based 5.56mm and 7.62mm small caliber rounds, which provide
better performance against soft and hard targets than lead
rounds. However, the committee notes that the other military
services still continue to use lead-based small caliber rounds.
Additionally, the committee notes that other categories of
conventional ammunition beyond small caliber ammunition contain
significant amounts of lead-based components and that
implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act to ban lead-
based ammunition could have a much broader effect across the
ammunition enterprise beyond small caliber rounds.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a cost assessment to the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2016, that details the costs associated
with decommissioning lead-based ammunition. The cost assessment
should consider all Class V supply items, ammunition of all
types, fuses, detonators, pyrotechnics, propellants, and
associated component items to include primers.
Joint Hydra 70 guided rocket acquisition strategy
The committee understands that the Hydra 70 rocket is
comprised of an unguided rocket system with an M151
fragmentation warhead and is categorized as an area weapon
because once launched, the weapon impacts in the general
direction that it is fired. The committee also understands that
the Navy and the Marine Corps have been procuring and fielding
the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) since 2012.
The APKWS adds a precision guided system component to the
existing unguided Hydra rocket system, which provides a low-
cost, low-yield precision guided kill capability against soft
to lightly armored and hardened targets.
The committee is aware the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council has recently re-validated the Army Operational
Requirements Document for the APKWS, and notes that there is
also a validated Army operational needs statement (ONS) for
additional APKWS for use in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan. The committee understands the Army plans to
leverage the Navy APKWS contract to procure Army APKWS rockets
to address the ONS. The committee commends the Army for taking
the necessary actions to rapidly field this capability to
address an immediate warfighter need; however, the committee
remains concerned over the absence of a long-term acquisition
strategy for guided Hydra rockets. The committee is also
concerned by the Department of Defense's perceived inability to
field more capable warhead technology with greater lethality
that could be used on these precision guided rocket systems.
The committee is aware that such warheads exist and are in
current inventory.
The committee directs the Secretary of Army to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2016, on the Department of Defense's near- and long-term
acquisition and fielding strategies for precision guided
rockets and warhead technology.
M3 Multi-role Anti-armor Anti-tank Weapon System
The budget request contained $7.5 million for M3 Multi-role
Anti-armor Anti-tank Weapon System (MAAWS) Carl Gustaf High
Explosive/High Explosive Dual Purpose combat and target
ammunition and a sub-caliber training system to support annual
training and maintain a war reserve inventory in accordance
with the Army's total munitions requirements. The committee is
encouraged that the Army is finalizing a program of record for
M3 MAAWS and synchronizing program activities for Type
Classification of combat and training ammunition, the M3 and
lightweight M3A1 gun variants, as well as leveraging
acquisition and logistics functions with U.S. Special
Operations Command. The committee encourages the Army to
complete system Type Classification and finalize its training
sustainment strategy to include annual ammunition requirements,
as well as virtual training and Multiple Integrated Laser
Engagement System training requirements for selected bases and
training centers. To enhance the committee's oversight of this
important effort, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to brief the House Committee on Armed Services on the
status of the M3 MAAWS program by October 1, 2015.
Small caliber ammunition industrial base
The committee is aware of a study commissioned by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Training to identify issues affecting ammunition production
capability and recommended steps necessary to sustain a
financially viable U.S. munitions industrial base. The
committee commends the Army for previous steps taken,
especially as it relates to Government-owned, contractor-
operated facilities, to allow plant operators greater
flexibility in pursuit of commercial and Foreign Military Sales
which can help sustain this critical industrial base. The
committee believes additional measures may be required to
minimize risk and to better optimize army ammunition plant
(AAP) utilization and reuse. The committee intends to work with
the Army in assessing and implementing recommendations in the
report commissioned by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Training. In particular, the
committee is interested in gaining a better understanding on
whether the Army should consider establishing a domestic
production capability of non-standard small caliber ammunition
for use by coalition nations, as well as assess how AAPs could
implement more commercially-adopted business practices, such as
leasing unused property.
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $5.89
billion for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends
authorization of $5.80 billion, a decrease of $91.0 million,
for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Other Procurement, Army program are identified in division D of
this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Army radio modernization
The committee notes that the schedule for the Manpack radio
has been delayed. However, the committee continues to support
the Army's decision to move forward with the competition using
the currently planned multi-vendor acquisition strategy. In
addition, the committee continues to support the Army's larger
vision of a radio marketplace that drives innovation and
technology improvement over the course of the program. Given
the investment that the Army has made in the Manpack radio
program to date and the clear requirements for the Manpack
radio capability, the committee encourages the Army to meet
current warfighter requirements as soon as possible. The
committee also supports moving forward with an accelerated
competition for both the dismounted and mounted versions of the
Manpack radio and driving to produce improvements through the
planned delivery order competition.
Civil Support Team Information Management System
The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (CST) currently
field a system called the CST Information Management System
(CIMS), to provide a common operating picture, promote
information-sharing and real-time collaboration in an emergency
situation, and support the CST mission of assisting and
advising first responders and facilitating communications with
other Federal resources. Given that other National Guard Bureau
forces, such as the Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear, and High explosive Enhanced Response Force Package
(CERFP) and Homeland Defense Response Force (HRF) units are in
need of similar capabilities, and in order for these forces to
effectively communicate and operate during large-scale domestic
events, the committee encourages the National Guard Bureau to
expand CIMS to those CERFP and HRF forces.
Furthermore, the committee believes it is important that
this CIMS capability increase interoperability and efficiently
use prior investments to expand and enhance communication
capability without creating unwarranted redundancy. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives by November 1, 2015, detailing what steps have
been taken to date to expand CIMS to CERFP and HRF units, as
well as what action is planned with regard to the expansion of
CIMS to CERFP and HRF forces to include timeline, milestones,
and a detailed description of any other influencing factors.
Mine resistant ambush protected family of vehicles enduring requirement
The committee commends the military services for retaining
the most capable mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP)
vehicles to meet military operational and training needs, as
well as standardizing the fleet to improve long-term
sustainment. The committee notes that approximately 8,000
excess MRAP vehicles will first be offered to other U.S.
Government entities and then to potential Foreign Military
Sales (FMS) or excess defense article (EDA) customers. The
committee understands that if there are no U.S. Government,
FMS, or EDA claimants, the vehicles will follow approved
disposition procedures for demilitarization.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the Chief of Staff of the Army was
directed to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services on the advisability and feasibility of reusing MRAP
vehicles as part of current mobile command post modernization
strategies. The committee received the briefing and remains
interested in the extent to which the Department of Defense has
considered options for reuse of MRAP vehicles. The committee
notes there could be emerging requirements for MRAP vehicles,
such as fulfilling the requirement for Key Leader vehicles, as
well as Command and Control vehicles, that may not have been
fully considered as part of the broader context for the
Department's long-term tactical wheeled vehicle modernization
strategy. The committee also notes that since the Department's
decision to finalize the enduring requirement for MRAP vehicles
2 years ago, the military services currently face a
significantly worse global threat environment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2016, on the following:
(1) The current and planned disposition of MRAP vehicles
across the military services' inventory;
(2) Current mission requirements for MRAP vehicles, to
include the status of the mobile command post requirement;
(3) The current guidance relative to the prioritization
system used for handling excess MRAP vehicles based on threat
and national interest; and
(4) A discussion of the relative threat environment, and
whether the current threat environment would require a new
review of the current enduring MRAP vehicle requirements.
Personal protective equipment modernization and industrial base
sustainment
The committee has consistently highlighted the critical
need for modernization of personal protective equipment (PPE).
In previous legislation, the committee has expressed its
concern regarding the Department of Defense's long-term
strategy for PPE industrial base sustainment and has encouraged
the Department to pursue strategies that would allow for
sustainment of this critical industrial base through
modernization efforts. The committee has noted the importance
of managing PPE programs through a more traditional and
deliberative approach to requirements generation and
procurement of PPE systems. The committee continues to
encourage and recommend a weapon system approach to PPE
acquisition, in particular body armor, with an established
procurement line item for PPE. The committee believes this
would provide for more efficient planning, programming, and
budgeting for PPE and would create a more stable environment
for the industrial base to continue to invest in innovation and
weight reduction technology. Instead of ``reacting'' to urgent
operational needs, as the Department did in the 2000s during
the buildups for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom, the Department and the industrial base would be better
positioned to respond to any future threat or immediate
warfighter need through this approach.
Section 146 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) required a federally
funded research and development center to conduct a study to
identify and assess alternative and effective means for
stimulating competition and innovation in the personal
protection equipment industrial base, to include body armor.
The committee understands this study is now complete and is
being reviewed by the Department, but regrettably will not be
delivered to the committee in time for consideration as part of
the committee's consideration of the current defense
authorization bill.
The committee is aware that current body armor demand has
prompted industry consolidation and restructuring decisions
that will affect the Department's ability to respond to future
warfighter requirements. The committee also notes that the
committee report (H. Rept. 113-113) accompanying the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 required a report
addressing current capabilities of domestic body armor
manufacturers to meet future surge requirements, inventory
requirements, and steps taken by the Department to ensure the
availability of domestic hard armor manufacturers for body
armor systems. The committee understands the Department is
still compiling data to address this reporting requirement, but
notes that previous capability analysis indicated a minimum of
two suppliers is needed to achieve surge production and
maintain competition for the hard armor industrial base. The
committee encourages the Department to take the necessary
actions to maintain at least two vendors as part of this
critical industrial base.
Rough Terrain Container Handler recapitalization
The committee is concerned that the budget request did not
include funding for the Rough Terrain Container Handler, a
system considered vital and critical to Department of Defense
expeditionary logistics. The committee notes that many of these
deployed assets may be categorized as combat losses because of
their high usage and subsequent decreased life expectancy in
the austere environments of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
and the Republic of Iraq. Consistent with current
recapitalization strategies for the Family of Forklifts to
account for legacy systems used as left behind equipment, the
committee encourages the Army to consider funding
recapitalization of this critical logistics element.
U.S. Army Europe garrison communications
The committee is concerned about communications security
shortfalls at U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) bases, which are in
many cases using an outdated garrison emergency communications
platform that does not support multi-party conversations and
fully secure communications. The committee is particularly
concerned about how this outdated equipment could hinder a
fully effective response to a terrorist event or other
emergency situation on Army bases in Europe. In addition, the
committee notes that third-party studies, such as one conducted
by the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Crane, have
recommended that USAREUR standardize and integrate its garrison
communications infrastructure into a single enterprise
operation by entering into a joint agreement with U.S. Air
Forces Europe (USAFE) to utilize their existing, modern,
Enterprise Land Mobile Radio (ELMR) program. The committee
recognizes that significant savings may be achieved through a
joint USAFE-USAREUR ELMR program and that such an effort would
also support broader Joint Information Environment goals.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $16.12
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $18.34 billion, an increase of
$2.21 billion, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Aircraft Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Airborne electronic attack low band transmitter consolidation
The budget request contained $23.2 million for airborne
electronic attack systems, but did not include any funds for
the low band transmitter consolidation engineering change
proposal (ECP).
The committee notes that the Navy's Next Generation Jammer
(NGJ) program will eventually replace legacy ALQ-99 jammers and
will be fielded incrementally starting in 2021. The committee
also notes that the Increment 2 (Inc 2) element of the NGJ
program, which addresses low band jammer issues, is planned to
begin fielding later, in 2026. As a result, the committee
understands that current ALQ-99 low band transmitters will be
required in the interim. According to Navy program officials,
ALQ-99 low band transmitters are still in production and a low
band transmitter consolidation ECP effort can be fielded in
2019 which leverages significant industry investment, optimizes
the jammers for the EA-18G Growler, and provides critical
operational capabilities until the fielding of NGJ Inc 2.
Therefore, the committee recommends $37.2 million, an
increase of $15.0 million, for the low band transmitter
consolidation ECP. The committee expects that these funds would
be used for production and fielding of low band transmitter
consolidation ECP installations.
MH-60R and MH-60S service life extension plans
The budget request contained $995.2 million for procurement
of MH-60S and MH-60R helicopters.
The committee notes that production of new MH-60S
helicopters will end in fiscal year 2015 and that production of
new MH-60R helicopters will end in fiscal year 2018. The
committee also notes that the long timeline for the future
vertical lift program will likely require a service life
extension program (SLEP) for the MH-60S and MH-60R fleets in
order to keep the required number of aircraft in service.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 1, 2016, that includes a detailed layout of the timeline
and funding for a potential SLEP program that maintains enough
aircraft to meet requirements through fiscal year 2030 or
beyond for the MH-60S and MH-60R helicopter fleets.
The committee recommends $995.2 million, the full amount
requested, for the MH-60S and MH-60R helicopters.
MQ-8 Fire Scout
The budget request contained $120.0 million for MQ-8C Fire
Scout procurement, of which $44.2 million was for procurement
of two MQ-8C air vehicles.
The MQ-8C Fire Scout is a vertical take-off and landing
unmanned aerial vehicle which provides real-time and non-real
time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data
to tactical users without the use of manned aircraft or
reliance on limited theater or national assets. The committee
notes that the budget request reflects a production quantity
reduction from five MQ-8Cs per year in fiscal year 2015 to two
per year for fiscal year 2016, and understands that a
production quantity of five MQ-8Cs per year is the minimum
sustaining rate. The committee further understands that
procurement of five MQ-8Cs per year supports an efficient and
cost effective production rate, and would mitigate the risk of
a production break.
Consequently, the committee recommends $156.0 million, an
increase of $36.0 million, for MQ-8C Fire Scout procurement for
an additional three MQ-8C air vehicles.
Reporting of the April 8, 2000, MV-22 mishap at Marana, Arizona
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee noted that subsequent to an April 8, 2000, MV-22
mishap at Marana Northwest Regional Airport, Arizona, the
Marine Corps released information on July 27, 2000, regarding
the MV-22 accident investigation report which caused confusion
concerning the cause of the mishap by not making a clear
distinction between the terms ``human factors'' and ``pilot
error.'' Consequently, the committee encouraged the Commandant
of the Marine Corps to work with interested committee members
to further clarify the Marine Corps' public statements about
the April 8, 2000, MV-22 mishap so that media reporting of this
accident would more accurately portray the causal factors of
the accident. Unfortunately, this situation has yet to be fully
resolved.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to publicly clarify the causes of the MV-22 mishap at
Marana Northwest Regional Airport, Arizona, in a way consistent
with the results of all investigations as soon as possible.
V-22 for carrier on-board delivery
The Department of the Navy currently uses the C-2A aircraft
to perform the carrier on-board delivery (COD) mission, and has
chosen the V-22 to replace the C-2A for the COD mission. The
COD mission is the use of aircraft to ferry personnel, mail,
supplies, and high-priority cargo, such as replacement parts,
from shore bases to an aircraft carrier at sea.
The committee supports the Department of the Navy's
decision to use the V-22 for its COD mission, and notes that
both the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air
Force have had a long-standing program of record to develop and
procure the V-22 aircraft. The committee further notes that
both the MV-22 and CV-22 are proven platforms for the both the
Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force.
The committee believes that the V-22's unique combination
of speed, range, cargo capacity, and vertical agility will
transform the way that sea-based logistics are accomplished for
the COD mission, and carrier strike groups will have more
flexible options for resupply, while the V-22's direct delivery
method will allow aviation assets currently used for vertical
resupply to be used for other missions. The committee
understands that the Department of the Navy's military utility
assessment found the V-22 to be an effective, flexible, and
safe capability to conduct the COD mission, with no adverse
impact to cyclical flight operations. Accordingly, the
committee believes that executing the Department of the Navy's
program of record for the V-22 provides an affordable, low-risk
acquisition for the future COD mission.
V-22 medical evacuation capability
The committee notes that the Navy's plan for the next
generation of Department of the Navy carrier onboard delivery
(COD) will be performed by the V-22 Osprey. One of the benefits
of this new platform will be an expanded patient medical
evacuation (medevac) capability by a non-catapult platform. The
current COD C-2A aircraft has the capability to transport
litter patients but this capability is limited due to the G-
forces associated with arrested landings and catapult takeoffs.
The V-22 vertical takeoff will increase the range of intubated
patient movement from the current helicopter range and
catapult-induced G-forces will no longer be a concern for
patients with orthopedic or neurologic trauma. The committee
encourages the Department of the Navy to address this mission
capability by developing a V-22 medevac equipment package.
Retaining the medevac equipment onboard the carrier could
potentially allow any COD mission to transition to a medevac
mission with little pre-mission planning and without major
impact to outbound cargo or passenger space.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $3.15
billion for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $3.23 billion, an increase of $77.8 million,
for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Joint Standoff Weapon sustainment
The budget request contained $21.4 million to fund
termination costs for the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) C-1
program.
The JSOW C-1 program provides for a standardized medium-
range precision guided glide munition system that can engage
defended targets from outside the range of standard anti-
aircraft defenses. The committee has concerns about the
proposed termination of the JSOW C-1 program given the current
threat environment, as well as current munition inventories.
The committee is troubled by the lack of analysis supporting
the proposed termination by the Navy and its associated impacts
to the industrial base. The committee notes this request
contradicts budget justification material used as part of the
President's request for fiscal year 2015. The committee also
notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has indicated
potential shortfalls exist for the JSOW C-1 munitions. The
committee understands that a technical Nunn-McCurdy breach has
been triggered by the reduction in quantities proposed in the
request, and encourages the Secretary of Defense to
expeditiously complete required certifications to continue the
remaining program.
The committee is aware there is approximately $2.00 billion
in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) that are expected across the
Future Years Defense Program for JSOW C-1 munitions, however
the committee is concerned about the Navy's position that
Foreign Military Sales alone would be sufficient to sustain the
viability of the JSOW munitions industrial base. The committee
notes FMS cases often take years longer than originally planned
to materialize and believes the Navy is assuming unacceptable
levels of risk. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by March 1, 2016, on the plan to support continued JSOW
modernization, to include plans for integration on the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter, as well as the planned schedule for FMS
sales.
The committee recommends $69.2 million, an increase of
$47.8 million, to help procure additional JSOW C-1 munitions at
the minimum sustaining rate of 200 per year in fiscal year 2016
to better sustain the industrial base and mitigate potential
inventory shortfalls.
Tomahawk Block IV
The budget request contained $184.8 million in Weapons
Procurement, Navy for procurement of 100 Tomahawk missiles,
which is a decrease of 96 missiles below the minimum sustaining
rate. The budget request also would terminate Tomahawk Block IV
procurement beginning in fiscal year 2017.
The committee is concerned by the Secretary of the Navy's
recommendation to terminate procurement of the Nation's only
long-range, surface-launched land-attack cruise missile
production capability prior to finalizing concept development
of the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon, which is not planned
to be operationally fielded until 2024 at the earliest.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the capability to
recertify current inventory Block IV Tomahawk missiles could be
put at risk if the Secretary of the Navy decides to shutter the
Tomahawk Block IV production line in fiscal year 2017. In
addition, the Secretary has not clearly articulated how the
inventory of long-range cruise missiles will be replenished if
the current stock of Tomahawk missiles is utilized to fulfill
test, training, and warfighting requirements between 2016-24.
The committee is also concerned that the Navy is well below all
categories of inventory requirements and is discouraged that
the Navy is only using one category of inventory requirements
in stating that there is no risk by terminating Tomahawk Block
IV production in fiscal year 2017.
Finally, the committee notes that although the fiscal year
2016 budget request is 96 missiles below the minimum sustaining
rate, the Secretary has committed to procure 47 Tomahawk Block
IV missiles in fiscal year 2016 using $45.5 million provided in
the Overseas Contingency Operations account of the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015 (division C of Public Law
113-235). As a result, the committee understands that an
additional 49 missiles are required in fiscal year 2016 to meet
minimum sustaining rate.
Therefore, the committee recommends $214.8 million, an
increase of $30.0 million, in Weapons Procurement, Navy for
procurement of 149 Tomahawk missiles and to reduce risk to the
Tomahawk missile industrial base. The committee supports
continuing the minimum sustaining rate of Tomahawk Block IV to
fully satisfy inventory requirements and bridge transition to
Tomahawk Block IV recertification and modernization.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $723.7
million for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.
The committee recommends authorization of $723.7 million, full
funding of the request, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $16.59
billion for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee
recommends authorization of $16.27 billion, a decrease of
$327.2 million, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Advance procurement for Afloat Forward Staging Base
The budget request contained no funds for advance
procurement for an Afloat Forward Staging Base.
The committee notes that the Administration has programmed
$661.0 million for a third Afloat Forward Staging Base in
fiscal year 2017. The committee believes that there will be a
costly and disruptive industrial production base break between
the fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2017 ships unless advance
procurement funds for fiscal year 2016 can be allocated for
long lead-time ship material and component orders that would
help support a shipbuilder start of construction for this
required military capability 1 year earlier.
Therefore, the committee recommends $97.0 million for
advance procurement for an Afloat Forward Staging Base.
Air and Missile Defense Radar Testing evaluation
The committee notes that the Navy plans to use the Arleigh
Burke-class destroyers (DDG 51) hull form as the platform for
the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), which will provide
integrated air and ballistic missile defense capability for the
fleet. The committee further notes that the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation has disagreed with the Navy's
plans for AMDR testing and believes that in order to achieve
full end-to-end test results, testing must be performed aboard
the self-defense test ship. Considering the central role that
AMDR and DDG 51 Flight III will play in sea-based ballistic
missile defense and the magnitude of the Navy's planned
investment, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 1, 2016, as to the potential use of
AMDR on the self-defense test ship. This report should include,
but is not limited to, an analysis of the following:
(1) Maturity of AMDR and the Navy's plans for developing,
testing, and integrating AMDR, to include a cost benefit of
performing AMDR testing aboard the self-defense test ship
versus a manned ship;
(2) Risks associated with the Navy's planned acquisition
strategy for the DDG 51 class and AMDR; and
(3) Any additional items the Comptroller General deems
relevant to the report.
Amphibious ship construction
The budget request contained no funds for advance
procurement associated with the replacement amphibious warship
(LX(R)).
The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy, the
Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps have agreed to support the LX(R) as a derivative of the
LPD 17 San Antonio-class hull form. The committee also notes
that the fiscal year 2016 budget submission from the Department
of the Navy continues investment in the nation's amphibious
warship fleet with the completion costs anticipated for LPD 28.
The committee supports the Navy's initiative to use an existing
hull form and commends the Navy on efforts to decrease costs
and reduce schedule. However, the committee is concerned that
the Navy shipbuilding plan does not take advantage of the
efficiencies and subsequent cost avoidance inherent in
maintaining an active industrial base for construction of
vessels utilizing the LPD 17 hull form. The committee believes
that the optimum construction start for the LX(R) class of
vessels is in fiscal year 2018 rather than the current Navy
program of record of fiscal year 2020.
Therefore, the committee recommends $250.0 million in
advance procurement for amphibious vessels in Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy, for investment in engineering design and
planning, and long lead time equipment including propulsion,
steering and electrical generating equipment, air conditioning
plants, castings, and other items necessary to move
construction start of the first LX(R) vessel to fiscal year
2018.
Coast Guard polar icebreaker
The committee notes that the United States Coast Guard
initiated a new project for the design and construction of a
new polar icebreaker in fiscal year 2013, but the timing and
execution of this project have become uncertain. The project
received $7.6 million in the Department of Defense, Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), $2.0 million in
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76), and
no funding in fiscal year 2015. The budget request for fiscal
year 2016 requests $4.0 million to continue initial acquisition
activities for the ship. A new polar icebreaker is projected to
cost between $900 million to $1.10 billion.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approved a
Mission Need Statement for the polar icebreaker
recapitalization project in June 2013. The MNS states, ``This
Mission Need Statement (MNS) establishes the need for polar
icebreaker capabilities provided by the Coast Guard, to ensure
that it can meet current and future mission requirements in the
polar regions. . . . Current requirements and future
projections based upon cutter demand modeling, as detailed in
the HLMAR [High Latitude Mission Analysis Report], indicate the
Coast Guard will need to expand its icebreaking capacity,
potentially requiring a fleet of up to six icebreakers (3 heavy
and 3 medium) to adequately meet mission demands in the high
latitudes. . . .''
The committee believes that the administration has
inadequately valued the necessity to procure required
icebreaking capacity. The committee believes the failure to
acquire all domain access capability in polar regions
expeditiously may irreparably harm Department of Defense
national security missions, and may leave the Department in
which the Coast Guard is operating unable to meet its
anticipated future responsibilities related to maritime safety
and security, search and rescue, environmental response, and
fishery law enforcement. The committee supports the use of
Department of Defense authorities and acquisition expertise to
acquire required icebreaking capabilities. The committee is
supportive of interim leasing authority to meet short- and mid-
term icebreaking requirements to include the use of section
2401 of title 10, United States Code, leasing authority and
other such leasing authorities resident in the Department in
which the Coast Guard is operating. The committee encourages
the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense
to develop a plan to acquire all domain access capability in
polar regions expeditiously. Such a plan should address both a
bridging strategy to cover the period between the end of the
useful life of the USCGC Polar Star and the construction of a
new medium or heavy icebreaker.
Joint High Speed Vessel Build Specification
The committee notes that appropriations for an additional
Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) was provided in the Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law
113-235) and the Secretary of the Navy is negotiating an award
for the construction of that ship. The committee also notes the
JHSV is a growing part of the fleet and is now included in the
count of the Battle Force ships. In order to ensure the Navy
realizes the benefits associated with the cost efficiencies
gained in building the first ten JHSVs and avoids any schedule
delays in the delivery of the eleventh ship to Fleet, the
committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy, to the maximum
extent possible, to grant any waivers to regulatory or
statutory changes that have been instituted since the award of
the original JHSV contract. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a brief to the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by October 1,
2015 on efforts to continue the regulatory and statutory
changes that were in effect for the first 10 JHSVs with the
additional JHSV 11.
National Defense Sealift Fund
The committee notes that the National Defense Sealift Fund
(NDSF) was created by the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484) to address sealift
funding issues using a revolving fund concept. Since its
inception, the committee notes that NDSF has been successfully
used to support multiple procurements and has a legacy of
success in supporting U.S. shipbuilding interests.
Therefore, the committee recommends the transfer of $674.2
million for the Navy TAO(X) Oiler Shipbuilding Program from the
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account to the National
Defense Sealift Fund, Navy account.
Naval electric weapons systems fielding plan
The committee is aware that the Navy has been pursuing
development and operational demonstration of a number of
electric weapons systems, including both directed energy
systems and electromagnetic railguns. This class of electric
weapons has the potential to provide revolutionary new
capabilities for Navy platforms, including increased range,
increased safety, and deeper magazines than conventional
weapons. The committee believes that such systems will be
important in the future to counter cost-imposing strategies in
an anti-access environment where swarms of low-cost weapons
could be used to overwhelm higher-cost, limited numbers of
defensive weapons. However, as the Navy continues to pursue
increasing power and decreasing size for such weapons, the
committee believes that the Navy should also be considering how
to field and integrate such systems into future naval platforms
in order to facilitate successful transition from the
laboratory to the fleet.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to develop a plan for fielding electric weapon systems within
the Department of the Navy for both the current and future
fleet, and to provide a briefing on the results of this plan to
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2016. As part
of this plan, the Secretary of the Navy shall detail proposals
for the allocation of the requisite power and space for the
fielding of electric weapons systems, such as the Laser Weapons
System, electromagnetic railgun, or other similar systems
currently in development for the current and future fleet.
Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement
The Navy's Ohio-class replacement program is intended to
replace the current fleet of existing Ohio-class ballistic
missile submarines. The Navy plans to procure 12 submarines to
replace the 14 existing Ohio-class submarines, at an estimated
total program cost of over $95.00 billion in fiscal year 2015
dollars. The Navy plans to begin procuring the lead ship in the
class starting in fiscal year 2021, with detail design planned
for 2017. The Navy has recognized that given the investment
requirements associated with the Ohio-class replacement
program, it will face serious resource challenges starting in
fiscal year 2020. The Navy is currently in the early design
phase of this program and is investigating various cost
reduction efforts, such as an early reduction of requirements
and ongoing efforts to identify mature technologies that can be
leveraged from other submarine and ship programs. The
Government Accountability Office has reported in the past on
the importance of attaining key knowledge early in shipbuilding
programs in order to reduce the risk of future cost growth and
schedule delays.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 1, 2016, on the Ohio-class
replacement program, which should include the following
specific elements:
(1) The feasibility of the Navy's planned technical
approaches to meeting identified performance requirements;
(2) The maturity of the technologies identified for the
Ohio-class replacement, including the development of a new
nuclear reactor;
(3) The status of prototyping efforts to reduce technical
risk in advance of lead ship construction;
(4) The readiness and capacity of the industrial base to
design and build the submarines and the availability of any
unique materials necessary for submarine construction; and
(5) Any risk in the Navy's planned acquisition strategy for
the class.
Shipbuilding and industrial base
The committee remains concerned about the health of the
non-nuclear surface combatant industrial base. While the Navy
public shipyards are expanding to meet significant workload
increases associated with the growth of unplanned Nimitz-class
carrier work and the nuclear undersea warfare industrial base
is programmed to increase their capacity with the introduction
of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine replacement
program beginning in fiscal year 2019, the committee notes that
a limited shipbuilding and conversion Navy account may
disproportionately and irrevocably impact the non-nuclear
surface combatant industrial base. Some of these non-nuclear
surface combatant industrial base partners are reviewing
significant reductions in the workload unless a concurrent
increase in their work effort is programmed. The committee
notes that the continued ship design and construction of LPD-
28, continued construction of two Arleigh Burke-class
destroyers and three Littoral Combat Ships, and the advance
procurement associated with Afloat Forward Staging Base and the
replacement amphibious warship (LX(R)), will serve to partially
mitigate the dearth of workload programmed at the non-nuclear
surface combatant shipyards; but the committee believes that a
significant infusion of additional naval focus in ship
construction is necessary to sustain the current industrial
base.
The committee notes that the administration has offered a
number of initiatives to help mitigate this shortfall including
an innovative contracting method that places certain amphibious
and auxiliary ships under a contract to better sustain the
industrial base.
The committee believes that continued long-term, multiyear
procurement and block buy contracts are integral to sustaining
the overall industrial base. The committee has provided a
multitude of such authorities for a variety of these ship
classes to sustain this effort and provide a stable industrial
base. The committee encourages the Department of the Navy to
continue innovative contracting efforts and workload agreements
that focus on the non-nuclear surface combatant industrial base
to ensure its long-term health and viability as a national
security asset.
USS John F. Kennedy two-phase acquisition strategy
The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy has
prepared a two-phase acquisition strategy to support the
delivery of the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) that would be
concurrent with the inactivation of the USS Nimitz (CVN 68).
This strategy would complete the hull, mechanical and
electrical construction work (phase I) and then after a planned
incremental availability, would install relevant shipboard
combat systems and electronics during another availability
(phase II). The Navy has indicated that this two-phase
acquisition strategy will reduce construction costs, increase
flexibility in the schedule, provide an opportunity to install
a lower-cost radar solution, and preempt required obsolescence
management in the first planned incremental availability. The
committee is concerned, however, that this two-phase strategy
may unnecessarily extend the USS John F. Kennedy fleet
induction timeline by 18 months and increase costs as a result
of extended overhead and inflationary losses.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2016, about the two-phase acquisition strategy. The
report shall include an assessment of conducting the proposed
phase II work concurrent with the phase I USS John F. Kennedy
effort, and assess the cost and inflationary implications
associated with the proposed and concurrent work options.
Virginia Payload Module
The committee notes the retirement of the Ohio-class guided
missile submarine in the 2020s will cause a significant
shortfall in the strike capacity of the undersea forces. In
response to the pending retirement of these guided missile
submarines, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)
supported the inclusion of a Virginia Payload Module (VPM) to
partially offset the strike loss.
The committee supports the JROC determination to
incorporate VPM into the Virginia-class submarine, but is
concerned that the introduction period of VPM be based on a one
per year build strategy during the 2020s. The committee notes
that the tables accompanying the 30-year shipbuilding plan
include a Virginia-class build rate that varies between one and
two per year during the 2020s. The committee is perplexed by
the Navy decision to not incorporate VPM into every Block V
Virginia-class submarine and believes that this inconsistent
build rate suboptimizes the overall development of this
important capability.
The committee supports the expeditious development of this
capability consistent with the delivery of every Block V
Virginia-class submarine.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $6.61
billion for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends
authorization of $6.72 billion, an increase of $111.5 million,
for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Other Procurement, Navy program are identified in division D of
this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Aegis refurbishment and ship modernization
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy has a
significant challenge associated with the modernization of the
destroyer and cruiser force structure. Specifically, the
software and hardware configurations for the Aegis weapon
system of the in-service destroyers and cruisers are challenged
to keep pace with current and future threats. The plethora of
over ten Aegis software baselines and inability to focus
modernization efforts undermine the Navy's large surface
combatants' relevancy through their expectant service lives.
The committee supports options to improve the capability of the
in-service Aegis fleet by updating the Aegis computer program
configurations of the ships to an Integrated Air and Missile
Defense (IAMD) capability to include refurbishing and
modernizing the SPY-I radar hardware of the ships. The
committee believes computer program updates are cost effective,
performance-enhancing ways of deploying the proven Aegis Common
Source Library across the Flight I, II and IIA destroyers, to
include reusing existing computing equipment where prudent to
reduce cost and increase operational availability. There is
also operational utility in merging legacy anti-air warfare and
ballistic missile defense Aegis computer programs aboard Flight
I and II destroyers.
With respect to the SPY-I radar improvements, the committee
also believes that a multitude of options are available to the
Navy that should provide improvements to sensor coverage, raid
capacity, flexibility in ship stationing, and target
discrimination, including hardware changes, that can be
accomplished pier-side in order to reduce cost and increase
operational availability. Finally, in order to reduce cost and
increase operational availability, the committee is supportive
of Aegis hardware changes that do not considerably alter
current ship configuration (i.e. deckhouse design) and that can
be accomplished within acceptable margins for space, weight and
power and cooling.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to
prepare a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the act:
(a) An overview of the Aegis in service options that are
being considered to modernize Aegis computer program
configurations and SPY-I radar hardware;
(b) For each option being considered in (a), the report
shall include the cost and implementation data associated with
each option; affordability and risk assessments; and any other
supporting analyses the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency consider appropriate.
Air and Missile Defense Radar
The committee understands that the Navy Air and Missile
Defense Radar (AMDR) is designed to be fully scalable and
modular to support a variety of shipboard radar applications on
a variety of platforms. The committee further understands that
the flexibility in the design of AMDR could also provide the
foundation for land based applications.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February
1, 2016, on the Department of the Navy's plan to utilize the
AMDR investment across existing and future platforms in the
fleet. The briefing shall also include options that the
Secretary is considering to exploit AMDR scalability in other
service radar acquisitions to realize greater affordability
through economies of scale.
Destroyer modernization
The budget request contained $364.2 million in Other
Procurement, Navy for destroyer modernization.
The committee notes that one destroyer combat system
modernization, valued at $60.0 million, was eliminated in the
budget request and that a total of five destroyer
modernizations were eliminated across the Future Years Defense
Program. The committee is concerned that the Secretary of the
Navy has applied insufficient resources toward modernization
efforts and that a dearth of capabilities will result when
compared against needed capabilities outlined in the most
recent Navy Force Structure Assessment.
Therefore, the committee recommends $424.2 million, an
increase of $60.0 million, for an additional destroyer
modernization.
Littoral Combat Ship simulation training
The committee notes the significant cost savings, increase
in fidelity of training, and improved operational readiness
rates that are achievable through the use of game-based
immersive virtual ship training environments (IVSE), as is
being developed for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The
committee also notes that the Navy intends to delay funding for
this LCS courseware developments that may provide near-term
efficiencies and longer-term operational cost-savings.
The committee believes that IVSE is integral to initial
training initiatives and concurrency training in order to
ensure mission readiness for the crews of the LCS squadron. The
committee also believes IVSE may not only expand the LCS multi-
mission training profile, but that it may also provide
opportunities for expansion to aircraft maintenance and other
vessel training. The committee would support opportunities that
expand IVSE mission training to additional platform training
programs that may include aviation, surface, and subsurface
operation and maintenance virtual training environments.
Radar Obsolescence and Availability Recovery Upgrades
The budget request contains $11.757 million for Radar
Obsolescence and Availability Recovery upgrades to convert one
AN/SPS-48E radar system to the AN/SPS-48G configuration on
aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. The committee
notes that, since its inception in 2005, Navy officials have
repeatedly cited this upgrade program as a high priority, as
the AN/SPS-48G configuration allows for operations under
dynamic threat conditions, improves operational availability,
and reduces ownership costs. The committee further notes that
part of this plan's effectiveness has been the ability to order
and execute three kits per year, providing a better price for
the Navy and coinciding with planned servicing schedules for
the fleet.
The committee is concerned that the reduction from three
AN/SPS-48G kits to one kit in fiscal year 2016 will increase
the unit cost of this program and delay the availability of
this upgrade throughout the fleet. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives not later than
August 31, 2015 as to: (1) the unit cost impact due to a
reduction from three AN/SPS-48G units to one as proposed in the
Fiscal Year 2016 budget request; (2) the approximate date at
which the Navy anticipates completing its upgrade to the AN/
SPS-48G radar at rates of one unit per year versus three units
per year; and (3) any capability gaps and vulnerabilities to
large surface combatants due to using the legacy AN/SPS-48E
radar instead of the AN/SPS-48G. This report may contain a
classified annex.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $1.13
billion for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends
authorization of $1.16 billion, an increase of $37.5 million,
for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Garrison Mobile Engineering Equipment
The budget request contained $1.4 million for procurement
of Garrison Mobile Engineering Equipment.
The committee understands this program procures commercial
construction and engineering equipment, such as graders,
backhoes, cranes, and other construction equipment. The
committee notes that the Marine Corps has initiated a program
for precision upgrades for Garrison Mobile Engineering
Equipment that would consist of competitively awarded contracts
to upgrade current systems with global positioning system grade
control systems and laser-leveling survey sets. The committee
understands these upgrades could provide for better
performance, reduced time to conduct missions, and fuel
savings, as well as reduce Marine construction engineers'
exposure to enemy fire in combat conditions. The committee
believes additional investment for these precision upgrades
would provide for improved capability for current engineering
equipment, and provide for increased force protection for
deployed Marine construction engineers. The committee
encourages the Marine Corps to continue to invest in this
capability portfolio.
The committee recommends $1.4 million, the full amount of
the request, for procurement of Garrison Mobile Engineering
Equipment.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $15.65
billion for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $15.94 billion, an increase of
$290.5 million, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
A-10 aircraft
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force
plans to retire 164 A-10 aircraft in fiscal year 2016. For
fiscal year 2015, the Department of the Air Force proposed the
retirement of 100 A-10 aircraft and in H.R. 4435, the Howard
P.``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015, as reported by the House Committee on Armed
Services, the committee included a provision that would
prohibit the use of funds authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Defense to be obligated or expended to retire A-
10 aircraft. The committee notes that since last year, A-10
aircraft have been deployed for combat in Operation Inherent
Resolve and to Europe as part of theater security packages. The
committee continues to believe that the capabilities provided
by the A-10 including persistent, effective, and precise close
air support; interdiction; airborne forward air control; combat
search and rescue; and strike control and reconnaissance, are
critical to meet national security requirements. The committee
further notes that with the proposed retirement of the 164 A-10
aircraft in fiscal year 2016, the Department expects to be 181
fighter aircraft short of its 2,000-aircraft fighter
requirement, and the committee believes that retiring 164 A-10
aircraft in fiscal year 2016 presents an unacceptable capacity
risk.
Air National Guard wildfire assistance
The committee notes that the U.S. Global Change Research
Program has determined that the frequency of large wildfires
and the length of the fire season have increased substantially
in recent decades. The committee acknowledges that the U.S.
Geological Survey Federal Fire Occurrence Database indicates
that the occurrences of catastrophic wildfires in the United
States are more prevalent in the western half of the country.
Air National Guard units flying C-130 aircraft equipped with
Modular Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS) have been an
integral part of wildfire suppression, saving not only property
but lives. The committee acknowledges that as catastrophic
wildfires continue to grow in severity, it is important to
provide the assistance of our Air National Guard. The committee
believes that MAFFS should be located in positions that
maximize the effectiveness of MAFFS units consistent with the
highest probability of risk for the United States.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to prepare a brief to the House Committee on Armed
Services by September 1, 2015 that assess the locations of C-
130 MAFFS units. Such a briefing should provide a listing of
the current United States Air Force units, their utilization
rates, and a future force allocation determination that most
efficiently utilizes the MAFFS units. This briefing shall
specifically assess opportunities to expand coverage of MAFFS
units in the western United States.
Air refueling recapitalization strategy
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
continues to develop a long-range plan to replace the KC-10
Extender and KC-135 Stratotanker fleets with the KC-46A
Pegasus, as well as the KC-Y and KC-Z programs. The committee
strongly reiterates the importance of maintaining our nation's
robust air-refueling capability in a current fiscal environment
that has required our forces to be more agile and rapidly
deployable. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to brief the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives by September 30, 2015 on the Air
Force's long-range air refueling recapitalization plans,
including the Air Force's strategy to meet air refueling
demands specific to the Asia-Pacific area of responsibility.
Battlefield airborne communications node
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force's
battlefield airborne communication node (BACN) program was
developed to meet critical communications needs and was fielded
through rapid acquisition authorities to support urgent
operational requirements. The committee further notes that BACN
continues to act as a critical communications and data relay
system, flying on EQ-4B and E-11A aircraft not only in support
of Operation Freedom's Sentinel, but also throughout the U.S.
Central Command's area of responsibility and elsewhere in
support of operational requirements.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee encouraged the Secretary of
the Air Force to transition BACN to a traditional program of
record. The committee remains concerned that the potential
decline of Overseas Contingency Operations funding in the
future and no clear plan to transition BACN to a traditional
program of record may place the program at risk, and that
previous investments as well as operational experience may be
lost. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Air Force to develop a plan to transition BACN to a base budget
program of record in order to meet current operational needs,
as well as anticipated future requirements across theaters to
ensure that this capability is maintained in the Department of
the Air Force for the long-term.
C-130 modernization plan
The budget request contained $8.5 million for procurement
of C-130 modifications but included no funds for the T-56 3.5
engine modification or for the C-130 eight-bladed propeller
upgrade. The T-56 3.5 engine modification lowers fuel
consumption, improves performance, and improves engine life,
and the eight-bladed propeller upgrade improves the thrust of
the C-130's engine.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee expressed a concern that
the Department of the Air Force has not been taking actions to
ensure that the C-130H aircraft fleet is being upgraded with
modifications that address obsolescence, diminishing
manufacturing sources, and increased operations and sustainment
costs. The committee notes that for fiscal year 2016, the C-
130H modernization program includes a center wing box
replacement program and a program to address certain airspace
compliance concerns. The committee supports this modernization
program and encourages the Air Force to address cockpit
modifications required to mitigate obsolescence and diminishing
manufacturing sources. The committee believes that a
comprehensive program should be developed to ensure that the C-
130H has a service life through 2040 as currently planned.
The committee notes that the report of the 2014 Quadrennial
Defense Review states that the Department of the Air Force will
maintain 300 combat-coded C-130H and C-130J aircraft in the
tactical airlift fleet inventory to support requirements and
the objectives of the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. The
committee further notes that the Department plans to divest C-
130 aircraft in the Future Years Defense Program so that the
tactical airlift fleet is reduced to 308, and the committee
believes that the Department of the Air Force inventory of C-
130 aircraft should not be less than 308 aircraft.
To provide for improved C-130H propulsion performance,
reliability, and efficiency, the committee recommends $71.7
million for C-130 modifications, an increase of $33.2 million
for the T-56 3.5 engine modification and an increase of $30.0
million for the C-130 eight-bladed propeller upgrade.
C-130H modernization
The committee is encouraged that the Chief of Staff of the
Air Force has proposed a plan that finally addresses the
committee's longstanding concern for the modernization of C-
130H aircraft that reside primarily in the National Guard and
Reserve components of the Department of the Air Force. The
Department of the Air Force has briefed the committee on
multiple occasions on a new plan, which is being referred to as
the Avionics and Modernization Program (AMP) Increments 1 and 2
that appears to address many of the committee's concerns.
However, the committee remains concerned that the plan's
timeline for implementation may still leave some C-130H
aircraft non-compliant with future airspace requirements and
still susceptible to increased diminishing manufacturing
sources (DMS) and obsolescence issues. Specifically, the
proposed timeline proposes to complete certain Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) compliance concerns by 2022, two years
after FAA direction, requiring non-compliant aircraft to seek
waivers or limit flight operations. Additionally, the AMP
increment 2 only supports eight aircraft modernizations per
year which also does not appear to support a fleet viability
requirement.
The committee supports an acceleration of the modernization
effort both in terms of meeting FAA compliance by the 2020
deadline and acceleration of the increment 2 modernization
plan. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to submit a report on the implementation of C-130H AMP
Increments 1 and 2 to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2016. At a minimum, this report should address:
(1) The timeline for implementation of both AMP Increments
1 and 2;
(2) An assessment to accelerate AMP Increment 1 to ensure
all C-130H aircraft are compliant with all airspace
requirements by 2020 to include the possibility of using
existing contracting offices such as the Rapid Acquisition
Office to accelerate these upgrades;
(3) An assessment to accelerate the build rate for AMP
Increment 2 in order to address future DMS and obsolescence
issues; and
(4) Any plans for recapitalization of Air National Guard
and Air Force Reserve C-130 aircraft.
The committee understands that the Department of the Air
Force will require additional resources to begin implementing
this new plan and therefore recommends $10.0 million for C-130
AMP, an increase of $10.0 million.
EC-130H Compass Call aircraft
The budget request contained $68.4 million for EC-130H
Compass Call aircraft modifications. The EC-130H Compass Call
aircraft is the Department of the Air Force's wide-area
coverage airborne electronic attack and offensive counter
information weapon system. The EC-130H counters adversary
communications, information processing, navigation, radar
systems, and improvised explosive devices.
The committee notes that the EC-130H Compass Call aircraft
has demonstrated a powerful effect on enemy command and control
networks in multiple military operations, including in the
Republic of Kosovo, Republic of Haiti, Republic of Panama,
Republic of Iraq, Republic of Serbia, and Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, and is consistently in demand with all unified
commands. However, due to fiscal constraints, the committee
further notes that the Department of the Air Force plans to
divest 8 of its 16-aircraft fleet of EC-130H Compass Call
aircraft in fiscal year 2016. The committee believes that
divesting eight EC-130H Compass Call aircraft would present
unacceptable risk to ongoing and future combat operations. The
committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff included the
restoration of eight EC-130H Compass Call aircraft among his
unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2016.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $97.1 million, an
increase of $28.7 million, for EC-130H Compass Call aircraft
modifications.
F-15 and F-16 spare engine shortfall
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee expressed concern with the
Department of the Air Force's shortfall of up to 24 spare F-100
engines for F-16 and F-15 aircraft. The committee notes that
the Department of the Air Force has yet to take any action to
mitigate this shortfall and remains concerned that the
Department has not allocated the funds necessary to fulfill the
validated engine shortfall in the F-15 and F-16 fleets. The
committee understands that the production line for these
engines will begin to close in early fiscal year 2017, and that
as a result, the Department of the Air Force has little time
remaining to procure the engines. With these aircraft expected
to continue to play a key role in the Air Force until the F-35
is fielded in sufficient numbers, the committee is concerned
about the Department's ability to address engine requirements
without action on this issue. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Department of the Air Force to evaluate the
possible utility of a reprogramming request to procure at least
some of the 24 engines needed to meet validated spare engine
requirements.
F-16 block 40/50 mission training center
The budget request did not contain any funds for other
aircraft support equipment and facilities, or for the
procurement of an F-16 block 40/50 mission training center for
the Air National Guard.
An F-16 block 40/50 mission training center (MTC) is a
distributed mission operations-capable flight simulator for F-
16 block 40 and 50 weapons systems. Each MTC includes high-
fidelity simulator cockpits, instructor operator stations, a
threat server, and briefing and debriefing capability. Each MTC
is also capable of linking to geographically distributed high-
fidelity combat and combat support training devices including
command and control and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems. This capability allows the warfighters
at home station to exercise and train at the operational and
strategic levels of war, as well as conduct networked unit-
level training. The committee notes that the F-16 block 40/50
MTC allows F-16 block 40 and block 50 pilots to train in
scenarios that are either impossible or too expensive to
conduct in home-station flying training, and believes that the
MTC significantly improves F-16 pilot skill and readiness to
perform actual combat missions with increased effectiveness.
The committee understands that F-16 block 40/50 MTCs are
currently planned for Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Shaw AFB, and
Holloman AFB in the continental United States. The committee
further understands that other F-16 block 40 or 50 pilots
located in the continental United States would need to travel
to one of the three MTC locations, and believes an additional
MTC would save travel costs and make the F-16 block 40/50 MTC
more available to Active Duty, Reserve, and Air National Guard
F-16 block 40 and 50 pilots, resulting in enhanced readiness.
Consequently, the committee recommends $24.7 million for
other aircraft support equipment and facilities, an increase of
$24.7 million, for procurement of an additional MTC for the Air
National Guard.
F-35 aircraft program
The F-35 aircraft program is the largest acquisition
program within the Department of Defense, with a current
planned procurement of 2,443 aircraft for the Department of the
Navy and the Department of the Air Force to meet fifth
generation U.S. fighter requirements. The committee continues
to strongly support the requirement for fifth generation
fighter aircraft due to projected increases in the
effectiveness and quantities of threat anti-aircraft ground
systems and adversary aircraft and their associated air-to-air
weapons. The committee believes that without advanced fifth
generation aircraft, the United States may be significantly
limited in its ability to project power in the future.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy
anticipates a strike fighter aircraft shortfall of about 134
aircraft in 2020, with an average shortfall of about 100
aircraft between fiscal years 2015 and 2020. Due to the
constraints of the decreased budget authority contained in the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), the committee
notes that the Department of the Navy has deferred 16 F-35C
aircraft out of the Future Years Defense Program, and believes
that this deferral will result in a higher strike fighter
shortfall, as well as a reduction in strike fighter
capabilities. The F-35C is also planned for an 8,000-hour life
span, which is 33 percent longer than legacy aircraft, and the
committee believes that the F-35's longer life should also help
improve the strike fighter shortfall. Accordingly, the
committee urges the Department of the Navy to restore the 16 F-
35Cs deferred in this budget request when it submits the budget
request for fiscal year 2017. The committee also notes that the
Commandant of the Marine Corps has included an additional six
F-35Bs among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2016, and
elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends an increase for
this purpose and believes that this increase will also help
alleviate the Department of the Navy strike fighter shortfall.
The F-35 program is approximately 60 percent through its
flight test program, which is planned to be completed in the
first quarter of fiscal year 2018. At a hearing held by the
House Committee on Armed Services' Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces on April 14, 2015, the F-35 program executive
officer testified that the F-35 program is making solid and
steady progress on all aspects of the program. The committee
notes that the F-35 program executive officer has identified
the software development for the final development software
block, known as block 3F, as an area with some risk remaining
which could result in a 4- to 6-month delay in delivery of
software block 3F, but that this delay will not affect the
Department of the Navy's initial operational capability for the
F-35C in 2018. The committee continues to monitor software
progress. Also at the hearing on April 14, 2015, the F-35
program manager mentioned the F-35's F135 engine as a
challenging area subsequent to the June 23, 2014, engine fire
and failure at Eglin Air Force Base, and noted that the program
has yet to identify a long-term repair for this engine failure.
The committee shares this concern and consequently recommends a
provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to enter
into a contract with a federally funded research and
development center to conduct an assessment of the F135 engine
program, including a thorough assessment of the F135 engine
failure, and to submit a report containing such assessment by
March 16, 2016. The committee further notes that at the hearing
held on April 14, 2015, the F-35 program manager testified that
the price of F-35s have continued to decline with each
successive lot. The committee remains pleased with these price
reductions, and discussions with F-35 program officials suggest
that the budget request for procurement of F-35s is slightly
higher than required for procurement of the F-35s in fiscal
year 2016. Accordingly, elsewhere in this Act, the committee
recommends reductions to each of the three variants to account
for lower than anticipated costs when these aircraft are
procured.
The committee has also identified funds for development of
the future block 4 modifications which could be reduced for
fiscal year 2016, and discussions with F-35 program officials
revealed that some of the funds requested for development of
the block 4 modification are excess to need for fiscal year
2016. Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee
recommends reductions for the block 4 development program. The
committee does not intend for these reductions to affect the
development of the F-35 dual-capable aircraft.
Joint surveillance and target attack system sustainment report
The E-8C aircraft was developed for ground surveillance,
targeting, and battle management. Air battle managers onboard
the E-8C joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS)
aircraft use its wide-area ground surveillance radar to build
situation awareness and identify targets which are passed to
strike assets or cross-cued with other intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms.
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force
plans a JSTARS recapitalization program which would replace the
aging E-8C aircraft with a modern, more efficient, and capable
aircraft and mission systems, with an initial operational
capability of 2023 and a full operational capability in
subsequent years. Until the JSTARS replacement aircraft attains
full operational capability, the committee believes that the
current E-8C JSTARS aircraft will require a modest amount of
sustainment funding, especially to address the issue of
diminishing manufacturing sources.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 15, 2016, which describes all actions
required to avoid degradation to the performance of the E-8C
radar and fleet, each upgrade required to meet minimum
warfighter requirements for combat operations and to pace
evolving threats during this period, and the Secretary's plan,
schedule and budgets to accomplish this objective between
fiscal years 2016 and the time that the JSTARS replacement
aircraft achieves full operational capability.
KC-10
The committee notes that in executing any possible long-
term KC-10 divesture strategy, the Department of Defense must
ensure that the nation's aerial refueling capabilities are not
placed at risk by ensuring critical mission taskings remain
unfilled. The committee also notes specifically that to meet
current and future threats and missions, the unique KC-10
capability to execute a strategic air bridge must not be
compromised, whether an Arctic, Pacific, or transatlantic air
route. The committee strongly reiterates the importance of
maintaining our nation's robust aerial refueling capability in
the current fiscal environment that requires our forces to be
more agile and rapidly deployable.
KC-46A quarterly report
The committee supports the current acquisition strategy
associated with the KC-46A aircraft. Therefore, the committee
directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to discontinue the quarterly
reporting associated with the KC-46A aircraft required in the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
RQ-4 and U-2 high-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capabilities
Over the past 3 years, the committee has supported
retaining both the RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 and U-2 Dragon
Lady for the high-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) mission. The committee notes that the
Department of the Air Force has determined that Global Hawk
operating costs have decreased while the Global Hawk Block 30
fleet has flown an increased number of hours compared to
previous years in support of the combatant commanders.
While the committee was pleased that the Air Force
requested funding for both the RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 and
the U-2 in the budget request for fiscal year 2016, the
committee is concerned about the possibility that the
Department of the Air Force still plans to retire the U-2 fleet
in fiscal year 2019. While the committee realizes that the
Department can never fully meet the ISR demand of combatant
commanders, reasonable and necessary ISR requests appear very
likely to go unfilled if the current high-altitude airborne ISR
collection capabilities of the U-2 are terminated. The
committee also notes that section 133 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81)
limits the retirement of U-2 aircraft until equal or greater
ISR capability is available to commanders of the combatant
commands.
Finally, the committee supports the Department of the Air
Force efforts to upgrade the Global Hawk Block 30 aircraft to
meet the requirements of the combatant commanders, but notes
that this will take several years. In light of the known gaps,
the committee has concerns with any plan that will leave the
combatant commanders with less overall capacity and capability
than they have today.
UH-1N replacement program
The budget request contained $2.5 million for the UH-1N
replacement program.
The UH-1N replacement program would replace the Department
of the Air Force UH-1N fleet of 62 aircraft by acquiring a non-
developmental commercial or U.S. Government vertical lift
aircraft. The committee understands that the current 47-year-
old UH-1N aircraft fleet fails to meet speed, range, payload,
and defensive system requirements, and that modifications to
the existing fleet will not enable the UH-1N to meet mission
requirements. Accordingly, the committee believes the UH-1N
replacement program is timely. The committee notes that the
Department of the Air Force is currently assessing requirements
for the UH-1N replacement, conducting market research, and
developing UH-1N replacement acquisition alternatives. The
committee further notes that the Department of the Air Force
has selected the HH-60W for its combat rescue helicopter, and
believes that procurement of currently produced UH-60Ms for the
UH-1N replacement could provide significant commonality with
the HH-60W, reducing procurement and life-cycle costs.
The committee recommends $2.5 million, the full amount of
the request, for the UH-1N replacement program.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $1.75
billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $1.73 billion, a decrease of $20.0
million, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $2.98
billion for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $2.98 billion, full funding of the
request, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Missile Procurement, Air Force program are identified in
division D of this Act.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $18.27
billion for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee
recommends authorization of $18.29 billion, an increase of
$22.9 million, for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Other Procurement, Air Force program are identified in division
D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Air Force Fire Emergency Services and Personal Protective Equipment
The committee understands the most recent contract award
for Air Force Fire Emergency Services (FES) Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) was canceled in its entirety due to the need
for the Air Force to take corrective action under a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) protest. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services by July 1, 2015 that
details the current acquisition strategy for Air Force FES PPE.
The briefing should provide the justification for how the Air
Force determined that the Defense Logistics Agency Fire and
Emergency Services Equipment Tailored Logistics Support Program
contract does not meet the requirements of the Air Force and
discuss why the Air Force made the determination for setting
aside for small business manufacturing meets the requirements
of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.502-2(b).
Civil engineers construction, surveying, and mapping equipment
The budget request contained $9.1 million for base procured
equipment. Of this amount, no funds were requested for
modernization of equipment used by base civil engineer units or
Red Horse squadron (RHS) engineer units.
Red Horse squadrons provide the Air Force with a highly
mobile civil engineering response force to support contingency
and special operations worldwide. The committee understands
current civil engineer equipment has been discontinued for
approximately 5 years and maintenance requirements for this
legacy equipment could potentially be cost prohibitive. The
committee notes that to date, 66 percent of existing equipment
is known to be discontinued, with some individual components
ranging as high as 94 percent. The committee is aware that the
Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Operations Directorate (AFCEC/
CO) is considering a long-term replacement and modernization
strategy for legacy equipment and software across the Future
Years Defense Program, and notes the AFCEC/CO has identified an
urgent unfunded requirement to support the initial
modernization strategy for modern civil engineering equipment.
The committee believes additional funds would help to
accelerate the modernization of legacy civil engineering
equipment. The committee expects these funds would be obligated
under full and open competition to provide the best-value
equipment to Air Force base civil engineer units and RHS units.
The committee recommends $13.1 million, an increase of $4.0
million, to competitively procure modernized engineer equipment
and address any unfunded requirements.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $5.13
billion for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends
authorization of $5.26 billion, an increase of $132.4 million,
for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in division D
of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Procurement of Standard Missile-3 block IB interceptors
The budget request included $548.9 million for procurement
of Standard Missile-3, block IB interceptors (including
canisters and advanced procurement funding).
The committee is aware of the significant demand amongst
the combatant commanders for inventory of the Standard Missile-
3 block IB missile interceptor. The committee is also aware
that because of recent flight and ground test challenges, the
Department of Defense has decided to focus on continuing
initial lot procurement of block IB missiles in fiscal year
2016 and focusing on multi-year procurement, advanced
procurement, and full rate production in subsequent years.
The committee has concerns about continuing procurement of
block IB interceptors before resolution of the current
technical uncertainties, though the committee notes that the
planned flight tests of the block IB missile to prove out the
technical fix will occur before any missiles procured in fiscal
year 2016 would actually be delivered to the Missile Defense
Agency. The committee has also been assured that the Missile
Defense Agency will not take delivery of fiscal year 2015
procurement block IB interceptors until the fix has been proved
out by flight test.
The committee is also troubled that the technical
challenges in the block IB program are leading to a higher
price per unit for missiles the combatant commanders need. The
committee expects the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to
negotiate for the lowest possible per unit price, and to ensure
all appropriate contractual remedies are used to offset the
costs of these challenges.
The committee recommends $521.6 million, a decrease of
$27.3 million, for procurement of Standard Missile-3, block IB
interceptors (including canisters). The committee notes that
elsewhere in this Act, additional funding is recommended for
Aegis BMD testing related to the block IB proof of concept.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for procurement
at the levels identified in section 4101 of division D of this
Act.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Limitation on Availability of Funds for AN/TPQ-53 Radar
Systems
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
25 percent of the funds for AN/TPQ-53 radar systems until 30
days after the date on which the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology submits to the
congressional defense committees a review of the current
delegation of acquisition authority to the Program Executive
Officer for Missiles and Space.
Section 112--Prioritization of Upgraded UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopters
within Army National Guard
This section would require the Chief, National Guard Bureau
to issue guidance within 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act that prioritizes UH-60 helicopter
upgrades within the Army National Guard to those units with the
highest flight hour aircraft and highest utilization rates.
This section would also require the Chief to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees within 30 days after
issuing such guidance that describes such guidance.
Section 113--Report on Options to Accelerate Replacement of UH-60A
Blackhawk Helicopters of Army National Guard
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2016, containing detailed options for the potential
acceleration of the replacement of all UH-60A helicopters of
the Army National Guard.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Modification to Multiyear Procurement Authority for
Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers and Associated Systems
This section would amend section 123(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) and provide authority to the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear contract for a Flight III destroyer, in
addition to the existing multiyear authority for a Flight IIA
destroyer.
The committee supports the changes proposed by the
Secretary of the Navy to integrate the Air and Missile Defense
Radar in the Arleigh Burke class destroyer and the inclusion of
the Flight III guided missile destroyer into the current
multiyear authority. However, the committee is concerned about
the Secretary of the Navy's strategy to implement an
Engineering Change Proposal to fundamentally change integral
elements of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer multiyear
procurement without congressional authorization. When the
initial multiyear procurement was authorized by section 123 of
Public Law 112-239, the authorization was limited to an
``Arleigh Burke class Flight IIA guided missile destroyer.''
The committee includes this provision because it believes that
implementation of a Flight III destroyer without an explicit
congressional authorization would violate section 123 of Public
Law 112-239, by constituting a cardinal change in the scope of
the initial authorization.
Section 122--Procurement Authority for Aircraft Carrier Programs
This section would provide economic order quantity
authority for the construction of two Ford class aircraft
carriers and incremental funding authority for the nuclear
refueling and complex overhaul of five Nimitz class aircraft
carriers.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 131--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Executive
Communications Upgrades for C-20 and C-37 Aircraft
This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2016 to upgrade the executive communications of
C-20 and C-37 aircraft unless the Secretary of the Air Force
certifies in writing to the congressional defense committees
that such upgrades do not cause such aircraft to exceed any
weight limitations or reduce the operational capability of such
aircraft. This section would also allow the Secretary of the
Air Force to waive the limitation if the Secretary determines
that such a waiver is necessary for the national security of
the United States and notifies the congressional defense
committees of such waiver.
Section 132--Backup Inventory Status of A-10 Aircraft
This section would require that the Secretary of the Air
Force not move more than 18 A-10 aircraft in the Active
Component to backup flying status pursuant to an authorization
made by the Secretary of Defense under section 133(b)(2)(A) of
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
This section would also make a conforming amendment to section
133(b)(2)(A) by striking ``36'' and inserting ``18''.
Section 133--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Retirement of A-
10 Aircraft
This section would prohibit funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2016 for the Department of the Air Force to be obligated
or expended to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage
any A-10 aircraft, before December 31, 2016, except as provided
by section 132; would require the Department of the Air Force
to maintain a minimum of 171 A-10 aircraft designated as
primary mission aircraft inventory; and would prohibit the
Secretary of the Air Force from making any significant
reductions to manning levels with respect to any A-10 aircraft
squadrons or divisions before December 31, 2016. This section
would also require the Secretary of the Air Force to commission
an appropriate entity outside the Department of Defense to
conduct an assessment by September 30, 2016, of the required
capabilities or mission platform to replace the A-10 aircraft
and submit a report on that assessment to the congressional
defense committees.
Section 134--Prohibition on Retirement of EC-130H Aircraft
This section would prohibit funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2016 for the Department of the Air Force to be obligated
or expended to retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage
or on back up flying status any EC-130H aircraft. It would
require the Secretary of the Air Force to commission an
assessment of the required capabilities or mission platform to
replace the EC-130H aircraft, and to submit a report on that
assessment to the congressional defense committees not later
than September 30, 2016. Additionally, this section would
prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from retiring,
preparing to retire, placing in storage or placing on back up
flying status any EC-130H aircraft until 60 days after the
Secretary submits the report on an assessment of the required
capabilities or mission platform to replace the EC-130H
aircraft.
Section 135--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Divestment or
Transfer of KC-10 Aircraft
This section would prohibit funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2016 for the Department of the Air Force to be obligated
or expended to divest or transfer, or prepare to divest or
transfer, any KC-10 aircraft.
Subtitle E--Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters
Section 141--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Joint Battle
Command--Platform
This section would require the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to submit a
report by March 1, 2016, to the congressional defense
committees that addresses the effectiveness, suitability, and
survivability shortfalls of the joint battle command--platform
equipment identified by the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation in the Director's fiscal year 2014 annual report to
Congress. This section would further limit the obligation or
expenditure of 25 percent of the funds for the joint battle
command--platform until 30 days after the Assistant Secretary
submits such a report.
Section 142--Strategy for Replacement of A/MH-6 Mission Enhanced Little
Bird Aircraft to Meet Special Operations Requirements
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a strategy to the congressional defense committees not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
for the replacement of the A/MH-6 Mission Enhanced Little Bird
aircraft to meet requirements particular to special operations
for future rotary-wing, light attack, reconnaissance
requirements.
Section 143--Independent Assessment of United States Combat Logistic
Force Requirements
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and
development center to conduct an assessment of the anticipated
future demands of the combat logistics force ships of the Navy
and the challenges these ships may face when conducting and
supporting future naval operations in contested maritime
environments. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense to submit the assessment to the congressional defense
committees by April 1, 2016.
Section 144--Report on Use of Different Types of Enhanced 5.56mm
Ammunition by the Army and the Marine Corps
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2016, regarding the current use of two different types
of 5.56mm ammunition in combat by the Army and the Marine
Corps. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the
following: (1) an explanation of the reasons for the Army and
the Marine Corps current use of different 5.56mm combat
ammunition; (2) an explanation of the appropriateness,
effectiveness, and suitability issues that may arise from the
use of these two types of ammunition; (3) an explanation of any
additional costs that have resulted from the use of two
different types of 5.56mm combat ammunition by the two
services, if any; (4) an explanation of the future plans, if
any, of the Army or the Marine Corps to eventually transition
back to using one standard 5.56mm combat ammunition round; and
(5) if no such plans exists, an analysis of the potential
benefits of a transition back to a common 5.56mm combat round
in the future, including how long such a transition may take to
occur.
The committee understands that the Army and the Marine
Corps have proceeded on different paths to upgrade 5.56mm
ammunition in terms of both soft tissue damage and penetration
of certain hard materials. As a result, the Army and the Marine
Corps currently use different 5.56mm ammunition in combat, with
the Army using the M855A1 round and the Marine Corps using the
Mk318 Mod 0 round. The committee notes that the military
services appear to have different requirements and a different
perspective on the utility of the two rounds. As a result, the
small arms ammunition logistics system has to maintain two
separate, incompatible inventories of 5.56mm ammunition. In
addition, the committee believes there may be additional costs
to the Department of Defense in procuring two types of
ammunition rather than just one, which it had been doing before
2009. While the current inventory levels of the two rounds is
substantial, with the Marine Corps having more than two million
in stock, this section is intended to encourage the Department
to develop a plan to get back to one standard 5.56mm combat
round.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $69.77 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation. This represents a $6.09
billion increase over the amount authorized for fiscal year
2015.
The committee recommends $68.35 billion, a decrease of
$1.42 billion to the budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
research, development, test, and evaluation program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $6.91 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Army. The committee
recommends $7.02 billion, an increase of $105.5 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army program are
identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Acoustic mixing technology for energetic materials
The committee understands that the Army currently uses low-
frequency, high-intensity sound waves, in a technology called
``acoustic mixing'' during the manufacturing of some munitions.
The committee understands acoustic mixing technology is
currently being used at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP)
where a 5-gallon capacity acoustic batch mixer is being
employed to produce munitions boosters at a cost savings of
$1,000 per unit. The U.S. Air Force demand for this product is
2,500 per month, which should result in an equipment payback of
less than 6 months. The committee notes that MCAAP has embraced
acoustic mixing technology with the intent of utilizing it to
further exploit its usefulness, further increase productivity,
as well as environmental and safety improvements at their
facilities.
The committee believes this technology could have broader
applications and could have the potential to improve industrial
efficiency and productivity throughout the Department of
Defense munitions enterprise. The committee encourages the
Secretary of the Army to continue to evaluate and refine
acoustic mixing technology capabilities.
Active protection system
The budget request contained $55.4 million in PE 63005A for
combat vehicle and automotive advance technology, which
includes funding for Active Protection System (APS) research
and development.
The committee is encouraged that funding for APS research
and development was included in the fiscal year 2016 budget
request. In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, the committee noted that a lack of investment could
soon create a critical capability gap for Army combat vehicles
due to the rapid proliferation of advanced anti-tank guided
missiles and next-generation rocket propelled grenades. The
committee notes that there are numerous types of APS available,
including some that have already been fielded on operational
vehicles in other countries and have performed well in recent
demonstrations. It is crucial the Army keeps momentum going in
this important effort; therefore, the committee encourages the
Army to establish a program of record to ensure APS is
integrated into the Army's combat and tactical vehicle
platforms as soon as practicable based on technology
development and funding. In addition, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 31, 2016, that includes
a description of all currently planned and budgeted activities
that are related to active protection systems.
The committee recommends $55.4 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 63005A for combat vehicle and automotive
advance technology.
Advanced tactical shelters
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense Joint
Committee on Tactical Shelters has identified emerging
requirements for current and future advanced tactical shelters.
Among those is a requirement to provide antimicrobial
protection for tactical medical shelters, as well as for
protection from the adverse effects of electromagnetic
interference and electromagnetic pulse (EMI/EMP). Further, the
committee is aware of an emerging technology process called
cold spray which has the potential to address these two
requirements. Cold spray has proven effective in the
application of copper-based alloys onto touch surfaces in order
to protect against microbial infection in field hospitals.
Similarly, cold spray technology provides a non-destructive
process, currently unavailable through traditional joining
methods, for sealing aluminum joint panels in tactical
shelters, thereby reducing EMI/EMP leakage and infrared
signature, as well as improving energy efficiency. The
committee encourages the Department to continue development of
advanced materials and materials processing approaches such as
cold spray to attempt to meet these requirements.
Army airborne networking radios
The budget request contained $12.9 million in PE 65380A in
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army for the
Airborne, Maritime, Fixed Station (AMF) Joint Tactical Radio
System (JTRS). Of this amount, $6.8 million was requested for
the Small Airborne Link 16 Terminal (SALT) and $6.2 million was
requested for the Small Airborne Networking Radio (SANR).
The committee supports continued fielding of network
capability to Army airborne systems. The committee notes with
concern that both the SALT and SANR programs have been delayed
by 3 years, with milestone C now scheduled for fiscal year
2019. The committee believes that delay in procurement of next-
generation radios for the aerial network tier will require the
Army's airborne platforms to rely on legacy waveforms. As a
result, airborne assets will not be able to leverage the
terrestrial network or an airborne network for increased
situational awareness or connectivity. The committee notes that
the Army is examining interim, competitively awarded, solutions
for both of these systems. The committee supports both the
procurement of effective interim solutions that provide
capability as soon as possible and the potential acceleration
of both the SALT and SANR programs.
The committee recommends $12.9 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 65380A in research, development, test, and
evaluation, Army for the AMF Joint Tactical Radio System.
Army energy efficiency research and development programs
The committee is aware that the Army has numerous research
and development efforts in the area of reducing energy use
across the Army. However, the committee seeks to better
understand the totality of the Army's efforts. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services no later than April 1, 2016
on all Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)
undertaken in the last 5 years on technologies that may improve
the range and endurance of tactical vehicles without increasing
fuel demand. The briefing should also include RDT&E efforts
involving auxiliary power units, batteries, and other engine
technologies for running `hotel' loads and surveillance systems
during silent watch. Finally, the briefing should include
information on any ongoing efforts or future plans for
incorporating these technologies into programs of record or new
acquisitions. For all systems described, the briefing should
identify funding amounts and requirements.
Army Warfighting Assessment and network experimentation activities
The budget request contained $99.2 million in PE 64798A for
Brigade Analysis, Integration and Evaluation.
The committee supports the Army's Force 2025 initiative to
make the Army a more expeditionary force while improving
tactical mobility, lethality, protection, and sustainability.
In addition, the committee supports the Network Integration
Evaluation (NIE) and Army Warfighting Assessment (AWA), which
are required to ensure the Army can attain Force 2025 goals.
The committee believes that the NIE and AWA must continue to be
an integral part of the Army's modernization to ensure future
policies and procurements can successfully be integrated into
the Army's operations. The Army should ensure that NIE and AWA
remain a part of the Army's acquisition, and research,
development, testing, and evaluation processes into the future.
The committee recommends $99.2 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64798A for Brigade Analysis, Integration and
Evaluation.
Ballistic resistant adaptive seating system
The committee understands current helicopter seating
systems (HSS) were designed for primarily limited duration
missions and focused solely on mitigating injuries from hard
landings. The current seating system design did not consider
other areas of concern that could impact the warfighter, such
as increases in flight duration, the long-term effects of poor
ergonomics, whole body vibration, as well as changes in pilot
demographics, to include omitting female pilot anthropomorphic
data. The committee understands the Department of Defense and
the Army are studying current HSS designs and have identified a
need to improve current systems. The committee is aware the
Joint Aircraft Survivability Program Office, the U.S. Army
Aviation Development Directorate--Aviation Applied Technology
Directorate, and industry are now focusing on identifying,
developing, and optimizing new technologies in order to
mitigate or eliminate deficiencies in current HSS performance.
The committee believes the Department should develop ways to
accelerate this technology, which could provide increases in
force protection, survivability, as well as eliminate long-term
disability that is common in rotary wing aviators. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than January 15, 2016, on any plans for the potential
improvement of the HSS.
Composite barrel technology development
The committee has long championed weight reduction
initiatives for individual soldier equipment to include small
arms and mortars. The committee believes that advances in
material technology for small arms and mortar components could
significantly improve overall performance of these weapon
systems. The committee is aware that hybridized advanced
composite barrel systems should be designed to incorporate
high-performance materials such as a polyimide matrix composite
comprising a resin matrix, thermally conductive additives,
thermal management coatings, and continuous high-strength and
high modulus structural fibers. The committees encourages the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology to analyze, design, manufacture, test, and invest in
medium caliber barrels and muzzle brakes that utilize advanced
composite technologies that would increase stiffness, optimize
mass/center of gravity, and increase the life span of the
system. The committee understands this capability could also
provide for increases in accuracy, performance, and lethality
of medium caliber weapon systems such as the M240 medium
machine gun. Additionally, the committee encourages the
continued development of advanced high-temperature resistant
composite technologies for lightweight mortar tubes and
recoilless rifles. The committee believes that with additional
investment these advanced technologies could provide light
infantry units with mortar systems, such as the 81mm mortar
system, with weight reduction, thermal performance, and
longevity that will enable the military services to affordably
maintain overmatch capability on the battlefield as well as
provide growth capacity for these advanced weapon systems.
Detection and threat identification technologies
The committee is aware that the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency continues to have a strong partnership with each of the
military services, as well as with U.S. Special Operations
Command, which has contributed to the development and fielding
of technologies that reduce, counter, and eliminate the threat
of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield
explosive materials. The committee remains concerned about
credible threats posed by state and non-state actors in their
attempts to acquire and weaponize chemical and biological
materials for use against the United States and its allies.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency to continue the genomic research and
development of innovative and emerging detection, threat
identification technologies and medical countermeasures to
ensure prompt transition of validated capabilities to address
the emerging infectious disease threats. The committee
emphasizes the importance of advancing genomic research as a
method to stay ahead of the changing emerging threats from
highly infectious viruses.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2015, on its
efforts to prioritize the prompt transfer of funding to the
U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease to
advance research as it relates to genomics and highly
infectious threats, to include the potential for lightweight,
handheld devices for diagnostics, detection, and analysis.
Fuel system survivability technology and standards
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee directed the Director of the U.S. Army Tank
Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center
(TARDEC) to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees that detailed the status of the Army's evaluation of
occupant centric survivability systems for combat and tactical
vehicles. In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, the committee directed the Director of TARDEC to
brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services on the advisability and feasibility
of establishing objective and threshold survivability
operational requirements for thermal injury prevention in
ground combat and tactical vehicles. The Joint Explanatory
Statement (Committee Print No. 4) accompanying the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 directed the Secretary of the Army to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees that
addresses thermal injury prevention needs to improve occupant
centric survivability systems for combat and tactical vehicles
against overmatching ballistic threats.
Based on information gathered from these required reports
and briefings, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Army to develop operationally realistic survivable fuel system
specifications, as well as develop standards for ground combat
and tactical vehicles that would address fuel containment
technology requirements consistent with vehicle survivability
requirements.
Geo-Enabled Mission Command Enterprise
The committee is aware that the Geo-Enabled Mission Command
Enterprise works to provide access to analytic tools for users
in bandwidth-constrained environments, increasing the
situational awareness of the operational environment in support
of mission planning and operations. However, the committee also
notes that there are currently concerns about the
standardization of how geospatial information is displayed,
creating the potential for confusion during mission planning
and combat operations. The Army is seeking to improve the
display of digital geospatial information in a common manner
across various hardware platforms that are developed by
different organizations in the Army and the committee is also
aware that the Marine Corps is struggling with similar
requirements to rapidly share all-source geospatial information
across the Marine Corps in similar conditions. The committee
encourages exploring potential further investment in
competitively procured commercial geospatial products to
provide a common operating picture and ensure the efficient
exchange of information during critical operations across all
echelons. The committee encourages the Army and the Marine
Corps to work together to the extent practicable in order to
jointly invest in technological solutions to satisfy those like
requirements.
High-resolution 3-D topographic terrain data supporting tactical
operations
The committee is concerned about the continuing lack of
timely, high-resolution topographic terrain data and high
resolution 3D imagery needed by combatant commanders and
tactical operators to plan, train for, and conduct operations
over complex, urban terrain, as well as in dense foliage. The
committee is aware that the Department of Defense currently
relies upon certain space-based capabilities to provide such
data, but that there are limitations in the capacity of those
assets, as well as technical limitations that significantly
hamper collection in certain environments. The committee
believes that in some permissive environments, manned or
unmanned airborne collection could provide the necessary
detail, capacity, timeliness and coverage needed to support
tactical and operational planning. This has been demonstrated
by operational experience in the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, as well as the Republic of Iraq, and
is reinforced by the continuing requests for capability from
joint urgent operational needs statements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to conduct an analysis of the high-resolution 3-D topographic
terrain data requirements to support tactical operations, and
brief the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2015
on the results. This assessment should determine the current
requirements from the combatant commands, as well as a
projection for the required needs across the future year's
defense plan, and compare that to the ability of the current
systems to meet those needs. In instances where the projected
requirements are not being satisfied by the current
capabilities, the Secretary should make recommendations about
how to address such shortfalls.
Human performance research
The committee is aware that ongoing research on human
performance, augmentation and cognitive enhancement is an
important component of a soldier-centric Army strategy for the
future warfighting force. During a time when the Army is being
asked to do more with less, the committee supports initiatives
that aim to improve warfighter's cognitive, physiological,
physical, and nutritional performance. These human performance
dimensions will ensure military overmatch against current
adversaries and emerging threats and align with Army goals and
future requirements for human-soldier performance and
enhancement.
Improvement of human performance also supports the U.S.
Army Capstone Concept's central idea of operational
adaptability by providing a framework to maximize individual
and team performance through the identification, development,
and optimal integration of human capabilities. To this end, the
committee is aware of Army efforts to design and build a
research facility called the Soldier Squad Performance Research
Institute to enhance soldier performance. The committee
encourages the Army to consider locating that facility in a
region containing the best research, development, test, and
evaluation support system, including industrial, academic, and
Federal facilities to support its mission with the necessary
specialized talent in medical research, life science, human
performance science, physical, nutritional, and psychological
research.
Improved Turbine Engine Program
The budget request contained $51.2 million in PE 67139A for
the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP).
The committee continues to support the Army research and
development budget request for ITEP, as well as the acquisition
strategy included in the request. ITEP is a competitive
acquisition program that is designed to develop a more fuel
efficient and powerful engine for the current Black Hawk and
Apache helicopter fleets. This new engine will increase
operational capabilities in high/hot environments, while
reducing operating and support costs. The committee
acknowledges the benefits of improved fuel efficiencies through
lower specific fuel consumption that the ITEP will bring to the
battlefield. In addition, the committee encourages the Army to
prioritize maintenance and sustainment cost savings for ITEP to
ensure the continued affordability of the program.
The committee recommends $51.2 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 67139A for the ITEP program.
Indirect Fire Protection Capability
The committee notes that the Army is planning on
integrating only a single missile as part of the Indirect Fire
Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2 Block 1 program. The
committee is concerned by the lack of funding to assess the
suitability of other interceptors known to have significant
capability to address rocket, artillery, and mortar threats, as
well as other threat classes, to demonstrate the Multi-Mission
Launcher can perform multiple missions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide to the House Committee on Armed Services by January
15, 2016, the Alternate Interceptor Trade Study that was
directed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Logistics, and Technology in 2014. In addition, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2016, that
details the Army's plan and an estimate of required funding to
potentially demonstrate and integrate alternate interceptors on
the Multi-Mission Launcher before milestone B of the IFPC
Increment 2 Block 1 program.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool
The committee is concerned that the Army decided not to
field Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool (JIST)
software after spending more than $10.0 million developing it
in conjunction with the Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). While the committee understands
that the Army intends to use an existing software program
currently resident in the Distributed Common Ground Station-
Army (DCGS-A) program to partially meet the requirement for
improvised explosive devices (IED) forensic analysis, the
committee believes that the critical nature of the enduring IED
threat likely demands a dedicated software analysis tool to
fully meet intelligence analysis requirements. Elsewhere in
this Act, the committee recommends a provision that would
require the Army to detail its plans for competition of
selected DCGS-A components as part of the DCGS-A Increment 2
program. The committee expects the Army to include IED forensic
analysis tools as part of any DCGS-A Increment 2 competition
plans. In addition, the committee directs the Inspector General
of the Department of Defense to deliver a report, not later
than March 1, 2016, to the House Committee on Armed Services
regarding JIEDDO's and the Army's processes and decisions that
led to the development of JIST software and the subsequent
decision not to field it.
Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile Program
The committee notes that the October 2014 Army Operating
Concept, ``Win in a Complex World,'' emphasizes the role for
Army forces to project land based power into other domains and
that, ``Future Army forces will support joint force freedom of
movement and action through the projection of power from land
across the maritime, air, space, and cyberspace domains.'' The
committee also notes in a technical report prepared for the
U.S. Army entitled ``Employing Land Based Anti-Ship Missiles in
the Western Pacific'' that the RAND corporation concluded that,
``Land-based ASMs (Anti-Ship Missiles) are readily available on
the world's arms markets, are inexpensive, and would provide
significant additional capabilities to the United States if
integrated into the Army or the Marine Corps force structure.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2016, as to the feasibility, utility, and options for
mobile, land-based systems to provide anti-ship fires. Such
fires should be addressed within the total portfolio of land
based fires against air and surface based threats, including
total cost considerations such as research and development,
procurement, sustainment, and force structure considerations.
Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System
The committee notes the Army's goal of improving infantry
squad capability through a variety of means, including
precision weapons with increased ranges compared to current
systems. The committee is aware of the effectiveness of the
Lethal Miniature Aerial Munition System (LMAMS) currently
fielded in the United States Central Command theater of
operations and supports the potential distribution of this
capability across Army infantry units. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2016
on potential transition of the LMAMS to a program of record.
The report should include information on the performance of the
system to date, the cost of expanding its issue to more units,
and operational suitability and effectiveness issues with the
system.
Lithium ion super-capacitors
The committee is aware of the investments the Army has made
in lithium ion super-capacitor research, development, and
demonstration. The committee encourages further investment in
this important area, as super-capacitors are critical to
current and future platforms. Recent advances in lithium ion
super-capacitor technology may also mitigate or eliminate
safety concerns that have slowed operational deployment of
current and future platforms.
Material development, characterization, and computational modeling
The committee recognizes the importance of evaluation of
materials and technologies, designs, and the development of
methodologies and models to enable enhanced lethality and
survivability. Methods such as computational research allow for
the development of models that predict the mechanical
properties of materials that are used in research and
development at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL). These
models and simulations provide a cost savings to the Department
of Defense by simulating materials prior to testing them to
ensure mechanical properties will work together. Additionally,
these methodologies allow for the enhanced development of
technologies such as lightweight armors, protective structures,
kinetic energy active protection, ballistic shock and mine
blast protection, helmet technologies to prevent traumatic
brain injury, as well as numerous other uses. The committee
encourages ARL to continue the utilization of computational
modeling and simulations research to achieve greater cost
savings.
Medical evaluation of anthropomorphic data on vehicle blast testing
The committee supports the Army's ongoing ground combat and
tactical vehicle technology development and testing initiatives
designed to mitigate the lethal effects from improvised
explosive devices and the subsequent vehicle flight and
rollover events. As the Army, along with industry, continues to
evaluate emerging technologies, the committee recommends that
medical research using anthropomorphic testing be included in
ongoing Cooperative Research and Development Agreement test
programs between the commercial sector and the Army on new
sensors and active protection technologies. The committee
believes that test reports should also consider including
medical evaluation of anthropomorphic data germane to the
analysis of new sensor technology and active protection
response technology.
Mobile camouflage systems development
The committee is concerned that currently fielded
camouflage netting systems do not afford adequate passive
concealment against current battlefield threats, particularly
by short-wave infrared sensors. The committee understands the
Department of the Army is currently reviewing a Capability
Development Document for an improved Ultra-Lightweight
Camouflage Net System. The committee commends these efforts and
encourages the Department to accelerate research, development,
procurement, and fielding of this advanced camouflage net
system. The committee recommends continued development in
several two-sided, reversible camouflage patterns, including
Woodland, Desert, Urban, and Arctic/Snow, in order to replace
outdated systems currently in the field.
Next-Generation signature management system
The committee is aware that during Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, several U.S. allied
partner nations employed mobile camouflage systems on their
combat and tactical vehicles. The committee notes the success
of our allies in using these camouflage protective nets to
provide effective signature management protection, as well as
reducing heat and temperature inside and around combat and
tactical vehicles. The committee is not aware of any current
official program of record to field mobile camouflage systems
for U.S. military combat and tactical vehicles. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense to consider
evaluating mobile camouflage systems for U.S. military combat
and tactical vehicles and, should the evaluation prove
advisable and feasible, to begin resourcing such programs
across the Future Years Defense Program.
Pacific Theater High Performance Computing capabilities
The Committee is aware that the Department of Defense's
High Performance Computing Modernization Program provides the
Department with a strategic tool to accelerate technology
development through the application of high performance
computing (HPC), networking, and computational expertise. The
purpose of this program is to provide the application of high-
end computing to increase productivity of the Department's
research, development, test, and evaluation community.
Moreover, the Committee recognizes that supercomputing
resources provided by Department of Defense Supercomputing
Resource Centers (DSRC) offer the Services and Combatant
Commanders computing solutions that reduce cost, risk, and
manpower requirements for in-theater demands.
To this end, the Committee is aware that the Maui High
Performance Computing Center (MHPCC) is the only DSRC that
offers computing at the TS/SCI classification level, as well as
the ability to provide enhanced access to supercomputing
resources to Department of Defense customers by secure access
to Department of Defense software and computing services
through a web browser. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Commander, U.S.
Pacific Command (PACOM), to brief the congressional defense
committees by December 1, 2015, on the in-theater capabilities
offered by the MHPCC, the customer base for the MHPCC, and the
value of maintaining flexible, low-latency, high bandwidth
classified network access to complement PACOM activities in-
theater.
Rotorcraft Degraded Visual Environment
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2015 (division C of Public Law 113-235)
appropriated an increase of $20.0 million above the budget
request for the development or procurement of a Degraded Visual
Environment (DVE) system for rotorcraft programs. The committee
is aware of the Army's challenge of operating rotary winged
aircraft in austere environmental conditions, including brown-
out landings and marginal weather while operating in difficult
terrain. The committee also believes that the Army's Medical
Evacuation, Utility, and Cargo platforms face unique challenges
operating in environments that levy significant risks to
aircraft and crew members. However, the committee is concerned
that the progress for pursuing these critical safety
enhancements for rotorcraft programs is taking too long.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by August 31, 2015, that includes an update on the Army's plans
to test and evaluate DVE sensors and provide a potential
funding profile and fielding plan of a DVE system.
Simplified Army radio network
The committee notes that modernizing the tactical network
remains a top priority for the Army, and that ease of use will
be critical to the success of the deployed tactical network.
The committee understands that feedback from deployed
capability sets emphasizes the need to simplify tactical
communications systems and make them easier for soldiers to
operate with minimal training or intervention by industry or
civilian field-support representatives. The committee supports
the Army's drive to simplify the network and the goals of Force
2025, including efforts already underway to improve waveform
configuration, loading, and unit-task reorganization. However,
the plan to achieve the goals that the Army has set with regard
to improving the network remains unclear.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by July 30, 2015, on the Army's current plan to enhance and
simplify the network in order to meet the goals of the
Simplified Tactical Army Reliable Network, including key
milestones and the resources needed.
Situational awareness prototype Constellation for Countering Weapons of
Mass Destruction
The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD)
situational awareness prototype Constellation is described as a
next-generation information gathering, sharing, analysis,
collaboration, and visualization system to improve situational
awareness across the CWMD enterprise. The committee is
supportive of efforts to improve coordination and situational
awareness and recognizes the contribution of Constellation to a
synchronized, informed whole-of-government response to the
Ebola crisis. The committee is also aware of other efforts that
have a similar function in tracking and analyzing CWMD threats
and believes the Department of Defense should avoid duplication
of efforts in this area. The committee further believes that a
common platform must be successfully integrated with the other
relevant Department of Defense and U.S. Government partners.
The committee urges the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to
continue to engage the interagency to ensure efforts are fully
coordinated and not duplicative.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by July 30,
2015, on the status of the Constellation prototype and the
activities for ensuring that it avoids duplication with other
CWMD systems.
Soldier Enhancement Program
The budget request contained $10.5 million across multiple
appropriations for the Army's Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP)
initiatives.
The SEP was established to evaluate government-off-the-
shelf, commercial-off-the-shelf, or non-developmental items to
improve weapons and individual equipment for soldiers. The
committee notes the SEP does not fund lengthy developmental
programs or procure large numbers of major items for fielding,
and recognizes the program's design enables evaluation of
systems that have the potential to meet an urgent operational
need or quickly close a capability gap.
The committee believes additional SEP funding could provide
a substantial benefit to the industrial base and to the
individual soldier. The committee recognizes that the Army
relies heavily on the industrial base for innovation and new
product development, and a more optimal funding profile for the
SEP could facilitate greater small-scale procurement, more in-
depth field evaluation opportunities, as well as the means to
rapidly field validated technologies to the soldier in a more
streamlined and timely manner. In order to remain responsive
and execute the intent of SEP, the committee understands the
optimal average SEP funding level is estimated by the Army to
be at approximately $12.0 million to $14.0 million annually.
The committee notes that sub-optimal funding levels would
result in an inability to evaluate initiatives for lighter,
more lethal weapons, munitions, and individual equipment for
soldiers.
The committee recommends $15.5 million, an increase of $5.0
million in PE 64601A, for Army SEP initiatives.
Soldier Protection System and weight reduction technology
The Army's Soldier Protection System (SPS) provides a
lighter weight modular, scalable integrated system of mission
tailorable personnel protection equipment (PPE), while also
improving the level of mobility, form, fit, and function for
both male and female soldiers. The committee is aware the SPS
includes subsystems such as protection for the head, eyes,
extremities, torso, and other integrated sensor packages. The
committee notes a low-rate initial production decision is
expected in fiscal year 2015. The committee understands that
the Army plans on fielding two to three brigade combat team
sets per year and has programmed approximately $575.0 million
for SPS across the Future Years Defense Program. While the
committee commends the Army on their SPS effort, the committee
encourages the Army to provide enough funding to maintain two
vendors for competitive purposes, and also encourages the
accelerated fielding of SPS to all soldiers as a way to sustain
current systems through modernization.
The committee understands that body armor system weights
have remained relatively constant over the last decade in spite
of advances in materials technologies because protection levels
have also increased in response to threats. The committee
believes current body armor systems provide outstanding
protection to the warfighter, but their weight contributes to
the overburden issue and decline in performance. The committee
commends the Army for addressing this challenge by shifting
from a more discrete component level development strategy to a
more systems engineering and system level approach to body
armor and PPE development as a means to improve soldier
capabilities. The committee has long championed the importance
of reducing the weight of current body armor and personal
protective equipment systems, as well as stressing the critical
need for investment in weight reduction initiatives, along with
technology insertions to improve performance and survivability.
The committee believes the Department of Defense must maintain
significant investment in near-term solutions that can
effectively reduce the weight of body armor, while also
investing in the development of revolutionary new material
technologies that could provide for significant breakthroughs
in weight and performance.
Technology for countering enemy unmanned aerial systems
The committee recognizes that enemy unmanned aerial systems
represent a growing threat to U.S. and coalition forces. As
unmanned aerial systems become more affordable and available,
this technology has become increasingly available to non-state
actors. The committee is aware of efforts by the Army
Electronic Warfare division to develop technology that can
recognize the uplinks between unmanned aerial vehicles and
controllers on the ground to disrupt system communication to
disable such threats and encourages the Army to continue its
research into severing these control signals.
Ultra-light combat tactical vehicle test and evaluation
The committee understands the Army is proceeding forward to
address the infantry brigade tactical mobility gap in
accordance with a three-phased plan outlined in the operational
need statement (ONS) submitted by the 82nd Airborne Division
and endorsed by 18th Airborne Corps and the U.S. Army Forces
Command. The committee notes the ONS outlined immediate,
interim, and long-term solutions to address this urgent
capability gap for light infantry units.
The committee understands the immediate solution allows the
82nd Airborne Division to retain a tactical mobility set of
high mobility, multi-purpose wheeled vehicles. The interim
solution is the procurement of a commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) set of vehicles, and the long-term solution is the
development of a programmatic solution through the traditional
Army acquisition process. The committee is aware that the Army
has addressed the immediate solution and has now authorized the
interim COTS solution with the procurement of 33 ultra-light
tactical vehicles in order to allow the execution of a proof-
of-principle concept. The committee understands that additional
vehicle procurement is contingent on the results from testing
conducted by the 82nd Airborne Division.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2016, on the test results for the proof-of-principle for the
interim solution. Should the test results prove favorable, the
committee expects the briefing to provide details of the
funding profile and acquisition strategy for the rapid
acquisition and fielding of this interim solution, as well as
the acquisition strategy for the proposed long-term solution.
Vehicle occupant protection technology development
The committee is aware of the development of technology to
detect and autonomously respond in real time to vehicle
underbody explosive incidents with an active response to
counter vehicle flight, and reduce the physical effects on
vehicle occupants through a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement between industry and the Army. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services within 45 days after the date on
which the budget for fiscal year 2017 is submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, on
the results of the testing on this technology to date, as well
as provide an assessment of the potential and prospective
timing for this technology to be incorporated into vehicle
occupant protection technology vehicle procurement programs.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $17.88 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Navy. The committee
recommends $16.65 billion, a decrease of $1.23 billion to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy are
identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced Low Cost Munitions Ordnance
The committee notes the Navy's efforts to develop an
Advanced Low Cost Munitions Ordnance (ALaMO) for the Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) by Fiscal Year 2020. The committee believes
the LCS program should be equipped with the most affordable,
lethal, defensive, and offensive capabilities across all
mission areas. The committee supports the Navy's efforts to
develop ALaMO, specifically a guided 57mm projectile to counter
threats against small boat swarms and others. Therefore, the
committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Research, Development and Acquisition) to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services by August 30, 2015 on the current
status of the ALaMO program. The briefing should include, but
not be limited to, an evaluation of the current funding profile
and schedule for this program across the Future Years Defense
Program, as well as discuss potential courses of action to
accelerate or streamline the current program strategy.
Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel
The committee is aware that the fiscal year 2016 budget
request contains funding within research, development, testing,
and evaluation, Defense-Wide, for the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) to continue work on the Anti-Submarine
Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel.
The committee is aware of and encouraged by recent at-sea
tests demonstrating the success of the autonomous command and
control software aboard a surrogate test vessel. The committee
notes that these tests successfully demonstrated a fully
autonomous capability in a manner fully compliant with
international collision regulations. Furthermore, the committee
is supportive of the growing interest in additional at-sea
testing among various Navy commands for other missions.
The committee is further encouraged by the recently signed
memorandum of agreement between DARPA and Office of Naval
Research, and supports the funding being provided by both
organizations for additional at-sea testing. The committee
believes that additional testing should support flexibility of
the autonomy design and application for additional future
missions. The committee recommends continued collaboration
between DARPA and the U.S. Navy to ensure the successful
transition of this program.
Anti-surface warfare missile capability for Littoral Combat Ship
The committee is aware of the complex close combat
environments that Navy surface combatants encounter when
operating in the littorals. Characteristic of this environment
is the irregular threat posed by clusters of swarming small
boats intermingled with non-combatant vessels. As a result, the
anti-surface warfare mission for vessels, such as the Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) and Patrol Coastal (PC) ships, must possess
positive-control missile capabilities that enable agile rules
of engagement for applying decisive defensive countermeasures
while minimizing the risks of collateral damage. Furthermore,
it is critical that this balance of capabilities be fielded to
the fleet as rapidly as possible.
The committee is also aware of the Navy's efforts to field
an anti-surface warfare missile capability for the LCS that
meets these criteria; however, the committee is concerned that
the current development path will require significant
engineering/test and integration work that impacts the initial
operating capability. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2016,
detailing the cost and schedule of current development efforts
on anti-surface warfare missile capability for the LCS and PC
ships. The briefing should evaluate comparative systems' speed
of integration to the fleet, range, weight, In-Flight Target
Update capability, and ability to leverage existing fielded
systems.
Automated Test and Retest
The committee recognizes the value that the Small Business
Innovative Research (SBIR) program provides to the Department
of Defense in gaining access to new and innovative technologies
that, when successful, can be integrated into new acquisition
programs of record. As noted by the National Research Council
in its most recent assessment of the Department of Defense SBIR
program in 2014, these projects are highly successful at
commercialization. Data from that study indicates that about 70
percent of Department of Defense Phase II projects reach the
market. In addition, these projects ``are in broad alignment
with the agency's mission needs,'' and result in broader
impacts on the innovation ecosystem, such as strong linkages
with universities, support for graduate students, and licensing
of technology from universities.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
is not fully utilizing the scope of the unique authorities
embedded in the SBIR legislation. In addition to potentially
shortening acquisition cycle time, SBIR can be useful in
leveraging the innovation of the small business community and
growing new technology areas. A good example of the benefits of
the SBIR program is the Navy's Automated Test and Retest (ATRT)
Initiative, which has demonstrated impressive results in
reducing the time, reducing the cost, and improving the quality
of fielding new capabilities by performing research,
development, and application of automated testing technologies
for the test and evaluation of Naval warfare systems. The
committee believes that the valuable lessons from such
activities as ATRT should be more widely leveraged across the
Navy and the rest of the Department of Defense. The committee
believes it is especially important to make sure that program
managers and contracting officers are fully cognizant of the
unique authorities SBIR provides, and are duly encouraged to be
as flexible and creative as possible in utilizing those
authorities.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to brief the
House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2015, on the
Department's plans for improving the use of SBIR authorities.
This briefing should address how to better educate program
managers and contracting officers on the special authorities of
SBIR, any recommendations for how to improve or strengthen
those authorities, metrics for assessing the use of SBIR
authorities, and a process for integrating lessons learned from
past successes like ATRT into future acquisition program
planning and workforce development for the relevant
communities.
Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range
The budget request contained $39.1 million in PE 24571N for
consolidated training systems. Of this amount, no funds were
requested for research and development to upgrade the anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) underwater range instrumentation needs
at the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range at the Pacific
Missile Range Facility in Hawaii.
The committee recognizes that the military's ability to
conduct advanced ASW training is a critical aspect of our
military technological superiority. The Barking Sands Tactical
Underwater Range, which was designed, manufactured, and
installed in 1994, is the largest underwater instrumented range
in the world, and covers over 1,100 square nautical miles.
However, the committee is very concerned that the current
system is beyond its 20 year design life, and rapidly becoming
difficult to operate, repair, and maintain. Senior leaders
within the Nation's submarine community have been on record
since 2012 calling for a range replacement to begin in order to
maintain worldwide ASW fleet readiness and superiority. To
support such efforts, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2016, on the Secretary's plan to meet this
longstanding fleet requirement. The briefing should address the
technology and instrumentation upgrade needs for the range with
projected funding needs by fiscal year, a preliminary schedule
of key milestones, and a fully competitive acquisition strategy
to meet submarine fleet readiness requirements.
Additionally, the committee recommends $54.1 million, an
increase of $15.0 million, in PE 24571N to support upgrading
the ASW underwater range instrumentation needs at the Barking
Sands Tactical Underwater Range.
Continuation of Brimstone missile assessment
The Brimstone missile is an air-launched ground attack
missile in use by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland's Royal Air Force. The committee notes that
the Brimstone missile has a dual-mode seeker which is capable
of both active radar homing and laser guidance which allows for
precision attack against moving targets, and has been used in
combat operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
Libya, and in current operations in the Republic of Iraq.
The committee understands that defending against swarms of
small enemy boats, known as fast inshore attack craft, from
strike fighter aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft, and
helicopters is a challenging mission for the Department of the
Navy, and the committee believes that the Brimstone missile may
be a solution to address this threat. Additionally, the
committee believes that the Brimstone missile could be used for
close air support missions.
The committee supports the use of funds authorized and
appropriated for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 which are being
used to provide the analysis needed to determine if the
Brimstone missile is suitable for the F/A-18 aircraft carrier
environment. If found suitable, the committee urges the
Department of the Navy to use all available funding options,
including the use of prior year funds, to expedite integration
and fielding of the Brimstone missile on F/A-18E and F Super
Hornet aircraft. The committee also notes that on April 20,
2015, the Navy initiated a request for information (RFI) as a
market survey tool to solicit industry input to support
possible future acquisition planning for a direct-attack, fire-
and-forget weapon for F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft. The
committee understands the RFI indicates a planned initial
operational capability in 2023, with a possible planned funding
start for the multi-mode missile in fiscal year 2017. The
committee encourages full and open consideration of all
suitable solutions to meet this proposed planned schedule as
part of the RFI.
F414 engine noise reduction research and development
The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to
reduce noise-related injuries and conditions that impact
significant numbers of active-duty and former members of the
military. Specifically, the committee supports ongoing Navy
research and development efforts related to the F414 engine,
which is used in the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler
aircraft. The committee notes, however, that testing conducted
by the Navy in October 2014 using chevron engine nozzle
attachments did not achieve the hoped for noise reduction
results. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
provide a briefing not later than September 30, 2015 to the
House Committee on Armed Services on the status of F414 engine
noise reduction research and development activities. The
briefing should include details on recent F414 engine noise
reduction efforts and other Navy noise reduction research and
development activities and programs.
Five-inch precision guided projectile development for naval surface
fire support
The budget request included $0.9 million in PE 63795N for
Land Attack Technology, but contained no funding for 5-inch
guided projectile development and demonstration.
The committee understands the Navy has recognized that
current surface Navy gunnery requirements are outdated and that
new technologies such as railgun and directed energy weapons
are nearing readiness for technology transition. The committee
commends the Navy for initiating a review of naval surface
fires requirements and for establishing the Advanced Naval
Surface Fires (ANSF) initiative. The committee understands the
ANSF initiative would conduct a capabilities assessment and
review of all surface Navy requirements related to self-
defense, anti-surface warfare, naval surface fires support,
strike warfare, counterintelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance, and integrated air and missile defense.
The committee is particularly interested in the ANSF
efforts related to naval surface fires support. The committee
notes the ANSF is assessing options for providing a near-term
5-inch guided munition capability. The 5-inch guided munition
would be used for improved and extended range naval surface
fire support. The committee is aware the Navy has issued a
request for information to industry regarding this capability
and has received several responses that could create the
environment for a full and open competition. The committee
believes this technology could significantly improve naval
surface fires support capability and could potentially be
quickly introduced into the fleet given potential mature
technology readiness levels.
The committee recommends $10.9 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 63795N to accelerate the development and
demonstration of 5-inch guided projectile technology for naval
surface fires support.
Fully homomorphic encryption
The committee is aware of the work done by the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the Programming
Computation on Encrypted Data (PROCEED) program to develop
methods that allow computing with encrypted data without first
decrypting it. One such method, fully homomorphic encryption,
could theoretically allow for that, but is limited by
impractically slow computational speeds. The DARPA PROCEED
program, as well as other work being done by the Navy through
the Office of Naval Research and the Space and Naval Warfare
Command, is pursuing methods to make such cyber security
methods more practical and implementable. As a result of these
efforts, new approaches for secure cloud computing and
cybersecurity are maturing and moving into practical use. The
committee recognizes that these design, development, and
implementation activities are costly, yet necessary for forward
progress. The committee is also aware that the Navy and Marine
Corps have identified the need to develop and apply fully
homomorphic encryption, particularly for protecting safety-
critical cyber systems and reducing leakage of information to
our adversaries. Such goals are critical not only to properly
securing our nation's computers, but also to protecting
sensitive data. Therefore, the committee encourages the Navy
and Marine Corps to continue research into fully homomorphic
encryption and to examine additional areas related to
implementation, integration, and software tooling support.
National Sea Based Deterrence Fund
The committee notes that the National Sea Based Deterrence
Fund (NDSF) was created by the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to address a congressional
determination that the recapitalization of the Ohio-class
ballistic missile submarine was a national strategic
imperative. The committee also notes that the recapitalization
of this strategic asset is currently estimated at $95.77
billion. The committee believes that this acquisition program
will have an extraordinary and detrimental impact to
investments in the shipbuilding and construction, Navy, account
if traditional funding levels of this account are sustained.
The committee also believes that the entirety of the Department
of Defense investment capabilities need to be used to
recapitalize this strategic asset.
Therefore, the committee recommends the transfer of $1.39
billion for the Navy Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine
replacement program from the research, development, test, and
evaluation, Navy, account to the National Sea Based Deterrence
Fund, Department of Defense account.
Navy communications experimentation
The committee is aware that the Commander, Navy 7th Fleet
is testing a broadband system that provides cellular-based,
fourth generation long-term evolution (4G LTE) and broadband
satellite communications to Navy ships. This Navy broadband
effort could potentially improve the communications
capabilities of naval platforms and promote information sharing
and real-time collaboration in an emergency situation. Since
this capability is built on commercial technologies, it could
be rapidly fielded to improve the readiness, tactical
communications, and morale, welfare, and recreation
capabilities of the Navy. In light of the results from the
recently completed Trident Warrior 15 Experimentation, the
committee encourages the Navy to continue to examine the
continued and expanded use of mobile broadband 4G LTE
technology.
Requirements maturation and developmental planning
The committee is aware that the Air Force maintains a
program element line within its science and technology (S&T)
budget for Requirements Analysis and Maturation. This activity
is used to fund developmental planning and integrated
simulation and analysis capabilities that are used to inform
programs before they formally enter the acquisition process.
Such activities might include: early systems engineering to
comprehend capability needs, formulate and evaluate viable
concepts, define trade space, assess technical risks, and
identify technology needs. The committee recognizes that such
work is very useful in providing a solid analytic basis for
cost and capability trades that inform weapon systems
requirements, acquisition milestones, decision points, and
other phases. The committee believes that such support, which
is at a small funding level at this stage, can provide huge
benefits in risk reduction and cost avoidance for programs once
they mature. The committee encourages the Navy to pursue
similar developmental planning efforts, including dedicated S&T
funding lines, to support such activities to inform programs of
record.
Service life extension program for Auxiliary General Purpose
Oceanographic Research
The budget request contained $42.2 million in PE 62435N for
the Ocean Warfighting Environment Applied Research program.
For academic research, the Navy operates and maintains
Auxiliary General Purpose Oceanographic Research (AGOR)
vessels. Three of these vessels require a mid-life overhaul,
partial funding for which was provided in the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-
235). The committee notes that funding provided to date does
not fully support all of the items that the Navy has determined
are necessary to fully extend the life of these AGOR ships to
40-45 years.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $62.2 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 62435N for Ocean Warfighting
Environment Applied Research, to procure the entirety of a mid-
life overhaul. The committee notes that the inclusion of this
authorization of appropriations is predicated on the Navy's use
of merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the
requirements of section 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United
States Code, or on competitive procedures, to conduct these
overhauls.
The committee continues to believe that oceanographic
research is a core function of the Navy, and remains committed
to ensuring the ability of the Navy to sustain its research
priorities, even in the face of fiscally constrained budgets.
The committee is concerned that the Navy has been decreasing
funding in oceanographic research, especially sea-going
research, and is concerned about the negative long-term
implications these trends are likely to have on areas like
anti-submarine warfare and battlespace awareness. Navy science
and technology funding also plays a key role in information
stewardship, including ocean mapping, oceanographic and
meteorological data, that supports Navy, national, and
international scientific goals.
Spectral Warrior
The committee understands that U.S. Navy surface combatants
are experiencing a significant increase in friendly and
adversary satellite communications (SATCOM) interference events
that could result in a degraded fleet mission capability.
Ensuring the protection and connectivity of satellite
communications for command and control, navigation, and ship
protection should be an operational priority. The committee
commends the Navy for fielding systems like Spectral Warrior
that detect, characterize, and report all SATCOM interference
events, although the committee is concerned that the quantity
of systems being fielded may not meet the operational need. The
committee encourages the Navy to develop requirements and fund
a program of record that leverages currently fielded Spectral
Warrior technologies to meet critical SATCOM assurance
requirements.
Tactical Combat Training System program
The budget request contained $39.1 million in PE 24571N for
Consolidated Training System Development. Of this amount, $19.3
million was requested for the Tactical Combat Training System
(TCTS) program.
The committee notes that the TCTS Increment II is a Navy
program that will address important training range capability
gaps. The committee also notes that as part of a separate,
earlier Department of Defense program, the Department has
developed the Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System
(CRIIS) to provide a joint test and evaluation system. While
the requirements for the systems are not identical, the
committee understands that the CRIIS may require only minimal
software and hardware changes to meet the requirements for the
TCTS Increment II training system. As a result, the committee
encourages the Department of the Navy to consider adapting the
CRIIS program, if it has the potential to meet requirements and
affordability targets, to provide the capability the Navy is
seeking to field through the TCTS Increment II program.
The committee recommends $39.1 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 24571N for Consolidated Training System
Development, including $19.3 million for the Tactical Combat
Training System program.
Unmanned carrier aviation
The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense has
initiated an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) portfolio review to assess the merits of the entirety of
Department of Defense assets that may be available to support
combat operations. This review is being augmented by a U.S.
Navy tactical aviation analysis to determine the
characteristics and quantities of carrier based ISR unmanned
aviation systems (UAS) necessary to optimize the overall
carrier air wing. The committee also notes that section 217 of
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291)
included:
(1) A limitation on funding associated with the Unmanned
Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) air
vehicle until the Secretary of Defense certifies that a review
of requirements associated with the UCLASS air vehicle is
complete and submits the results of such a review to the
congressional defense committees; and
(2) A requirement for the Secretary of the Navy to prepare
a report to assess the overall carrier air wing composition to
include UCLASS, the support offered by non-organic naval
aviation forces such as MQ-4C Triton, and the intended
capabilities offered by FA-XX, which is the replacement
aircraft for the F/A-18 E/F aircraft.
The committee believes that sea-based, long-range strike
capabilities have incontrovertible merit and have been an
integral element of U.S. carrier air wings in the past. Looking
ahead, this capability may be the most important capability
that the aircraft carrier can provide in contested environments
and anti-access/area-denial scenarios. The committee believes
that pursuit of a long-range penetrating strike capability
should therefore be a critical focus of naval investments. The
committee also believes that the capabilities offered by
unmanned aviation may be the only capability that can support
this mission requirement.
The committee notes that the majority of naval aviation
missions do not require the same high-end characteristics
required for long-range penetrating strike missions. The
committee recognizes that an unmanned aircraft with not all of
the attributes of a high-end UAS may be a more economical and
sustainable means of conducting persistent ISR, aerial
refueling, and strike missions in low-to-medium threat
environments. The committee also recognizes that the Navy has a
validated capability gap in regard to ISR and encourages the
Department of Defense to meet this requirement in an economical
and efficient manner.
Considering all of the options available to the Navy to
augment the future carrier air wing, the committee believes
that the continued development of the UCLASS program as a long-
range penetrating strike capability best meets the future
carrier air wing requirements and will address a much needed
capability deficiency in the current carrier strike design.
Finally, the committee notes that the budget request
included continued development of the UCLASS program, but does
not include funds for the air vehicle. The committee encourages
the Secretary of Defense to expeditiously complete the ISR
portfolio analysis review and provide the proposed UCLASS
Capabilities Development Document (CDD) to the congressional
defense committees. If the CDD is not provided by August 31,
2015, the committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
September 1, 2015, as to the terms of reference and an
assessment that the Navy has the resources available and a
strategy to deliver those required UCLASS capabilities. At a
minimum, this brief should also include:
(1) An updated cost estimate;
(2) A schedule for holding a milestone B review and
establishing an acquisition program baseline before initiating
system development;
(3) Plans for new preliminary design reviews or delta
preliminary design reviews and technology maturation if more
demanding requirements are validated; and
(4) What consideration is being given to adopting an
evolutionary acquisition approach.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $26.47 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force. The committee
recommends $25.95 billion, a decrease of $515.7 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
research, development, test, and evaluation, Air Force program
are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Adaptive engine transition program
The budget request contained $246.5 million in PE 64858F
for the adaptive engine transition program (AETP).
The committee supports the continued emphasis on research
and development in the next generation of turbine engine
technology. AETP is a competitive acquisition program that
builds upon current research efforts and is designed to mature
adaptive turbine engine technologies for next-generation
propulsion systems. In addition to goals for significant fuel
savings, the committee understands that AETP offers
improvements in range and persistence, increased thrust, and
improvements in thermal management capacity that cannot be
achieved by improving existing engines. The committee believes
that the program will leverage existing adaptive turbine engine
science and technology demonstrations to develop an adaptive
engine built around a broad suite of technologies. Many of
these technologies share commonality with the latest
commercially developed engines, which will enable multiple
follow-on high confidence competitive acquisition programs. The
committee notes that there are potential applications of this
technology to both legacy and future combat aircraft. The
committee encourages the Department of the Air Force to
continue to make the necessary investments in these critical
technologies to maintain technological superiority over any
potential adversary.
Therefore, the committee recommends $246.5 million, the
full amount requested, in PE 64858F for the AETP program, and
encourages the Air Force to explore acquisition strategies to
accelerate the program.
Advanced manufacturing for low-cost sustainment
The budget request contained $42.6 million in PE 63680F for
the Air Force manufacturing technology program, but contained
no funding to mature advanced additive manufacturing
technologies to address the cost and sustainment challenges for
aerospace applications.
The committee is aware that the defense sustainment
community has identified additive manufacturing as a means to
dramatically lower the cost of maintaining aging weapon
platforms. Additive manufacturing, more commonly known as 3D
printing, allows the manufacture of a part with speed,
flexibility, and little waste of materials. Currently, the Air
Force uses additive manufacturing for design iteration,
prototyping, tooling and fixtures, and for some noncritical
parts. However, the committee recognizes that in the future the
Air Force hopes to use additive manufacturing for building
actual aerospace parts, such as fuel nozzles and heat
exchangers. The committee believes that additional research
needs to be done to validate the flight safety and integrity of
such 3D printed parts to be able to reap the full benefits of
this technology.
Therefore, the committee recommends $52.6 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63680F to support the
maturation of advanced manufacturing for low-cost sustainment
that meets the performance requirements of aerospace
applications.
Advanced pilot training family of systems
The budget request contained $11.34 million in PE 65223F
for the advanced pilot training (T-X) program.
The committee supports the direction the Department of the
Air Force is taking with the acquisition of a new trainer
aircraft. Specifically, the committee supports the Department's
approach to bundle the advanced pilot training system which
would keep the aircraft, simulator, and courseware together,
providing significant cost savings to the warfighter and
taxpayer. Given the Department's planned retirement of the T-38
in the late 2020s, the committee urges the Department of the
Air Force to maintain a stable schedule, including potential
initial operational capability in 2023.
The committee recommends $11.34 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 65223F for the advanced pilot training (T-X)
program.
Air Force Minority Leaders Program
The committee is aware that the Air Force maintains a
program called the Air Force Minority Leaders Program, which
partners a small disadvantaged business with students,
teachers, and professors from historically black colleges and
universities and minority institutions (HBCU/MI) to perform Air
Force research tasks. The Air Force Minority Leaders Program is
the largest Department of Defense research program that works
with historically black colleges, and has been successful at
promoting valuable research for the Department, as well as
increasing the pipeline of minority scientific talent for
future Air Force jobs and strengthening the scientific and
educational infrastructure in the minority community.
The committee encourages the Air Force to continue
investing time, personnel, and resources in supporting research
activities that can be conducted by the Air Force Minority
Leaders Program to meet critical defense capabilities, science
and technology, future workforce, and technical program
objectives for the Air Force. Additionally, the committee urges
the Air Force to find ways to expand the research areas in
which the Air Force Minority Leaders Program can participate,
as well as the ways in which to leverage the knowledge, skills,
and expertise of those minority scientists and engineers
engaged with that program.
Airborne sensor data correlation
The budget request contained $68.3 million in PE 64759F for
major test and evaluation investment, but contained no funding
for development of airborne sensor data correlation.
Airborne sensor data correlation is a research project to
prototype fusing unmanned aerial system electro-optical and
infrared full motion video to support accurate over-water
weapons impact scoring. The committee understands that future
testing for hypersonic and long-range weapons will require
large test areas and larger hazard areas that could require
dynamic re-planning and monitoring, and that current range
instrumentation systems are limited to small target test areas,
fixed sensors, and environmental restrictions. The committee
believes that an airborne sensor data correlation project can
support dynamic test measurement requirements over large target
areas as range footprints are expanded to support the testing
of longer range weapons.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $73.3 million, an
increase of $5.0 million, in PE 64759F for airborne sensor data
correlation.
B-52 radar modernization program
The budget request contained $74.5 million in PE 11113F for
B-52 squadrons, but contained no funding for the B-52 radar
modernization program (RMP).
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee encouraged the Secretary of
the Air Force to begin the B-52 RMP, then known as the B-52
strategic radar replacement program, and is disappointed to
note that the Secretary has opted not to include funds for this
purpose for fiscal year 2016. Based on a Department of the Air
Force report to the congressional defense committees in 2013,
the committee continues to believe that a B-52 RMP is a lower
cost option than sustaining the current radar over the
projected service life of the B-52, especially in light of the
prospect that sustainment costs for the B-52's legacy radar
system are likely to significantly increase after 2017 based on
obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources.
Accordingly, the committee continues to encourage the
Secretary of the Air Force to include funding in the fiscal
year 2017 budget request that would begin replacement of the B-
52 legacy radar system, and expects that B-52 budget briefings
for fiscal year 2017 to the congressional defense committees
will address the Department of the Air Force plan to replace
the B-52 radar.
Conformal phased array antennas
The committee notes that there have been recent substantive
improvements in antenna technology, providing enhanced
capabilities to aircraft and unmanned aerial systems.
Additionally, the committee is aware that these same platforms
face environments where it would be useful for antennae to
operate on different frequency bands and to be reconfigurable
while in flight. The committee believes that these enhanced
capabilities could be critically important in improving sensing
in constrained or contested aerial environments. The committee
encourages the Air Force to examine research opportunities to
develop the fundamental theory, modeling, and demonstration of
super-adaptable conformal phased array antennas.
Digital polarimetric radar development
The committee notes that there have been major advances in
the field of radar development with respect to incorporating
both polarimetric and phased array radar technology in an all-
digital design. The committee considers the development of this
technology as a critical enabler for the Air Force in the
development of increased weather sensing, as well as discrete
object tracking capabilities. The committee encourages the Air
Force to examine research opportunities to create an all-
digital polarimetric phased radar for future use in discrete
object sensing and tracking and concurrent use for weather
observations.
Experimentation program
The committee is aware that the Army, Navy, and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense have all begun to implement funded
program element lines to support increasing developmental and
operational experimentation. The committee believes that such
activities are extremely valuable to iron out technology
challenges, identify areas of risk, refine operating concepts,
and gain warfighter trust and confidence in untested systems.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is aware of
numerous historical examples where experimentation with new
technologies in peacetime paved the way for their adoption and
effective use in wartime. The committee believes that
increasing experimentation can be pivotal in laying the
foundations for successful technology adoption by the
warfighting community. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Air Force to establish a similar program element funding line
for experimentation to allow for greater flexibility to conduct
such experimentation in the future and support transition of
technology from the laboratory to the operational force.
F-16 active electronically scanned array radar upgrade
The budget request contained $148.3 million in PE 27133F
for F-16 squadrons, but contained no funding to conduct
integration and testing for an F-16 active electronically
scanned array (AESA) radar upgrade.
The committee notes that, despite the termination of the
combat avionics programmed extension suite (CAPES), the
Department of the Air Force is considering a new effort to
upgrade F-16 radars from the current APG-68 system to a modern
AESA radar system. Further, the committee understands that this
potential radar upgrade program is based upon a developing
joint operational urgent need (JOUN) that specifically requires
an AESA radar upgrade to the F-16 aircraft that perform the
aerospace alert control mission. The committee supports taking
all appropriate steps to meet this JUON as soon as possible.
The committee expects the Department of the Air Force to
minimize program concurrency between development, testing, and
production for any such F-16 AESA radar upgrade. Specifically,
the committee expects the Department to proceed in a manner
that ensures proper integration and testing of radar upgrades
so that the AESA upgrades meet requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $198.3 million, an
increase of $50.0 million, in PE 27133F to conduct integration
and testing for an F-16 AESA radar upgrade, and encourages the
Department of the Air Force to budget for development and
procurement of this upgrade in the Future Years Defense
Program.
F-35 dual-capable aircraft development program
The Department of the Air Force budget request contained
$518.0 million in PE 64800F for development of the F-35A, of
which $5.0 million was for dual-capable aircraft development.
As a dual-capable aircraft, the F-35 would be capable of
performing both the conventional and nuclear weapons delivery
missions.
The committee notes that the F-35 dual-capable aircraft
development program is part of the F-35 block 4 software
program which will be completed subsequent to the conclusion of
the system development and demonstration program, and will be
released in increments known as blocks 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4
with initial operational capability dates of each of those four
blocks planned to occur between 2019 and 2025. The committee
understands that the dual-capable F-35 aircraft would be
included in block 4.3 or 4.4 to replace the aging F-16 aircraft
which is currently performing the dual-capable aircraft
mission.
The committee recommends $5.0 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64800F for the F-35 dual-capable aircraft
development program, and encourages the Department of the Air
Force to accelerate the completion of the F-35 dual-capable
aircraft development program in future budget requests.
Fifth generation tactical data link enterprise
The committee notes that the data links for the Department
of the Air Force's two fifth generation aircraft, the F-22 and
the F-35, are proprietary, and are not interoperable, rendering
these data links incapable of sharing data between these two
types of aircraft. The committee understands that the
Department of the Air Force intends to address this problem by
using a separate data link, known as Link 16, which is
currently in use by fourth generation aircraft. The committee
further understands that Link 16 could be vulnerable in higher
threat, anti-access and area denial environments.
The committee believes that over the long term, the
Department of the Air Force will need to upgrade the propriety
data links to a non-proprietary next-generation waveform, or
provide the industry associated with developing and producing
data links the technical data packages for the current
waveforms so that competition and innovation can be sustained.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of the Air
Force to pursue competitive development and production of data
links to provide for a future robust and innovative data link
industrial base.
KC-135 auto throttles
A KC-135 auto throttle system would allow a pilot to
automatically set aircraft throttle settings to maximize fuel
consumption for a given power setting to attain a specific
indicated airspeed, instead of manually doing so. The committee
understands that installation of a KC-135 auto throttle system
would reduce cockpit workload, increase crew situational
awareness, and result in a 3 percent fuel savings. The
committee further understands that based on fuel savings,
investment in such an auto throttle system could be recouped in
as few as 4 years. The committee notes that other Air Mobility
Command aircraft such as the KC-10, C-17, C-5, and KC-46 are
also equipped with similar auto throttle capability.
Therefore, the committee urges the Department of the Air
Force to begin a program for the development and production of
a KC-135 auto throttle system.
KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program
The budget request contained $602.4 million in PE 65221F
for KC-46 tanker development and $2.35 billion for procurement
of 12 KC-46 tanker aircraft. The KC-46 tanker aircraft is being
developed and procured to replace the aging Department of the
Air Force KC-135 and KC-10 aerial refueling tanker fleets.
The committee continues its long-standing support of the
KC-46 tanker aircraft program, and believes that the KC-46
tanker aircraft is necessary to meet current and future
warfighter requirements for aerial refueling and airlift.
However, the committee notes that Government Accountability
Office (GAO) identified $200.0 million of funds authorized and
appropriated for fiscal year 2015 for KC-46 development that
have been determined excess to need because engineering change
orders planned for fiscal year 2015 have not occurred, and
these funds could be used to meet fiscal year 2016
requirements. The committee further notes that the GAO has also
identified $24.0 million of fiscal year 2015 KC-46 procurement
funds that are excess to need for a similar reason, which could
also be used to meet fiscal year 2016 requirements. Department
of the Air Force KC-46 program officials have verified that the
GAO's determination is correct.
Consequently, the committee recommends $402.4 million, a
decrease of $200.0 million, in PE 65221F for KC-46 tanker
development, and $2.32 billion, a decrease of $24.0 million,
for KC-46 procurement.
Long-range strike bomber
The Department of Defense has indicated that it intends to
pursue the acquisition of future long-range strike capabilities
for operating in anti-access/area denial environments.
According to the budget request for fiscal year 2016, the
Secretary of Defense expects to significantly increase annual
investments in long-range strike development over the next 5
years, with investments from fiscal year 2016-20 projected to
total nearly $14.00 billion. The acquisition of a new bomber is
one of the key elements in the Department's planned long-range
strike investments.
Given the size of the planned investments and the strategic
importance of successfully acquiring a new bomber, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to conduct a review of the U.S. Air Force bomber acquisition
program and to provide a briefing to all appropriately cleared
Members and Professional Staff of the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2016, on the findings of the review.
Specifically, the Comptroller General shall include an
examination of the bomber program's technology maturity in
comparison with other Air Force acquisition programs at similar
milestone events. This brief should also include an examination
of the Air Force's: (1) overall acquisition strategy; (2)
technology, design, and production readiness; (3) development,
testing, and fielding progress; (4) cost and schedule
implications; and (5) technical performance.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force shall
ensure timely access to the necessary program information
including, but not limited to, cost and budget information,
detailed schedules, contractor data, program management
reports, decision briefings, risk and technology readiness
assessments, and technical performance measures.
We encourage the Comptroller General to consider providing,
when practical and feasible given security limitations, an
annual unclassified summary of the program's status and risks.
Long-range strike bomber program
The budget request contained $1.25 billion in PE 64015F for
the long-range strike bomber (LRS-B) program. The LRS-B program
is developing a new bomber aircraft that will be a long-range,
air-refuelable, and highly survivable aircraft with significant
nuclear and conventional stand-off and direct-attack weapons
payload.
The committee continues its long-standing support of the
LRS-B program and believes that the LRS-B aircraft is required
to address future threats. However, the committee notes that
selection of a contractor to begin the LRS-B engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) program has been delayed 4
months. The committee further notes that, according to program
officials, this delay has resulted in an excess of $360.0
million of funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal year
2015 that could be used to meet requirements for fiscal year
2016, and an excess of $100.0 million budgeted for fiscal year
2016 that will not be used due to a slower spend rate in the
EMD program during fiscal year 2016.
Consequently, the committee recommends $786.2 million, a
decrease of $460.0 million, in PE 64015F for the LRS-B program.
Next Generation Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System Electro-
Optical, Infrared Sensor Capability
The committee believes that the Air Force should consider,
as part of the requirements for the Next Generation Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), an integrated
electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) search capability. The
committee notes that such a system could assist with precise
identification of targets at extended ranges, which would
provide tactical advantages to deployed forces. The committee
further notes that EO/IR capability is already in very high
demand and that adding this capability to Next Generation
JSTARS may enable the platform to provide additional
intelligence support capability. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to House
Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2016, on the potential
utility of an integrated EO/IR capability on Next Generation
JSTARS aircraft. The briefing should also include the potential
cost and schedule impacts of adding such a capability to the
Next Generation JSTARS development program.
Next Generation Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
operational concepts
The budget request contained $44.3 million in PE 37581F for
the Next Generation (NextGen) Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System (JSTARS) program.
The committee is aware that the Department of the Air Force
has a requirement for a new manned command-and-control/
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance aircraft given that
the current, high-demand E-8C JSTARS aircraft are facing low
availability rates, end-of-life issues, and growing sustainment
costs. The committee encourages the Air Force to take into
consideration a platform that is able to grow and adapt for
unknown future threats and game-changing technologies.
In addition, the committee would like to better understand
the relationship between the system requirements and how the
Department of the Air Force intends to employ JSTARS in the
future. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by February 29, 2016, detailing the planned
operational mission concepts for the NextGen JSTARS. This
briefing should include, but not be limited to, how the
aircraft and mission system will be employed in various phases
of peacetime and combat operations. Additionally, the briefing
should explain concepts for mission training, aircraft
maintenance, force protection, aircraft security, crew manning,
and future sustainability and modernization to include growth
margin.
The committee recommends $44.3 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 37581F for the NextGen JSTARS program.
Technology transfer
The budget request contained $3.5 million in PE 64317F to
facilitate the transfer of technology from the Department of
Defense to industry for both commercial and military use.
The committee is aware that the technology transfer program
was devolved from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the
Air Force in 2012 in an effort to achieve efficiencies and
increase the effectiveness of the program. Technology transfer
is a critical strategy for the Department that allows it to
license or patent government laboratory developed technologies
to leverage the manufacturing, production, and marketing
economies of scale of the private sector.
The committee believes that the Air Force should increase
its investment in technology transfer efforts in order to
improve the commercialization of intellectual property
developed by the defense laboratories in support of critical
cross-service technological needs such as human performance,
cybersecurity, autonomous systems, unmanned vehicles, and rapid
prototyping. The committee believes additional funding could
expand the efforts to actively promote and broker cooperative
research and development agreements (CRADAs) and partnership
intermediary agreements (PIAs) between Department of Defense
laboratories and industry, with a focus on non-traditional
defense contractors.
The committee recognizes that one challenge to supporting
this technology transfer process is the administrative support
needed for development of CRADAs and PIAs and the protection of
intellectual property for both the government and industry. The
committee notes that the Air Force is particularly challenged
by the need to periodically engage experienced patent attorneys
with expertise in specific technology areas. The committee
believes that the Air Force should consider establishing one or
more PIAs as a mechanism capable of making adjustments to
surges in work, or handling new and emerging technology areas
where there may be little or no expertise within the
government.
Therefore, the committee recommends $13.5 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 64317F to support increased
technology transfer activities within the Air Force, as well as
the Department of Defense writ large.
Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar
The budget request contained $14.9 million in PE 27455F for
the Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR)
program.
While the committee is aware that the 3DELRR program has
been delayed by more than a year due to a protest of the
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract award,
the committee still believes this is a critical program that
will provide a much-needed upgrade to current Department of the
Air Force long-range radar systems. As a result, the committee
urges the Department of the Air Force to keep the program on
its new schedule that should require a significant increase in
funding for the EMD phase in fiscal year 2017.
The committee recommends $14.9 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 27455F for the 3DELRR program.
Wide area surveillance
The budget request contained $50.2 million in PE 35206F for
development of airborne reconnaissance systems, but contained
no funding for development of wide area surveillance. The
committee notes that persistent day and night wide-area motion
imagery (WAMI) capability is flying in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, being readied to support operations in the
Republic of Iraq, and is considered by operational commanders
to be a critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
program for combat units that has contributed to saving U.S.
and allied soldiers' lives.
The committee notes the Department of the Air Force's
November 2014 decision to designate WAMI capability as a
program of record. However, the committee understands that this
designation late in the calendar year did not allow the
Department of the Air Force to program funds for fiscal year
2016. As a result of this situation, the committee is concerned
that without funding in fiscal year 2016 to continue
development of the multi-intelligence capable wide-area
surveillance system, engineering teams will be reduced or
disbanded, technical support to deployed systems will be
impacted, and program improvement efforts will be reduced or
terminated.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $60.2 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 35206F for further development
of WAMI.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $18.32 billion for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide. The committee
recommends $18.54 billion, an increase of $217.2 million to the
budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-Wide
program are identified in division D of this Act.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced semiconductor platform
The committee is aware that a technology capability gap
potentially exists for full integration capabilities to
manufacture the next generation of advanced semiconductor
materials platforms for military systems. The committee
recognizes that keeping a viable manufacturing production line
of advanced semiconductor material platforms in the United
States may be increasingly necessary because of its integration
into wide-ranging capabilities such as military electronic,
photonic, and energy systems for unmanned aerial vehicles,
satellites, soldier equipment capabilities and other defense
applications. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense to consider investing in manufacturing capabilities for
advanced semiconductor materials platform technology that are
critical to our national defense, through direct investment or
potentially as part of the Defense Production Act Title III
program.
Assessment of the directed energy industrial base
The committee is aware of the growing importance of
directed energy systems to future Department of Defense
missions and operational concepts. As developmental programs
continue to progress, and the potential for acquisition
programs of record increases, the committee believes that it is
important to have a better understanding of the industrial base
for directed energy systems to understand if that sector can
accommodate future growth in these areas. The committee
recognizes that the ability of this sector to support future
demand in the event that programs of record scale up could be a
limiting factor to the expansion of these technologies. Though
there are areas where the technology still needs to be tested
and validated, the committee supports analysis of this area to
ensure industry can meet the future needs of this emerging
technology area.
Recognizing that the Department is required by section 2503
of title 10, United States Code, to have a program for
industrial base analysis and under section 2505 to perform
periodic defense capability assessments, the committee believes
that the process exists to ascertain the strengths and
weaknesses in this part of the industrial base. Therefore, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct an assessment
of the directed energy industrial base and brief the results of
this assessment to the House Armed Services Committee by
February 1, 2016. This assessment should include the following:
(1) A review of the technical domestic and international
industrial capacity for components or subsystems for directed
energy systems, including solid-state or fiber lasers; high
quality optics, including large aperture optics and beam
directors; components required for atmospheric compensation
systems, including wavefront sensors and deformable mirrors;
pulsed power and other energy systems; and power electronics,
or other electronic subsystems.
(2) An assessment of current or planned research efforts of
acquisition programs to determine if their technology needs can
be met by the current directed energy industrial base; and
(3) Recommendations for ways of strengthening or otherwise
supporting the directed energy industrial base.
Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office
The budget request included $71.2 million in PE 63122D8Z
for the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO).
The CTTSO identifies capabilities to combat terrorism and
irregular adversaries and delivers these capabilities to
geographic combatant commanders, the military services, the
interagency, and international partners. The committee notes
CTTSO's track record of success in demonstrating the
effectiveness of technology when applied to combating terrorism
and irregular warfare requirements, and that the CTTSO has most
recently developed several capabilities to counter the growing
threat being posed by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL). The committee remains concerned with the success of
ISIL's messaging and propaganda, and its ability to persuade,
inspire, and recruit from across the globe. ISIL's continued
success on the battlefield depends on this messaging, and the
group's propaganda attracts recruits and other support that
enables the organization to persist. Consequently, the
committee believes that the campaign to degrade and defeat ISIL
on the battlefield must be coupled with a comparable effort to
degrade and defeat ISIL's message in the minds of potential
supporters. The committee believes that the CTTSO is uniquely
positioned to help counter ISIL's narrative and battlefield
successes, and to enhance U.S., allied, and international
partner Information Operations capabilities to mitigate and
marginalize ISIL's ability to influence and inspire. Elsewhere
in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would
provide additional authority for a pilot program to support
information operations and strategic communications
capabilities.
The committee urges the CTTSO to work with the combatant
commands to provide technological and operational capabilities
to support the tactical, operational, and strategic
requirements of the combatant commanders. Further, the
committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict to brief the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than July 30, 2015,
on additional counter-ISIL activities and initiatives being
conducted by the CTTSO.
The committee recommends $96.2 million, an increase of
$25.0 million, in PE 63122D8Z for the Combating Terrorism
Technical Support Office for distinct and focused counter-ISIL
efforts, global in nature, including support for geographic
combatant commander information operations requirements.
Comptroller General review of advanced semiconductors and
microelectronics
The committee recognizes that the development and delivery
of critical capabilities of the Department of Defense,
Intelligence Community, and other Government organizations are
dependent, in part, on incorporating rapidly evolving, leading-
edge semiconductors and microelectronic devices into their
systems, including technologies for which there is no
commercial demand. Once dominated by domestic sources, today's
microelectronics manufacturing is largely conducted outside of
the United States.
The committee is aware that foreign dependence on
microelectronics may increase security risks, such as
introduction of corrupt technologies into weapon systems, loss
of national security-related intellectual property, and
disruption of supply of critical microelectronics. For more
than a decade, the Government has relied heavily on a single,
U.S.-owned company for sensitive, leading-edge trusted
microelectronics through the Trusted Foundry Program. However,
the proposed acquisition of this firm's microelectronics
fabrication facilities and related intellectual property by a
foreign-owned entity creates uncertainty about the Government's
future access to leading-edge trusted microelectronics and
other advanced semiconductor materials and presents risk for
Department of Defense programs that rely on these
microelectronics.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Department of Defense's actions
and measures to address the risk of losing access to the source
of trusted leading-edge microelectronics, and to submit a
report on the findings to the House Committee on Armed Services
by March 1, 2016. The report shall address the following:
(1) What efforts have been made to identify the potential
impacts to defense research and weapon systems' acquisition
programs;
(2) What actions, if any, have been taken by Department of
Defense programs to mitigate the potential risk;
(3) What actions, if any, have been taken to identify and
acquire alternative sources of trusted leading-edge
microelectronics, or to create new sources through Government
investments, such as Defense Production Act investments; and
(4) The use of new or innovative manufacturing techniques,
such as split manufacturing, or other emerging capabilities.
Comptroller General review of technology transition efforts of the
Department of Defense
The Department of Defense's science and technology
enterprise is responsible for identifying, pursuing, and
developing new and advanced technologies to improve and enhance
military capabilities. The committee continues to be concerned,
however, about the lack of technology transition that occurs
between the Department's science and technology activities and
acquisition programs of record. Previous studies by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others have
identified a number of factors that contribute to this
situation, including insufficient processes and mechanisms
within the Department to conduct technology demonstration and
testing, prototyping, and generally ensure that high-value
technologies are mature and available to be incorporated into
weapon system programs. In the past, the committee has
expressed concern that the Department has not put sufficient
emphasis on technology transition, but the renewed focus on
warfighting experimentation to support transition and the
effective use of the Rapid Innovation Program indicate that
some progress may have been made. The committee also believes
that funding for up-front acquisition activities, such as
operational analysis to support requirements definition and
maturation, modeling and simulation for trade space analysis,
and funding to support technological maturation to get some
activities through the ``valley of death'' also make
potentially valuable contributions to supporting technology
transition, though the impact of these activities needs to be
better understood and the return on investment quantified.
The committee last asked the Department to assess its
technology transition activities in 2008, but it took more than
3 years for that report to be completed. The committee believes
that the landscape for technology transition has changed
significantly in the intervening period, and a review by the
GAO would provide a better understanding of the factors that
affect successful technology transition, and what
recommendations might be made to improve the Department's
return on investment for technology transition.
The committee continues to be concerned that the way in
which the Department of Defense funds technology transition
activities, including funding for advanced component
development and prototyping, as well as system development and
demonstration activities, may be hampering the effective and
timely transition of mature technologies into acquisition
programs. Therefore, the committee directs Comptroller General
of the United States to review how the Department's research
and development funds are used and whether this approach to
funding effectively supports technology risk reduction
activities, operations analysis, prototyping, experimentation,
and technology transition. The Comptroller General should
submit a report on the review to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2016. In addition, the Comptroller
General should include recommendations for better ways for the
Department to support the delivery of mature technologies to
acquisition programs.
Computational Research and Engineering Acquisition Tools and
Environment
The committee is aware of a program within the Office of
the Secretary of Defense called the Computational Research and
Engineering Acquisition Tools and Environment (CREATE). This
program has developed and deployed multi-physics engineering
software applications with increasingly capable high-
performance computing systems, as well as existing simpler
software tools, to accurately predict the performance of weapon
systems in much shorter timeframes. CREATE's ultimate goal is
to move the Department of Defense away from building and
testing physical prototypes as the sole means to validate the
performance of a system, to also include very robust virtual
prototype design and evaluation, followed by the physical
prototype validation needed to verify actual weapon performance
and safety. The committee notes that tools such as these can be
used to identify and help eliminate design defects and
integration problems much earlier in weapon systems design and
test processes, before major schedule and budget commitments
are made, resulting in reduced acquisition time, cost, and
risk. In separate studies, the Department has documented that
each dollar invested in high-performance computing results in a
return on investment at 7 to 13 times that investment. The
committee supports such activities, and encourages the
Department to continue investing in resources needed to develop
the necessary software tools, as well as the integration of
such tools into existing and new acquisition programs.
Corrosion control and prevention
The budget request included $1.5 million in PE 64016D8Z for
the Department of Defense Corrosion Program.
The committee continues to be concerned that the Department
has consistently underfunded the Corrosion Program since fiscal
year 2011 despite the fact that the Department estimates that
the negative effects of corrosion cost the Department more than
$20.00 billion annually to prevent and mitigate corrosion of
its assets, including military equipment, weapons, facilities,
and other infrastructure. The committee is further concerned
that the Department continues to under-resource this program
despite clear congressional support as demonstrated by multiple
fiscal year adjustments to the program's funding.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $6.5 million, an
increase of $5.0 million, in PE 64016D8Z for the Department of
Defense Corrosion Program.
Department of Defense infectious disease research and development
The committee recognizes the importance of the role of the
Department of Defense in responding to a pandemic disease and
training and protecting Department personnel deployed in a
theater of operations consumed by infectious disease. In
addition to response, the Department also plays a critical role
in funding appropriate research, development, and technology
efforts to treat and prevent the spread of infectious diseases,
in coordination with other relevant government agencies. Many
infectious diseases are spread through human-to-human contact
and through animal-to-human contact known as zoonosis.
Historically, the Department has focused efforts on preventing
human-to-human transmission of infectious diseases which pose a
national security risk or a risk to deployed forces. The
committee believes it is also important to understand zoonosis.
The committee urges the Department to update efforts to
identify emerging and expanding zoonotic infectious diseases
around the globe which pose a national security risk or a risk
to deployed forces and utilize competitive extramural research
and existing national biosafety laboratories to enhance the
Department of Defense's capabilities to prevent and respond to
future global outbreaks or epidemics.
Electronic Warfare Executive Committee
The committee is aware that the Defense Science Board
recently completed a report on electronic warfare (EW) that
found ``the Department of Defense has lost focus on electronic
warfare at the programmatic and strategic level and should
recreate the mechanisms needed to develop EW strategies,
synchronize programs, and advise the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary of Defense on EW matters.'' As a result, the Deputy
Secretary of Defense has recently established an Electronic
Warfare Executive Committee (EXCOM) to provide strategic focus
and oversight on EW programs, especially at the points where EW
and cyber are converging. The EW EXCOM will be co-chaired by
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
with an initial focus on EW strategy, acquisition, operational
support and security. The committee commends the Department of
Defense for making such a strong move to improve oversight of
all EW activities, and looks forward to hearing more from the
Department about how it will operate and key recommendations it
plans to make.
Enhancing situation awareness for military aircraft
The committee notes that there have been recent
developments in commercial technologies that could enhance the
situational awareness in aircraft by improving displays and
implementing real-time information distribution, both inside
and outside of the aircraft. These technologies can combine
three-dimensional (3D) visualization using camera, thermal and
satellite imagery, recording and networking capabilities into a
single cockpit platform that could facilitate mission planning
and execution. The committee believes that these additional
capabilities could be critically important in the types of
high-risk, high-difficulty missions executed by Special
Operations. The committee encourages evaluation of these
enhanced cockpit technologies for future use in Special
Operations aircraft.
High Power Directed Energy research
The budget request included $30.3 million in PE 63178C for
Directed Energy research.
The committee is strongly in support of directed energy
program development. The committee is aware of efforts under
review by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), including the Diode
Pumped Alkali Laser and the Fiber Combining Laser. The
committee notes that these programs are at different technology
readiness levels, including some still requiring significant
research and development to reach required power levels to be
effective against certain threats.
The committee notes a significant increase, more than
double, the amount requested by MDA in its fiscal year 2015
budget request. The committee also believes High Power Directed
Energy programs would receive attention better focused on
delivering anti-ballistic missile capability at the earliest
practical date if they were reorganized within MDA. The
committee recommends these activities be realigned under the
MDA Director of Engineering and recommends a new program
element for that purpose.
The committee recommends $30.3 million, the amount of the
budget request, in PE 63XXXC for Weapons Technology, High Power
Directed Energy.
Language translation technology
The committee acknowledges that the work of the U.S.
defense community integrally involves the ability to
efficiently and accurately translate large volumes of documents
and data, and to communicate and interact with multinational
partners, security forces, and local indigenous populations in
their native languages. The best available foreign language
support services and technology products used by the relevant
agencies in these communities can be critical factors to
mission success, and the Department of Defense should ensure
these services and technology products are available to
servicemen and women who require translation technologies to
perform their important missions. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with
Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2015, on the
Department's language translation requirements and programs,
including the use of commercial language translation
technology.
Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle
The budget request for concept development and technology
development related to the Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle was
$12.0 million in PE 63178C for the Weapons Technology program
and $44.6 million in PE 63294C for the Common Kill Vehicle
Technology program.
The committee supports development of a Multiple-Object
Kill Vehicle as part of the long-term improvement of the
homeland ballistic missile defense of the United States. The
committee also believes these efforts would be given the
attention they need to successfully transition to a program of
record and a deployable capability if they were realigned and
reorganized within the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and it
recommends funding in a new program element to accomplish those
goals. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a
provision that would establish a Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle
program of record within MDA.
The committee recommends $86.5 million, an increase of
$30.0 million, in PE 63XXXC for the Multiple-Object Kill
Vehicle program.
Report on the United States Special Operations Command development of
directed energy
The committee recognizes that directed energy solutions
have the potential to provide warfighters with an array of
options beyond the strict limitations of kinetic systems. The
committee believes that the United States Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM) should continue to examine procuring or
developing directed energy technology through their unique
acquisition authorities. As the Special Operations Forces (SOF)
community looks to utilize those special acquisition
authorities, the committee recognizes that USSOCOM may need to
utilize tailored or SOF-peculiar test and evaluation
capabilities to support their urgent requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of Special
Operations Command to provide a briefing to the House Armed
Services Committee no later than 180 days after the enactment
of this Act on the command's need for a USSOCOM directed energy
test and evaluation program. The briefing required should
include:
(1) An overview of the current structure, processes and
requirements used to test and evaluate directed energy programs
and a measure of performance in meeting time-sensitive
warfighter requirements;
(2) Recommendations for how to enable testing and
evaluation of time-sensitive operational needs and mission
requirements as part of the USSOCOM acquisition processes;
(3) Recommendations for the requirements for a capable lab
or testing entity to carry out such testing; and
(4) An inventory of the tools and facilities that can meet
the test and evaluation needs of USSOCOM for its directed
energy programs.
Research and development work with biosafety facilities
The committee recognizes that the biosafety level 4 (BSL 4)
facilities are critical to medical and viral research, and
provide advanced research opportunities that help protect
warfighters from biological threats, and investigate outbreaks
and threats to public health. These facilities, which include
partnerships with non-profit entities, can assist in research
to help prevent viral outbreaks such as Ebola, influenza and
other similar biological threats.
While the committee understands that the most recent Ebola
outbreak now appears to be contained, constant vigilance is
still required. The Department of Defense's work in West Africa
was critical in containing the spread of Ebola. The committee
further recognizes that non-profit applied research institutes
have unique capabilities and expertise in areas important to
the Department of Defense, such as, rapid small drug down-
selection, formulation and supply under the appropriate
regulatory controls housed in BSL 4 facilities, and capability
required for ultimate delivery to the affected population, both
military and civilian. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services on their research and developmental work, to include
partnerships with non-profit research facilities regarding
potential renewed viral threats of especially dangerous
pathogens by January 31, 2016.
Ribonucleic acid technology research
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
faces significant challenges with infectious diseases, which
hospitalize more service members each year than those wounded
in combat. The recent outbreak of Ebola in Africa highlights
the challenging environment that military forces will be faced
with when operating in an environment of highly infectious
diseases. The committee is encouraged by the progress the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has made to
address the treatment for infectious diseases that can benefit
our warfighters, as well as affected civilian communities
throughout the world, based on techniques utilizing ribonucleic
acid (RNA). The committee encourages the Director of DARPA to
find new opportunities for expanding its research into new
areas specifically for research and equipment that enable RNA
target characterization, software development for in silico
screening of molecule libraries against RNA targets, and assay
development for in vitro high throughput screening and
validations.
Simulation training for emerging health threats
The committee believes that new emerging threats in the
form of highly infectious diseases such as the Ebola outbreak
in West Africa highlight the need for new forms of training for
military and civilian responders to mitigate the spread of
these infectious diseases. The committee understands that
Department of Defense-sponsored simulation training
technologies can provide a full continuum of training methods
that range from full-immersion to mixed-reality simulation, to
distance-learning technologies and formats. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to continue to look into
viable simulation training platforms that are portable, enable
a full range of realistic training, and foster an in-depth
experience that replicates real-world environments.
Special Operations Forces Combat Diving Program
The committee understands that U.S. Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM) included within the budget request for fiscal
year 2016 a new-start program called Special Operations Forces
Combat Diving. The committee strongly supports inclusion of
this program which is designed to provide for the modernization
and advancement of engineering, manufacturing, testing,
development, and transition of special operations-peculiar
diving technologies for special operations and combat divers.
The committee encourages the aggressive and timely development
of commercial and developmental underwater breathing
technologies, diver thermal regulations systems, diver
communications, tracking and monitoring systems, diver
propulsion systems and devices, advanced concept breathing
mixtures, and next-generation combat diver life supports
systems and technologies.
The committee also encourages the Commander, U.S. Special
Operations Command, to develop next-generation diver
technologies, to ensure that these individual diver systems are
matured in coordination with the development of USSOCOM's
broader Undersea Mobility strategy, and in particular, the dry
combat submersible platforms and prototypes currently being
developed by USSOCOM. The committee also expects USSOCOM to
leverage commercial technologies and advancements in this area
when practical, and to continue coordination with similar
research and development efforts underway within the Department
of Defense. As such, the committee directs the Commander, U.S.
Special Operations Command, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by July 30, 2015, on the
development of technologies and capabilities within the Special
Operations Forces Combat Diving Program.
Strategic Capabilities Office transitions of technology
The committee continues to monitor with interest the
efforts of the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) to identify,
analyze, and demonstrate promising concepts and capabilities to
counter strategic adversaries. With technologies from SCO
maturing and beginning to transition from demonstration to
operation, the committee needs to have a better understanding
of how those transitions are planned for and executed. The
Joint Explanatory Statement (Committee Print No. 4)
accompanying the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
recommended the development of more robust processes to tie
these efforts ``to the needs, requirements and priorities of
the combatant commands,'' as well as ``an estimated cost to
field the capability, if the demonstration proves successful,
to support transition planning activities.''
Recognizing that such investments are still in the
demonstration phase, the committee believes it is important to
do as much as possible to plan concurrently for the possibility
of transition into a program of record for fielded capability.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2016, on the
technology transition process for SCO activities. As part of
the briefing, the Under Secretary should address the following
issues:
(1) The status of transition agreements with operational
sponsors or service programs of record, including the threshold
for performance for objective fielded capabilities needed to
trigger or ensure transition;
(2) The process for doing analysis of alternatives (AOA)
for those demonstration capabilities to support proposed
transition;
(3) Cost estimation procedures to determine the funding
benchmarks for objective fielded capabilities; and
(4) Examples of programs currently transitioning or
transitions planned for fiscal year 2016, including any
supporting documentation, like transition agreements, AOAs, or
cost estimation, which may be used for decisions to proceed
beyond engineering and manufacturing development stage.
Technology supporting information operations and strategic
communications
The budget request contained $33.5 million in PE 63699D8Z
for emerging capabilities technology development, including for
concept development of emerging irregular warfare technology
needs, and demonstrations that have joint and interagency
applicability.
The committee remains particularly concerned with the
success of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
messaging and propaganda, and ISIL's ability to persuade,
inspire, and recruit from across the globe. ISIL's continued
success on the battlefield depends on this messaging, and the
group's propaganda attracts recruits and other support that
enables the organization to persist. Consequently, the
committee believes that the campaign to degrade and defeat ISIL
on the battlefield must be mated with a comparable effort to
degrade and defeat ISIL's message in the minds of potential
supporters. The committee believes that there is a critical
need for technologies and strategies to help counter ISIL's
narrative and battlefield successes, and to enhance U.S.,
allied, and international partner information operations
capabilities to mitigate and marginalize ISIL's ability to
influence and inspire. Elsewhere in this report, the committee
provides additional authority for a pilot program to support
information operations and strategic communications
capabilities. The committee urges the Department of Defense to
work with the combatant commands to provide technological and
operational capabilities to support the tactical, operational,
and strategic requirements of the various combatant commanders.
The committee is aware that the Emerging Capabilities
Technology Development (ECTD) program and its predecessors have
been instrumental in assessing the technology needs of the
strategic communication and information operations communities,
and have pursued successful demonstration of some of those
capabilities. For example, the Information Operations
Assessment Foundation effort identified best practices in the
Department, industry, and academia to help develop and refine
processes and tools for information operations assessments, and
transitioned to the Joint Information Operations Warfare
Center. ECTD has also developed an influence assessment
training capability project for use in both influence
assessment and Theater Campaign Planning, as well as a Web-
based counter-messaging prototype tool that was delivered to
the interagency Center for Strategic Counterterrorism
Communications at the Department of State and is being
considered for transition to other potential combatant command
users.
Therefore, the committee recommends $43.5 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63699D8Z to support the
development and demonstration of technologies supporting
information operations and strategic communications. Of that,
$5.0 million should be applied to countering Russian Federation
propaganda, and $5.0 million should be applied to countering
the propaganda of ISIL.
U.S. Special Operations Command Terrain Following/Terrain Avoidance
Radar program for MC-130J aircraft
The budget request contained $35.4 million for procurement
of the MC-130 Terrain Following/Terrain Avoidance Radar
program.
The committee notes that U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) recently conducted an analysis of alternatives for
MC-130J Commando II aircraft, and that this analysis led to the
decision to discontinue development of the APN-241 radar and to
transition to the AN/APQ-187 Silent Knight Radar. The committee
understands that during contractor flight tests of the APN-241
modified for terrain following, operators and testers deemed
the APN-241 unsafe and ineffective for Terrain Following/
Terrain Avoidance (TF/TA) flight, and that any modification to
the current APN-241 would require extensive redesign and result
in a new radar system. As such, the committee supports the
USSOCOM Commander's decision to accelerate transition to the
AN/APQ-187 Silent Knight Radar program, and based on the
justification provided to the committee from USSOCOM,
recommends transferring available funding from the MC-130
Terrain Following/Terrain Avoidance Radar procurement program
to higher priority programs in other budget appropriations. The
committee directs the Commander, U.S. Special Operations
Command to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by July 30, 2015, on the TF/TA radar program for MC-
130J aircraft.
Further, the committee recommends no funding, a decrease of
$35.4 million, for procurement of the MC-130 Terrain Following/
Terrain Avoidance Radar program. In lieu of these procurement
funds, the committee recommends $42.3 million, an increase of
$15.2 million, in PE 60403BB for continued development of the
MC-130 Terrain Following/Terrain Avoidance Radar Program. In
addition, the committee recommends $23.2 million, an increase
of $5.0 million, in PE 1105219BB for Medium Altitude Long
Endurance Tactical (MALET) MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
development. Finally, the committee recommends $26.9 million,
an increase of $15.2 million, for the continued procurement of
the MALET MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $170.5 million for operational
test and evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends $170.5
million, full funding of the budget request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2016
operational test and evaluation, Defense program are identified
in division D of this Act.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for research,
development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in
section 4201 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Extension of Defense Research and Development Rapid
Innovation Program
This section would amend section 1073 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) by extending the authorization for the Department
of Defense to execute activities for the Rapid Innovation
Program through 2020.
Section 212--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Medical
Countermeasures Program
This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of
50 percent of the funds made available for the Department of
Defense Medical Countermeasures program within the Chemical-
Biological Defense Program until the Secretary of Defense
provides a report to the congressional defense committees that
validates the requirements and conducts an independent cost-
benefit analysis to justify funding and efficiencies. This
section would also require the Comptroller General of the
United States to submit a review of the certification to the
congressional defense committees within 60 days after the date
on which the Secretary submits his report.
The committee is concerned that the Advanced Manufacturing
and Development (ADM) program within the Medical
Countermeasures Program has experienced a program delay of 16
months and an increase in cost of more than $52.0 million. The
committee expects the Department of Defense to conduct this
review and assessment of the ADM program in order to determine
the future of the program, and whether continuing it in a
fiscally constrained environment is in the best interests of
the Department of Defense and the U.S. Government.
Section 213--Limitation on Availability of Funds for F-15 Infrared
Search and Track Capability Development
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2016 for research, development,
test, and evaluation, Air Force, for F-15 infrared search and
track capability to not more than 50 percent until a period of
30 days has elapsed following the date on which the Secretary
of Defense submits a report to the congressional defense
committees. This section would require the Secretary of Defense
to submit such report not later than March 1, 2016, detailing
the requirements and cost estimates for the development and
procurement of infrared search and track capability for F/A-18
and F-15 aircraft of the Navy and the Air Force. The report
would include: a comparison of the requirements between the F/
A-18 and F-15 aircraft infrared search and track development
efforts of the Navy and the Air Force; an explanation of any
differences between the F/A-18 and F-15 infrared search and
track capability development efforts of the Navy and the Air
Force; a summary of the schedules and required funding to
develop and field such a capability; an explanation of any need
for the Navy and the Air Force to field different F/A-18 and F-
15 aircraft search and track systems; and any other matters the
Secretary determines appropriate.
Section 214--Independent Assessment of F135 Engine Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into a contract with a federally-funded research and
development center to conduct an assessment of the F135 engine
program and to submit a report containing such assessment by
March 16, 2016. The assessment would include an assessment of
the reliability, growth, and cost reduction efforts with
respect to the F135 engine program, including a detailed
description of the reliability and cost history of the engine,
the identification of key reliability and cost challenges to
the program as of the date of the assessment, and the
identification of any potential options for addressing such
challenges. Additionally, the assessment would include a
thorough assessment of the F135 engine failure and subsequent
fire on June 23, 2014, including the identification and
definition of the root cause of the incident, the
identification of potential actions or design changes needed to
address such root cause, and the associated cost, schedule, and
performance implications of such incident to both the F135
engine program and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. The
federally-funded research and development center selected to
carry out the assessment would do so by analyzing data
collected by the F-35 Joint Program Office, other elements of
the Federal Government or contractors, and the conduct of such
assessment would not affect the Secretary's plans to dispose of
the aircraft involved.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 221--Expansion of Education Partnerships To Support Technology
Transfer and Transition
This section would modify the authority for education
partnerships in section 2194 of title 10, United States Code,
by allowing institutions that support technology transition or
transfer activities, such as business schools or law schools
with technology management programs, to participate.
The committee is aware that the current statute authorizing
educational partnership agreements (EPA) limits the educational
institutions that can participate to ``local educational
agency, colleges, universities, and any other nonprofit
institutions that are dedicated to improving science,
mathematics, and engineering education.'' Historically, law
schools and business schools that might have technology-focused
concentration areas have been deemed ineligible to participate.
By permitting defense laboratories to form an EPA with a
business school, it would allow the laboratories to work with
students who can examine technology for its commercial
potential, provide for early market assessments, and evaluate
market strengths and weaknesses. Likewise, by allowing law
schools to participate in an EPA, the laboratory could work
with law students on patent assessments and legal issues
involving technology transfer. The committee also believes that
these kinds of arrangements would create opportunities for
business students to enhance their skills related to
commercializing technology using real-world inventions, helping
to ensure a future workforce skilled in entrepreneurship and
the creation of high-tech companies. Law students would gain
experience related to intellectual property development and
protection that would also be valuable in business development.
Section 222--Strategies for Engagement with Historically Black Colleges
and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions of Higher Education
This section would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to each develop a strategy for engagement with and
support of the development of scientific, technical,
engineering, and mathematics capabilities with historically
black colleges and universities and minority-serving
institutions, and to submit such strategies to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act. This section would also require
the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy that encompasses
the strategies developed by the military departments and to
submit this strategy to the congressional defense committees
not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Section 223--Plan for Advanced Weapons Technology War Games
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
develop a plan for integrating advanced technologies, such as
directed energy weapons, hypersonic strike systems, and
autonomous systems, into broader title 10 war games to improve
socialization with the warfighter and the development and
experimentation of various concepts for employment by the Armed
Forces. The Secretary would be required to submit the plan to
the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The committee believes that there are a number of emerging
advanced weapons systems, like directed energy, electromagnetic
railguns, hypersonics, and autonomous systems, that have the
potential for dramatically enhancing the military effectiveness
of U.S. forces. The committee has been concerned in the past
with the transition of some of these science and technology
concepts into fielded systems, and recognizes that there are a
number of factors that can inhibit this transition. The
committee believes that a significant factor is the lack of
experimentation, concept development and war gaming that can be
helpful in ironing out the technology, refining operating
concepts and gaining warfighter trust and confidence in
untested systems. The committee is aware of numerous historical
examples in which experimentation with new technologies in
peacetime have paved the way for their adoption and effective
use in wartime. The committee believes that increasing
integration of these new, advanced technology weapons systems
into existing exercises, either as tangible prototypes or as
conceptual excursions, could be valuable in promoting the
experimentation needed to lay the foundation for successful
technology adoption by the warfighting community.
Section 224--Comptroller General Review of Autonomic Logistics
Information System for F-35 Lightening II Aircraft
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct an analysis of the autonomic logistics
information system (ALIS) element of the F-35 program, and to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
April 1, 2016 on the analysis. The committee intends this
review to address issues of performance, cost, and suitability
with ALIS software that will inform committee action on the F-
35 program in the future. The committee supports the F-35
Lightening II aircraft program as a critical component required
to maintain future air superiority and global strike
capability. The committee also notes that the F-35 Joint
Program Office and the prime contractor have taken steps to
address maintainability and reliability issues with the F-35
that have the potential to significantly improve performance in
those areas.
However, the committee is concerned that continued problems
with the performance of the ALIS element of the F-35 program
may put the program at significant risk of cost increases and
performance shortfalls. The committee notes that section 218 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66) required the Department of Defense to
conduct an independent detailed review of F-35 software,
including the ALIS system, and that the subsequent report
highlighted the potential risks that challenges with the ALIS
program could create. The committee further notes that as part
of oversight visits to facilities where F-35 is being operated,
the committee received numerous complaints and concerns by F-35
maintenance and operational personnel regarding the
limitations, poor performance, poor design, and overall
unsuitability of the ALIS software in its current form.
Finally, in testimony provided by Department of Defense
officials at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces on April 14, 2015, that Government witnesses
confirmed the same problems observed by members at field
locations.
Section 225--Briefing on Shallow Water Combat Submersible Program
This section would require a briefing to the congressional
defense committees on the U.S. Special Operations Command
Shallow Water Combat Submersible prior to program acceptance of
the first article delivery on the account of schedule delays
and a reduction of final basis of issue from 14 to 10
platforms.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
Overall readiness has improved across the military services
from lows experienced in the wake of fiscal year 2013
sequestration when only 2 Army non-missioned brigade combat
teams were ready, the Navy could not deploy a carrier strike
group, the Air Force grounded 31 squadrons, and the Marine
Corps reduced its maintenance of barracks, facilities, and
training ranges to roughly 16 percent of the required ``bare
minimum'' to protect readiness for rapid deployment. However,
the committee notes that recovery from these ebbs in readiness
has taken time, with most military services reporting a return
to pre-sequester levels of readiness only in recent months. The
budget request for fiscal year 2016 calls this recovery
``fragile.''
The committee is concerned that the ongoing high
operational tempo being experienced by all of the military
services continues to challenge this fragile readiness. Many of
the military services have seen little to no change in their
day-to-day mission requirements, even with the drawdown of
combat forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. New
missions, such as the response to Ebola in West Africa, advise-
and-assist operations in the Republic of Iraq, air sorties in
Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, infantry and armor
deployments to reassure and train European allies, and support
to embassy evacuation in the Republic of Yemen, among others,
have kept operational tempos at elevated levels, what the
Department of Defense calls ``severe deployment demands.''
The committee is also concerned that Department of Defense
officials have begun to warn that while current force structure
and readiness levels allow the military departments to meet the
day-to-day demand for forces, they would be constrained in
their ability to provide forces to respond to an unforeseen
contingency. The committee notes that this is especially true
in meeting the time-phased requirements of the most
``stressful'' operational plans. In some cases, due to a lack
of sufficient ready and available forces or key capabilities,
the combatant commanders have assessed that they are unable to
meet some wartime requirements. As a result, the risk to the
U.S. military's ability to respond to unforeseen contingencies
has increased.
To continue reducing areas of acute risk, and improve the
readiness of the force, this Act would provide additional
budget authority for multiple unfunded priorities of the
military departments, to include the restoration of funding for
operational tempo, flying hour programs, critical skill
training, and facilities sustainment. This Act also would
provide additional budget authority for readiness initiatives,
such as corrosion prevention, control, and mitigation.
This Act also would make several policy changes to enhance
readiness and improve oversight. Specifically, it would enhance
property accountability by requiring a strategic plan for
excess defense articles, require investment in technologically
improved replacement parts that would significantly reduce
long-term ownership costs, and improves the process for
coordination between the Department of Defense and private
renewable energy developers to ensure future projects are
compatible with military operations.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Adjustments
Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft Training and Operations
Since 2008, the Air Force has more than tripled the number
of its Active Duty pilots flying remotely piloted aircraft
(RPA). The committee is aware that due to increases in demand,
RPA pilots have had a significant increase in workload going
back to 2007. The committee is concerned that the Air Force
continues to experience critical shortfalls in RPA pilots
despite historical trends indicating continued growth in demand
for RPA combat air patrols (CAPs) and remains concerned about
the practice of involuntarily retaining pilots from other
communities to fill RPA shortages. Most concerning is the
committee's belief that the Air Force still lacks a viable and
comprehensive corrective action plan to address critical and
growing operational and training shortfalls within the RPA
community as well as the manning challenges mentioned elsewhere
in this report.
The committee notes that it has, on multiple occasions,
tasked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine
this issue, and the GAO reviews have resulted in a number of
recommended corrective actions. Despite these recommendations
and internal Air Force assessments, the committee believes the
Air Force has not been proactive enough in correcting known
deficiencies and, in some cases, has disregarded alternative
recommended approaches that could help alleviate some of the
most immediate and critical shortfalls. As an example, in its
report, ``Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of Unmanned
Aerial System Pilots,'' published in April 2014, the GAO
recommended that the Air Force evaluate using alternative
personnel populations such as civilians or enlisted personnel
to conduct RPA missions; the Air Force did not concur, citing a
year-and-a-half-old assessment.
The committee believes the Air Force's reluctance to
properly resource the RPA community, despite clear indications
that the intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike
capability of RPA systems is likely to continue to increase, as
is the scope of tasks RPA units are expected to complete, has
resulted in an unsustainable operational and personnel tempo.
To ensure the Air Force is properly addressing this
critical training and operational aspects of this issue, in
conjunction with the plan required elsewhere in this Act, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to:
(1) Assess the viability of using non-rated, civilian,
contractor, or enlisted pilots to execute RPA missions;
(2) Develop a comprehensive training plan aimed at
increasing the throughput of Undergraduate Remotely Piloted
Aircraft Training (URT) without sacrificing quality and
standards;
(3) Establish optimum and minimum crew ratios and, to the
maximum extent possible, conduct missions in accordance with
optimum ratios; and
(4) Identify any resource, legislative, or Departmental
policy challenges impeding the corrective action needed to
reach sustainable RPA operations tempo.
The Secretary shall brief the House Committee on Armed
Services on these requirements by February 1, 2016.
Further, the committee recommends $145.1 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in Flight Training, Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force, to increase URT capacity.
Base Realignment and Closure 2017
The budget request included $10.5 million, in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide, to support a request to conduct a
new round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) to align
infrastructure with planned force structure changes. The
requested funds would be used to develop recommendations and to
manage BRAC efforts.
The committee recommends no funds to support the
development of infrastructure recommendations prepared in the
context of a new BRAC authorization.
Energy Issues
Analysis for Additional Uses of Energy Savings Performance Contracts
The committee notes that the military departments have
utilized Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) to fund
energy conservation projects for military facilities with no
upfront costs to the Federal government. The committee notes
that these contracts have led to a reduction in energy
consumption and cost savings in installation energy costs.
While the committee recognizes that the application of ESPCs is
currently limited by statute to federal facilities, the
committee believes there may be potential benefits to
leveraging ESPCs in non-facility applications. Therefore, the
committee directs the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation to provide the congressional defense committees, by
March 1, 2016, a cost-benefit analysis for the potential use of
Energy Savings Performance Contracts in non-facility
applications. The analysis should consider a case study for
each of the following categories of non-facility applications:
aircraft, maritime, and ground vehicles. The analysis should
evaluate whether ESPCs could be successfully utilized in these
non-facility applications to achieve energy efficiency and
financial savings through a decrease in fuel and maintenance
costs.
Briefing on Energy Performance Initiatives
The committee is aware that in testimony before the House
Armed Services Committee on March 29, 2012, that the then-
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and
Programs stated that ``we are integrating energy considerations
into the acquisition process by including requirements for
energy performance in contracts.'' The Assistant Secretary
included examples in testimony that included energy factors in
the life cycle cost calculations, to include fuel efficiency,
in the competition for the next-generation aerial refueling
tanker and provisions included in the Logistics Civil
Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to, not later than
March 1, 2016, brief the House Committee on Armed Services on
energy performance and efficiency initiatives. The briefing
should address the following issues:
(1) How the energy efficiency language included in the
next-generation aerial refueling tanker competition and
subsequent control have been incorporated into other
acquisition programs, and any additional plans to include
energy-efficiency requirements into future acquisition
programs; and
(2) How energy performance provisions in LOGCAP contracts
have been implemented and whether new LOGCAP contracts include
such provisions, and if not, the reason for no longer including
these provisions.
Briefing on Military Installation Readiness
The committee is aware that in 2014, the Pentagon released
a report claiming that changing conditions, including expected
increased water shortages and instances of wildfire with
increased drought, in addition to flooding due to sea level
rise and coastal erosion from storm surges, pose risks to the
United States' national security. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to, not later than March 1,
2016, provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services on the Department's strategy and initiatives to
mitigate the impact of these changes to ensure optimal military
readiness. At minimum, the briefing should address the
following issues:
(1) How are changing conditions affecting operations and
military readiness at U.S. installations?
(2) How are best practices being disseminated and
implemented across the U.S. installations?
(3) Is the Department of Defense facing any challenges in
carrying out preparedness and resilience initiatives? If so,
what are these obstacles and do they require congressional
action to increase security on installations?
(4) What opportunities exist for effective public private
partnerships or contracts with industry to address and mitigate
the effects of these changing conditions?
Collaboration on Operational Energy
The committee acknowledges that the military departments
have undertaken a number of initiatives in the area of
operational energy to increase combat capability, reduce energy
consumption, and strengthen the energy security of deployed
military forces. The committee believes the military
departments should collaborate more closely on operational
energy initiatives to ensure that innovative technologies, best
practices, and lessons learned can be quickly and easily shared
among the military departments. The committee believes that
increased collaboration among the military departments will
help align and advance operational energy initiatives, reduce
costs, and provide greater combat capability to deployed
military forces.
The committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Energy, Installations, and Environment is responsible for
providing leadership, facilitating communication, and
coordinating activities regarding the operational energy plans
and programs of the Department of Defense and the military
departments. Therefore, the committee encourages the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment
to work with the military departments to implement policies and
procedures to encourage additional collaboration, realize
efficiencies, and prevent duplication of efforts related to
operational energy.
Progress and Savings from Net Zero Installation Initiatives
The Department of Defense requires sufficient, sustainable,
and reliable supplies of energy and water to meet its mission
needs. To facilitate this, the Department has assessed its
energy security via increased energy efficiency and optimized
use of renewable energy. Moreover, the Department has stated
plans to reduce its energy and water use at its installations.
To that end, the Department plans to increase the degree to
which it has ``net zero'' installations, or installations that
produce as much energy as they consume, and limit consumption
of freshwater resources and return an equivalent amount of
water back to the same watershed, so as not to deplete
groundwater.
In 2011, the Army launched its Net Zero Initiative, which
it sees as a holistic approach to energy, water, and waste
management that directly supports the Army's energy security
and sustainability objectives. In fiscal year 2012, the Navy
began efforts to determine which installations would have the
best opportunity to cost-effectively achieve net zero goals.
Ultimately, the Navy's stated goal is for half of Navy
installations to be net zero for electricity consumption by
2020. Also, the Air Force plans to achieve a net zero posture
for installation water, energy, and solid waste management,
intending to build upon and complement other Air Force
strategic sustainability policy and goals.
The committee notes that legislation has been enacted to
significantly improve the federal government's energy
management, water efficiency requirements, and waste management
in order to save money, reduce emissions that contribute to air
pollution, and enhance national security. The committee is also
aware of the Department's need for energy security and
reliability to support its critical missions, and is supportive
of its net zero efforts that enhance mission security and
effectiveness, achieve financial savings, and ensure a return
on investment. To understand the degree to which the Department
has identified benefits, as well as challenges, from its net
zero initiatives, and any areas where improvements are needed,
the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by May 15, 2016, on the following:
(1) To what extent has the Department of Defense developed
an integrated net zero strategy for energy, water, and waste
management at its military installations?
(2) What impact do net zero initiatives have on maintaining
mission capability, if any?
(3) What challenges have installations encountered in
implementing net zero initiatives or meeting net zero goals?
(4) What lessons have been learned from the military
services' and Department's net zero initiatives and how, if at
all, are those lessons being shared and optimized?
(5) What have been the costs and benefits of net zero
initiatives and how are those costs and benefits being
identified, tracked, and validated?
(6) How successful have the military departments and
installations been in implementing the net zero initiative?
Tubular Light-Emitting Diode Technology
The committee recognizes that the Department of the Navy is
replacing fluorescent lightbulbs aboard U.S. Navy vessels with
tubular light-emitting diodes (T-LEDs). The committee notes
that these fixtures may consume less energy, realize life-cycle
cost savings, and provide a return on investment. Should the
Secretary of the Navy determine that further investment in this
technology will lead to consistent return on investments across
the fleet and ashore, the committee encourages the Secretary to
fully develop an approved products list for T-LEDs that is
broadly available for use in vessels and facilities. In
addition, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to
request updates to the Unified Facilities Criteria and other
related Department of Defense regulations, to include new
lighting technologies as an option for vessels and facilities.
Logistics and Sustainment Issues
Auxiliary Personnel Lighter Barracks Ships
Self-Propelled Barracks Ships, otherwise known as Auxiliary
Personnel Lighters (APLs), provide housing for some of the
Navy's ship companies as their ships undergo repair,
maintenance, and upgrades. The oldest APL craft, built during
the 1940s, have significant health, safety, and quality-of-life
deficiencies. The committee believes that many of the APL
berthing barges are unfit for current and future naval service
because these craft have well exceeded their service life and
provide substandard living conditions for naval personnel.
To help Congress better assess future courses of action to
address quality-of-life, health, and safety issues associated
with the continued use of aging APLs, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to perform a cost-benefit analysis of
alternative ashore berthing options, in conjunction with, or in
lieu of, the continued use of APLs, including recapitalization
or replacement. The committee further directs the Secretary to
report the results of this analysis to the congressional
defense committees by February 1, 2016. The committee directs
the Secretary to include in his report an assessment of the
current and Future Year Defense Program projected APL
maintenance and overhaul costs, current habitability conditions
aboard APLs, and any other information he deems relevant.
Combat Footwear for Female Service Members
The committee notes that in January 2013, the Secretary of
Defense announced a new policy regarding the eligibility of
female service members to serve in certain previously
prohibited combat positions. The committee is concerned that
despite the reality of female service members serving in combat
for many years, the military services have been slow to field
individual equipment that is properly sized, weighted, and
designed for use by female service members.
The committee believes it is important the Department of
Defense ensure that female service members have equipment and
clothing tailored to the physical requirements of women in
order to operate effectively and not be hampered by equipment
that is ill-fitting, uncomfortable, and potentially harmful
during operations in the field. The committee commends the June
2014 study conducted by the Department of Defense on
Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment for Female
Military Members. The committee notes, however, that this
report did not evaluate combat boots worn by female service
members.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
February 1, 2016, detailing the availability of combat boots
that are properly sized, weighted, and designed to accommodate
use by women across all of the military services. In
particular, the report should include, but not be limited to,
plans to provide a greater range of boot sizes and types for
women service members as well as the advisability and
feasibility of developing combat boots specifically designed
for female service members.
Continuous Technology Refreshment
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239) provided expanded authority to the
Department of Defense to foster use of technology-enhanced
maintenance capabilities with working-capital funds. The
conference report (H. Rept. 112-705) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 specifically
discusses Continuous Technology Refreshment (CTR), which is a
proven post-production sustainment acquisition strategy to
acquire technologically improved replacement parts and to
significantly reduce long-term ownership costs. Despite proven
cost savings within the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command,
the committee is concerned that other military departments, and
even other Army life-cycle management commands, have been slow
or resistant to implement robust CTR programs.
The original CTR concept provided a path for industry to
provide an industry investment solution through a business case
analysis (BCA) that included a technical description and
analysis and a comparison of the existing cost of ownership
with the proposed replacement unit cost, improved repair cost,
and projected reliability. This BCA serves as the funding
justification to use working-capital funds for all BCAs that
show a savings over 10 years. The committee is concerned that a
departure from this concept in favor of an approach using
logistics operations surcharges or proceeds from working-
capital fund investment sales has yielded limited return on
investment. The committee believes that any allocation of
funding from any funding account or working-capital source
should face the same BCA rigors and processes and should incur
progress reviews on status and results.
Accordingly, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes
a provision that would require each military department to
initiate a pilot program in fiscal year 2016 for CTR product
improvement under the authority provided in section 330 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181). It also would require each military department to
spend at least $5.0 million in working-capital funds in fiscal
year 2016 in support of a product improvement initiative as
described in section 330(b) of Public Law 110-181.
Decision Analysis Using Readiness Cost Analysis Tool
The committee is encouraged by the Naval Aviation
Enterprise's commitment to utilizing the Readiness Cost
Analysis Tool (RCAT) as outlined in the 2014 Naval Air Systems
Command Commander's Guidance. Given the potential value of this
tool in simultaneously increasing readiness and reducing costs,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to present a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September
1, 2015, on progress toward those objectives through
utilization of RCAT and other potential uses of this tool,
particularly any progress toward understanding differences
between conventional measures of readiness and combat
proficiency.
Defense Personal Property System
The committee recognizes the difficult task the Surface
Deployment and Distribution Command has in managing the
permanent change of station moves of thousands of military
families each year. The committee notes that in 2013,
representatives from the moving industry and Department of
Defense met to discuss a complete redesign of the Defense
Personal Property System (DPS) online module in an effort to
make it easier for service members to more accurately track
household goods and file claims for damaged items, as the
module has for years been characterized as cumbersome and
problematic.
The committee notes that a contract was awarded in 2013 to
improve the functionality and usability of the Web-based DPS
system. However, the committee remains concerned about the lack
of progress in reforming the functionality of the system and
that the DPS program management office has not issued the
fiscal year 2015 development schedule to implement system
enhancements and efficiencies.
The committee encourages the Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command to press for greater accountability and
responsiveness in the development and execution of improvements
to the Defense Personal Property System.
Defense Supply Single Point of Failure Assessment
The committee has become aware of an increasing number of
single points of failure within the defense supply chain for
critical parts, assemblies, and sub-assemblies. While the
committee recognizes that the lack of a diverse production and
supply system for specialized parts is largely driven by the
cost-prohibitive nature of maintaining multiple lines of supply
and the low profitability of low-volume production, it remains
concerned about the fragility of the supply chain in some
areas. This concern is especially acute within the lines of
supply supporting the growing number of aging weapons systems
in the U.S. inventory, many facing parts obsolescence
challenges. To better assess the risk to these critical lines
of supply and to assist with its oversight responsibilities,
the committee believes a thorough analysis of single points of
failure is warranted.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to assess and brief the House Committee on Armed
Services, not later than April 1, 2016, on any single sources
of supply in support of a major defense acquisition program. At
a minimum the assessment shall include:
(1) The identification of any single sources of supply for
parts, assemblies, and sub-assemblies required for life-cycle
management;
(2) Identification of systems that are at high risk of
having a single source of supply within the timeframe covered
by the Future Years Defense Plan; and
(3) Any recommended mitigation or corrective measures.
Department of Defense Corrosion Control Efforts
The committee continues to be responsive to providing the
Department of Defense the tools and resources required to
address the long-term effects of corrosion on the service life
of U.S. military equipment. The committee is encouraged by
Department of Defense efforts to address the preventable costs
of corrosion and encourages the Department to continue to
pursue low-cost, commercially available items that have
demonstrated an ability to significantly reduce corrosion. The
committee continues to support efforts by the Department to
review and standardize anti-corrosion policies in order to
mitigate the negative impacts of corrosion on U.S. military
equipment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by September 30, 2015, on efforts by the Department to make
low-cost anti-corrosion solutions available to the military
departments and the Department's progress in developing and
integrating anti-corrosion policies, directives, and standards
for all items protecting Department of Defense equipment in-use
and awaiting storage from the effects of corrosion caused by
exposure to the environment.
Depot Maintenance Capability
The Department of Defense maintains many complex weapon
systems, such as aircraft and ships, and equipment, such as
generators and radars, that require regular and emergency
maintenance by both military depots and contractors to continue
being available to meet national security goals. The committee
notes that Department of Defense components are in the process
of assessing the critical skills and competencies needed by the
depot maintenance civilian workforce to support current and
future national security requirements by projecting trends in
the workforce based upon expected losses due to retirement and
other attrition.
The committee recognizes the growing challenge to maintain
both a healthy commercial depot maintenance industrial base and
meet the organic core maintenance capability in compliance with
section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, which requires
the Department to maintain a core maintenance capability
involving a combination of personnel, facilities, equipment,
processes, and technology that is government-owned and
government-operated and needed to meet mobilization,
contingency, and emergency requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the House Committee on
Armed Services by June 15, 2016, that evaluates to what extent
the Department of Defense:
(1) Uses core capability requirements to manage current and
future depot maintenance workloads;
(2) Is able to provide information that identifies trends
in core capability workloads at selected military depots, and
the effects, if any, they are having on capability;
(3) Engages in agreements such as public-private
partnerships with contractors and the impact these agreements
have on the Department of Defense in meeting core capability
requirements;
(4) Resources core requirements; and
(5) Adequately captures core depot-level maintenance
capability requirements in the biennial core report required
under subsection 2464(d) of title 10, United States Code, and
any changes to subsection 2464(d) the Comptroller General would
recommend to increase transparency within the report.
The Comptroller General may also include other related
matters as deemed appropriate in order to provide a
comprehensive examination of core depot maintenance capability.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
brief the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
January 31, 2016, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller
General's evaluation.
Humidity-Controlled Shelters and Temporary Buildings
The committee notes that greater use of semi-permanent
humidity-controlled shelters by the U.S. military services,
Special Operations Command, and defense agencies could reduce
humidity, dust, and other environmental factors that damage
military equipment, reduce operational readiness, and increase
maintenance costs. While widely used by foreign militaries, the
Department of Defense does not have a single, comprehensive
military specification for such protective shelters.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committees on Armed
Services, not later than March 15, 2016, on a plan to develop
specifications for semi-permanent humidity-controlled shelters
that could be used by the military services, Special Operations
Command, and the defense agencies to protect assets such as
fixed-wing aircraft systems, missiles, radar systems, and other
equipment with sensitive electronics that are vulnerable to
corrosion across the range of environments in which assets
could operate and be housed, from tropical climates and
extremely cold weather regions to desert and extremely low-
humidity areas. The plan shall include an assessment of the
availability and potential use of commercially produced
shelters.
In preparing the plan, the Secretary, through the Office of
Corrosion Policy and Oversight and the corrosion executives of
the military services, shall coordinate with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness and
the Defense Logistics Agency.
Laser Ablation of Coatings
The committee is aware that the Air Force has been
utilizing robotic laser systems such as the Laser Automated De-
Coating System and the Advanced Robotic Laser Coating Removal
System, to ablate coatings as part of routine weapon system
sustainment. The committee notes that use of such systems has
resulted in cost savings by reducing the time required to
remove coatings from aircraft components such as F-16 radomes.
These savings have led the Air Force to expand the use of these
systems to ablation work on a wider range of components across
multiple types of fighter and cargo aircraft.
Further, the committee recognizes the Navy's Metalworking
Center has successfully laser ablated steel and has the laser,
coatings, materials characterizations, robotics experience, and
subject-matter experts to further develop laser ablation
technologies and determine return on investment.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to
leverage the synergy, joint technical problem solving, and
learning-curve efficiencies of the Center's co-location with
design test and laboratory facilities to determine if laser
systems could produce cost savings at Fleet Readiness Centers,
weapons depots, and shipyards similar to those experienced by
the Air Force.
Marine Corps Systems Command Engineering Support
The committee is aware that Marine Corps Systems Command
(MARCORSYSCOM) has determined that a number of engineering
functions at its headquarters are inherently governmental in
nature and has taken steps to in-source these previously
contracted services. While the committee supports the proper
alignment of functions that are inherently governmental in
nature, as required by law, it is concerned that after this
particular determination was made and engineering services were
consolidated at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command's
(SPAWAR) Atlantic Center, these same engineering services that
were deemed inherently governmental were subsequently re-
outsourced by SPAWAR to contractor performance. The committee
is concerned about the inconsistent classification of these
positions and, if not inherently governmental in nature, the
potential for inefficiencies and increased contract oversight
costs associated with the geographic separation of MARCORSYSCOM
and the contractors providing engineering services. The
committee notes the Department of the Navy could potentially
achieve greater synergy and avoid these inefficiencies by
leveraging the Government's localized engineering capacities
resident within the Navy's Surface Warfare Center system.
The committee directs the Commandant of the Marine Corps to
brief the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1,
2016, on the status of engineering support functions, both
governmental and contracted, that support MARCORSYSCOM.
Planning for Critical Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment
Innovation
The committee recognizes that modern organizational
clothing and individual equipment (OCIE), including handwear,
provides soldiers with a distinct combat advantage, but the
Army's record of using Overseas Contingency Operations funding
is not ideally suited to the innovation of next-generation
soldier equipment. The committee notes that the Army currently
lacks a single glove system that is effective in environments
from minus-50 degrees to 100-plus degrees, and the Army's
Soldier Enhancement Program is presently evaluating an
integrated glove system with advanced raw materials and new
manufacturing processes for the next generation of Army
handwear.
As a means of providing greater visibility of programming,
planning, and budgeting for critical OCIE programs such as
handwear, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by
January 15, 2016, detailing efforts to program, plan, and
budget for fielding of next-generation Army handwear systems.
Report on Asset Tracking
The committee is in receipt of the congressionally mandated
comprehensive strategy for improving asset tracking and in-
transit visibility. The committee supports the Department's
goal of enhancing asset visibility through item-unique
identification (IUID), automatic identification (AIT), and
automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) processes but
is concerned that only 47 percent of contracts include the IUID
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS)
clause and only 16 percent of items across all classes of
supply have been marked. Any successful asset visibility or
AIT/AIDC strategy requires continuous identification,
integration, and monitoring of efforts. The committee urges the
Department and the services to increase their oversight of the
implementation of IUID and other AIT/AIDC policies and directs
the service secretaries to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by September 15, 2015, on efforts to improve
asset tracking, including specific steps taken by each military
service to ensure the use of the IUID DFARS clause in
contracts.
Service Life Extension of Emergency Vehicles
The committee is aware that the Department of the Navy
utilizes a depot-level maintenance strategy to extend the
service life of fire, rescue, and emergency vehicles. The
committee understands that the depot-level maintenance is
conducted typically 8-10 years into a vehicle's life cycle and
this service life extension program can extend the life of
fire, rescue, and emergency vehicles by 10 years and results in
significant cost savings over the purchase of new equipment.
The committee is encouraged by the Navy's pursuit of greater
efficiencies in the fire and emergency service vehicle
maintenance process and the promise it holds for achieving
savings and a higher rate of vehicle readiness across the
fleet. As such, the committee encourages the other military
services to pursue similar sustainment strategies to increase
life-cycle savings across the Department of Defense.
Readiness Issues
Advanced Foreign Language Proficiency Training Systems
The committee believes that foreign language proficiency is
an essential component of military readiness that enables U.S.
military personnel to provide strategic warning and critical
response capability. The committee is concerned that changes in
advanced foreign language proficiency training programs may
have an impact on the ability of civilian and military
personnel at the Department of Defense to support combatant
commanders and possibly lead to gaps in readiness.
Specifically, the committee is concerned that linguists at the
Department of Defense and supporting agencies may be unable to
perform their job functions properly if they are unable to
access advanced language and cultural training modules, as
these personnel are required to interact, speak, and write in
multiple dialects and social registers of a given language in
order to adequately perform their varied missions.
To better understand any potential shortfalls arising from
planned changes in advanced foreign language proficiency
training programs, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than October 1, 2015, on any capability gaps in advanced
foreign language proficiency training within the Department of
Defense. The Secretary shall also note any shortfalls that may
arise within agencies that support the Department of Defense.
Air Combat Training Range Upgrades
The committee is concerned by the proliferation of more
advanced threats to U.S. Armed Forces and potential capability
gaps in air combat training range instrumentation and equipment
able to support newer, more advanced technologies, and concepts
of operations that are being fielded to address these threats.
The committee also notes the constraints on near- and long-term
budgets to support high-cost live flight training. The
committee recognizes, as referenced elsewhere in this report,
that the Navy is seeking a new range capability to address
these gaps and shortfalls and recommended full funding at the
requested level to continue development and deployment of an
updated system. To improve the committee's oversight of the
recommended funding's execution and ensure the Department of
Defense is expending resources in the most cost-effective
manner, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2015, on efforts to
develop and employ new, updated range instrumentation systems
and leverage previous investments.
Analysis of Continuous Bomber Presence on Guam
The committee recognizes that the rotational deployment of
B-52, B-2, and other bomber aircraft to Guam is an important
component of U.S. Air Force strategy in the Asia-Pacific
region. This continuous bomber presence since March 2004 acts
as a deterrent to aggressive actions of nations in the region
and serves as a reminder of the United States' commitment to
its allies and a recognition of operational requirements. Given
the current fiscal environment, the committee has encouraged
all military services to evaluate current operational plans for
potential efficiencies and greater measures of effectiveness.
The committee recognizes the potential for cost savings on Guam
through the permanent establishment of a squadron or detachment
of bombers at Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB).
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
review the feasibility of, and requirement for, establishing a
permanent bomber presence on Guam and report the outcome of
this review to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2016. The review should evaluate the impact on operation and
maintenance accounts and potential military construction
investments for operations and increased military personnel at
AAFB, to include an analysis of the cost associated with
temporary duty stationing of aircraft and crews compared to the
cost of permanently stationed aircraft and crews. The analysis
also should consider the impact on aircraft maintenance.
Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal
The committee has been closely monitoring proposed changes
to the Army's Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) force structure
and proponency. The committee recognizes the importance of the
Army EOD force as a unique and highly technical enabler in
meeting combatant commander operational requirements and force
presence for counterterrorism and irregular warfare, defense
support of civilian law enforcement authorities, and support to
major operations and in contingency scenarios. The committee
remains concerned that the Army has not clearly identified
future capacity and capability requirements for its EOD force
and may eliminate too much of its EOD capacity without making
needed investments in EOD capabilities to meet the enduring
needs of combatant commanders. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2015, on the Army's
EOD force. At a minimum, the briefing shall include:
(1) Any proposed changes to EOD force structure planned
over the Future Years Defense Plan, including any costs,
efficiencies, or cost avoidance to include the active and
reserve components;
(2) An assessment of demand for Army EOD capabilities over
the past 5 years, including by geographic combatant commanders,
for national security special events, and in support of
civilian law enforcement agencies;
(3) A list of Army EOD systems program(s) of record, and
EOD program elements and levels of funding for the Army's
unique requirements for EOD in research, development, test and
evaluation; operation and maintenance; and procurement over the
Future Years Defense Plan; and
(4) A cost-benefit analysis on any proposed realignment or
relocation of EOD organization, force structure, training, and
branch proponency.
Aviation Support to the Joint Readiness Training Center
The committee recognizes the importance of the training
conducted at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) through
U.S. Air Force Green Flag East exercises done in conjunction
with U.S. Army brigade rotations. These exercises sustain
critical, high-demand skill sets, such as those provided by
joint terminal attack controllers, and allow both pilots and
ground units to exercise in a realistic, high-threat
representative environment. The committee notes that with the
increasing focus on the Pacific area of operations, JRTC
exercises have also incorporated maritime training to improve
the integration of Air Force assets into U.S. Navy command-and-
control structures, and the Army has increased the duration and
complexity of unit rotations at JRTC.
While the committee commends these developments, it is
concerned about the availability of air assets necessary to
support the increased complexity and duration of Green Flag
East and JRTC exercises. The committee is concerned that these
challenges will become even more acute with the Air Force's
decision to eliminate the fighter squadron at Barksdale Air
Force Base that has regularly provided air support to Green
Flag East and the JRTC when other air units were unavailable
for training.
In order to better assess the adequacy of planning,
programming, and resourcing of JRTC training activities, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the
Air Force's ability to provide aviation support to JRTC
rotations and exercises, to include an accounting of any
instances in which the Air Force has been unable to support
JRTC activities. The committee further directs the Secretary to
report his findings to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2016.
Comptroller General Assessment of Army and Air Force Training
Requirements
For more than a decade, the Army and Air Force focused the
training of their forces on supporting operations in the
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Commanders established a range of resource-intensive training
requirements deemed necessary to conduct missions in these
locations and de-prioritized training in other areas. In the
coming years, both the Army and Air Force will confront an
increasingly complex security environment that will demand a
wider range of missions, such as defeating terrorist
organizations and responding to other emerging threats. To
accomplish a broader set of missions, both military departments
have established plans to refocus their training to conduct the
full spectrum of military operations. However, they face an
environment of constrained budgetary resources until at least
2021. For example, in fiscal year 2013, the Department of
Defense's operation and maintenance accounts were reduced by
approximately $20.00 billion under sequestration. Due to these
reductions, the Army curtailed training for all units except
those deployed, preparing to deploy, or stationed overseas; and
the Air Force ceased flight operations from April through June
2013 for about one-third of Active Duty combat units and
reduced the number of larger training exercises. The services
face the possibility of sequestration-level funding again in
fiscal year 2016.
The committee is concerned about the Army's and Air Force's
ability to balance training investments with available
resources and believes the services will need to fundamentally
re-examine the requirements for training their forces. It
further believes the military departments should explore
whether they can achieve additional efficiencies or cost
savings in their training approaches, such as by increasing
reliance on simulator technologies to meet some training tasks.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to provide to the congressional defense
committees a report, by April 1, 2016, that evaluates Army and
Air Force training requirements and includes an assessment of
the following:
(1) The extent to which the Army and Air Force have
established readiness goals, plans, and timeframes to train
their forces for full-spectrum operations;
(2) The extent to which the Army and Air Force have
adjusted training plans and identified resource needs in light
of their experiences preparing forces for contingency
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;
(3) The extent to which the Army and Air Force have
considered options for increasing the use of simulated training
and other technologies to achieve efficiencies or other cost
savings in their training programs; and
(4) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to Army and Air Force training.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 1, 2016, on the Comptroller General's preliminary
findings.
Comptroller General Assessment of Plans to Rebuild Readiness
For more than a decade the Department of Defense has
maintained a high pace of operations, and supporting those
operations has had a severe impact on the readiness of the
overall force. Today, relatively few non-deployed forces could
assemble quickly to perform their full mission should a large-
scale crisis occur. In recent months, the service chiefs have
begun to sound an increasingly shrill alarm about the impacts
this pace has had on their units and the personnel in them. The
service chiefs have raised questions about their ability to
maintain the current pace and rebuild readiness, especially if
budgets are reduced to sequestration levels. Steady-state
combatant command demands are high and growing, with some key
current demands going unmet. Looking forward, demands are not
likely to recede, as forces are now needed to stabilize
emerging crises in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
According to the service chiefs, it will be at least 5 to 8
years (2020 to 2023) before their respective services can
rebuild acceptable overall readiness levels.
Amid declining budgets and force structure, the committee
is growing increasingly concerned about the Department's
ability to rebuild readiness while meeting the persistent
demands of the combatant commands. To inform its oversight, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
April 1, 2016, that provides a comprehensive, independent
assessment of the Department of Defense's efforts to rebuild
readiness.
The reviews that support this assessment should consider
historical readiness trends and focus on assessing the plans of
the military services going forward including:
(1) The force structure planned to meet strategic guidance;
(2) The goals for rebuilding required readiness and the
underlying assumptions and analysis behind those goals;
(3) The departmental or military service efforts to set
interim goals and assess progress toward those goals; and (4)
The barriers, if any, facing the military services in reaching
their readiness goals and plans to mitigate those barriers.
The review should consider how the Department and military
services will identify and address key capability and capacity
gaps across the Department for major combat units as well as
low-density units and personnel who are in perennially high
demand. In assessing the plans, the Comptroller General should
also consider how the Department intends to balance the demands
of the combatant commands in the future with the need to
provide a more sustainable pace for service members.
Given the key role of the military services in rebuilding
readiness, the Comptroller General should, at a minimum,
provide reports that assess the plans of the Departments of the
Army, Air Force, and Navy. The Comptroller General may, at his
discretion and in consultation with the committee, provide
additional reports that address recurrent themes across the
Department, cross-cutting issues, or other issues deemed
appropriate.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 15, 2016, on the Comptroller General's preliminary
findings.
Initial Flight Training
The committee recognizes the Air Force has implemented a
cost-efficient and mission-effective Initial Flight training
(IFT) program over the past 9 years for Air Force pilot and
combat system operator candidates. The committee notes the
value in program screening and initial training before the
commencement of more expensive stages of aviation training. The
committee also recognizes that the Air Force's current approach
to the IFT program has resulted in a safety record that exceeds
many industry standards. However, the committee also recognizes
the significant investments, which are correctly levied on
industry, that must be made in aircraft, simulators,
maintenance, highly experienced instructors, co-location at
military installations, and student support infrastructure to
enable this approach to Initial Flight Training. Given the
significant investments required for the program to be
successful, the committee acknowledges the need for program
predictability, open competition, and the need to explore a
similar approach to IFT within other military departments.
For example, the committee believes that the adoption of
such a program by the Navy could provide the Navy cost
efficiencies and training benefits similar to those experienced
by the Air Force. The committee recognizes the Navy sent an
initial cadre of naval aviator candidates through the Air Force
IFT program in 2014.
Therefore, the committee urges the continuation of the IFT
program within the Air Force with a continued focus on the safe
production of competent pilots, and directs the Secretary of
the Navy to provide the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives with a briefing by March 31, 2016, on
the performance of the Navy's cadre of participants in the Air
Force's IFT program and the costs and benefits associated with
the adoption of a similar program by the Navy.
Marine Corps Search and Rescue
The committee is aware that the Marine Corps has divested
its two remaining search and rescue (SAR) units at the Marine
Corps Air Stations in Yuma, Arizona, and Cherry Point, North
Carolina, in an effort to reduce manning and funding
requirements. The committee is concerned that the divestiture
and resulting transition of SAR functions to a combination of
U.S. Coast Guard units and contracted SAR services has not been
adequately assessed and could result in increased risk and
increased cost.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief
the House Committee on Armed Services by August 1, 2015, on the
Department of the Navy's divestiture plans and actions taken to
ensure adequate search and rescue capability resides at Marine
Corps Air Stations. The briefing shall include information on
specific roles and responsibilities of Marine Corps units,
Coast Guard units, and private contractors; plans for land-
based search and rescue; and the cost analysis conducted that
led to the decision to divest organic Marine Corps SAR
capabilities.
Optimizing National Guard Training
The committee is concerned about the burden of temporary
duty (TDY) and travel-dependent training regimes on some
National Guard service members, including those Guard members
requiring specialized certifications. The committee notes that
many National Guard members have demanding civilian employment
in addition to military service. The committee believes that
the National Guard should optimize training regimes to minimize
the amount of TDY and travel required to retain certifications
and currency. Increased use of virtual and constructive
training, including simulation, may help alleviate some of the
burden on Guard members by reducing time away from families and
civilian employment. In order for the committee to better
understand this issue, not later than September 30, 2015, the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services on options for better
optimizing National Guard training regimes.
Performance and Effectiveness of Department of Defense's Joint Exercise
Program
Each year, the Department of Defense's combatant commands
participate in more than 120 training, exercise, and engagement
events that range from small-scale, unilateral events to major
joint and multilateral exercises. According to the Department,
joint exercises are a means for commanders to maintain trained
and ready forces, exercise contingency and theater security
cooperation plans, and achieve joint and multinational
training. These exercises have a primary purpose of training
U.S. forces, but can also help build partner-nation capacity
and strengthen alliances. Joint exercises are also designed to
integrate and synchronize interdependent capabilities, such as
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, electronic
warfare, and special operations forces between multiple
services and commands. Further, participation in joint
exercises enables the military services to build trust and
relationships with one another, U.S. allies, and potential
partners, while developing the skills necessary to operate in
the joint environment. However, several factors, such as the
availability of U.S. forces and access to host-country forces
and territories, can affect the desired outcome of joint
exercises.
Given current fiscal pressures and budgetary constraints
facing the Department, the committee believes that the
Department must improve efficiency and obtain cost savings
where possible and demonstrate a return on its investment in
training and exercise programs. In doing so, it is paramount
that the Department balance its ongoing strategic and
operational challenges with constrained resource levels and
prioritize training investments, such as those in joint
exercises. In order to better understand the performance and
effectiveness of the Department's joint exercise program, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, to
be completed by April 30, 2016, that assesses the following:
(1) The guidance and processes the Department of Defense
uses to determine requirements for joint exercises;
(2) The factors, if any, the Department has identified that
affect the combatant commands' ability to conduct joint
exercises;
(3) The extent to which assessments of joint exercises are
conducted to determine if combatant command and other
departmental goals and objectives are achieved; and
(4) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to the Department's joint exercise
program.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing by March 1, 2016, to the House Committee on
Armed Services on the Comptroller General's preliminary
findings.
Review of the Navy's Optimized Fleet Response Plan
Over the past decade of war, high operational tempo reduced
predictability of ship deployments for sailors, their families,
and the industrial base that supports ship repair and
maintenance. In addition, deployment lengths did not allow for
the training and maintenance needed to support fleet readiness
and maximize ships' operational availability to combatant
commanders. Further, the Navy has not executed its ship
maintenance and modernization on time or within budget.
To address these issues, the Navy began implementing in
November 2014 a revised operational schedule for its carrier
strike groups referred to as the Optimized Fleet Response Plan
(OFRP). The OFRP seeks to provide a more sustainable force-
generation model for Navy ships, as it reduces deployment
lengths and injects more predictability for maintenance and
training into ship schedules. The Navy also foresees that
better scheduling will increase the efficiency of its
deployments and increase predictability for sailors and the
repair industrial base. According to Navy officials, this new
force-generation model is designed to achieve a number of
benefits, including driving down costs, increasing readiness,
and maximizing operational availability to combatant
commanders. The Navy plans eventually to roll out the schedule
to all U.S. Navy assets from the amphibious ready groups to
expeditionary units and submarines.
Given the persistent requirements of the combatant
commanders, the committee is concerned about the viability of
the OFRP, especially in light of the growing maintenance
requirements being encountered as ships are brought into the
public and private shipyards. Therefore, the committee directs
the Comptroller General of the United States, by March 1, 2016,
to review the following:
(1) To what extent has the Navy identified interim
benchmarks and made progress toward implementing the Optimized
Fleet Response Plan?
(2) To what extent has the Navy established outcome-related
goals for the Optimized Fleet Response Plan in terms of forward
presence provided to combatant commanders, personnel and
operational tempo, sailor retention, training, maintenance,
readiness, and ship repair costs? What other goals does the
Navy have, if any?
(3) To what extent does the Optimized Fleet Response Plan
provide adequate time for ships to meet ship maintenance
requirements? What impact, if any, have deviations from planned
maintenance schedules had on the ship-repair industrial base?
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide to the House Committee on Armed Services, by November
1, 2015, a briefing on the Comptroller General's preliminary
findings and a final report to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2016. The Comptroller General may also
include other related matters as deemed appropriate in order to
provide a comprehensive examination of the OFRP.
Synthetic Training for Small Arms Weapons Skills and Combat Readiness
The committee recognizes that synthetic training has become
a key element in enhancing small-arms weapons skills training
for U.S. military personnel, while reducing direct- and
indirect-training time and costs. The committee also
acknowledges that many synthetic training systems enable the
collection and analysis of data and metrics that facilitate
after-action reviews and can lead to improved training results
while ensuring overall system reliability and success.
The committee notes that several communities, such as the
Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, the Navy Special Warfare
Command, and the U.S. Army Special Warfare Center, have
implemented synthetic small-arms weapons training systems that
have proven useful in developing a wide range of individual
service member skill levels. The committee also recognizes that
synthetic training systems which utilize science-based human
performance and cognitive agility programs of instruction and
techniques can improve precision under stress, reaction time,
and decisionmaking skills in complex threat scenarios.
The committee encourages other schools, commands, and
military departments to adopt more cost-effective training
systems, such as synthetic training programs, to the maximum
extent practicable. The committee also encourages the continued
exploration of neuroscience and resiliency-focused human
performance training programs in addressing other areas of
concern, including escalation-of-force challenges.
U.S. Army Pacific Pathways Program
In December 2013, the commander of the U.S. Army Pacific
unveiled the Pacific Pathways initiative, an effort to make the
Army more flexible and expeditionary in responding to the needs
of U.S. Pacific Command. Among other things, this concept
envisions assigning key elements of U.S.-based infantry
brigades to Asia and keeping them there for several months as
they rotate from country to country, conducting training
exercises and other security force assistance activities. These
forces would also be available to respond to humanitarian
crises or security threats in the region. Estimates indicate
that executing this concept would represent a significant
increase over currently planned Army spending on military
exercises in the Pacific. Moreover, U.S. Pacific Command
currently has other existing capabilities that are potentially
similar to those envisioned for Army units under the Pacific
Pathways program.
The committee would benefit from independent analysis of
the utility of the Pacific Pathways initiative. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, by
April 30, 2016, on the Pacific Pathways initiative that
assesses the following:
(1) U.S. Pacific Command's plans for the use of forward-
deployed Army forces under the Pacific Pathways initiative,
including roles, responsibilities, goals, and objectives;
(2) The unique benefits of using Army units under the
Pacific Pathways initiative in executing those roles,
responsibilities, goals, and objectives;
(3) Any duplication or overlap of effort between, or among,
the Pacific Pathways program and other existing capabilities in
the region;
(4) The identified equipment, training, and other
requirements needed to enable the execution of the Pacific
Pathways initiative, including estimated costs; and
(5) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to the Pacific Pathways initiative.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 1, 2016, on the Comptroller General's preliminary
findings.
Use of Service Contracts for Simulated Training and Associated
Equipment
The committee supports ongoing efforts by the Department of
Defense to streamline and modernize combat arms training.
Further, the committee recognizes that in some cases, simulated
training provided on a contract basis has the potential to
offer a more cost-effective alternative to organically provided
training or traditional equipment procurement. However, the
committee acknowledges that contracting processes remain
cumbersome and inefficient and could undermine possible
financial efficiencies of contract solutions.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to
explore the use, where appropriate, of service contracts that
can reduce cost. While the use of a services contract may not
always be appropriate for the acquisition of complex, military-
unique simulation capability, the committee encourages the
Department to examine opportunities where this approach could
reduce the cost for simulated training and associated support
equipment and increase training capability, especially in
commercial-off-the-shelf and non-developmental simulation
capability.
Uses of Modeling and Simulation
The committee recognizes the important contributions of the
modeling and simulation industry in training warfighters. The
committee believes modeling and simulation is particularly
effective and efficient in providing platforms and replicating
real-world challenges to prepare warfighters for decision-
making at the tactical, operational, and strategic level, and
inform the development of tactics, operational concepts, and
the making of Defense acquisition and management decisions. The
committee, therefore, encourages the Department of Defense to
make greater use of modeling and simulation technology as a
substitute for more expensive forms of training and directs the
Secretary of Defense by March 31, 2016, to provide the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
with a briefing on current uses of modeling and simulation and
potential areas for further utilization.
Other Matters
Arctic Investments and Capabilities
The committee notes that as one of seven Arctic nations,
the United States has a vested interest in the security and
stability of the Arctic region. With the Arctic becoming
increasingly accessible and more broadly transited in the
coming decades by both Arctic and non-Arctic nations, it is
imperative that the United States be prepared to operate in the
Arctic region when needed. To that end, the committee notes
that the Department of Defense released a document outlining
its Arctic Strategy in November 2013 and the Department of the
Navy released its updated ``Arctic Roadmap'' in February 2014.
The committee commends the Department for its focus on the
Arctic region as its activity in the region increases.
In order to meet the strategic objectives in the region,
the committee believes it is important for the Department to
continue to invest in training exercises, partnerships,
infrastructure, and capabilities necessary to support potential
operations in the Arctic region. The committee also encourages
the Department to continue research efforts to develop security
capabilities and strategies for the Arctic region. The
committee notes that the Navy's ``Arctic Roadmap'' provided a
plan to identify the requirements for an Arctic Center of
Excellence in Fiscal Year 2015. Once the Navy has established
the requirements for the Arctic Center of Excellence, the
committee encourages the Navy to establish the center in a
timely manner.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than February 1, 2016, that identifies the formal
requirements that have been established for this center and a
timeline for standing up the initial capabilities of the
center. In establishing this center and determining a suitable
location, the committee encourages the Navy to coordinate with
other government agencies, academic institutions, and existing
polar research efforts that can provide support and promote the
United States security interests.
Briefing on Retirement and Storage of Air Force One (VC-25)
Not later than April 1, 2016, the Secretary of the Air
Force shall provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives on its plan to retire
and subsequently place into storage the current fleet of Air
Force One (VC-25) aircraft. The briefing should include an
overview on the plan to move one of both aircraft to a museum
owned by the Department of the Air Force.
Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle
The committee notes that the coconut rhinoceros beetle is
native to Southeast Asia and can cause extensive vegetation
damage, primarily to coconut and other palms. The committee is
aware that the coconut rhinoceros beetle was first detected in
Guam in 2007 and in Hawaii in 2013, and is considered an
invasive species to both of these locations. In coordination
with Federal and local agencies, Joint Region Marianas and Navy
Region Hawaii have developed programs focused on discovery,
monitoring, controlling, and, to the extent practicable,
eradicating the coconut rhinoceros beetle populations from
military facilities and installations. The committee is aware
that in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the Department of the Navy
contributed $3.7 million related to coconut rhinoceros beetle
response in Guam and Hawaii. In addition, other Federal
agencies have contributed resources in support of the response.
The committee encourages the Department of the Navy to continue
supporting efforts to discover, monitor, control, and, to the
extent practicable, eradicate coconut rhinoceros beetle
populations.
Deep Water Unexploded Ordnance
The committee notes that section 314 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) required the Secretary of Defense to review
historical records to determine the number, size, and probable
locations of ocean disposal sites and the types of military
munitions disposed of at the sites. Under the provision, the
Secretary was also required to conduct research on the effects
on the ocean environment, and those who use it, of military
munitions disposed of in coastal waters. The committee is
concerned that not all of the ocean disposal sites have been
identified or fully studied.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than February 1, 2016. The report should discuss the
status of the Department of Defense's research to date with
regard to the effects of ocean-disposed munitions on the ocean
environment and the feasibility of removing or otherwise
remediating sea disposal sites. The report should provide
recommendations with regard to the need for additional research
and the remediation of such ocean disposal sites, including an
outline of ongoing or planned future research initiatives, a
timeline for completion of such research, and efforts to
remediate such sites.
Flame Retardant Military Uniform Safety
The committee notes with interest an increasing movement
toward prohibiting halogenated flame retardants in commercial
products because of health and safety concerns and believes
that the men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces should be
provided the same protections against potential toxic exposure
as the civilian population. As such, the committee encourages
the Secretary of Defense to explore the potential of utilizing
non-halogenated flame retardants in military uniforms, through
access to American-made products.
United States Special Operations Command Global Inform and Influence
Activities
The budget request included $24.7 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide, for U.S. Special Operations Command
global inform and influence activities. The committee notes
that this program will resource the geographic combatant
commanders military information support operations, as well as
inform and influence activities. The budget request includes
increases that are directly attributed to military information
operational gaps.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee expresses concern
with the information operations being conducted by the
Federation of Russia in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, and the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and provides
additional authority for a pilot program to support information
operations and strategic communications capabilities. The
committee urges U.S. Special Operations Command to leverage
this authority to enhance information-related and strategic
communications capabilities to support the tactical,
operational, and strategic requirements of the various
combatant commanders, including urgent and emergent operational
needs, and the operational and theater security cooperation
plans of the geographic and functional combatant commanders.
Therefore, the committee recommends $54.7 million, an
increase of $30.0 million, for U.S. Special Operations Command
global inform and influence activities to expand activities
against the Russian Federation and ISIL. The committee further
directs the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command and the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low
Intensity Conflict to provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services not later than July 30, 2015, on global
inform and influence activities, with an emphasis on efforts to
counter Russian and ISIL propaganda.
Weather and Geographic Impacts on Aerospace Control Alert Missions
The committee recognizes the importance of the Aerospace
Control Alert (ACA) mission and its role in protecting the
homeland. The committee also believes that ensuring ACA assets
can respond rapidly is essential to mission effectiveness. The
committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force, when
making decisions affecting the ACA mission, to consider both
geographic and meteorological limitations on ACA operations.
The committee believes such considerations should include
weather impacts on safety of flight, launch and recovery of
aircraft, mission degradation, and the impact geographical
location of aircraft has on alert response times.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for operation
and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section
4301 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Energy and Environment
Section 311--Limitation on Procurement of Drop-In Fuels
This section would amend subchapter II of chapter 173 of
title 10, United States Code, to prohibit Department of Defense
funds to be used for bulk purchases of drop-in fuel for
operational purposes, unless the cost of that drop-in fuel is
cost-competitive with traditional fuel, subject to a national
security waiver.
Section 312--Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas
The section would add a new section to chapter 631 of title
10, United States Code, to provide for the conservation needs
of the Southern Sea Otter while continuing the protections for
military readiness activities at important offshore islands in
the Southern California Bight.
Section 313--Revision to Scope of Statutorily Required Review of
Projects Relating to Potential Obstructions to Aviation so as to Apply
Only to Energy Projects
This section would amend section 358 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) to expand coverage of the Siting Clearinghouse to
requests for informal reviews by Indian tribes and landowners,
clarify that information received from private entities is not
publicly releasable, eliminate categories of adverse risk, and
limit applicability of section to only energy projects.
Section 314--Exclusions from Definition of ``Chemical Substance'' under
Toxic Substances Control Act
This section would modify section 2602(2)(B) of title 15,
United States Code, to add to the exclusions any component of
any article, including shot, bullets and other projectiles,
propellants when manufactured for or used in such an article,
and primers.
Section 315--Exemption of Department of Defense from Alternative Fuel
Procurement Requirement
This section would amend section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) to
exempt the Department of Defense from the requirements related
to contracts for alternative or synthetic fuel in that section.
Section 316--Limitation on Plan, Design, Refurbishing, or Construction
of Biofuels Refineries
This section would require the Department of Defense to
obtain a congressional authorization before entering into a
contract for the planning, design, refurbishing, or
construction of a biofuels refinery.
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment
Section 321--Assignment of Certain New Requirements Based on
Determinations of Cost-Efficiency
This section would amend Chapter 146 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a section that would require the
Department of Defense to assign performance of new requirements
to member of the Armed Forces, civilian employees, or contracts
based on a determination of which sector of the Department's
workforce can perform the new requirement in the most cost-
efficient manner, based on an analysis of the costs to the
Federal Government in accordance with Department of Defense
Instruction 7041.04 or successor guidance.
Section 322--Inclusion in Annual Technology and Industrial Capability
Assessments of a Determination about Defense Acquisition Program
Requirements
This section would amend section 2505 of title 10, United
States Code, to include in the required periodic assessment of
defense capability an additional requirement for the Secretary
of Defense to also determine the extent to which the
requirements associated with defense acquisition programs can
be satisfied by the present and projected performance
capacities of industries supporting the sectors or capabilities
in the assessment and evaluate the reasons for any variance
from applicable preceding determinations.
Section 323--Amendment to Limitation on Authority to Enter into a
Contract for the Sustainment, Maintenance, Repair, or Other Overhaul of
the F117 Engine
This section would amend section 341 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to require the senior
acquisition executive of the Air Force to make a determination
that the Air Force has obtained sufficient data to establish
that the Air Force is paying a fair and reasonable price for
F117 engine sustainment, maintenance, repair, or overhaul.
The committee notes that section 341 was not intended to
affect any existing contract or options under an existing
contract that was concluded prior to the date of enactment of
Public Law 113-291.
Section 324--Pilot Programs for Availability of Working-Capital Funds
for Product Improvements
This section would require each of the service acquisition
executives of the military departments to initiate a pilot
program in fiscal year 2016 for product improvement under the
authority provided in section 330 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). It
also would require each military department to spend at least
$5.0 million in working-capital funds in fiscal year 2016 in
support of a product improvement initiative as described in
section 330(b) of Public Law 110-181.
Section 325--Report on Equipment Purchased from Foreign Entities that
Could be Manufactured in United States Arsenals or Depots
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
deliver, concurrent with the budget request for fiscal year
2017, a report to the congressional defense committees on
equipment purchased from foreign entities that could be
manufactured in U.S. arsenals or depots.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 333--Improvements to Department of Defense Excess Property
Disposal
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a plan for improved management and oversight of the
systems, processes, and controls involved in the disposition of
excess non-mission essential equipment and materiel by the
Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services.
The committee remains concerned about the improper
disposition of excess equipment, especially equipment returning
from the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility.
Despite 14 separate reports in 5 years by the Government
Accountability Office, the Army Audit Agency, and the
Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) on retrograde
and disposition operations in CENTCOM, the DODIG in November
2014 again found improper disposition of usable equipment and a
lack of proper guidance and adherence to policy. In the
unclassified findings of Report Number DODIG-2015-012, ``The
DOD Retrograde Process in Afghanistan Needed Improvement,'' the
DODIG noted that the Department lacks ``additional controls
[needed] to improve procedures governing the disposal of
services items'' and ``as a result, serviceable items were
disposed of that could be re-utilized.'' The DODIG noted in the
report that of the 134 improperly disposed items, 10 items were
subsequently repurchased by the Department of Defense. Further,
the DODIG noted that improper disposition occurred at sorting
facilities that were staffed with seven times the number of
personnel ``needed to accomplish the retrograde mission.''
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
OVERVIEW
The ``Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2016 Budget
Overview'' states that the President's request is guided by the
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) strategy. However, the
QDR does not reflect the breadth or complexity of the ongoing,
simultaneous security challenges and crises, which further
exacerbates the mismatch between the threat, strategy, and
resources. This means a smaller Active Duty force, with a
Reserve Component capable of continuing to operate as an
operational reserve to maintain strategic depth, which is
reflected in the President's request. The requested funding
levels would allow the military to protect and advance U.S.
interests and execute the updated defense strategy, but with
somewhat increased levels of risk for some missions. The budget
included further reductions in the Active Component end
strength in the Army and the Marine Corps, while increasing the
Navy's and the Air Force's end-strength levels to preserve
capability. The committee notes the services plan for more
drastic reductions in end strength and force structure in
fiscal year 2017 absent a change to the Budget Control Act of
2011 (Public Law 112-25).
The Reserve Components will make minor reductions in fiscal
year 2016. The Department has continued to commit to funding an
Operational Reserve Component, but the discretionary caps
established in Public Law 112-25 will impact the size of the
Reserves. Based on the fiscal year 2020 end state, the
continued use of the Reserve Components will remain an integral
part of the strategy and force. As the Active Components reduce
end strength, the committee encourages the military services to
ensure the proper force structure and resourcing is provided to
the Reserve Components in order to preserve an operational
reserve. The committee also recommends that as missions, such
as cyber security, space operations, and unmanned aerial
systems, continue grow, the military services incorporate the
Reserve Components into these force structure requirements to
capitalize on the expertise of the Reserve Component members.
The committee is aware of the constraints that the Army and
Marine Corps face in the current budget environment, and
remains concerned with the planned force reductions for the
Army and Marine Corps, as well as with the Navy's continued
challenges manning the fleet while combat and contingency
commitments continue. This continued stress on the force,
coupled with potential further reductions as a result of the
discretionary caps established in Public Law 112-25, may have
serious implications on the capacity and capability of the All-
Volunteer Force and the ability for the military services to
meet the National Defense Strategy.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Active Duty personnel of the Armed Forces as of September
30, 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2015 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2016 FY 2015
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................... 490,000 475,000 475,000 0 -15,000
Navy........................................... 323,600 329,200 329,200 0 5,600
USMC........................................... 184,100 184,000 184,000 0 -100
Air Force...................................... 312,980 317,000 320,715 3,715 7,735
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD.......................................... 1,310,680 1,305,200 1,308,915 3,715 -1,765
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402--Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum
Levels
This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end
strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of
September 30, 2016. The committee recommends 475,000 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 329,200 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 184,000 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and
317,000 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air
Force.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for
Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves, as of
September 30, 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2015 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2016 FY 2015
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 350,200 342,000 342,000 0 -8,200
Army Reserve................................... 202,000 198,000 198,000 0 -4,000
Navy Reserve................................... 57,300 57,400 57,400 0 100
Marine Corps Reserve........................... 39,200 38,900 38,900 0 -300
Air National Guard............................. 105,000 105,500 105,500 0 500
Air Force Reserve.............................. 67,100 69,200 69,200 0 2,100
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 820,800 811,000 811,000 0 -9,800
Coast Guard Reserve............................ 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves as of
September 30, 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2015 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2016 FY 2015
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 31,385 30,770 30,770 0 -615
Army Reserve................................... 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0
Navy Reserve................................... 9,973 9,934 9,934 0 -39
Marine Corps Reserve........................... 2,261 2,260 2,260 0 -1
Air National Guard............................. 14,704 14,748 14,748 0 44
Air Force Reserve.............................. 2,830 3,032 3,032 0 202
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 77,414 77,005 77,005 0 -409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30,
2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2015 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2016 FY 2015
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 27,210 26,099 26,099 0 -1,111
Army Reserve................................... 7,895 7,395 7,395 0 -500
Air National Guard............................. 21,792 22,104 22,104 0 312
Air Force Reserve.............................. 9,789 9,814 9,814 0 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 66,686 65,412 65,412 0 -1,274
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2016 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status
Technicians
This section would establish the maximum end strengths for
the Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual
status technicians as of September 30, 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2015 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2016 FY 2015
mendation 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on
Active Duty for Operational Support
This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b)
of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve
Component personnel who may be on Active Duty or full-time
National Guard duty during fiscal year 2016 to provide
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count
against the end strengths authorized by section 401 or section
412 of this Act unless the duration on Active Duty exceeds the
limitations in section 115(b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2015 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2016 FY 2015
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0
Army Reserve................................... 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0
Navy Reserve................................... 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0
Marine Corps Reserve........................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0
Air National Guard............................. 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0
Air Force Reserve.............................. 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Military Personnel
This section would authorize appropriations for military
personnel at the levels identified in the funding table in
section 4401 of division D of this Act.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to be concerned with the Department
of Defense's efforts to effectively manage the force but also
understands the difficult budget environment in which the All-
Volunteer Force must remain viable. Therefore, the committee
would provide authority for the Secretaries of the military
departments to develop pilot programs to provide additional
recruitment incentives and to expand career flexibility
programs to enhance retention of service members in order to
recruit and retain the best qualified service members. Also,
the committee would provide the authority, as recommended by
the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission, to streamline and consolidate the number of Reserve
Component status authorities under which Reserve Components
members may be called to Active Duty.
In support of military members and their families, the
committee would provide assistance to local educational
agencies that are impacted by the enrollment of dependent
children of military members and Department of Defense civilian
employees. In addition, the committee would include students
with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces on Active
Duty with those for which States must include separate
measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial
improvement, as recommended by the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission.
To further improve sexual assault prevention and response,
the committee would direct the development of a strategy to
prevent retaliation against members of the Armed Forces who
report or intervene on behalf of a victim of sexual assault.
The committee would make improvements to the Special Victim's
Counsel Program, including authority to provide Special
Victim's Counsel to Department of Defense civilian employees
who are victims of sexual assault. The committee would further
require improvements to sexual assault prevention and response
when victims of sexual assault are male members of the Armed
Forces.
To continue the committee's focus on assisting military
personnel who are transitioning out of the military services,
the committee would establish a Training and Post-Service
Placement Executive Committee within the Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Joint Executive Committee.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft Manning Issues
The committee is concerned about the Air Force's management
of critical shortfalls in training remotely piloted aircraft
(RPA) pilots and system operators. Demand for combat air
patrols continues to increase, resulting in an unsustainable
operation tempo and exodus from the service of trained RPA
pilots and operators. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2016, with a complete
human capital plan detailing the measures taken to mitigate the
shortfalls in manning of RPA weapon systems. Specifically, the
briefing shall address: (1) strategies and actual programs in
place to increase manning in training, increase retention of
RPA operations personnel, increase crew ratios, and maintain a
sustainable recruiting and retention program; and (2) a
projected date by which the Air Force believes it will have
mitigated the manning shortfall challenges that reside in the
RPA community today.
Alcohol Abuse Prevention Programs
The committee commends the Department of Defense and the
military services for the robust programs available to service
members and their families to prevent as well as treat alcohol
abuse. The committee is aware that innovations to assist with
prevention programs, such as personal breath alcohol monitoring
devices, are available to further enhance the effectiveness of
prevention programs. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense and the military services to continually assess
innovative methods to increase the effectiveness of alcohol
abuse prevention programs.
Assistance to Local Education Agencies
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
commitment to assist local education agencies over the past 10
years as the military services made significant changes to
force structure affecting many installations and communities.
Section 574 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) required the
Secretary of Defense to create a plan to provide assistance to
local educational agencies that experience growth in the
enrollment of military dependent students as a result of any
force structure changes, the relocation of a military unit, or
the closure or realignment of military installations pursuant
to defense base closure and realignment under the base closure
laws. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and
Secretaries of the military departments to continue to follow
that plan since force structure changes and unit relocations
will continue for the foreseeable future.
Commissary Transportation Costs
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts by the Defense
Commissary Agency (DeCA) to reduce commissary costs. The
committee is concerned that these efforts will raise costs for
military families, especially for junior officers and enlisted
troops, and will also adversely affect military readiness.
The committee urges DeCA to find alternative methods to
control costs, and the committee further directs the Secretary
of Defense to submit, not later than October 1, 2015, a written
report to the congressional defense committees on the effects
that DeCA's current proposal to limit second destination
transportation funding and transport volume will have on the
rates charged by the Transportation Working Capital Fund for
transportation, especially to the Pacific region, as well as
USTRANSCOM's ability to maintain surge airlift capability
through the Defense Transportation System. The Secretary shall
also include a review of possible efficiencies that could be
realized in air transportation contracts dealing with second
destination transportation funding.
The committee strongly encourages DeCA to maintain current
sourcing policies at commissaries in Asia and the Pacific until
these and other investigations into different commissary reform
ideas have been completed.
Comptroller General Report on Nutrition Assistance for Active Duty
Service Members and Their Families
The Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission recommended in its January 2015 report that the
Department of Defenses' Family Subsistence Supplemental
Allowances program be disbanded for service members located in
U.S. States and territories, and replaced by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. However, the committee is concerned that there may be
a continued need for nutritional assistance among service
members and their families.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the nutritional programs available
to Active Duty service members and their dependents. The
Comptroller General should provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2016, on preliminary
findings, with a report to follow on a date agreed to at the
time of the briefing. The review should address the following:
(1) An assessment of the nutritional assistance programs
available to service members and their families.
(2) An assessment of the extent to which service members
and their families rely upon nutritional assistance programs to
supplement their nutritional needs.
(3) An assessment of whether changes are needed to the
system of nutritional assistance programs available for service
members and their families' nutritional needs.
Comptroller General Review of the Federal Voting Assistance Program
The committee notes that the purpose of the Federal Voting
Assistance Program (FVAP) is to ensure that military personnel,
their dependents, as well as overseas citizens are guaranteed
the right to vote by absentee ballot in federal elections, in
accordance with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act (UOCAVA).
The committee applauds the great strides that have been
made improving overseas and military voting, especially with
the enactment of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment
(MOVE) Act in 2009, which significantly improved many parts of
the voting process for military and overseas voters. However,
the committee believes that continued management and attention
to FVAP still remains a priority and routine oversight should
continue. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to provide a report to the
Committees on Armed Service of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, no later than March 1, 2016 that addresses the
following questions:
(1) To what extent has the Department of Defense
implemented previous GAO recommendations pertaining to the
Department of Defense's efforts to facilitate registration,
voting options, and ballot transmission methods for UOCAVA
voters?
(2) To what extent has the Department of Defense evaluated
its absentee voting program and achieved the goals of the
Federal Voting Assistance Program?
(3) To what extent do challenges remain regarding the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Department of Defense's
absentee voting program?
(4) Recommend, if any, additional legislative authorities
to address the challenges facing the Federal Voting Assistance
Program.
DACA Impact on Military Readiness
The committee is concerned with the increasing challenge of
recruiting eligible people to enlist in the military and
believes an evaluation of how recent Executive Actions
regarding Deferred Action and prosecutorial discretion for
undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S. may
impact the ability of the Department of Defense to recruit new
military enlistments. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to evaluate whether allowing those who are
considered Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals could expand
the pool of potential recruits, and an estimation of how making
eligible for enlistment of DACA applicants would impact
military readiness. The Secretary of Defense shall provide the
results of the evaluation in a briefing to the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representative no later than
December 1, 2015.
Diversity in Department of Defense Advertising
The committee continues to support efforts by the services
to ensure diversity among the force. The committee remains
concerned that the efforts by the services to ensure that our
Nation's military is reflective of American society are being
reduced by the use of advertising that does not adequately
target minority communities. The committee understands the
challenges that the services are facing, but urges the services
to maintain, and where possible, increase their advertising
within minority communities, to support their commitment to
ensuring a strong diverse force. To adequately reach minority
communities, the services are encouraged to use minority owned
media outlets and advertising agencies that have demonstrated
an ability to connect with minority communities. Recruitment
advertising within minority communities is an important avenue
toward building interest and understanding in serving our
Nation in uniform. The committee urges the services and the
Department of Defense to maintain a commitment to diversity
recruiting and retention. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing, by March 1, 2016,
to the House committee on Armed Services on the efforts
undertaken by the Department to increase marketing and
advertising efforts to adequately reach minority communities.
Improvements to the Transition Assistance Program
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
commitment to help service members and their families prepare
for a successful transition to civilian life. In particular,
the committee commends the Department's partnership with the
Department of Labor, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and
the Small Business Administration to maintain the transition
assistance program, known as Transition GPS (Goals, Plans,
Success).
In order to further improve the services provided through
Transition GPS, the committee encourages the Department to
review the core curriculum for the program to reevaluate
whether the curriculum accurately addresses the needs of
transitioning service members. The committee also encourages
State One-Stop Career Center employees to attend Transition GPS
classes to improve their personal connections with veterans in
order to better serve that population. In addition, the
committee believes that coordination between State Departments
of Labor and Veteran Affairs is important to the successful
implementation of the Jobs for Veterans State Grant program
which provides, among other things, specialized services to
veterans with significant barriers to employment. Further, the
committee encourages State-level departments to work together
in the administration and implementation of the program to
better utilize the unique expertise for understanding the
challenges veterans face that the State Veterans Affairs office
may offer.
Increasing Diversity in Military Academies
The committee is encouraged by the advancements made by
Department of Defense to improve diversity representation at
our military academies and is encouraged to continue efforts to
increase minority participation at military academies. The
committee is concerned regarding current under-representation
of minorities in our military academies and officer corps, and
directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate how efforts and
guidance to improve minority officer recruitment across all
military academies can be improved to increase diversity in the
military at the officer level and brief the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives by October 1, 2015.
Inspector General Report on Separation of Members Who Made a Sexual
Assault Report
The committee is concerned about early discharges of
service members who have made a report of sexual assault. The
committee directs the Department of Defense Inspector General
to conduct a review of all separations of service members who
have made an unrestricted report of sexual assault since
January 1, 2002. This review should address the type of
separation, in cases where the member was separated on the
grounds of having a personality or adjustment disorder, whether
the separation was carried out in compliance with Department of
Defense Instruction 1332.14 and any other applicable Department
of Defense regulations, directives, and policies. The committee
directs the Inspector General to submit a report on the
findings of its review to the congressional defense committees
by May 1, 2016.
Installation Access for Regular College Student Counseling
The committee recognizes the importance of education
opportunities for service members and their families and the
ability of service members to use their earned education
benefits. However, the committee is concerned that military
students using their education benefits to attend college or
take classes on-line may need more timely face-to-face access
to their school counselors on military installations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives by March 1, 2016, on a review of the
instructions, policies, and agreements regarding installation
access for representatives of institutions whose students
receive tuition assistance funding, in order to enable student
access to regular face-to-face counseling from their school
representatives. The briefing shall include the results of the
review of installation access policies and whether the
Department of Defense installation access policies are
consistent across the armed services.
National Military Dependent Student Identifier
The committee notes the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission recommendation to establish
a national military dependent student identifier to enable
consistent reporting on attendance and academic performance of
military dependent students. The committee understands that
H.R. 5, Student Success Act, currently pending consideration by
the House, includes a provision that would address the
commission's recommendation. The committee strongly supports
inclusion of a national military dependent student identifier
in H.R. 5.
O-6 Command Selection Board Processes
The committee recognizes that the selection of commanders
in the military is intended to place the best qualified
individuals into command positions. The committee also
recognizes that the officer promotion process is governed by
law to ensure it selects the best qualified leaders to fight
and win the nation's wars and is fair, meritocratic,
transparent, and accountable. Additionally, the opportunity to
command at the 0-6 level is often an important assignment
making an O-6 competitive for further promotion. The O-6
command select process is not a promotion board, but the
outcomes can have a similar effect by opening or closing the
door for O-7.
The services have different processes for 0-6 command and
the committee understands those processes may have changed over
the last few decades. The committee is interested in the
current processes used by the services to identify and select
the best qualified officers for O-6 command, particularly in
operational billets, and the objectivity, merit based approach,
fairness, and transparency of those processes. The committee
goal is to reinforce the intent that the best qualified are
chosen to command. The committee is further interested in the
criteria that defines best qualified.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit an unclassified report to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than December 31, 2015 on the specific
procedures and standards by which each of the services select
individuals for O-6 level command.
The report should provide details on: selection criteria
for O-6 command; procedures/processes for placement of selected
candidates into command billets; how is selection criteria
crafted; how is it approved; what guidance is given to board
evaluators; an assessment of objective and subjective
standards; whether O-6 command candidates are ranked based on a
list of qualification; ratios of selected to available command
billets; alternate procedures, if any; under what criteria
would a specific command list be bypassed and another officer
chosen; are there exceptions to selecting candidates who are
not on the command list; and the report will also include the
number of eligible women and minorities who participated in the
O-6 command select process in the last 10 years and their rate
of earning an 0-6 command assignment vs the rate of male, non-
minority candidates.
The report should also discuss the transparency of
explanations for selections and non-selections, the mechanics
and time length of appeals processes, and a review of commonly
applied statutes which inform the selection process.
Protection of Child Custody Arrangements for Parents Who Are Members of
the Armed Forces
The committee notes that the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) included section 566 which
amends title II of the Service Members Civil Relief Act (50
U.S.C. app. 521) to require a court that issued a temporary
custody order based solely on the deployment or anticipated
deployment of a service member to reinstate the custody order
that was in effect immediately preceding the temporary order,
unless the court finds reinstatement is not in the best
interest of the child, in addition to prohibiting a court from
using deployment or the possibility of deployment as the sole
factor when determining the best interest of a child. To ensure
full dissemination of these protections, the committee strongly
encourages the Secretary of Defense to notify all State
attorneys general of the United States regarding the passage
and implementation of the Act. Additionally, the committee
strongly encourages the Department of Defense to educate
service members on the above changes in federal law and their
parental rights as members of the armed forces.
Recognizing the Value of the Military Commissary Benefit
The committee recognizes that commissary and exchange
benefits have substantial value to Active Duty and retired
military personnel. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense to note the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission's conclusion that ``commissaries and
exchanges are considered by many to be a relevant and important
contributor to military quality of life.'' The committee also
encourages the Department to take into consideration the
recommendations of the Commission and the Review of Management,
Food, and Pricing Options for the Defense Commissary System
report required by section 634 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) and find ways to improve the
commissary and exchange system without increasing the prices of
groceries and other items sold at cost or reducing commissary
hours of operation.
Religious Accommodations in the Armed Forces
The committee acknowledges the amendments made by the
Department of Defense to Department of Defense Instruction
1300.17 to implement the conscience protections passed in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66) and to amend the accommodation process for service
members seeking an accommodation for religious reasons.
The committee urges the Department of Defense to ensure
that the review and determination of religious accommodation
requests are made quickly, efficiently, and in the least
restrictive manner to the service member requesting the
accommodation. Unless there is a demonstrated, unavoidable, and
immediate impact on compelling government interests in military
readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline, the
free exercise of a service member seeking an accommodation must
not be substantially burdened as a condition of seeking an
accommodation or while an accommodation request is pending.
Once granted, an accommodation should presumptively remain in
place unless continuing to accommodate the specific service
member will have a demonstrated and unavoidable impact on
compelling government interests in military readiness, unit
cohesion, and good order and discipline.
Report on Female Muslim Garb Policy
Section 563 of the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2003, (P.L. 107-314) prohibits requiring
or encouraging United States military servicewomen to wear
traditional female Muslim garb called an abaya or abaya head
scarf when stationed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Current
law also prohibits any funds from being used to purchase abayas
and abaya head scarves.
The committee recognizes that in the last 13 years, there
is an increased United States military presence in nations
where women are not treated equally and/or wear traditional
Muslim clothing and/or headscarves. Additionally, Department of
Defense civilians and contractors may be assigned in Saudi
Arabia and not covered by the current prohibitions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than September 30, 2015 detailing the current policies,
instructions, and practices regarding the wearing of Muslim
garb by female members of the Armed Forces and female civilian
and contractor employees of the Department of Defense when
serving overseas. This report should include: the policy or
instruction given for each individual country or region for
which a policy exists; details on how and when the instructions
are given; whether the garb is optional; the intended purpose
of wearing the garb; what level of authority directs the
policy; if not a policy or instruction, what practices are
allowed or encouraged pertaining to wear of the garb, and
whether taxpayer money was used to procure any of these
garments. If required, the Secretary can submit a classified
supplement to this report.
Report on Performance and Efficiency of Incorporation of Community-
based Transition Programs in the Department of Defense Transition
Assistance Program
The committee notes that some installations have partnered
with local non-profit and community based transition support
organizations to enhance the Transition Assistance Program
curriculum with great success, especially for those leaving the
service and remaining in the local area. Therefore the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2016, on
the feasibility of expanding this model of partnering with
local community based support organizations department-wide to
enhance the Transition Assistance Program.
Report on Prisoner of War and Missing in Action Declassification
Procedures
The committee is encouraged by the progress the new Defense
POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) has made in integrating the
former accounting agencies, the Joint Prisoner of War/Missing
in Action Accounting Command and the Defense Prisoner of War/
Missing Personnel Office. In its effort to streamline the
personnel accounting community and provide more transparency to
the families of those missing, the committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to pay particular attention to how DPAA
communicates and shares information with family members,
regardless of whether the family member is a part of a formal
organization, and the declassification procedures for documents
more than 25 years old that have a reasonable expectation of
aiding in the location of persons missing in action.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
as part of the reorganization of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting
Agency, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1,
2016, identifying specific inefficiencies with regard to the
process for the declassification of documents that if
addressed, could better guide recovery efforts.
The report shall include the identification of challenges
in current declassification procedures; recommendations to
expedite procedures for interagency declassification;
recommendations for procedures to declassify redacted portions
of previously released documents; recommendations of safeguards
to prevent the declassification of documents where such
declassification may be harmful to national security;
recommendations for an expedited procedure for private citizens
to request an explanation of documents that will remain
classified; and recommendations for procedures to facilitate
communication with foreign agencies responsible for the
recovery of persons missing in action.
Rulemaking Under the Military Lending Act
The committee recognizes the progress that Department of
Defense has made since consumer protections for service members
and their dependents against predatory lending were enacted in
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) and codified in section 987 of
title 10, United States Code, better known as The Military
Lending Act (MLA). The committee also recognizes that although
the law has been largely effective in curbing predatory lending
to covered borrowers, some predatory lenders have modified
their products to avoid coverage by the Department's rules
implementing section 987. The committee commends the Secretary
of Defense for maintaining vigilance in a continuing effort to
eliminate predatory lending practices that target service
members and their families.
The committee acknowledges the Department's efforts as
outlined in the April 2014 Department of Defense Report,
Enhancement of Protections on Consumer Credit for Members of
the Armed Forces and their Dependents, which was requested in
the conference report (H. Rept. 112-705) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
However, the committee is concerned with the current rule-
making the Department is undertaking under the MLA. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report by March 1, 2016, to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, concerning any
rule-making with regard to the MLA, section 987 of title 10,
United States Code, and the implementing regulation, part 232
of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations. The report shall
include:
(1) A summary of the comments and an analysis of the
disposition of the comments submitted to the Federal Register
concerning part 232 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations,
during the rule-making comment period for the document entitled
``Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Service
Members and Dependents; Proposed Rule.''
(2) The impact to military readiness, if any, objectively
outlining the impact that has resulted from service member
access to or use of various financial products including payday
loans, vehicle title loans, bank deposit advances, pawn shop,
and/or installment loans since the implementation of the MLA.
(3) The adequacy of current staffing levels of the Defense
Manpower Data Center, future projections for increased staffing
levels, current and future funding requirements, and what steps
are being taken to ensure data security to maintain and
increase the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the
Center's database systems.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense not to implement any final rule-making related to the
MLA, or its implementing regulation, and no final rule may take
effect until 60 days after the date on which the report is
transmitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives.
Support Ongoing Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps Programs and
Encourage Existing Participation
The committee finds that the Junior Reserve Officer
Training Corps (JROTC) program in high schools has a
significant and important benefit to the readiness and
recruitment efforts of the United States Armed Forces. The
committee encourages the military services to maximize the
number of JROTC opportunities available in high schools; or, if
a JROTC program is not feasible, the opportunity for a National
Defense Cadet Corps program.
The Reverent Treatment of Remains
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
continue its policy of treating any remains of missing American
service members discovered during the excavation or
construction of infrastructure, in particular on the island of
Saipan, with the proper reverence and respect by immediately
coordinating with the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency to
properly secure and identify the remains.
Timely Access to Child Care on Military Installations
The committee is aware of the challenges some military
families face in accessing child care services on military
installations. The committee understands that the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission has
recommended several initiatives to improve child care services
available to military families. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to consider the recommendations and
implement those recommendations that will improve timely access
to child care services. In addition, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to reduce the backlog of
children waiting to receive child care services on military
installations by 50 percent by October 1, 2017. Further, the
committee directs the Secretary to brief the House Committee on
Armed Services on the plan by March 31, 2016.
Tracking for Non-Disability Mental Conditions
The committee is encouraged by the progress the Department
of Defense has made in accounting for non-disability mental
conditions but is still concerned that these conditions are not
properly documented as a service member transitions from
service. The committee believes that the Department of Defense
needs to improve the identification of service members
separated for non-disability mental conditions, and to provide
reasonable assurance that service members, including Reserve
Component members, separated for non-disability mental
conditions are separated appropriately and in accordance with
standard Department of Defense procedures and documentation
requirements. Therefore, the committee directs that the
Secretary of Defense shall:
(1) Develop methods to uniformly track separations due to
non-disability mental conditions in an easily retrievable
manner and conduct a comprehensive review of separation program
designator codes, as well as any information shown on the
Department of Defense Form 214.
(2) Take steps to ensure there is an appropriately staffed
process to identify administratively separated enlisted
National Guard members who are unable to function effectively
in the National Guard because of a non-disability mental
condition.
(3) Direct the military services to update their
administrative separation policies to be consistent with
Department of Defense regulations for those service members
separated for all non-disability mental conditions.
(4) Ensure the military services implement processes to
oversee separations for non-disability mental conditions, such
as reinstituting the requirement of annual compliance reporting
of a sample of administrative separations, using current
Department of Defense policy requirements as review criteria
for service members of all military services and their Reserve
Components.
(5) Ensure that the military services planned oversight of
separations for non-disability mental conditions is implemented
and incorporates Reserve and National Guard members separated
for such conditions, or that the services implement other
processes to oversee such administrative separations using
current Department of Defense policy requirements as review
criteria for all service members, including Reserve and
National Guard members.
(6) Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to review any processes used by the military services
to oversee such administrative separations to ensure compliance
with Department of Defense policy requirements.
Transfer of Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits
The committee is aware that the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
under certain conditions can be transferred by an eligible
service member to a spouse or children. The committee
understands that such transfer can be made after a service
member serves 6 years and commits to an additional 4 years of
service. The committee is concerned that, for a variety of
reasons, a service member who has elected to transfer all or
part of their education benefit may retire or leave the service
before serving the additional 4 years as required. In such
cases, the service member is no longer eligible to transfer the
benefit and may be subject to recoupment of funds leading to a
hardship for the service member and their family. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretaries of the military
departments to provide information to service members during
pre-separation and pre-retirement counseling, as well as during
the Transition Assistance Program to ensure service members who
transfer GI Bill benefits to dependents, and then transition
from the military without completion of the required service,
receive information on the effect of the separation on their
transfer benefit.
U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and Families
Program
The budget request includes $55.9 million from Operations
and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, for the U.S. Special Operations
Command Preservation of the Force and Families (POTFF) program.
The committee is pleased with the holistic balance of programs
and activities across all elements of the POTFF program,
including Human Performance, Social Performance, Spiritual
Performance, and Psychological Performance programs. The
committee remains very supportive of, and notes the renewed
emphasis on, suicide prevention efforts for Special Operations
Forces, and notes increased funding within the budget request
for the Psychological Performance program of POTFF. The
committee understands that the increase in requested amounts of
funding for this important element of POTFF will continue
resourcing for the operational embedded behavioral health care
providers, and support specialized suicide prevention training,
screening, and assessments. The committee is supportive of
these programs and activities and urges continued coordination
with the Defense Health Program to ensure continued and
holistic care for U.S. Special Operations Forces and their
families.
The committee notes that sections 582 and 586 of the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291)
directed reviews and assessments of suicide prevention efforts
across U.S. Special Operations Command and Special Operations
Forces. The committee looks forward to examining the outcomes
of those reports and continuing to work with the Department of
Defense on implementing forthcoming recommendations. Elsewhere
in this report, the committee also provides a 2-year extension
of authority for U.S. Special Operations Command to continue
pilot family support programs for immediate family members of
members of the Armed Forces assigned to Special Operations
Forces, as originally provided in section 554 of the the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66), until 2018. The committee encourages continued
coordination of these pilot programs that should be integrated
into the larger Preservation of the Force and Families program
and activities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S.
Special Operations Command and the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than July 30, 2015, on the status of the Preservation of
the Force and Families program, to include additional
authorities and the coordination with the Defense Health
Program.
United States Government Accountability Office Study on Gambling and
Problem Gambling in the Armed Forces
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
does not currently have treatment programs for members with
problem gambling behaviors, while it does operate treatment
programs for alcohol abuse, illegal substance abuse, and
tobacco addiction. The committee is aware that The Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition,
published in May 2013) includes gambling addiction as a
behavioral addiction, which reflects research finding that
gambling disorders are similar to substance-related disorders
in clinical expression, brain origin, comorbidity, physiology,
and treatment. Individuals with problem gambling behavior have
higher incidences of bankruptcy, domestic abuse, and suicide.
Moreover, people who engage in problem gambling have high rates
of co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders.
The committee believes that an assessment of gambling
problems and factors related to the development of such
problems (including co-occurring disorders such as substance
use, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury,
stress, and sensation seeking), and the social, health, and
financial impacts of gambling on members is needed by
incorporating questions on problem gambling behavior into
ongoing research efforts as appropriate, including restoring
them into the Health Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty
Military Personnel.
Therefore, the committee directs the United States
Government Accountability Office, not later than March 1, 2016,
conduct and submit a study to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, on the
number, type, and location of gambling installations (including
bingo) operated by each military department, the total amount
of cash flow through the gambling installations, the amount of
revenue generated, and how the revenue is spent. The study
shall include an assessment of the prevalence of problem
gambling in the Armed Forces, including recommendations for
military policy and programs to address such prevalence.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Section 501--Equitable Treatment of Junior Officers Excluded from an
All-Fully-Qualified-Officers List Because of Administrative Error
This section would amend section 624(a)(3) of title 10,
United States Code, to specify that if the Secretary of a
military department determines that one or more officers or
former officers were not placed on an all-fully-qualified-list
for promotion under this section because of administrative
error, the Secretary may prepare a supplemental all-fully-
qualified-officers list for promotion containing the names of
any such officers for approval in accordance with this section.
Section 502--Authority to Defer Until Age 68 Mandatory Retirement for
Age of a General or Flag Officer Serving as Chief or Deputy Chief of
Chaplains of the Army, Navy, or Air Force
This section would allow the Secretaries of the military
departments to defer, until age 68, the mandatory retirement
age of general and flag officer chaplains of the Army, Navy, or
Air Force appointed as Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains. The
authority would expire in 2020 in order to encourage the
military departments to develop a plan, within the personnel
management of their chaplains, to eliminate the need for
continuing age waivers.
Section 503--Implementation of Comptroller General Recommendation on
the Definition and Availability of Costs Associated with General and
Flag Officers and their Aides
This section would implement the Comptroller General's
recommendation on the definition and availability of general
and flag officer costs and require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report by June 30, 2016 to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
describing such costs.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Section 511--Clarification of Purpose of Reserve Component Special
Selection Boards as Limited to Correction of Error at a Mandatory
Promotion Board
This section would amend section 14502(b) of title 10,
United States Code, concerning Reserve Component special
selection boards and whether an officer or former officer could
request a special selection board based on having not been
selected by a previous special selection board vice being
considered by a mandatory promotion board convened under
section 14101(a) of title 10, United States Code. This section
would better align the statutory language regarding Active Duty
and Reserve Component special selection boards.
Section 512--Ready Reserve Continuous Screening Regarding Key Positions
Disqualifying Federal Officials from Continued Service in the Ready
Reserve
This section would amend section 10149 of title 10, United
States Code, to include members who occupy key Federal
positions to the individuals who must be screened for continued
service in the Ready Reserve.
Section 513--Exemption of Military Technicians (Dual Status) from
Civilian Employee Furloughs
This section would amend section 10216(b)(3) of title 10,
United States Code, and exempt military technicians (dual-
status) from civilian employee furloughs.
Section 514--Annual Report on Personnel, Training, and Equipment
Requirements for the Non-Federalized National Guard to Support Civilian
Authorities in the Prevention and Response to Non-Catastrophic Domestic
Disasters
This section would amend section 10504 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
to submit to the congressional defense committees and a list of
other officials by January 31 of each calendar year from 2016
through 2022, an annual report on the personnel, training, and
equipment requirements for the non-Federalized National Guard
to support civilian authorities in the prevention and response
to non-catastrophic domestic disasters.
Section 515--National Guard Civil and Defense Support Activities and
Related Matters
This section would amend chapter 1 of title 32, United
States Code, to codify the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting
System mission under this title.
Subtitle C--Consolidation of Authorities to Order Members of Reserve
Components to Perform Duty
Section 521--Administration of Reserve Duty
This section would amend chapter 1209 of title 10, United
States Code, by consolidating the number of Reserve Component
status category authorities under which Reserve Component
members may be called to duty from 30 to 6 and would direct the
Secretaries concerned to develop policies and procedures to
carry out these changes.
Section 522--Reserve Duty Authorities
This section would amend chapter 1209 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the President and the Secretary of
Defense to call a member of the Reserve Component, under their
jurisdiction, to Active or Inactive duty and provide
authorities on activation timeline limitations and compensation
requirements.
Section 523--Purpose of Reserve Duty
This section would amend chapter 1209 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the mobilization and limitations to
mobilization as well as the call-up to Active Duty or Inactive
duty of the Ready Reserve, Selected Reserve and certain members
of the Individual Ready Reserve and would describe the purpose
and limitations of such duty. This section would also authorize
the Secretary of Defense to organize and administer the Reserve
Components and would describe the authorities and limitations
of such authorizations.
Section 524--Training and Other Duty Performed by Members of the
National Guard
This section would authorize the required training, field
exercises and other duty performed by members of the National
Guard and would additionally authorize the purpose,
restrictions, and limitations of a call to order of the
National Guard.
Section 525--Conforming and Clerical Amendments
This section would authorize clerical and conforming
amendments to the appropriate titles of the United States Code
related to amendments made by this subtitle.
Section 526--Effective Date and Implementation
This section would establish the implementation date of the
amendments made by this subtitle as October 1, 2017, and would
require the Secretaries concerned to submit to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by March 1, 2016, a report containing a plan,
including a draft of legislation that may be necessary, to
implement the amendments made by this subtitle.
Subtitle D--General Service Authorities
Section 531--Temporary Authority to Develop and Provide Additional
Recruitment Incentives
This section would provide temporary authority for the
Secretary of a military department to develop a program and
provide not more than three recruitment incentives, not
otherwise authorized by law, to encourage individuals to accept
an appointment as a commissioned or warrant officer or to
enlist in an Armed Force under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary. The Secretary concerned may not provide a
recruitment incentive until the Secretary submits a plan to the
congressional defense committees regarding the recruitment
incentive, and the congressional 30-day notice and wait
requirement is expired. The incentives may not be provided for
longer than a 3-year period, unless the Secretary concerned
requires additional time to evaluate the use of the incentive,
and the Secretary concerned shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report describing and assessing the impact
of the incentive. The authority provided by this section would
expire on December 31, 2020.
Section 532--Expansion of Authority to Conduct Pilot Programs on Career
Flexibility to Enhance Retention of Members of the Armed Forces
This section would extend and enhance the authority to
conduct programs authorized under section 533 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417), informed by lessons learned to date from
Navy and Air Force implementation of the Career Intermission
Pilot Program. Section 533 authorizes the Secretaries of the
military departments to inactivate certain service members from
active duty in order to meet personal or professional needs and
be returned to active duty at the end of such period of
inactivation from active duty. Extension and enhancement of
this authority would afford the Secretaries of the military
departments greater flexibility to test and evaluate
alternative career retention options in specialties and skills
in which monetary incentives alone have not produced required
long-term retention results.
Section 533--Modification of Notice and Wait Requirements for Change in
Ground Combat Exclusion Policy for Female Members of the Armed Forces
This section would amend the waiting period in section 652
of title 10, United States Code, regarding a change to the
ground combat exclusion policy.
Section 534--Role of Secretary of Defense in Development of Gender-
Neutral Occupational Standards
This section would amend section 524 of the Carl Levin and
Howard ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015 (Public-Law 113-291) to add combat readiness
to the criteria for gender-neutral occupational standards.
Section 535--Burdens of Proof Applicable to Investigations and Reviews
Related to Protected Communications of Members of the Armed Forces and
Prohibited Retaliatory Actions
This section would include the use of burdens proof
specified under title 5 in investigations conducted by an
Inspector General, reviews performed by a board of correction
of military records, and reviews conducted by the Secretary of
Defense related to protected communications of members of the
Armed Forces.
Section 536--Revision of Name on Military Service Record to Reflect
Change in Gender Identity After Separation from the Armed Forces
This section would allow veterans to change their name on a
certificate of discharge or an order of acceptance of
resignation in order to reflect change in gender identity and a
different name.
Section 537--Establishment of Breastfeeding Policy for the Department
of the Army
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
establish a breastfeeding policy for female members of the
Army.
Section 538--Sense of the House of Representatives Regarding Secretary
of Defense Review of Section 504 of Title 10, United States Code,
Regarding Enlisting Certain Aliens in the Armed Forces
This section would express the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Secretary of Defense should review
section 504 of title 10, United States Code, to determine
whether individuals with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
may enlist in the Armed Forces.
Subtitle E--Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and Domestic
Violence Prevention and Response
Section 541--Improvements to Special Victims' Counsel Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a policy to standardize the training and the timeframe
of the training for Special Victims' Counsel, establish
performance measures and standards for the Special Victims'
Counsel programs, and direct the Secretary of each military
department to require an individual selected to be a Special
Victims' Counsel have adequate criminal justice experience and
to ensure that Special Victims' Counsel are assigned to
locations that maximize the opportunity for face-to-face
interactions between counsel and clients.
Section 542--Department of Defense Civilian Employee Access to Special
Victims' Counsel
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense or
the Secretary of a military department to provide Special
Victims' Counsel services to a civilian employee of the
Department of Defense who is the victim of an alleged sex-
related offense.
Section 543--Access to Special Victims' Counsel for Former Dependents
of Members and Former Members of the Armed Forces
This section would modify section 1044e(a)(2) of title 10,
United States Code, to include, under certain circumstances,
former dependents of a service member or former service members
among those eligible for access to special victims' counsel.
Section 544--Representation and Assistance from Special Victims'
Counsel in Retaliatory Proceedings
This section would allow victims of alleged sex-related
offenses to receive representation and assistance from special
victims' counsel in any retaliatory proceedings related to the
victim's report of the offense.
Section 545--Timely Notification to Victims of Sex-related Offenses of
the Availability of Assistance from Special Victims' Counsel
This section would require notification to a victim of a
sex-related offense of the availability of Special Victims'
Counsel prior to interviewing or requesting a statement from
the victim.
Section 546--Participation by Victim in Punitive Proceedings and Access
to Records
This section would allow a victim to submit written matters
for consideration by a commanding officer prior to imposing
punishment, mitigating punishment, or considering an appeal
under nonjudicial punishment proceedings. This section would
also allow the victim to submit written matters for
consideration related to a separation proceeding, and requires
the separation authority to consider impact on the victim prior
to making a decision.
Section 547--Victim Access to Report of Results of Preliminary Hearing
under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
This section would require the victim of an offense to
receive a copy of the Article 32 report at the same time the
report is delivered to the accused.
Section 548--Minimum Confinement Period Required for Conviction of
Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by Members of the Armed Forces
This section would modify the mandatory minimum sentence
for certain sex-related offenses to require a minimum of 2-
years confinement.
Section 549--Strategy to Prevent Retaliation Against Members of the
Armed Forces Who Report or Intervene on Behalf of the Victim in
Instances of Sexual Assault
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a comprehensive strategy to prevent retaliation
against members who report or intervene on behalf of the victim
in instances of sexual assault. The strategy would include
bystander intervention programs, policies and requirements to
ensure protection from retaliation, and training for commanders
on methods and procedures to combat attitudes and beliefs that
lead to retaliation. The Secretary would be required to brief
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act on the comprehensive strategy.
Section 550--Improved Department of Defense Prevention and Response to
Sexual Assaults in which the Victim is a Male Member of the Armed
Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments,
to develop a plan to improve sexual assault prevention and
response when the victim is a male member of the Armed Forces.
The plan would include training to address the incidence of
sexual assault of male service members, an evaluation of the
medical and mental health needs of male victims as compared to
female victims, goals and metrics to address sexual assault of
male service members, information about male victimization in
communications to raise awareness of sexual assault, and
guidance to medical and mental health providers for care of
male service members who are victims of sexual assault.
Section 551--Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Training for
Administrators and Instructors of the Junior and Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps
This section would require the Secretary of a military
department to ensure that commanders of Junior and Senior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps units and other individuals of
the Reserve Officers' Training Corps receive regular sexual
assault prevention and response training and education, as well
as information regarding the availability of legal assistance
and the sexual assault prevention and response program.
Section 552--Modification of Manual for Courts-Martial to Require
Consistent Preparation of the Full Record of Trial
This section would modify the Manual for Courts-Martial
Rule 1103 to require a complete record of trial in any general
or special court-martial proceeding.
Section 553--Inclusion of Additional Information in Annual Reports
Regarding Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
This section would require the Department of Defense to
include additional data in its annual sexual assault prevention
and response report, including reporting cases under the Family
Advocacy Program, adding data related to sexual harassment, and
additional retaliation data.
Section 554--Retention of Case Notes in Investigations of Sex-Related
Offenses Involving Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine
Corps
This section would require the Department of Defense to
retain all elements of the case file in investigations of sex-
related offenses for no less than 50 years.
Section 555--Additional Guidance Regarding Release of Mental Health
Records of Department of Defense Medical Treatment Facilities in Cases
Involving any Sex-related Offense
This section would prohibit Department of Defense treatment
facilities from releasing mental health records of alleged
victims of sex-related offenses without an order from a
military judge or Article 32 officer.
Section 556--Public Availability of Records of Certain Proceedings
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
This section would require the Department of Defense to
make records of court-martial proceedings available through a
public website.
Section 557--Revision of Department of Defense Directive-Type
Memorandum 15-003, Relating to Registered Sex Offender Identification,
Notification, and Monitoring in the Department of Defense
This section would require the Department of Defense to
create a database to track sex offenders.
Section 558--Improved Implementation of Changes to Uniform Code of
Military Justice
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
examine the Uniform Code of Military Justice review process to
develop options for streamlining this process.
Subtitle F--Member Education, Training, and Transition
Section 561--Availability of Preseparation Counseling for Members of
the Armed Forces Discharged or Released After Limited Active Duty
This section would exclude any day on which a member
performed full-time training or annual training duty and
attendance at a school designated as a service school from the
calculation of continuous days of Active Duty for the purpose
of preseparation counseling.
Section 562--Availability of Additional Training Opportunities under
Transition Assistance Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Homeland Security to permit a member of the Armed
Forces eligible for the Transition Assistance Program to
receive additional training in preparation for higher education
or training, career or technical training, or entrepreneurship.
Section 563--Enhancements to Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
This section would amend section 582 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) to expand eligibility for the program; add quality of life
to the services for which the Secretary of Defense may enter
into partnerships to provide services and grants under the
program; provide flexibility in the number and timing of
information, events, and activities provided under the program;
and require the Office for Reintegration Programs to assist in
the collection and analysis of best practices regarding suicide
prevention.
Section 564--Appointments to Military Service Academies from
Nominations Made by Delegates in Congress from the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands
This section would amend sections 4342(a), 6954(a), and
9342(a) of title 10, United States Code, to add one additional
nomination for appointment to each military service academy by
a delegate from the territory of Guam, American Samoa, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
Section 565--Recognition of Additional Involuntary Mobilization Duty
Authorities Exempt from Five-Year Limit on Reemployment Rights of
Persons who Serve in the Uniformed Services
This section would exempt two additional involuntary
mobilization duty authorities from the 5-year limit on
reemployment rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act: (1) orders of the Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, and Air Force Reserve to active duty to provide
assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency; and
(2) orders of the Selected Reserve to active duty for
preplanned missions in support of the combatant commands.
Section 566--Job Training and Post-Service Placement Executive
Committee
This section would establish a Job Training and Post-
Service Placement Executive Committee within the Department of
Veterans Affairs-Department of Defense Joint Executive
Committee established pursuant to section 320 of title 38,
United States Code.
Section 567--Direct Employment Pilot Program for Members of the
National Guard and Reserve
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out a pilot program to provide job placement assistance
and related employment services directly to members of the
National Guard and Reserves.
Section 568--Program Regarding Civilian Credentialing for Skills
Required for Certain Military Occupational Specialties
This section would add six military occupational
specialties to the pilot program established under section 558
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) to assess the feasibility and advisability
of permitting enlisted members of the Armed Forces to obtain
civilian credentialing or licensing for skills required for
military occupational specialties or qualification for duty
specialty codes.
Subtitle G--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness
Matters
Section 571--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational
Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees
This section would authorize $30.0 million for the
continuation of the Department of Defense assistance in fiscal
year 2016 to local educational agencies that are impacted by
the enrollment of dependent children of military members and
Department of Defense civilian employees.
Section 572--Extension of Authority to Conduct Family Support Programs
for Immediate Family Members of Members of the Armed Forces Assigned to
Special Operations Forces
This section would extend the family support program
authority provided for immediate family members of members of
the Armed Forces assigned to Special Operations Forces in
section 554 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) by 2 years, from 2016 to
2018.
Section 573--Support for Efforts to Improve Academic Achievement and
Transition of Military Dependent Students
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make grants to non-profit organizations that provide services
improve academic achievement of military dependent students.
Section 574--Study Regarding Feasibility of Using DEERS to Track
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Who are Elementary or Secondary Education Students
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees a
report on a study regarding the feasibility of using the
Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System to track
dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of
Defense civilian employees who are elementary or secondary
education students.
Section 575--Sense of Congress Regarding Support for Dependents of
Members of the Armed Forces Attending Specialized Camps
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Department of Defense should support dependents of members of
the Armed Forces in attending specialized camps to support
children.
Subtitle H--Decorations and Awards
Section 581--Authorization for Award of the Distinguished-Service Cross
for Acts of Extraordinary Heroism During the Korean War
This section would waive the statutory time limitation
under section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished-
Service Cross to Edward G. Halcomb, who served in the United
States Army during the Korean War. The committee takes this
action based on the written confirmation by the Secretary of
the Army that the actions of Edward G. Halcomb merit the award
of the Distinguished-Service Cross.
Section 582--Limitation on Authority of Secretaries of the Military
Departments Regarding Revocation of Combat Valor Awards
This section would remove the ability of the Secretaries of
military departments to revoke a service member's award unless
the conduct of the service member during the time of the
distinguished act was not honorable.
Section 583--Award of Purple Heart to Members of the Armed Forces who
were Victims of the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Bombing
This section would extend the criteria of awarding the
Purple Heart to include the six Active Duty service members who
were killed during the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Murrah
Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Subtitle I--Reports and Other Matters
Section 591--Authority for United States Air Force Institute of
Technology to Charge and Retain Tuition for Instruction of Persons
Other Than Air Force Personnel Detailed for Instruction at the
Institute
This section would amend section 9314a of title 10, United
States Code, relating to enrollment at the Air Force Institute
of Technology of persons other than Air Force personnel,
including the authority to charge and retain tuition for such
persons. It would extend the reimbursement and tuition
provisions to a new category of students: non-detailed persons,
including non-detailed members, non-detailed civilians, and
Federal scholarship recipients. This section would also make
organizational and conforming changes to section 9314 of title
10, United States Code.
Section 592--Honoring Certain Members of the Reserve Components as
Veterans
This section would create a new section 107A of title 38,
United States Code, to recognize the service, in the Reserve
Components, of certain service members by honoring them with
status as veterans. This section would honor as a veteran any
person who is entitled under chapter 1223 of title 10, United
States Code, to retired pay for nonregular service or who, but
for age, would be entitled under such chapter to retired pay
for nonregular service, but would not create an entitlement to
any benefit by reason of this section.
Section 593--Support for Designation of 2015 as the Year of the
Military Diver
This section would express the sense of Congress that
reaffirms support for sacrifices made by military divers,
recognizes the sacrifices of those who have volunteered as
military divers, and encourages the Department of Defense to
designate 2015 as the Year of the Military Diver.
Section 594--Transfer and Adoption of Military Animals
This section would amend section 2583 of title 10, United
States Code, regarding the adoption of military animals.
Specifically, this section would alter the priority order of
authorized recipients of adopted military animals and would
require the Secretary of the military department concerned to
make animals available for adoption under certain
circumstances.
Section 595--Coordination with Non-Government Suicide Prevention
Organizations and Agencies to Assist in Reducing Suicides
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a policy to coordinate the efforts of the Department of
Defense and non-governmental suicide prevention organizations.
This section would also require such policy to be submitted to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to believe that robust and flexible
compensation programs are central to maintaining a high-
quality, all-volunteer, combat-ready force. Accordingly, the
committee supports a 2.3 percent military pay raise for fiscal
year 2016, in accordance with current law, in order for
military pay raises to keep pace with the pay increases in the
private sector, as measured by the Employment Cost Index.
The committee is once again concerned with the raft of
compensation and benefit changes proposed in the President's
request, including the reduced pay raise and the reduced basic
allowance for housing and the effects of the totality of such
proposals on service members and their families, particularly
junior enlisted personnel. The committee recognizes that the
fiscal environment is challenging and the Department of Defense
continues to face greater pressure each year under
sequestration-level budget caps but believes that proper
compensation levels must be maintained to preserve the current
high-quality, All-Volunteer Force.
As the committee continues to assess the impact of the
recommendations of the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission will have on the All-Volunteer Force,
it believes that there are recommendations that are important
to adopt. The committee includes a retirement modernization
provision that would allow for changes to the current 20-year,
cliff-vested retirement system to allow for a more flexible
blended system that adds a defined contribution, Government
matching Thrift Savings Plan, to the current defined benefit.
Additionally, the provision would provide for a separate mid-
career continuation pay to further enhance retention of service
members. To help service members make the important financial
decisions inherent in the modernized retirement system, the
committee includes a provision that would provide for improved,
robust, financial literacy preparedness training programs that
will enhance service members overall financial readiness.
Additionally, in order to help sustain the current All-
Volunteer Force, the committee continues to support authorities
for a wide array of bonuses, special and incentive pays, and
other compensation benefits for an additional year.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Military Allotment Prohibition Briefing to Congress
The committee understands that an amendment to the
Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation,
effective January 1, 2015, now prohibits Active Duty service
members from establishing new allotments for certain purposes,
such as the purchase, lease, or rental of personal property.
The committee is concerned with the method by which the
decision to prohibit certain allotments by military members was
reached. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by January 1, 2016, on the process and justification
associated with the amendment to the Department of Defense
Financial Management Regulation. The briefing shall include,
but not be limited to, the timing and format of the public
notice and comment period prior to issuance of the amendment; a
summary of public comments submitted for the record; a summary
of hearings and workshops held; a list of stakeholders
consulted and the timing, manner, and results of such
consultation; a summary of all comments and views expressed by
stakeholders and how those comments and views were addressed;
the justification for the amendment with supporting
documentation; an analysis, with case studies, of the nexus
between predatory lending and the allotment system; and all
studies, data, methodologies, analyses, and other information
relied on by the Department.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary Increase in
Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain Circumstances
This section would extend for 1 year the authority of the
Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rates of basic
allowance for housing in areas impacted by natural disasters or
experiencing a sudden influx of personnel.
Section 602--Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reductions Based on the
Duration of Temporary Duty Assignment or Civilian Travel
This section would amend section 474(d)(3) of title 37,
United States Code, to prohibit the Secretaries concerned from
altering the amount of per diem allowance, or the maximum
reimbursement for a locality for members of the uniformed
services and civilian employees based on the duration of the
temporary duty or travel.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority, through December
31, 2016, for 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, income
replacement payments for Reserve Component members experiencing
extended and frequent mobilization for Active Duty service, and
the authority to reimburse travel expenses for inactive duty
training outside of normal commuting distance.
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Health Care Professionals
This section would extend for 1 year the authority for the
nurse officer candidate accession program, repayment of
educational loans for certain health professionals who serve in
the Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for
psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the
incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay
for Selected Reserve health care 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,
until December 31, 2016.
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities
for Nuclear Officers
This section would extend the authority for the special pay
for nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active
service, the nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear
career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2016.
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37
Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities
This section would extend the general bonus authority for
enlisted members, the general bonus authority for officers, the
special bonus and incentive pay authority for nuclear officers,
special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities, the
special health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities,
hazardous duty pay, assignment pay or special duty pay, skill
incentive pay or proficiency bonus, contracting bonus for
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps cadets and midshipmen,
and the retention bonus for members with critical military
skills or assigned to high-priority units, until December 31,
2016.
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of
Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for
active members, the incentive pay for members of
precommissioning programs pursuing foreign language
proficiency, 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 until December 31, 2016.
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Annual Amount of Nuclear Officer Bonus
Pay
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
increase, from $35,000 per year up to $50,000 per year, the
maximum Nuclear Officer Bonus payable under section 333 of
title 37, United States Code, if the Secretary of the Navy
considers it necessary to address declining nuclear officer
retention and growing retention uncertainty.
Section 617--Modification to Special Aviation Incentive Pay and Bonus
Authorities for Officers
This section would assist the Department of Defense in
meeting the congressionally mandated timeline to fully
transition from the legacy pay authorities in subchapter I of
chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, to the consolidated
pay authorities in subchapter II of chapter 5 of such title,
and, in particular, the aviation pay authority provided in
section 334 of such title. Specifically, this section would
provide the authority for a Secretary of a military department
to define in regulation, guidelines allowing the Secretary
concerned to pay aviation incentive pay to an officer while the
officer is not engaged in the performance of operational flying
duty or proficiency flying duty, but serving in positions vital
to the service. This section would also give the Secretaries of
the military departments the ability to continue to provide
aviation incentive pay to flight surgeons and other medical
officers while assigned to operational flying duty. Finally,
this section would increase the statutory limits for the
aviation incentive pay and retention bonus and would allow the
Department of Defense the flexibility to increase the aviation
incentive pay limit set forth in regulations issued by the
Secretary of Defense.
Section 618--Repeal of Obsolete Special Travel and Transportation
Allowance for Survivors of Deceased Members of the Armed Forces from
the Vietnam Conflict
This section would amend section 481f of title 37, United
States Code, to provide equal travel benefits to eligible
family members regardless of location of death or connection to
a specific conflict.
Subtitle C--Modernization of Military Retirement System
Section 631--Full Participation for Members of the Uniformed Services
in Thrift Savings Plan
This section would modernize the current military
retirement system by blending the current defined benefit,
cliff-vesting retirement plan with a defined contribution plan
allowing service members to contribute to a portable Thrift
Savings Plan account with a Government contribution matching
program.
Section 632--Modernized Retirement System for Members of the Uniformed
Services
This section would modernize the current uniformed services
retirement system by blending the current defined benefit,
cliff-vesting retirement plan with a defined contribution plan,
lump sum career continuation pay, and retention bonuses paid at
defined career milestones, while continuing a 20 year defined
annuity.
Section 633--Continuation Pay for Full TSP Members with 12 Years of
Service
This section would modernize the current military
retirement system by adding a mandatory lump sum career
continuation pay at 12 years of service with an agreement by
the service member to continue in service for 4 more years.
Section 634--Effective Date and Implementation
This section would require the Secretaries concerned to
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report by March 1, 2016, containing a plan to
ensure full and effective implementation of the sections of
this subtitle. This section would also direct the date of
implementation of the amendments made by this subtitle to be
October 1, 2017.
Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits and Operations
Section 641--Preserving Assured Commissary Supply to Asia and the
Pacific
This section would protect the commissary benefit by
requiring a comprehensive review of the Asia-Pacific produce
supply chain before any changes are made to regional second
destination policy. This section would also require the
submission of the review to Congress.
Section 642--Prohibition on Replacement or Consolidation of Defense
Commissary and Exchange Systems Pending Submission of Required Report
on Defense Commissary System
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
taking any action to replace or consolidate the defense
commissary and exchange systems before the submission of the
report on the defense commissary system required by section 634
of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291).
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 651--Improvement of Financial Literacy and Preparedness of
Members of the Armed Forces
This section would express the sense of the Congress
regarding the need to improve financial literacy and
preparedness of members of the Armed Forces. This section would
also amend section 992 of title 10, United States Code, to
require the Secretary of Defense and the military service
chiefs to increase the frequency and strengthen the financial
literacy and preparedness training of members of the Armed
Forces. This section would detail the specific periods during a
service member's career that this training shall be provided.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee remains dedicated to ensuring that the
military health system provides high-quality health care to its
9.6 million beneficiaries, including service members, retirees,
and their eligible family members. The committee believes that
ensuring every wounded service member has access to the care
and support they need during their recovery is paramount. The
committee would take steps to continue close oversight of the
programs that support recovering service members by requiring
the Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate
whether there are systemic mistreatment issues in the Army
Warrior Transition Units, as well as the Army's plan to
maintain the Warrior Transition Units capability with fewer
soldiers and resources. The committee also seeks to ensure that
the Military Health System is structured to hire and retain
high-quality personnel to meet their critical capability needs
and that the Department takes every opportunity to evaluate its
current capability needs. Specifically, the committee
encourages the Department to utilize the direct hire authority
to fill critical health occupational shortages.
In addition, the committee continues its focus on reforming
the military health system to gain efficiencies through its
medical command structure by increased sharing of resources,
use of common operating processes, and reduction in duplicative
functions and organizations. Specifically, the committee
directs the Department to establish a unified medical command
to provide the medical services to the Armed Forces and their
beneficiaries, as well as medical readiness, through a joint
structure.
Lastly, the committee remains committed to ensuring that
the collaboration between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs is strengthened to provide the
best service to veterans. In that regard, the committee would
require that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Veteran Affairs work together to establish a joint uniform
formulary for pharmaceutical agents relating to psychiatric
conditions, sleep disorders and pain management, as an
individual transitions from one Department to the other.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Access to Mental Health Care
The committee is aware that some Active Duty service
members may be reluctant to seek mental health care from health
care providers on military bases or by referral from a military
provider to civilian mental health care due to perceived stigma
associated with seeking mental health services. The committee
is also aware that the Department of Defense Military OneSource
program provides access to confidential mental health services
for Active Duty service members upon request. However, the
committee is concerned that many Active Duty service members
may be unaware that confidential mental health services are
available through Military OneSource. Therefore, the committee
strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to provide
information on the confidential mental health services
available through Military OneSource to each Active Duty
service member.
Alcohol Prevention and Monitoring Programs
The committee believes that including new tools for the
personal monitoring of breath alcohol levels would result in an
increase in the effectiveness of current and future alcohol
prevention programs. The committee strongly encourages the
department to deploy these new tools for the personal
monitoring of breath alcohol levels to ongoing alcohol safety
and abuse prevention programs to measure and increase the
program's effectiveness.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the
military services, by June 30, 2016, to submit to the House
Committee on Armed Services, a briefing on alcohol abuse
prevention programs to include a cost benefit analysis
detailing the most effective methods for preventing alcohol,
and a means for continual monitoring of the effectiveness of
these programs.
Compound Drug Prescriptions
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
has identified the recent escalating prices and claims for
compound drug prescriptions as a concern. The committee is
aware of the Department of Defense's efforts to control the
cost of the compound drug prescriptions to the Department and
protect the safety of the beneficiary. Therefore the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee
on Armed Services no later than October 1, 2015 on initiatives
to decrease claims of high cost compound drug prescriptions and
educate beneficiaries on the importance of working with their
primary care provider to ensure they are receiving safe
medications.
Comptroller General Report on Army Warrior Transition Units
The committee is concerned about allegations of
mistreatment over the past year in some Army Warrior Transition
Units (WTUs). The committee is also concerned about how the
Army will maintain the robust capability it has created since
2008 as the number of soldiers requiring the use of WTUs
continues to decrease.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
March 1, 2016, evaluating whether there are systemic
mistreatment issues in the Army WTUs, as well as the Army's
plan to maintain the Warrior Transition Units capability with
fewer soldiers and resources. The evaluation shall include but
is not limited to:
(1) The current system to respond to and address complaints
by wounded warriors in Warrior Transition Units and whether the
system is effective and fair;
(2) The process for selecting commanders and cadre assigned
to the Warrior Transition Units and how involved the Surgeon
General of the Army and the installation commanders are in the
process;
(3) The effectiveness of the Triad of Care;
(4) The Army's plan, if any, to consolidate WTUs based on
the projected number of service members that could be assigned
to the WTUs in the future; and
(5) Any proposed changes to criteria for assigning a
wounded warrior to a WTU and whether the criteria is consistent
between the Active Component and the Reserve Component.
Dietary Guidelines for Military Nutrition Programs
The committee supports efforts by the Secretary of Defense
to implement nutritional standards based upon the best
available and most scientifically sound nutrition evidence to
enhance the physical and cognitive health and performance of
military and civilian personnel, while maximizing their
readiness and warfighting capabilities. As such, the committee
is concerned about recommendations contained in the Scientific
Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee that
focus on issues outside of nutritional health, such as those to
incorporate sustainability, climate change, and other
environmental factors and agricultural production practices
into the criteria for establishing the final 2015 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans (DGA). Therefore, should the Secretary
of Defense utilize the DGA recommendations, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to include in military
nutrition programs only those DGA recommendations that fall
within the scope of health and wellness.
Direct Hire Authority for Critical Health Care Occupational Shortages
The committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense
has not taken action to fully maximize military treatment
facilities, particularly through the use of the direct hiring
authority provided under section 1599c of title 10, United
States Code. The authority provided to the Secretary allows
great flexibility in order to access and maintain necessary
medical skills within the military health care system. The
committee understands that the Department of Defense has yet to
implement the authority provided, which has had an adverse
impact on the services' ability to recruit civilian health care
professionals. Civilian medical professionals, like other
Department of Defense civilians, have experienced several years
of pay freezes as well as a furlough, which has resulted in
numbers of health care professionals leaving the military
health care system. The Army alone saw thousands of health care
professionals leave during this time and seek employment with
other Federal agencies that were not affected by the furlough.
Yet the direct hiring authority available to the Secretary has
not been utilized to help the services appropriately staff
their facilities.
Maximizing care at military treatment facilities reduces
cost to the military health care system and, ultimately, to the
Department's budget. The committee urges the Secretary to work
with the Secretaries of the military departments to ensure that
the authorities provided under section 1599c of title 10,
United States Code, are effective in meeting the health care
hiring requirements of the services. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services by September 1, 2015, on how the Department plans to
implement the authorities under section 1599c of title 10,
United States Code, in order to support the services' efforts
to recruit and hire critical health care professionals.
Medical Readiness
The committee recognizes that sustaining military medical
readiness during peacetime has long been a challenge. As noted
in the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission Final Report, beneficiary care alone may not provide
the volume and case mix necessary to ``maintain and sustain the
military medical capabilities developed during the last 13
years of war.'' Thus, with the war winding down and fewer
troops being deployed, the committee directs the Secretaries of
the military services to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services by June 30, 2016, on the current status of medical
readiness and trauma capabilities.
Meeting the Needs of Female Service Member Amputees
The committee is encouraged by the quality of care the
Department of Defense is providing to service member amputees.
However, as the committee has noted in the past, female service
members have unique physical attributes that often require
tailored approaches to meet female-specific equipment and
health care needs. Moreover, the committee recognizes
scientific literature that finds that women are less likely to
be successfully fitted with a prosthetic limb at the time of
their discharge from hospital than men. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services on the
Department's current ability to meet the needs of female
service members who require prosthetics. This brief should take
into account the ability of the Department of Defense to
provide female amputees with prostheses specifically designed
to meet the needs of women. It should also include an
assessment of whether the Department is able to meet the
multidisciplinary amputee care needs of female service members
including seeing an appropriate physician, prosthetist, and
occupational or physical therapist.
Military Doctors of Podiatric Medicine
The committee understands that the role of podiatrists in
the military has evolved as the profession itself has grown in
size and training. The committee is aware that because of this,
the clinical role of the podiatric surgeon may not fit within
the Medical Service Corps, and that being in the Medical
Service Corps may limit career progression and opportunities
for leadership positions for podiatrists within the military
services. Further, it is the committee's understanding that
deployments have offered limited opportunities for podiatrists
to serve in leadership positions that would otherwise be
restricted to members of the Medical Corps. To better
understand the role and responsibilities of military
podiatrists, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the House Committee on Armed Services by July 1, 2016, on
the utilization of podiatrists within the Military Health
System.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
The committee continues to support Department of Defense
efforts to identify and treat post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) occurring in members of the Armed Forces as a result of
combat. Untreated PTSD can lead to long-term mental health
issues and possibly suicide. The committee recognizes the
importance of having a measurement system to evaluate current
and future PTSD programs to help ensure the effectiveness of
treatment and increase the likelihood of completion by the
service member. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense and the Veterans Administration to continue to work
with research entities to ensure that proper measurement
systems are used to evaluate PTSD treatment programs.
In addition, the committee encourages the Department to
institute programs that have demonstrated preliminary evidence
of effectiveness in reducing symptoms of post-traumatic stress
and the issues that occur due to readjustment to civilian life,
such as programs that utilize paradigm shift, holistic
approach, and experiential learning as part of the continuum of
care. The committee also recognizes the utility of alternative
cognitive behavioral therapy approaches to combat PTSD in
service members.
The committee recognizes the importance of continued
research into the use and effectiveness of new variations of
treatment options for PTSD. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to collaborate with State organizations
and research entities to assess the utility of treatment
programs being researched, including use of wearable sensors to
help individuals undergoing behavioral therapy treatments and
advances in proton therapy to pinpoint and alleviate pain which
may exacerbate symptoms of PTSD. In addition, the committee
encourages the Department to explore the use of novel cognitive
therapies such as Attention Bias Modification training,
magnetic resonance therapy, or sports therapy programs that
could be used in conjunction with other therapies and
medication for treatment of military personnel diagnosed with
PTSD.
Screening, Prevention and Treatment of Hepatitis A, B and C
The committee notes that although the prevalence for
infection of Hepatitis A, B, and C has significantly decreased,
there are still service members at risk for contracting the
viruses. The committee is also aware that improved screening,
vaccination and treatment protocols are readily available to
protect service members. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to brief the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives no later than January 1, 2016
on its procedures and policies for screening, prevention and
treatment of Hepatitis A, B, and C.
Status and Impacts of Reductions in TRICARE Prime Service Areas
In October 2013, more than a hundred thousand TRICARE Prime
beneficiaries across the United States living outside 40 miles
from a Military Treatment Facility lost access to TRICARE Prime
due to the Department of Defense's change in Prime Service Area
coverage. The committee notes that Section 701 of the Fiscal
Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act provided for a
one-time election opportunity for individuals who elected to
remain in TRICARE Prime, should the individual reside in an
affected ZIP code and within 100 miles of a Military Treatment
Facility. However, the committee understands that many
beneficiaries live more than 100 miles from a Military
Treatment Facility, and therefore were ineligible to
participate in TRICARE Prime election.
The committee believes that access to quality healthcare
services is a benefit earned through prior service to our
nation and that the Department of Defense should continue to
provide top-level healthcare to beneficiaries removed from
TRICARE Prime as a result of the Prime Service Area changes.
The committee is also aware that the Department of Defense is
required in Section 723 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 to submit a report to the Congress on the status of
the reduction in TRICARE Prime Service areas. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services no later than July 30, 2015, on
efforts to ensure access to affordable healthcare due to
changes in TRICARE costs for affected beneficiaries as a result
of the reductions in Prime Service Areas.
Study and Report on the Use of Equine Therapy
The committee is aware that active duty service members and
veterans seek out and use additional forms of therapy, such as
equine therapy, which provides physical, psychological, and
emotional therapy to individuals through personal interaction
with trained service horses in a safe and structured
environment. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report on the use of equine therapy to treat members
of the Armed Forces to the House Committee on Armed Services by
June 30, 2016. The report shall include an assessment of the
effectiveness of using equine therapy techniques to treat
members of the Armed Forces with post-traumatic stress disorder
and other psychological or emotional conditions; the
effectiveness of using equine therapy techniques to prevent
suicide; the effectiveness of using equine therapy as a form of
physical therapy; the prevalence of using equine therapy to
treat members of the Armed Forces with post-traumatic stress
disorder or other psychological or emotional conditions; the
prevalence of using equine therapy as a form of physical
therapy; and the potential for organizations in the private
sector that offer equine therapy and the Department of Defense
to form partnerships to treat members of the Armed Forces with
physical, psychological, and emotional conditions.
Transport Telemedicine
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
exploring telemedicine solutions successfully used in a
deployed environment to better enhance medical care provided to
soldiers deployed or operating at home station. Telemedicine
can increase efficiency and reduce health care cost by
projecting medical care to multiple locations, thus avoiding
transportation delays.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
currently lacks a technical solution that captures and
communicates patient care/condition information beginning at
the point of injury and continuing until arrival at a medical
facility. The committee believes the lack of an effective
telemedicine architecture represents a critical capability gap
for the Department of Defense medical care. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department to support and expand the
development and deployment of telemedicine across the Military
Health System.
The committee also notes that the Army has successfully
demonstrated the airborne portion of its telemedicine concept
and is currently writing its telemedicine Concepts Development
Document. The committee encourages the Army to consider the
most expeditious method to further develop the requirements for
telemedicine techniques, capabilities and processes, including
a Limited User Evaluation and the exploration of commercial
off-the-shelf technologies that may exist today and would
effectively work with existing radios and patient care devices.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by January 1,
2016, on the plan for pursuing technical telemedicine
capabilities.
Trauma Care
The committee continues to support the Department of
Defense in its efforts to further advance trauma care. However,
the committee is concerned that with the end of the recent
military conflicts, these advances and skills may degrade and
have a negative impact on the readiness of military medicine.
The committee understands that the Department is creating a
coordinated, multi-institution, clinical research network of
civilian and military trauma centers to address the military
relevant priorities and gaps in trauma care and trauma systems.
The committee recognizes that the Department is initiating this
program in fiscal year 2015 and encourages the Secretary of
Defense to continue to properly resource this research effort.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the House Committee on Armed Services by no later than
January 31, 2016 on the Department's efforts to create a
clinical research network of civilian and military trauma
centers.
Wounded Warrior Recovery Care Coordination
Section 1614 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) required that, ``the Secretary
of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall jointly
develop and implement processes, procedures, and standards for
the transition of recovering service members from care and
treatment through the Department of Defense to care, treatment,
and rehabilitation through the Department of Veterans
Affairs.''
The committee is concerned that rather than having joint
programs to advocate on behalf of wounded warriors and ensure a
comprehensive and seamless rehabilitation, recovery and
transition; two separate programs exist--the Department of
Defense Recovery Coordination Care Program and the Department
of Veterans Affairs Federal Recovery Coordination Program.
The committee is aware of initial efforts to update
Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs policies authorized
by Section 1614 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181). Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs jointly to brief the House Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs jointly by August
1, 2015 on the status of programs authorized by Section 1614 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(P.L. 110-181) as well as provide a briefing within 30 calendar
days of an announcement of an update of policy of a program
authorized by Section 1614.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits
Section 701--Joint Uniform Formulary for Transition of Care
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly establish a joint
uniform formulary for use by the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs that would include
pharmaceutical agents critical for the transition of an
individual from treatment furnished by the Secretary of Defense
to treatment furnished by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
The pharmaceutical agents selected for inclusion on the joint
uniform formulary shall be related to the control of pain,
sleep disorders, psychiatric conditions, and other conditions
determined appropriate by the Secretaries. This section would
also require the Secretaries to submit a report to certain
congressional committees by July 1, 2016, on the joint uniform
formulary established by the Secretaries.
Section 702--Access to Broad Range of Methods of Contraception Approved
by the Food and Drug Administration for Members of the Armed Forces and
Military Dependents at Military Treatment Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that every military medical treatment facility has a
sufficient stock of Food and Drug Administration approved
methods of contraception.
Section 703--Access to Contraceptive Method for Duration of Deployment
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a sufficient supply of prescription contraception to a
female member of the Armed Forces prior to deployment.
Section 704--Access to Infertility Treatment for Members of the Armed
Forces and Dependents
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide uninterrupted access to infertility treatment for
members of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration
Section 711--Unified Medical Command
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a unified medical command to provide medical services
to the Armed Forces and other health care beneficiaries of the
Department of Defense as defined in chapter 55 of title 10,
United States Code. This section would also require the
Secretary to (1) develop a comprehensive plan to establish a
unified medical command; (2) notify the congressional defense
committees of the time line to establish the unified medical
command by not later than the date that is 30 days before
establishing such command; and (3) submit a report to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after
providing such notification on the establishment of the unified
medical command.
Section 712--Licensure of Mental Health Professionals in TRICARE
Program
This section would establish criteria under which licensed
mental health counselors may be reimbursed under the TRICARE
program.
Section 713--Reports on Proposed Realignments of Military Medical
Treatment Facilities
The section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
realigning or restructuring a military medical treatment
facility until 90 days following the date the Secretary submits
a report to the congressional defense committees on the
military medical treatment facility. The report would include
data on the demographics supported by the military medical
treatment facility, average daily inpatient census, top five
diagnoses, civilian medical care in the surrounding area, and
whether the facility supports a training base, along with other
data.
Section 714--Pilot Program for Operation of Network of Retail
Pharmacies Under TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program to evaluate whether operating a network
of preferred retail pharmacies will generate cost savings for
the Department of Defense. The pilot program would include but
not be limited to best practices from non-TRICARE health plans
that use preferred retail pharmacy networks and allow retail
pharmacies participating in the network of preferred retail
pharmacies to purchase prescription medication for
beneficiaries at rates available to the Federal Government. The
pilot program would commence by May 1, 2016, and terminate on
September 30, 2018. The Secretary would be required to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees on the
implementation plan for the pilot program, an interim report
semiannually during the period the program is being carried
out, and a final report after the program terminates.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Section 721--Extension of Authority for DOD-VA Health Care Sharing
Incentive Fund
This section would extend the authority for the DOD-VA
Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund for 5 years, until September
30, 2020.
Section 722--Extension of Authority for Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund
This section would extend the authority for the Joint
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Facility Demonstration Fund by one year, until September 30,
2017.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
OVERVIEW
Over the past 50 years, acquisition reform efforts focused
primarily on identifying the failures of the acquisition
system: a complex system which includes requirements setting,
funding, and acquisition activities. While some progress has
been made, the conditions in the early 1980s described by Dr.
J. Ronald Fox in his seminal work on acquisition reform,
``Defense Acquisition Reform 1960-2009: An Elusive Goal,''
still describe the system today:
``Congressional critics, for example, blasted the services
for rampant cost growth and schedule slippages. Aggressively
pushing the frontiers of technology prompted cost overruns,
they argued, while fierce inter-service competition for funds
encouraged overly optimistic program cost estimates. The
services, meanwhile, complained about excessive paperwork and
reporting procedures required by the . . . milestone reviews;
micromanagement of weapons programs by the [Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD)] and Congress; and unrealistic
demands for accurate cost estimates, especially when unknowns
existed in the early stages of weapons program planning.
Program managers directed similar criticisms at both OSD and
the services, while OSD criticized the services for failing to
restrict the number of weapon systems competing for limited
resources. Other service shortcomings, according to OSD,
included inadequate support and readiness for fielded weapons
systems and lengthy acquisition cycles. Industry directed its
frustrations across the board--at OSD, Congress, and the
services. Program instability--caused by sudden production
starts and stops, program stretch-outs, redirections, and long
decision times--threatened the bottom line and risked financial
ruin, while micromanagement and excessive surveillance of
programs by OSD and the services disrupted efficient contractor
performance. Industry representatives also believed that OSD's
emphasis on increasing price competition among contractors
resulted in poor cost realism.''
The committee is concerned that the incentives of the
current acquisition system lead to too many defense
acquisitions concurrently chasing finite dollars. This is
reflected in the fact that there remains a vast difference
between Department of Defense budgets and the reality of the
cost of the weapon systems those budgets acquire. To keep
weapon system programs alive, the Department continues to
develop, and Congress continues to accept, fragile acquisition
strategies that downplay technical issues and assume only
successful outcomes to high risk efforts. As a result, the
Nation often ends up with too few weapons, delivered late, at
too high of a cost, with performance that falls short, and that
are difficult and costly to maintain.
In addition to challenges in weapon systems procurement,
the committee notes that Department of Defense expenditures for
contracted services have grown in magnitude and face many
management and oversight challenges. The Department currently
spends more than half of its contracted dollars on services.
However, departmental leadership, to include the Department's
own Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), have limited
insight into the services being acquired and even less
awareness of the services that may need to be acquired in the
future. The Department currently lacks accurate and reliable
data on contracted services, and the military departments and
defense agencies have failed to develop processes to use
available data to inform workforce planning, workforce mix, and
budget decision making. Budget planning and congressional
decision-making continue to be hampered by poor data, a failure
to analyze data that has been acquired, and a lack of general
transparency.
Furthermore, the conventional acquisition process is not
sufficiently agile to support warfighter demands. Congress and
the Department have consistently expressed concern that urgent
warfighting requirements for hardware, as well as services, are
not being met. As a result, several authorities have been put
in place for rapid acquisition practices as a means to work
around the conventional acquisition processes. However, many
still argue that the current processes are so rigid and time-
consuming that the Department is often not able to effectively
tap into the innovation occurring in the commercial
marketplace, thereby losing opportunities to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of both its business operations
and warfighting capability.
The committee recognizes one of the Department's greatest
challenges is ensuring that the Department's workforce has the
training, qualifications, and experience needed to make the
decisions on acquiring goods and services. According to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics in testimony before the House Committee on Armed
Services in January 2015, One of the dominant characteristics
of defense acquisition is its scope and complexity. There are
no simple solutions to all the myriad problems acquisition
professionals have to solve. There is no short ``rule set''
that tells us all we need to know; it is all about hard work,
professionalism, and continuous improvement based on data and
analysis of past experience. Our acquisition professionals must
be able to think critically on many levels, integrate inputs
from many perspectives, balance competing needs, make sound
business and technical decisions, and satisfy many stakeholders
and customers.''
The committee also notes that information technology (IT)
systems are critical enablers for the Department of Defense. As
the IT budget represents nearly $32.00 billion of the
Department of Defense's total budget, it also represents a
major investment area requiring the same rigorous planning,
analysis, and oversight as any other complex major weapon
system. The Department recognized this area as a source of
greater efficiency and has managed to reduce spending in IT by
several billion dollars across the Future Years Defense
Program. It remains to be seen if these reductions are driving
any real change in how the Department does business, or whether
those reductions are made with any strategic plan in mind.
The committee will continue to review the Department's IT
investment planning and review processes, as well as specific
acquisitions, to improve the ability to identify and reduce
unwarranted duplication and eliminate programs of little value
to the warfighter. The committee will pay particular attention
to how the Department leverages the commercial marketplace, as
well as the various IT systems of the Department where
egregious programmatic failures have been made, to provide
lessons for future acquisitions. The committee also plans to
focus on how the IT investments of the Department will
contribute to future warfighting capability, and support a
defensible architecture that is resilient to cyber-attacks,
while maintaining the command and control to support mission
needs.
The committee's ongoing acquisition improvement efforts
seek to enhance oversight in these areas and to improve
processes through a different approach from previous efforts.
The committee seeks to improve the environment (i.e., human
resources, culture, statutes, regulations, and processes)
driving acquisition choices in the Department, industry, and
Congress. As part of this ongoing effort, the committee
solicited input from industry, academia, and the Department, as
well as others during the 113th Congress, and will continue to
engage these stakeholders during the 114th Congress. In
addition, the committee held a series of hearings in the 113th
Congress in order to gather testimony from key acquisition
leaders and experts. While the committee recognizes that there
are no ``silver bullet'' reform packages that can immediately
fix the current acquisition system in a holistic manner, the
committee intends to take the inputs it has received to make
progress in the 114th Congress. This effort will be an
iterative process that will result in direct oversight and will
be embedded in the committee's regular work throughout the
114th Congress.
The committee applauds the efforts of the Secretary of
Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics to reform defense acquisitions. We are
encouraged by the Department's rigorous review of statutory
provisions and submission to the Congress of well thought out
proposals for positive change that balance the need for
critical information necessary for oversight. Elsewhere in this
Act, the committee addresses each of the Department of
Defense's proposals with some modification. The committee
pledges to continue to work collaboratively with the Department
where possible.
Therefore, the committee is proposing legislation elsewhere
in this Act which would address some of these problems with the
recognition that many of these issues require a persistent,
continuous, and iterative long-term effort in order to identify
root causes, generate potential solutions, and address
incentives driving undesirable outcomes.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Additions to the Department of Defense's Small Business Policy Website
The committee recognizes the importance of the ability of
small businesses to identify, communicate, and receive
assistance from the appropriate sources as an integral part of
supporting and maintaining a diverse industrial base, improving
competition, driving better value to the taxpayer, and sparking
innovation. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, no later than September 30, 2015, to include on the
Department of Defense's Office of Small Business Policy website
a link to and information on the Small Business
Administration's procurement center representatives directory.
Contracting Activities to Employ Disabled Persons
The committee is concerned that disabled Americans, many of
whom are veterans, want to work but need assistance in finding
employment. The committee is aware that the AbilityOne Program,
authorized by the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501)
provides employment opportunities for Americans who have
significant disabilities through Federal contracts with
qualified, community-based, nonprofit agencies across the
country. The committee recognizes that the AbilityOne Program
currently provides diverse products and services, such as
manufactured equipment for the warfighter, supply-chain
management, and other essential services at military
installations and offices. The committee believes that the
AbilityOne Program network of nonprofit agencies could have the
capability and capacity to fulfill additional requirements for
the Department of Defense while also providing valued
employment opportunities to disabled Americans.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to examine the opportunities for the Department of Defense to
increase contracting with organizations such as the AbilityOne
Program or similar organizations that prioritize the hiring of
disabled Americans. The committee further directs the Secretary
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than March 15, 2016, on the findings of this
examination, along with recommendations to improve Department
of Defense efforts to leverage the skills and capabilities of
such workforce.
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
In 2008, Congress established the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF) to provide a dedicated
source of funds for recruiting, training, and retaining the
acquisition workforce. Through fiscal year 2013, the fund
provided about $2.8 billion and current legislation provides
another $3.0 billion through fiscal year 2018. In 2012, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the
ability of Department of Defense components to effectively plan
for and execute efforts supported by DAWDF was hindered by
delays in the Department's funding processes and an absence of
clear guidance on the availability and use of funds. As such,
GAO found that the Department was not collecting and
distributing funds within the time frames established by the
legislation, which contributed to high carry-over balances. GAO
recommended that the Department revise its guidance to clarify
for all stakeholders when and how DAWDF funds should be
collected, distributed, and used.
While the committee supports the continuance of the DAWDF
and is aware of the positive effects garnered since its
implementation, the committee remains concerned that the
Department continues to fail to submit the statutorily required
report in a timely manner and also continues to struggle to
provide timely collection and distribution of funds related to
the DAWDF. The committee also remains concerned that the
Department has been unable to reduce the amount of funds that
are carried over to future years and slow to take the steps
necessary to improve workforce planning and budgeting.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would make the DAWDF and
the associated expedited hiring authority permanent. The
committee will continue to work with the Department to address
the remainder of the outstanding concerns regarding execution
and reporting on the DAWDF.
Department Management of Unobligated Funds
The committee is concerned that the current planning,
programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process of the
Department of Defense has created an environment in which
personnel are incentivized to spend, not save, in procuring
products and services to meet the needs of the warfighter.
The committee is aware that on September 10, 2012, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
issued a joint memorandum to the military departments, the
combatant commands, and other defense agencies addressing long-
standing Department of Defense issues regarding the way the
Department manages unobligated funds. In the memorandum, the
Under Secretaries stressed the importance of spending money in
a manner that maximizes value to the Department and to the
taxpayer. The memorandum attempted to address the existing
culture which measures program execution against established
obligation benchmarks. In the memorandum, they wrote, ``We will
continue to hold our Program/contracts teams accountable for
executing to their planned schedules, but we have to stop
measuring only benchmark execution as the dispositive method of
determining whether funds are available for higher
priorities.''
On August 20, 2014, the two Under Secretaries issued a
follow-up memorandum to reaffirm their commitment to improve
the way the Department manages unobligated funds. This
memorandum stated that the following tenets should be adopted
and enforced at all levels of the chain of command and by
acquisition and financial managers throughout the Department:
(1) Taxpayer funds should be obligated and ultimately
expended only in the taxpayers' interest and if best
value is received for the money in support of the
warfighter.
(2) While they can be useful indicators, obligation
rates slower than established benchmarks should not be
the determinative measuring stick for program execution
and must not be regarded as a failure.
(3) Late obligation of funds should not be presumed
to imply that the funds are not needed or that future
budgets should be reduced unless there is other
evidence to support that conclusion. It may, however,
indicate a need to examine whether rephasing funding is
appropriate to more properly align with actual program
execution.
(4) Providing savings to the organization, military
service, or Department of Defense component as early in
the fiscal year as possible should be encouraged and
rewarded, professionally and visibly.
(5) Savings will not be reallocated at any higher
Department of Defense level than necessary to fulfill
shortfalls in priority requirements.
(6) Managers who release unobligated funds to higher
priorities will not automatically be penalized in their
next year's budget with a lower allocation and may be
candidates for additional funding to offset prior year
reductions.
The committee supports these efforts. However, the
committee continues to be made aware of anecdotes that the
culture inside the Department is to continue to obligate
funding regardless of necessity in order to either prevent
those funds from expiring or being reallocated, or as a
methodology to substantiate the future year's budget request.
Therefore, the committee directs each of the Under Secretaries
of the military departments to provide a briefing to the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives not
later than August 31, 2015, on the current progress achieved
and challenges remaining in regards to the execution of the
direction sent in the memo from the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) on August 20, 2014.
Department of Defense Oversight of Non-Major Defense Acquisition
Programs
The committee notes that the military services manage many
hundreds of acquisition category II and III programs each year.
These programs range from multi-billion dollar aircraft radar
modernization efforts to soldier clothing and protective
equipment programs worth tens of millions of dollars. Many of
these programs represent complex critical warfare capabilities.
At the committee's request, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) undertook a review of these programs (GAO-15-188)
to determine the extent to which information is available on
the number of these programs and their cost and schedule
performance. The committee is concerned by GAO's conclusion
that the military services' management information was too
unreliable to assess these programs. The committee is also
concerned by GAO's conclusion that the military services may
lack sufficient cost and schedule metrics to assess performance
trends. The committee notes that the military services have
taken some steps to improve the reliability of the data and
considered ways to improve the cost and schedule metrics. The
committee encourages the military services to take additional
steps to address the management and oversight issues identified
by GAO as rapidly as possible.
The committee directs the Secretaries of the military
departments to brief the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than September 15, 2015, on their respective services'
efforts to improve the reliability of management information
and to develop sufficient cost and schedule metrics for non-
major defense acquisition programs.
Education and Training Related to Commercial Item Procurements
The committee is concerned that current education and
training programs in the Department of Defense are insufficient
to fully prepare military and civilian personnel to skillfully
establish requirements, develop solid acquisition and
contracting strategies, and conduct market research related to
commercial item procurements. Therefore, the committee directs
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, to complete a review by October 1,
2015, of the Department's programs established to develop
qualified acquisition, requirements, and contingency
professionals as well as other professional military education
curricula, and to identify areas where such efforts could be
enhanced to improve workforce skills and knowledge related to
commercial item procurements. The committee further directs the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2016, on the
findings and recommendations of the review.
Education and Training Related to Setting of Requirements
The committee notes that, in accordance with section 801 of
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in consultation with
the Defense Acquisition University, developed a training
program to certify military and civilian personnel of the
Department of Defense with responsibility for generating
requirements for major defense acquisition programs. Despite
this progress, the committee remains concerned that the
currently established education and training programs in the
Department of Defense are insufficient to prepare the
requirements workforce to fully define operational
requirements, ensure trade-offs are fully assessed, and ensure
the approved requirements are essential, technically feasible,
and affordable. In too many cases, the committee continues to
observe programs that are initiated without sound fundamentals
and that result in ``requirements creep.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a review of the effectiveness of Department's
program established to develop requirements management
certification training and the competency requirements for the
personnel undergoing the training program by October 1, 2015.
The Secretary of Defense should also include other education
and training curricula to identify areas where such efforts
could be enhanced to improve the workforce skills, training,
and tools related to the setting of requirements for major
defense acquisition programs, major systems, major automated
information systems, contingency program management, and
contracted services. The review should also examine how these
education and training programs address systems engineering
analyses and cost estimating as part of the requirements
development process. The committee further directs the
Secretary to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by February 1, 2016, on the findings of the review
along with any recommendations to improve the Department's
requirements-setting skills, training, and tools.
Education and Training Related to the Conduct of Market Research
The committee is concerned that the currently established
education and training programs in the Department of Defense
are insufficient to fully prepare the military and civilian
workforce to conduct market research in a manner sufficient to
ensure confidence in the development of requirements and
acquisition strategies, and the determination of cost/price
reasonableness. Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee
includes a provision that would require the Secretary of
Defense to provide mandatory training for members of the Armed
Forces and employees of the Department of Defense responsible
for the conduct of market research required under section
2377(c) of title 10, United States Code, and would also require
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that such
training requirements are incorporated into the requirements
management certification training mandate of the Joint
Capabilities Integration Development System. Furthermore,
elsewhere in this report, the committee directs a review of the
Department's program to improve workforce skills and knowledge
related to commercial item procurements.
Enabling Systemic Review of Acquisition Laws and Regulations by
Establishing Sunset Dates for Acquisition Statutes
The committee is concerned that the current approach to
developing, enacting, and implementing acquisition laws and
regulations has not been done in a holistic fashion, to a large
degree because of the enormity and complexity of the statutory
and regulatory framework. The committee notes that in its
November 14, 2014, official response to the committee's request
for its views on how to improve the defense acquisition system,
the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) stated that,
``The layering of compliance and reporting requirements on the
acquisition process without subsequent review inhibits
improvements to the Defense Acquisition System and the culture
of its workforce, both of which gradually become increasingly
bureaucratic. Reviews, when they occur, are infrequent, ad hoc,
and lack consistent standards of evaluation or predictable
paths to implementation.'' NDIA went on to recommend that a
formalized, rolling review of statutory requirements and
mandates that add costs to the defense acquisition system, in
terms of time and manpower, should be conducted.
NDIA further recommended that rather than attempt to tackle
the entire system in a singular review, consideration should be
given to methodically establishing expiration dates on current
statutes in order to allow for a detailed review of a
manageable set of statutes each year. The committee is
interested in examining this approach in more detail and looks
forward to working with all stakeholders to identify potential
benefits as well as unintended consequences, such as
instability or uncertainty in the legal framework, resultant
contractual changes and burdens, increased overhead and costs
to the Department of Defense, and other factors.
Ethics Awareness and Training
The committee is aware that Government-wide ethics
regulations for the executive branch (5 C.F.R. Sect. 2638.703-
705) require: (1) an initial ethics orientation for newly hired
employees; (2) annual ethics training for senior executive
employees and others who are required to file public financial
disclosure reports; and (3) annual ethics training for persons
designated by their agency to file confidential financial
disclosure reports because of acquisition-related duties, etc.
The content of this required training is specified in the
regulations noted above, and is common not only within the
Department of Defense but also across the entire executive
branch. While many members of the acquisition workforce are
required to complete annual ethics training consistent with the
regulatory requirements associated with their positions, the
committee is aware that on January 15, 2014, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
issued a memo requiring 100 percent of the Department's
acquisition workforce to receive annual ethics training. While
this Department of Defense-specific requirement did not
generate new ethics training content or ethics courses, it did
expand the number of Department of Defense personnel who must
receive the annual ethics training commonly given across the
entire executive branch.
The committee is also aware that the Defense Acquisition
University includes ethics content in many of its courses and
the National Defense University's Eisenhower School includes
ethics lesson for all students in its Defense Strategy and
Resourcing course. The Eisenhower School also includes an
ethics case review in its Senior Acquisition course. However,
the committee notes that many of these educational
opportunities are provided only at mid- and senior-levels of
professional development.
The committee applauds the efforts by the Under Secretary
to ensure that the entire acquisition workforce is fully aware
of Government-wide ethics standards and requirements, and to
have taken an active leadership role in furthering the trust
in, and credibility of, the acquisition workforce. The
committee encourages the Under Secretary to continue to enhance
ethics training and awareness, to include identifying
opportunities to increase Department of Defense-specific ethics
training and awareness for new hires and junior members of the
acquisition workforce.
Exchanges with Industry
The committee applauds efforts by the Secretary of Defense
to provide opportunities for military officers and defense
civilian personnel to conduct exchanges with industry, such as
the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows Program (SDCFP). The
committee is aware that the SDCFP was established by the
Secretary of Defense in 1994 to become a long-term investment
in transforming U.S. military forces and capabilities and was
intended to play a key part of the Department of Defense
strategy to achieve its transformational goals. While fellows
have been assigned to such diverse and innovative businesses,
such as Amgen, Boeing, CNN, Caterpillar, Cisco, Citicorp,
DuPont, FedEx, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard,
IBM, Lockheed Martin, McKinsey, Merck, Microsoft, Northrop
Grumman, Oracle, Pfizer, Raytheon, Sears, Southern Company,
Sun, 3M, and United Technologies, the committee notes that only
16 individuals are allowed to participate in the program on an
annual basis. The committee also notes that at its inception
over 20 years ago, the then-Secretary of Defense stated that
the SDCFP was not intended to ``produce better technologists or
acquisition specialists.'' However, the committee believes that
this program could be leveraged to enhance the professional
development of the uniformed and civilian workforce of the
Department of Defense.
The committee believes that the Department could benefit
from a comprehensive review of this program, along with other
fellowship programs and professional development exchanges.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a review of the SDCFP and other fellowship programs and
professional development exchanges, and to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by September 15, 2015, on
the findings and associated recommendations for strengthening
the workforce. As part of the review, the Secretary should
examine the potential effects on career progression and
retention rates of participants in such programs and provide
recommendations necessary to promote early, frequent, and
ethical dialogues between all stakeholders on matters such as
rules, acquisition policies, and contracting practices.
Foreign Military Sales Procedural Improvements
The committee is aware that although decisions on Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) involve several interagency steps,
internal Department of Defense processes for considering arms
transfers remain a significant part of the time frame for
decision-making. The committee is concerned that there have
been long delays continue to occur in approving some FMS cases
and is pleased that the senior management of the Department of
Defense has been focused on this issue. The current reform
effort began in August 2008, when the Deputy Secretary of
Defense established a Defense Senior Steering Group on Arms
Transfers and Technology Release to review and improve the
Department's decision-making on arms transfers and release of
sensitive technology. In July 2010, the Deputy Secretary issued
a memorandum to revise the Department's Technology Security and
Foreign Disclosure processes, pursuant to the Steering Group's
recommendations and Presidential Study Directive 8, issued in
December 2009. Nevertheless, long delays continue to occur in
some cases. The committee therefore directs the Undersecretary
of Defense for Policy to provide the committee and the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs with a briefing on the results of
the Deputy Secretary's initiative and memoranda to streamline
the FMS procedures and additional steps that can be taken to
reduce the FMS decision-making time frame not later than
November 1, 2015.
Impact of Rescinded Solicitations on Efficiency and Innovation
The committee notes that companies incur substantial costs
to prepare and submit bids in response to Department of Defense
solicitations. The committee is concerned that cancellation of
these solicitations after the preparation of bids can be a
significant waste of time and money by both the Department and
the prospective offerors. In addition, to the extent companies
put considerable time and effort into preparing bids for
solicitations that are subsequently canceled, these efforts may
have diverted funding and critical contracting talent that
could have been better used to advance our technological edge
through independent research and development.
The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than March 31, 2016, on the resources committed to
Department of Defense solicitations that were subsequently
canceled between fiscal year 2010 and 2014 after bids were
received. Specifically, the Comptroller General should
determine: (1) the number of solicitations that were canceled
after bids were received, (2) whether these cancellations are
increasing or decreasing and their distribution by Agency or
military service and contracting command, (3) the bid and
proposal incurred costs by the companies and the government
resources committed to these solicitations, (4) the extent to
which, if any, the bid and proposal costs for these
solicitations have reduced the funding available for
independent research and development, and (5) the reasons for
the cancellation of the solicitations.
Importance of the North American Defense Industrial Base
The committee acknowledges the vital role played by the
defense industrial base in supporting the Armed Forces of the
United States, noting that a cost-effective, healthy base that
is responsive to U.S. military requirements is essential to
achieving U.S. national security objectives. The committee
further notes that in light of robust trade relations, a shared
interest in the defense of North America, and responsibilities
as the only North American allies within the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, both the United States and Canada benefit
from the North American Defense Industrial Base relationship.
Therefore, the committee is supportive of the strong,
integrated, and widely dispersed industrial base in North
America reflecting the economical use of research, development,
and production resources, as laid out in the Department of
Defense Instruction 2035.01 dated February 27, 2006. As stated
in that instruction, ``the Department of Defense shall maintain
and strengthen defense cooperation with Canada'' and
``recognizes the differences in capabilities and capacities of
the defense-oriented industries in the two countries'' with the
understanding that ``the policy is based on the recognition
that the United States and Canada have a mutual interest in the
defense of North America.''
Improvements in Accountability for Contracted Services Spending
The committee notes that in a December 2014 report, ``DOD
Contract Services: Improved Planning and Implementation of
Fiscal Controls Needed'' (GAO-15-115), the Government
Accountability Office made a number of recommendations to
improve the control mechanisms for contracted services spending
within the Department of Defense, and the Department concurred
with those recommendations. The committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to brief the House Committee
on Armed Services not later than September 15, 2015, on the
Department's efforts to implement effective control mechanisms
for contracted services spending.
Improving the Acquisition of Contracted Services
The committee has been concerned for years with the
Department of Defense's acquisition of contracted services.
Proper management of the acquisition of contracted services is
critical to the proper functioning of the Department. Services
contractors support the daily missions of the Department,
whether in the United States or abroad.
Proper management of the acquisition of contracted services
begins with acknowledgment of the level of services being
contracted and identification of the functions that are
contracted. To that end, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) mandated an inventory
of contracts for services. The committee remains disappointed
that after 8 years, the Department of Defense has failed to
produce an inventory that is accurate and reliable and that
facilitates the Department's strategic workforce planning,
workforce mix, and budget decisionmaking processes, as required
by law.
The committee notes that in July 2014, the Department
issued its annual report, ``Performance of the Defense
Acquisition System.'' For the first time, this report included
information on its contracted services, including obligations
for each service portfolio group, competition rates, and small
business participation. The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics also created an
Acquisition of Services Functional Integrated Product Team to
coordinate actions and further develop training. The committee
is encouraged that the Department is close to finalizing a new
department-wide governing regulation for the acquisition of
contracted services to improve the process for developing
requirements for individual service acquisitions and to enhance
training. The committee is also encouraged that improving the
acquisition of contracted services is included in the
Department's ongoing acquisition reform effort, called ``Better
Buying Power.''
The committee wants to ensure that these efforts will be
continued and strengthened in the future. However, the
committee is concerned that the Department of Defense cannot
assess its progress, including defining what progress means and
measuring it. Elsewhere in this report, the committee includes
directives for the Department to: (1) report on options to
improve the transparency of contract services in the budget
requests it submits to Congress; (2) brief the committee on its
efforts to establish contracted services goals and metrics; (3)
report on how it intends to coordinate the roles,
responsibilities, authorities, and resources of the offices
involved in the acquisition of contracted services; and (4)
brief the committee on its progress in implementing control
mechanisms on contract services spending.
Improving the Efficiency of the Defense Contract Audit Agency
The committee continues to believe that more must be done
to improve the efficiency of the Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA). In 2012, the committee learned that DCAA had not been
subject to a peer review since 2006, despite the fact that
according to generally accepted government auditing standards
(GAGAS), a peer review of government audit agencies should be
conducted at least every 3 years. As a result, the committee
included section 1614 in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), which assigned
responsibility to the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense for conducting peer reviews of Department of Defense
audit agencies, including DCAA, in 2014.
As a result of that peer review, the Inspector General
released a report on August 21, 2014, which found that 11 of 92
DCAA engagements reviewed during a 6 month period did not
contain sufficient evidence for Inspector General reviewers to
understand DCAA's auditing decisions. The Inspector General
attributed these findings to an ``absence of effective control
measures in DCAA's policies and procedures'' for compliance
with GAGAS. Additionally, the Inspector General found that DCAA
had yet to correct its performance despite being aware of
issues identified in a September 2009 Government Accountability
Office report (GAO-09-468) and, previously, by DCAA's own
quality assurance procedures.
Furthermore, the committee is aware that the Inspector
General released a report on September 8, 2014, on its review
of audits issued by DCAA in fiscal years 2012-13. In conducting
this review, the Inspector General examined a cross section of
16 DCAA audits completed between October 2011 and February
2013, including 5 audits of forward-pricing proposals and 11
audits of incurred costs and other audit types. The Inspector
General identified 1 or more significant inadequacies on 13 of
the 16 selected DCAA audits and found deficiencies in
compliance with GAGAS in the areas of audit planning, evidence,
working paper documentation, and supervision. Furthermore, the
Inspector General review uncovered instances of auditors not
obtaining adequate cost or pricing data. In addition to these
findings, the committee continues to be concerned by the slow
audit processes and extensive backlog at DCAA, which, according
to the DCAA's annual Report to Congress dated March 24, 2014,
included roughly 23,000 incurred cost submissions at the end of
fiscal year 2013.
The committee recognizes that the DCAA has taken steps to
improve its performance. However, the committee believes that
its substandard performance impairs the defense acquisition
process by incurring avoidable delays and by raising costs for
the Government. The committee believes that much work remains
to be done to ensure that DCAA is capable of fully meeting
applicable standards and of promoting the smooth and
transparent functioning of the defense acquisition system.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to take immediate steps to address substandard performance by
DCAA, to reduce its audit backlog, and to minimize costs and
other harmful consequences for the Federal Government and
defense industry contractors that are the result of DCAA
delays. The committee further directs the Secretary to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than March 1, 2016, on the steps taken to address DCAA
deficiencies, along with recommendations for any changes to
statutory or regulatory guidance that may enable the DCAA to
satisfy all applicable Federal and professional audit
standards, to complete audits within a reasonable period of
time, and to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the
Government or industry.
Improving the Financial Auditability of the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service
The Department of Defense is responsible for more than half
of the Federal Government's discretionary spending. However,
according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report
(GAO-14-10), dated June 23, 2014, it remains one of the few
major Federal entities that cannot sufficiently account for all
its spending or assets, and remains the only major Federal
agency that has been unable to receive an audit opinion on a
complete set of its department-wide financial statements. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84) mandated that the Department develop and maintain a
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Plan that
describes the specific actions to be taken to be ready for
audit by September 30, 2017. It also required the Plan to
describe the costs associated with correcting the Department's
financial management deficiencies and validating that the
Department's consolidated financial statements are ready for
audit by 2017. The FIAR Plan is intended to be a strategic plan
and management tool for guiding, monitoring, and reporting on
the Department's ongoing financial management improvement
efforts and for communicating the Department's approach to
addressing its financial management weaknesses and achieving
financial statement audit readiness.
The committee notes that the Department's financial
management processes and operations remains a ``high risk''
area according to the 2015 Government Accountability Office's
High Risk Report. The GAO found that significant weaknesses in
the Department's financial and related business management
systems and processes have adversely affected the Department's
ability to control costs, ensure basic accountability,
anticipate future costs and claims on the budget, measure
performance, maintain funds control, prevent and detect fraud,
waste, and abuse, address pressing management issues, and
prepare auditable financial statements.
The GAO further reported that the Department needs to gain
assurance that the service components have implemented their
financial improvement plans effectively prior to asserting
audit readiness. GAO issued the aforementioned report (GAO-14-
10) with recommendations to help the Department fully implement
its FIAR guidance with respect to the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) contract pay. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than August 31, 2015, on
the corrective actions taken within the Department to address
the GAO recommendations to improve DFAS in support of producing
auditable financial statements.
Improving the Goals and Metrics for Contracted Services
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
taken a number of steps to improve its planning for and
management of contracted services. Because of the billions of
dollars the Department spends each year on services and the
constrained fiscal environment, it is crucial for the
Department to identify how it can best utilize its financial
resources and acquire contracted services more efficiently and
effectively. The committee commends the recent actions taken by
the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy to
establish leadership responsibilities and clarify management
oversight for contracted services.
The committee also notes that in spite of failing to
produce an effective inventory of contracts for services, as
required by section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, the
Department is taking action to obtain better contracted
services data by improving and linking data within its contract
and financial systems. The Government Accountability Office,
while recognizing this progress, recommended in 2013 that the
Department take steps to establish specific and measurable
goals and metrics to assess progress. The committee is aware
that the Department is developing and intends to approve
contracted services goals and metrics in 2015, and supports
these efforts.
The committee directs the Under Secretary for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than September 15, 2015, on the Department's
progress in establishing contracted services goals and metrics.
Improving the Requirements Development for and Acquisition of
Contracted Services
The Department of Defense obligated $284.0 billion for
goods and services in fiscal year 2014, more than half of which
was for contracted services. In the committee report (H. Rept.
113-446) accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee
noted that Congress has provided new tools and capabilities
intended to improve the Department's processes for and
oversight of the acquisition of contracted services. These
include requiring the establishment of a management structure
and review process for high-dollar services and the designation
of senior managers responsible for contract services approval
and oversight within the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the
military departments.
Additionally, the committee is encouraged that the
Department has taken several steps to improve its requirements
development for and the acquisition of contracted services.
Most notably, these actions include:
(1) Developing a departmental instruction focused on the
acquisition of contracted services;
(2) Designating the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as the
Department's focal point for the acquisition of contracted
services;
(3) Appointing senior contracted services managers within
each of the military departments;
(4) Establishing functional domain experts for each
portfolio of contracted services the Department acquires; and
(5) Creating a Services Requirements Review Board.
However, it is not clear to the committee how each of these
offices and positions will coordinate with one another and with
the requirements community, and whether these offices and
positions have been, or will be, provided sufficient
authorities and resources to carry out their responsibilities.
Further, it is not clear whether these offices and positions
will have the ability to: review ongoing and future
requirements for the acquisition of contracted services to
assess them against the Department's strategic priorities;
recommend changes to acquisition strategies; or establish
metrics to monitor contract services outcomes and identify
risks.
Additionally, the committee notes that the Department has
failed to produce the inventory of contracts for services
required in section 2330a of title 10, United States Code,
which would facilitate the Department's strategic workforce
planning, workforce mix, and budget decision-making processes.
Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to develop a strategy on how the Department intends to
coordinate the roles, responsibilities, authorities, and
resources of the offices and positions involved in the
requirements development for and the acquisition of contracted
services, and to submit a report to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than January 29, 2016, identifying the
roles, responsibilities, authorities, and resources of each
office and position, as well as a description of how each
office and position will coordinate with one another and with
the requirements community. The strategy also should address
how the Department will incorporate the outputs of the
inventory of contract services into the Department's strategic
workforce planning, workforce mix, and budget decision-making
processes.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would require the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to complete an
examination of the decision authority related to acquisition of
services by September 15, 2015, and to develop and promulgate
guidance to strengthen services contracts requirements
development, source selection, and contract oversight and
management. The committee expects that the conclusions from
this examination of decision authorities and any related
guidance will inform the development of the strategy for
coordination of the activities of the offices and positions
involved in the requirements development for and the
acquisition of contracted services.
Improving Transparency of Defense Contracted Services Budget
Information
The committee remains concerned about the lack of
transparency in the Department of Defense's spending and
budgeting for contracted services. Most contracts for services
are funded through Department of Defense operation and
maintenance accounts in major categories of services, such as
knowledge-based or information technology services. The
President's annual budget request and supporting budget
documentation, however, provide limited insights into how
requested funds will be spent on these major categories of
services. In September 2014, the committee received the
Department of Defense Report on the Civilian Personnel
Workforce and Contracted Services Reductions in the Fiscal Year
2015 Budget, provided in accordance with section 955(d) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239). The committee is concerned that, as noted in the
report, the Department of Defense does not project the number
of service contractors beyond the current budget year. Further,
the committee is concerned that the Department will be unable
to develop an effective strategy for contracted services if it
cannot forecast its future needs and determine what changes, if
any, need to be made. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees not later than February 15, 2016, on options
to enhance the level of detail on contracted services in the
Department of Defense's budget requests and future years
defense planning documentation.
Increased Transparency in Non-Appropriated Fund Contracting
Department of Defense Non-Appropriated Fund (NAF)
activities directly support the operations of the military
exchange services; morale, welfare, and recreation programs;
and military lodging programs. The committee is aware the
Department of Defense routinely enters into contracts with
private-sector vendors in order to provide service members with
the goods and services that are a critical component of
quality-of-life and morale, welfare and recreation programs,
and more than half of these contracts are awarded to small
businesses.
The committee is concerned about the lack of a uniform,
credible process for the pre- and post-award bid protest and
appeal of contract awards involving NAF contracts. Under
current policies, bid protests are afforded only limited
internal review within the applicable activity, and there is no
consideration by any outside, objective third party. In
contrast to protests of appropriated fund contracts, once a
protest of a NAF contract is filed, there is no requirement for
the NAF activity to suspend award of the contract or to take
other action regarding ongoing performance until the protest is
resolved. There is no process analogous to the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) role in appropriated-fund
contract bid protests, and if an unsuccessful bidder seeks
external review of a disputed contract award, the only recourse
is in Federal District Court, which may become a lengthy, time-
consuming, and costly process that, as a practical matter, is
unaffordable for many small businesses.
The committee is aware that NAF contracting is governed by
Department of Defense Instruction 4105.67, which requires only
that NAF contracts be awarded to ``responsible offers offering
the best value'' as determined by the contracting officer. That
same contracting officer makes the initial decision to sustain
or deny a protest. If the protester is dissatisfied with the
contracting officer's decision, further appeal is limited to
the ``final authority assigned within the Department of Defense
component for resolution.'' The committee is concerned this
situation has created a perception that the NAF bid protest
process may not be subject to fair adjudication.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to review the adjudication processes of pre- and post-award
protests of NAF contract decisions and provide a briefing, not
later than December 1, 2015, to the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives on the findings of the review
and any recommendations to reform current processes to enable
transparent, objective, and timely consideration of concerns
raised by contractors competing for award of NAF contracts.
Inspector General Review of Requirements for Senior Department of
Defense Officials Seeking Employment With Defense Contractors
The committee wishes to be apprised of the Department of
Defense's record of compliance with section 847 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), regarding the requirement for certain senior officials of
the Department of Defense to obtain written opinion regarding
the applicability of post-employment restrictions. Therefore,
the committee directs the Inspector General (IG) of the
Department of Defense to conduct a review of the database, or
other electronic or paper records, created pursuant to section
847 and to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, in a manner that ensures protection of
confidential, personal, or proprietary information, by December
31, 2015, on the findings of that review. The report should
include the following:
(1) The findings of any previous IG reviews to assess
whether written opinions are being provided and retained in
accordance with section 847;
(2) A review of the written ethics opinions that have been
requested and provided pursuant to section 847 and a
determination as to whether they comply with section 847;
(3) A summary, by Department of Defense organization, of
the total number of opinions issued and total number of
opinions retained pursuant to section 847;
(4) A summary of any referrals to, and/or complaints
received by, the IG or the Department of Justice regarding
potential violations of post-employment restrictions, including
the final disposition of such cases;
(5) The status of any pre-2012 records established pursuant
to section 847 of Public Law 110-81; and
(6) Any other matters the IG deems relevant to a
comprehensive assessment of compliance with section 847.
Joint Exercises in Operational Contract Support
The committee applauds efforts by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to emphasize the importance of operational
contracting in support of the missions of the Department of
Defense. The committee notes that the Chairman began an annual
exercise series to assess and train Department of Defense
personnel on the operational contract support capabilities of
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff,
service components and commands, and other Federal agencies in
a variety of exercise scenarios. The committee recognizes that
special emphasis is being placed on understanding the overall
socioeconomic and political impacts of contracting support to
Department of Defense operations, particularly in those
conducted overseas. The committee supports this ongoing
approach to developing the workforce involved in contingency
contracting and encourages continued support and resourcing for
such exercises.
Mentor-Protege Program
The committee recognizes the importance of the Department
of Defense Mentor-Protege Program (MPP) and encourages the
Secretary of Defense to provide strong incentives to designated
Mentor Department of Defense contractors to assist protege
firms in enhancing their capabilities to satisfy Department of
Defense contract requirements and foster successful long-term
business relationships between Protege and Mentor firms. In
pursuit of these goals, the committee encourages the Secretary
to utilize all traditional and non-traditional incentives
available unless specifically prohibited by public law.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to brief the
House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2015, on the
Department's plans for improving the use of MPP authorities.
This briefing should address how to better educate program
managers and contracting officers on the special authorities of
MPP, any recommendations for how to improve or strengthen those
authorities, metrics for assessing the use of MPP authorities,
and a process for integrating lessons learned from past
successes in program planning and workforce development for the
relevant communities.
Operational Test and Evaluation Processes and Activities of the
Department of Defense
The committee remains concerned that some of the unforeseen
increases in cost and schedule in major defense acquisition
programs are a result of requirements changes or other matters
that arise during operational test and evaluation (OT&E). In
the committee report (H. Rept 113-446) accompanying the Howard
P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015, the committee directed the Comptroller
General of the United States to review the OT&E processes and
activities of the Department of Defense. As part of the review,
the committee requested the Comptroller General to specifically
examine the criteria established by the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation for determining measures of effectiveness
and analysis, and the processes established to measure
suitability and survivability of programs subject to OT&E.
The committee looks forward to receiving the Comptroller
General's report of findings and recommendations, and will
continue to work with the Department to enhance OT&E activities
to ensure that such activities are conducted in a manner that
does not unnecessarily drive cost and schedule delays.
Additionally, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a
provision that would encourage the Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation to consider the potential for increases in
program cost estimates or delays in schedule estimates in the
implementation of policies, procedures, and activities related
to OT&E, and to take appropriate action to ensure that the
conduct of OT&E activities do not unnecessarily impede program
schedules or increase program costs.
Report on the Effect of Delays in First-Article Testing
The committee is concerned that small business suppliers to
the Department of Defense are experiencing interruptions in
capital and cash flow when the time required to fully evaluate
first-article test results is extended. The committee is aware
that Federal Acquisition Regulations allow the contracting
officer, before approval of the first article, to authorize the
contractor to acquire specific materials or components, the
costs of which may be reimbursed through progress payments. The
committee believes that this situation may be further
complicated by Federal Acquisition Regulations which do not
allow progress payments for contracts valued at less than
$150,000.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review: (1) the extent to which delays, if any, in
first-article testing have negatively affected the capital and
cash flow of contractors; (2) the extent to which delays, if
any, in first-article testing have affected contracts valued at
less than $150,000; (3) the reasons for delays in first-article
testing, including whether the relevant Departmental testing
agencies are adequately staffed to perform first-article
testing in a timely manner; and (4) any additional items the
Comptroller General deems relevant to the review. The committee
directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2016, on the
above review, with a follow-on report delivered not later than
May 15, 2016.
Requirements Process
While constructive statutory and policy changes have been
applied to the Department of Defense's acquisition process in
recent years, the committee remains concerned that a primary
cause of cost and schedule growth in defense acquisition
programs continues to be a lack of discipline and rigor in the
requirements process. The committee has received testimony that
``requirements creep'' continues to occur after requirements
are finalized by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and
handed off to the acquisition community. The committee has also
received testimony that this cost growth can be attributed to a
lack of upfront systems engineering and requirements trade-off
analysis.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to examine the defense requirements process
and to submit a report on any findings and recommendations to
the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2016. The
Comptroller General's review should determine: (1) whether
requirements creep occurs during product development; (2) the
role that systems engineering and requirements trade-off
analysis, or lack thereof, plays in the development of top-
level and derived requirements; (3) whether the knowledge gap
between validated requirements and weapon systems
specifications is the cause of cost growth; and (4) ways to
improve the requirements-setting process.
Secretary of Defense Review of Implementing Guidance and Regulation
In the committee's oversight and review of the defense
acquisition system, it has identified factors that contribute
to a less efficient and less responsive system, and found
several cases in which the Department of Defense's
implementation of congressionally-directed policy was inaptly
applied. For example, while the committee required the
Department to establish plans for mitigating corrosion over the
life-cycle of weapon systems, recognizing that hardware such as
ships, planes, and vehicles should be appropriately protected
against the known effects of corrosion, the Department applied
this requirement to the procurement of items such as software.
This overreaction created an undue burden of reporting and
approval processes throughout the acquisition system.
In another case, Congress mandated an annual report on the
Department's spending on contracts for services because the
relevant data aggregated in the budget justification documents
was insufficient for congressional oversight and for enabling
defense officials to make informed decisions with respect to
contracting for services. However, the Department responded to
this requirement by submitting an enormous spreadsheet of
disaggregated data that is time consuming and resource
intensive to produce and that provides little value to
consumers, rather than working with Congress to develop a
product that could benefit decision-makers in the Department
and in Congress.
In both of these cases, the committee believes the policy
guidance is sufficient, but it is concerned that the
Department's implementation efforts ultimately lead to greater
inefficiencies and increased costs in the acquisition system.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Senior
Acquisition Executives of the military departments, to initiate
a targeted review of Department of Defense guidance and
regulations.
The goal of such a review should be to identify areas in
which the guidance or regulation is causing unnecessary
reporting, delays in decision-making, or other harmful
consequences, and to take necessary steps to improve such
guidance or regulation. While the committee expects such review
may take many months, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than March 1, 2016, on initial findings of the review
along with recommendations at that time for changes to
guidance, regulation, or statute that may be needed to clarify
congressional intent and to streamline implementation of
congressionally-directed policy.
Shared Savings through Value Engineering
The committee notes that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) issued final revisions to OMB Circular No. A-131,
``Value Engineering'' in December 2013. Value engineering
encourages contractors to identify ways to reduce the cost of
performance on existing contracts for goods and services and to
share with the Government any savings produced. According to
OMB, value engineering has generated billions of dollars of
savings and cost avoidance. However, the committee is aware
that the use of value engineering has waned in recent years and
applauds OMB's efforts to reinvigorate its use where
appropriate. The committee sees great potential for shared
savings in the Department of Defense's current and future
acquisitions to the extent tools such as value engineering are
effectively implemented.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to complete a review not
later than January 30, 2016, on the extent to which the
Department is taking advantage of the opportunities for shared
savings through greater use of value engineering in the
acquisition of goods and services, the benefits it has
achieved, barriers to effective implementation, and any
unintended consequences. The committee further directs the
Under Secretary to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than March 1, 2016, on the findings of
the review along with any recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of the Department's implementation of value
engineering.
Small Business Implications of the Department of Defense Use of OASIS
Contract Vehicle
The committee is aware of recent decisions by the Air Force
and Army to move professional service contracts on to the
General Service Administration's One Acquisition Services for
Integrated Services (OASIS) contract vehicle. The committee
understands that low overhead rates make the OASIS contract
vehicle an affordable and attractive option to the Department
of Defense. However, the committee is also aware of a number of
small businesses who are currently executing professional
services contracts for the Army and Air Force who do not
believe they will be able to compete for OASIS contracts. The
committee is concerned that the use of the OASIS contract
vehicle by the Department of Defense may preclude some small
businesses from competing for some of the same contracts they
are executing today. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Small
Business by October 15, 2015, on how small businesses will be
affected by the OASIS contract vehicle, including a discussion
of entry requirements which may be higher on OASIS than most
other small business acquisition efforts.
Strategic Minerals Domestic Production Research
The committee remains concerned about the ability of the
Department of Defense to mitigate the risks associated with its
dependence on foreign-sourced strategic minerals. The committee
is also concerned that techniques used to extract and refine
these materials are costly, inefficient, and utilize hazardous
chemicals. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to make it a priority of the Department of Defense to
identify, develop, document, and evaluate processes to
domestically produce industrially viable quantities of
strategic minerals in an affordable, energy-efficient, and
environmentally safe manner.
Streamlining Acquisition Reviews by Reducing Unnecessary Documentation
The committee remains concerned that the process used to
manage the acquisition of weapon systems is inefficient,
cumbersome, and bureaucratic, and that an over-focus on
processes and procedures takes time away from conducting day-
to-day core program management tasks such as contractor
oversight, engineering, and risk management. As a result,
section 824 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) directed the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Department of Defense
weapon systems acquisition process to identify processes or
procedures with little or no value added. The GAO completed the
review (GAO-15-192) on February 24, 2015, and found that an
extensive process has built up in which program offices and
other Department of Defense organizations spend an enormous
amount of time and effort preparing and reviewing documentation
that does not appear to correspond to the value gained through
that effort.
The committee notes that in April 2013, the Department
proposed a pilot program to conduct streamlined acquisition
reviews to reduce the burden of preparing and reviewing
documentation for select acquisition programs. The Department
set forth three criteria for programs to qualify: (1) have well
defined requirements, (2) a strong relationship with industry,
and (3) a highly qualified and appropriately staffed Government
team that can remain with the program until the weapon system
is delivered. However, the committee notes that in the almost
two years since undertaking this effort, the Department has not
identified programs which meet these criteria and is
disappointed that the Department has been unable to conduct
streamlined acquisition reviews. The committee considers this
lack of progress as a symptom of the fundamental problems in
the current acquisition system. The committee encourages the
Department to redouble its effort to select appropriate
acquisition programs for this important effort and looks
forward to reviewing the Department's progress.
Elsewhere in this Act, in part at the request of the
Department, the committee includes several provisions that
would reduce and consolidate reporting requirements in order to
help reduce this burden. The committee's goal is to reduce or
eliminate documentation and levels of review where possible
when they add little or no value.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to review how the
Department is implementing acquisition statutes and regulations
and, based on that review, take action within the Under
Secretary's existing authorities to reduce and eliminate
unnecessary documentation and reviews. The committee further
directs the Under Secretary to brief the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than September 25, 2015, on the
Department's progress streamlining acquisition reviews,
selecting programs to pilot test streamlined acquisition
reviews and recommendations for revision or repeal of statutes
that preclude streamlined acquisition reviews.
Study and Report Related to Mandates regarding Suitability for
Selection as a Senior Official in the Acquisition Workforce
The committee is concerned that current processes and
practices for recruiting, evaluating, and hiring senior
officials in the acquisition workforce unnecessarily create
hiring delays and limit the pool of highly qualified candidates
that would otherwise be willing to accept a position in
Government service. Therefore, the committee directs the Chair
of the Defense Business Board to conduct a study of the effects
of current mandates and processes regarding the determination
of suitability for the selection of senior officials in the
acquisition workforce. At a minimum, the assessment should
examine the following:
(1) Nomination and confirmation processes;
(2) Inference of the need for, or specific direction to,
potential candidates to divest themselves of financial holdings
or other assets;
(3) Post-employment restrictions; and
(4) Any other statutory, regulatory, or cultural barriers
that may have an unnecessarily detrimental effect on the
ability of the Department of Defense to recruit, develop, and
retain highly qualified senior acquisition personnel.
The committee further directs the Chair of the Defense
Business Board to submit a report to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than March 1, 2016, on the findings of
the study and provide recommendations to improve the
Department's ability to recruit, develop, and retain highly
qualified senior acquisition personnel while appropriately
mitigating real or perceived conflicts of interest.
Tracking of Contractor Personnel During Contingencies
The committee is aware that a February 2015 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report (GAO-15-250) found that the
Department of Defense has ``not updated its life-cycle cost
estimate or fully defined and assessed its plans to determine
all resources'' needed to sustain and modernize the tools it
uses to serve as a repository of information on contracts and
contractor personnel in contingency operations. The committee
notes that the Department currently uses the Synchronized
Predeployment and Operational Tracker-Enterprise Suite for this
purpose but has not updated its life-cycle cost estimate since
2010, despite changes in cost and schedule. The committee is
aware that the Department concurred with the GAO
recommendations in GAO-15-250 and encourages the Secretary of
Defense to move forward in its implementation of the GAO
recommendations in an expeditious manner.
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Assessment of the Value, Feasibility, and Cost of Greater Utilization
of HALT/HASS Testing
The committee remains concerned about issues of reliability
in the design and development of critical military system
components and subcomponents. In the committee report (H. Rept.
113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directed the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to assess the value,
feasibility, and cost of greater utilization of highly
accelerated life testing and highly accelerated stress
screening (HALT/HASS) methodology for ballistic missile defense
systems and components and to report to the congressional
defense committees on his findings and recommendations. This
report served as a useful review of the potential benefits and
limitations of employing this rigorous testing methodology.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in
consultation with the acquisition executives of each service,
to assess the value, feasibility, and cost of greater
utilization of this methodology to shorten design and
development timelines, reduce system and component testing and
lifecycle costs, and enhance reliability of critical military
system components and subcomponents. The committee further
directs the Under Secretary to submit a report no later than
March 15, 2016, to the congressional defense committees on the
findings of this assessment, including a description of any
plans regarding the use of such methodology in on-going or
future defense programs, along with any recommendations to
improve the Department of Defense's efforts.
Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Source Selection Processes
The committee applauds recent efforts by the Department of
Defense to cut costs and save taxpayer dollars in defense
procurements. These efforts, such as the ``Better Buying
Power'' initiatives, seek to achieve greater efficiencies
through affordability, cost control, and the elimination of
unproductive processes or bureaucracy. Such efforts also seek
to promote competition. However, the committee is concerned
that this well-intentioned effort by the Department to lower
procurement costs has frequently resulted in the use of a
lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA) methodology when a
best-value trade-off approach may have been in the best
interests of the Government.
According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the goal
of the acquisition system is to ``deliver on a timely basis the
best value product or service to the customer, while
maintaining the public's trust and fulfilling public policy
objectives.'' The committee is aware that regulations allow
Department of Defense officials to elect to use the LPTA
process in cases where the requirement is clearly defined and
the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal. In
such cases, the Department may determine that cost or price
should play a dominant role in the source selection. However,
regulations also provide the Department of Defense the
flexibility to use a trade-off process in acquisitions where
the requirement is less definitive, more development work is
required, or the acquisition has a greater performance risk.
This approach allows for consideration of non-cost evaluation
factors, such as technical capabilities or past performance.
The committee remains concerned that despite statutory and
regulatory authorities which allow for flexibility in
contracting approaches, Department of Defense personnel may be
using LPTA strategies when mission performance is essential, or
when requirements are not clearly defined or are emerging due
to operational demands. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to take the necessary steps to ensure that
contracting officials use LPTA contracting approaches only in
appropriate circumstances such as those in which the
requirement is clearly defined and the risk of unsuccessful
contract performance to the mission is minimal.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 800--Sense of Congress on the Desired Tenets of the Defense
Acquisition System
This section would express the sense of Congress that past
acquisition reform efforts have not significantly changed the
acquisition of military equipment and services. The committee
proposes a different approach from previous efforts by seeking
to improve the environment driving acquisition decisions in the
Department of Defense, industry, and Congress. This section
would identify key acquisition tenets that should govern the
Department's acquisition system once reforms are implemented.
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management
Section 801--Report on Linking and Streamlining Requirements,
Acquisition, and Budget Processes within Armed Forces
This section would require the Chief of Staff of the Army,
the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to each submit a
report to the congressional defense committees on their efforts
to leverage their existing statutory authorities in a manner
that links and streamlines their services' requirements,
acquisition, and budget processes in order to foster improved
outcomes. These reports will inform the committee's
consideration of recommendations that the statutory authorities
of the senior military officers should be expanded to provide
additional influence on the acquisition system.
The committee is concerned that the requirements process,
the acquisition system, and the budget process are not
sufficiently aligned to provide a desirable outcome. Moreover,
the committee believes that previous efforts to reform the
defense acquisition system have failed to consider the role of
the individuals and leaders, who are not a formal part of the
acquisition workforce, in the outcomes generated by the system.
The committee believes the senior military officer of each
service, as well as military personnel who are not formally
considered part of the acquisition workforce, are a critical
part of the entire acquisition chain from requirements
determination to the sustainment of a fielded system.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that many uniformed
personnel are placed in roles that require them to make
decisions related to, or to provide oversight of, defense
procurements, yet they are not considered part of the
acquisition workforce and not subject to required training on
these matters. Therefore, these personnel are generally not
provided dedicated training to enable them to be successful in
these duties. While many of these individuals have primary duty
responsibilities in roles such as surface warfare officers,
artillery officers, pilots, or infantrymen, they also have
pivotal roles in requirements development, contract award or
renewal, contract management and oversight, and budget
processes. The committee believes there may be gaps in training
and preparation of these personnel, but is also aware that with
high operational tempo and other professional military
education requirements, the levying of additional training and
education related to requirements, acquisition, and budget
processes may not be feasible or could harm the career
progression of these personnel by taking them away from their
primary duties.
The committee notes that while the senior military officer
of each service may not have broad authorities with respect to
the acquisition process, the senior military officer has
significant authority and influence with respect to the
requirements and budgeting processes, as well as authority over
all uniformed personnel, including those not considered part of
the acquisition workforce, who are assigned to roles that
require them to make decisions related to defense procurements.
As a result, the committee believes that the senior military
officers of each of the services are uniquely empowered to
promote integration among the requirements, acquisition, and
budget processes. This includes the training and development of
all personnel to have a basic understanding of these complex
matters.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee also includes a
provision that would require the military service chiefs to
review current authorities related to defense acquisitions for
the purpose of developing such recommendations that the Chief
concerned or the Commandant considers necessary to further or
strengthen the role of the Chief concerned or the Commandant in
the development of requirements, acquisition processes, and the
associated budget practices of the Department of Defense.
Section 802--Required Review of Acquisition-related Functions of the
Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces
This section would require the Chief of Staff of the Army,
the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to review their
current authorities provided in sections 3033, 5033, 5043, and
8033 of title 10, United States Code, and other relevant
statutes and regulations related to defense acquisitions for
the purpose of developing such recommendations that the Chief
concerned or the Commandant considers necessary to further or
strengthen the role of the Chief concerned or the Commandant in
the development of requirements, acquisition processes, and the
associated budget practices of the Department of Defense. This
section would also require the Chief concerned and the
Commandant to each submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than March 1, 2016, with recommendations
developed as a result of the review and a description of the
actions the Chief concerned or the Commandant is taking within
the Chief's or Commandant's existing authorities to implement
those recommendations.
Section 803--Independent Study of Matters Related to Bid Protests
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into a contract, within 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, with an independent research entity that
is a not-for-profit entity or a federally funded research and
development center with appropriate expertise and analytical
capability to carry out a comprehensive study of factors
leading to bid protests. The study shall examine the variable
influences on the net benefit (monetary and non-monetary) to
contractors either filing a protest or indicating intent to
file a protest. This section would also require that not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
independent entity shall provide the results of the study along
with any recommendations it may have to the Secretary and the
congressional defense committees.
Section 804--Procurement of Commercial Items
This section would amend chapter 140 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new section that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a centralized
capability with the resources and expertise to oversee the
making of commercial item determinations for Department of
Defense procurements and to provide public access to Department
of Defense commercial item determinations.
This section would also amend section 2306a(b) of title 10,
United States Code, to allow the contracting officer to presume
that a prior commercial item determination made by a military
department, Defense Agency, or other component of the
Department of Defense shall serve as a determination for
subsequent procurements of such items. If the contracting
officer instead proceeds with a procurement of an item
previously determined to be commercial using procedures other
than those authorized for commercial item procurement, this
section would require the contracting officer to request a
review of the prior commercial item determination by the head
of the contracting activity. The section would require the head
of the contracting activity to, within 30 days of receiving a
request for review, either confirm that the prior determination
was appropriate or issue a revised determination. The committee
expects that in conducting such a review, the head of the
contracting activity would consult with the centralized
capability, required to be established by the Secretary of
Defense under this section, to inform such determinations.
Nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section
shall affect the meaning of the term ``commercial item'' under
subsection (a)(5) of section 2464 of title 10, United States
Code.
Section 805--Modification to Information Required to be Submitted by
Offeror in Procurement of Major Weapon Systems as Commercial Items
This section would amend section 2379 of title 10, United
States Code, by striking the requirement that in making a
determination that an item is a commercial item, the
contracting officer shall determine in writing that the offeror
of the item has submitted sufficient information to evaluate,
through price analysis, the reasonableness of the price for
such item.
Section 806--Amendment Relating to Multiyear Contract Authority for
Acquisition of Property
This section would amend section 2306b(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to allow the head of an agency to enter
into multiyear contracts for the acquisition of property if
there is a reasonable expectation that the use of a multiyear
contract would result in lower total anticipated costs of
carrying out the program than if the program were carried out
through annual contracts. This section would strike the
existing requirement that the head of an agency must determine
that substantial savings would be achieved before entering into
a multiyear contract.
Section 807--Compliance with Inventory of Contracts for Services
This section would limit the expenditure of funds
authorized for the operation of the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness until certain
conditions are met regarding the Department of Defense's
compliance with the requirement for an inventory of contracts
for services.
The committee notes that the Under Secretary has not fully
implemented the plan for documenting the number of full-time
contractor employees required by section 8108(c) of the
Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10), and has not fully complied with
the requirement in section 2330a of title 10, United States
Code, to establish a data collection system to provide
management information with regard to each purchase of services
by a military department or defense agency.
The committee further notes that in a May 9, 2014, letter
to the Congress, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness stated that the Department of Defense had adopted
``the reporting tool and successful processes that the Army has
used for the past several years with its centralized Contractor
Manpower Reporting Application (CMRA)'' and that the CMRA
software had been made available for all components. However,
in January 2015, the Under Secretary's office briefed the
committee that a ``single application [is] less than ideal''
and that the Under Secretary is now seeking to develop
additional hardware, software, network, application, and user
interface solutions for each component of the Department of
Defense.
Additionally, the Under Secretary stated that ``in [fiscal
year] 2015 the Department will have additional dedicated
resources in this area'' by establishing a Total Force
Management Support Office ``to comprehensively implement
[Enterprise] CMRA across the Department.'' However, the
committee is aware that little has been done to establish such
an office or otherwise define business processes for compiling,
reviewing, and using inventory data to inform decision-making.
Furthermore, the committee is also aware that the
Department's lack of progress on the inventory was confirmed by
the Department of Defense Inspector General who reported on
April 15, 2015, that of the 33 Components that submitted an
inventory, only 10 Components included all 8 required elements
in their certification letters.
The committee continues to believe an inventory of
contracts for services is a fundamental tool for assisting an
agency in better understanding how contracted services are
being used to support missions and operations and whether
contractors' skills are being utilized in an appropriate
manner.
Subtitle B--Workforce Development and Related Matters
Section 811--Amendments to Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund
This section would amend section 1705 of title 10, United
States Code, to make permanent the authority for both the
Defense Acquisition Workforce Develop Fund and the associated
expedited hiring authority.
Section 812--Dual-Track Military Professionals in Operational and
Acquisition Specialties
This section would amend section 1722a of title 10, United
States Code, by reinstituting a dual-tracking system of primary
and functional secondary career fields for officers and
noncommissioned officers serving in acquisition positions by
dual-tracking such personnel in operational and acquisition
career fields under the shared accountability and
responsibility of the military service chiefs and component
acquisition executives for career path management and
selections. This section would create a needed balance of
experience between acquisition and operations.
Section 813--Provision of Joint Duty Assignment Credit for Acquisition
Duty
This section would amend section 668 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding to the term ``joint matters''' the
inclusion of acquisition matters addressed by military
personnel. This section would enable military acquisition
professionals to broaden their promotion and career
opportunities by making it easier for them to receive joint
professional credit. It would also result in an end to the
double experience requirement for military acquisition
professionals who must meet the joint duty assignment
requirement for promotion in addition to the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (chapter 87 of title 10,
United States Code) certification requirement. Lastly, it would
result in the award of joint duty assignment credit to officers
who serve in acquisition positions, thus precluding acquisition
assignments from impeding career progression.
Section 814--Requirement for Acquisition Skills Assessment Biennial
Strategic Workforce Plan
This section would amend section 115b of title 10, United
States Code, which requires the Secretary of Defense to submit
a biennial strategic workforce plan on critical skills and
competencies of the civilian employee workforce of the
Department of Defense, to include an additional assessment of
new or expanded critical skills and competencies needed by the
civilian employee workforce to address new acquisition process
requirements established by law or policy.
Section 815--Mandatory Requirement for Training Related to the Conduct
of Market Research
This section would amend section 2377 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a requirement that the Secretary of
Defense shall provide mandatory training for members of the
Armed Forces and employees of the Department of Defense
responsible for the conduct of market research required under
subsection (c) of section 2377 of title 10, United States Code.
Such mandatory training shall, at a minimum:
(1) Provide comprehensive information on the subject of
market research, and the function of market research in the
acquisition of commercial items;
(2) Teach best practices for conducting and documenting
market research; and
(3) Provide methodologies for establishing standard
processes and reports for collecting and sharing market
research across the Department.
Furthermore, this section would require the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that such training requirements
are also incorporated into the requirements management
certification training mandate of the Joint Capabilities
Integration Development System.
Section 816--Independent Study of Implementation of Defense Acquisition
Workforce Improvement Efforts
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within
30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to enter
into a contract with an independent research entity that is a
not-for-profit entity or a federally funded research and
development center with appropriate expertise and analytical
capability to carry out a comprehensive study of the Department
of Defense's strategic planning related to the defense
acquisition workforce. The study would provide a comprehensive
examination of the Department's efforts to recruit, develop,
and retain the acquisition workforce, to include: a specific
review of the implementation of the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Improvement Act (including chapter 87 of title 10,
United States Code); the application of the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund (as established under section 1705
of title 10, United States Code); and the effectiveness of
professional military education programs, including fellowships
and exchanges with industry.
This section would also require that the independent
research entity provide a report to the Secretary, not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
containing the results of the study and recommendations to
improve the acquisition workforce. Furthermore, this section
would require the Secretary of Defense to provide the report,
along with any additional views or recommendations of the
Secretary, to the congressional defense committees not later
than 30 days after the date of the Secretary's receipt of the
report.
Section 817--Extension of Demonstration Project Relating to Certain
Acquisition Personnel Management Policies and Procedures
This section would amend section 1762 of title 10, United
States Code, by extending the demonstration project relating to
certain acquisition personnel management policies and
procedures through 2020.
SUBTITLE C--WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISITION AND RELATED MATTERS
Section 821--Sense of Congress on the Desired Characteristics for the
Weapon Systems
Acquisition System This section would express the sense of
Congress on the acquisition tenets needed to improve weapon
system acquisitions. This section includes a series of findings
that the current weapon systems acquisition system, despite
significant and repeated attempts at acquisition reform,
continues its track record of too many cancellations, schedule
slippages, cost overruns, and failures to deliver timely
solutions to meet the needs of the Armed Forces. This section
would also propose that any new system should be characterized
by highly disciplined program initiation, agile program
execution, and balanced oversight.
Section 822--Acquisition Strategy Required for Each Major Defense
Acquisition Program and Major System
This section would establish a new section in chapter 144
of title 10, United States Code, that requires an acquisition
strategy for each major defense acquisition program and each
major system approved by a Milestone Decision Authority (MDA).
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to issue and maintain
requirements for the content of these acquisition strategies as
well as the review and approval process for these strategies.
This section would also require the Under Secretary to ensure
that each strategy addresses several considerations, including:
the proposed business, technical management, and sustainment
approaches; how it will be implemented with available
resources; industrial base considerations; risk management
approaches; contract strategies; and other considerations as
required in current statute. Additionally, this section would
require the MDA to review and approve, as appropriate, these
acquisition strategies at key decision points in the
acquisition process.
This section is intended to consolidate various existing
requirements by allowing other statutory reporting requirements
to be met with this single acquisition strategy requirement and
to streamline the acquisition strategy approval process. This
section also repeals section 803 of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-
314) that established specific requirements for spiral
development strategies, many elements of which will now be met
with this single acquisition strategy requirement.
Section 823--Revision to Requirements Relating to Risk Management in
Development of Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Systems
This section would establish a new section in chapter 144
of title 10, United States Code, that requires the program
acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program
or major system to include an identification of major program
risks and a risk management and mitigation strategy. This
section would also provide acquisition programs with greater
flexibility in the ways programmatic risk can be addressed
beyond the competitive prototyping requirement in section 203
of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-23).
Competitive prototyping remains an acquisition best
practice, particularly as a means to reduce risk during
technology development and the period leading up to the
critical design review. However, the committee recognizes that
prototyping may not be appropriate for all defense acquisition
programs.
Finally, this section would repeal section 203 of Public
Law 111-23.
Section 824--Modification to Requirements Relating to Determination of
Contract Type for Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Systems
This section would amend section 2306 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new subsection, and repealing the
requirements in certain subsections of section 818 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364), relating to the modification of
Department of Defense regulations. The committee expects the
Department to adjust regulations and guidance as appropriate.
The new subsection of section 2306 of title 10, United States
Code, would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that an
acquisition strategy for a major defense acquisition program,
major system, or a major automated information system includes:
an identification of and justification for the type of contract
proposed; an explanation of how the contract type relates to
the level of program risk; an explanation of how the use of
incentives in the contract supports the objectives of the
program; and an explanation of how the plans for the program or
system to reduce risk enable the use of fixed-price elements in
subsequent contracts.
The committee has observed that, over time, the Department
has encouraged the use of one contract type over another and
believes that Department should select appropriate contract
types best suited to the program objectives and the level of
program risk. Therefore, this section would also enable the
Secretary of Defense to establish in guidance that the use of
incentives in contracts can be appropriate.
Section 825--Required Determination before Milestone A Approval or
Initiation of Major Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would amend section 2366a of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Milestone Decision Authority to
make a written determination, in lieu of a certification,
before approving milestone A. This section would also require
an explanation of the basis for the determination to be
submitted to a congressional defense committee upon request.
The committee remains concerned that the process used to
manage the acquisition of weapon systems is inefficient,
cumbersome, and bureaucratic, and that an over-focus on
paperwork and legal reviews takes time away from conducting
day-to-day core program management tasks such as contractor
oversight, engineering, and risk management. While the
substantive program management work necessary to support a
determination remains consistent with that needed to support a
certification, a determination requires less bureaucratic
reviews of documentation than a certification. Because the
Department would be required to make the basis for the
determination available to the committee upon request, the
committee would retain access to the information needed for
oversight and accountability, while enabling a reduction in the
time and effort the Department spends on processes that do not
appear to provide much added value.
Section 826--Required Certification and Determination before Milestone
B Approval of Major Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would amend section 2366b of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)
to make a written determination, instead of a certification,
for some of the existing certification requirements before
approving milestone B. This section would also require an
explanation of the basis for the determination to be submitted
to a congressional defense committee upon request.
The committee remains concerned that the process used to
manage the acquisition of weapon systems is inefficient,
cumbersome, and bureaucratic, and that an over-focus on
paperwork takes critical time away from conducting day-to-day
core program management tasks such as contractor oversight,
engineering, and risk management. The committee believes that
requiring a determination by the MDA, instead of a legal
certification, in certain cases could increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Department of Defense's acquisition
review process, while reducing the time and effort the
Department spends on processes that do not appear to provide
much added value.
Because the milestone B approval represents a major
commitment of resources by the Department, this section retains
certain certification requirements, including of the business
case itself, that the business case is supported by a
preliminary design review, and that the technology to be used
has been demonstrated. However, the committee believes some
areas, such as market research, may only need a determination
by the MDA. In those areas requiring a determination, the
committee would retain access to the information needed for
oversight and accountability because the Department would be
required to make the basis for the determination available to
the committee upon request.
Subtitle D--Industrial Base Matters
Section 831--Codification and Amendment of Mentor-Protege Program
This section would revise and codify section 831 the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public
Law 101-510).
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
Mentor-Protege Program was established in 1991 to allow small
businesses, or proteges, to partner with large companies, or
mentors, under individual, project-based agreements to position
those proteges to better compete for prime contract or
subcontract awards. Mentors benefit by expanding their sourcing
plans to these small firms; proteges benefit by developing
needed business and technical capabilities to diversify their
customer base. Past reviews by the Government Accountability
Office have indicated that ``the Mentor-Protege Program was a
valuable experience and enhanced business development'' and
that ``[n]inety-three percent of responding proteges reported
the Mentor-Protege Program enhanced, at least to some degree,
their firms'' overall capabilities.'' The committee believes
that the Mentor-Protege Program is a valuable tool for the
Department of Defense and is helpful in creating a strong
foundation to see it used more broadly by the military services
and agencies, and improve linkages between small, non-
traditional contractors and larger, mainstream defense
contractors.
Section 832--Amendments to Data Quality Improvement Plan
This section would amend section 15(s) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(s)) to require the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration to annually provide to the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate certification of the accuracy and completeness of data
reported on bundled and consolidated contracts. This section
would also require the Comptroller General of the United States
to provide a report to the aforementioned committees not later
than the first day of fiscal year 2019 on the effectiveness of
the certification process and an assessment of whether
contracts were accurately labeled as bundled or consolidated.
Section 833--Notice of Contract Consolidation for Acquisition
Strategies
This section would amend section 44(c)(2) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657q(c)(2)) to require the senior
procurement executive or chief acquisition officer to announce
through a public website that a determination has been made to
bundle or consolidate contracts within 1 week of making the
determination, but no later than 1 week prior to the issuance
of a solicitation.
This section would also amend section 15(e)(3) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(e)(3)) to require the head of a
contracting agency to announce through a public website that a
determination has been made regarding a substantial bundling of
contracts for a proposed procurement plan no later than 1 week
after such a determination is made, and at least 1 week prior
to the publication of any solicitation.
Section 834--Clarification of Requirements Related to Small Business
Contracts for Services
This section would amend section 8(a)(17) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17)) to clarify that the statute
applies to contracts for goods, but not services or
construction. The committee notes that the non-manufacturer
rule (NMR) was established to ensure that, when competition for
a contract for goods is restricted to small businesses, the
goods ultimately purchased were indeed the product of a small
business. However, the committee is concerned that the NMR is
being applied to services and construction contracts and could
limit small business participants contracting for services and
construction to the Federal Government. Therefore, the
committee believes this clarification to section 8(a)(17) is
necessary.
Section 835--Review of Government Access to Intellectual Property
Rights of Private Sector Firms
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into a contract with an independent entity with
appropriate expertise to conduct a review of Department of
Defense regulations and practices related to Government access
to and use of intellectual property rights of private sector
firms. In conducting the review, the independent entity shall
consult with the National Defense Technology and Industrial
Base Council. This section would require the Secretary to
submit a report on the findings of the independent entity,
along with a description of any actions that the Secretary
proposes to revise and clarify laws or that the Secretary may
take to revise or clarify regulations related to intellectual
property rights to the congressional defense committees not
later than March 1, 2016.
Section 836--Requirement that Certain Ship Components be Manufactured
in the National Technology and Industrial Base
This section would amend section 2534(a) of title 10,
United States Code, and would require certain auxiliary ship
components to be procured from a manufacturer in the national
technology and industrial base.
Section 837--Policy Regarding Solid Rocket Motors Used in Tactical
Missiles
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that every tactical missile program of the Department of
Defense that uses solid propellant as the primary propulsion
system shall have at least one rocket motor supplier within the
national technology and industrial base (as defined in section
2500(1) of title 10, United States Code), and would allow the
Secretary to waive this requirement in the case of compelling
national security reasons.
Section 838--FAR Council Membership for Administrator of Small Business
Administration
This section would amend section 1302 of title 41, United
States Code, by adding the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council.
Section 839--Surety Bond Requirements and Amount of Guarantee
This section would amend chapter 93 of subtitle VI of title
31, United States Code, to increase the amount of surety bond
guarantees from the Small Business Administration from 70
percent to 90 percent. It would also require the Comptroller
General of the United States to study the surety bond program
and to examine, among other issues, the impact of this
amendment on such program.
Section 840--Certification Requirements for Procurement Center
Representatives, Business Opportunity Specialists, and Commercial
Market Representatives
This section would amend section 15 and section 4 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644 and 633, respectively) to set
certification requirements for Commercial Market
Representatives and to modify the current certification
requirements for Procurement Center Representatives and
Business Opportunity Specialists.
Section 841--Including Subcontracting Goals in Agency Responsibilities
This section would amend section 1633(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) to include consideration of success in attainment of small
business subcontracting goals as part of agency
responsibilities.
Section 842--Modifications to Requirements for Qualified HUBZone Small
Business Concerns Located in a Base Closure Area
This section would amend section 152(a)(2) of title I of
division K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (15
U.S.C. 632 note) to extend the length of time covered base
closure areas may participate in the Historically Underutilized
Business Zone (HUBZone) program to either eight years or until
the Small Business Administration announces which areas will
qualify for the HUBZone program after the next decennial census
data is released. This section would also amend section
3(p)(5)(A)(i)(l) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(p)(5)(A)(i)(I)) to include allowed covered base closure
area HUBZone participants to meet the program's employment
requirements by hiring 35 percent of their employees from any
qualified HUBZone, and would amend section 3(p)(4)(D) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)(D)) to extend physical
boundaries of the covered base closure area, for purpose of the
HUBZone program, to include lands within a 25 mile radius of
the base.
Section 843--Joint Venturing and Teaming
This section would amend section 15(e)(4) and 15(q)(1) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(e)(4) and 15 U.S.C.
644(q)(1), respectively) by requiring agencies to give due
consideration to the capabilities and past performances of the
small businesses that submit offers as teams or joint ventures
when the contract is bundled, consolidated, or for a multiple
award contract. The committee expects that the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration will issue any regulations
necessary to carry out the amendments made by this section not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 851--Additional Responsibility for Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation
This section would amend section 139 of title 10, United
States Code, by including a new subsection that would require
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to consider the
potential for increases in program cost estimates or delays in
schedule estimates in the implementation of policies,
procedures, and activities related to operational test and
evaluation, and to take appropriate action to ensure that the
conduct of operational test and evaluation activities do not
unnecessarily impede program schedules or increase program
costs.
Section 852--Use of Recent Prices Paid by the Government in the
Determination of Price Reasonableness
This section would amend section 2306a of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new paragraph that would require a
contracting officer to consider evidence provided by an offeror
of recent purchase prices paid by the Government for the same
or similar commercial items in establishing price
reasonableness if the contracting officer is satisfied that the
prices previously paid remain a valid reference for comparison
after considering the totality of other relevant factors such
as time elapsed since prior purchase and any difference in
quantities purchased or applicable terms and conditions.
Section 853--Codification of Other Transaction Authority for Certain
Prototype Projects
This section would make permanent the other transactions
authority (OTA) for contracting established in section 845 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160), as modified most recently by section 812
of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291). This section would also make changes to the authority to
use such contracting mechanisms to clarify that all
participants to the contract be small business or
nontraditional defense contractors, unless exceptional
circumstances exist that require innovative business
arrangements that are not feasible under another contract type.
OTA has been an effective tool for research and development
contracts, particularly for innovative organizations like the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Due to the ability
to tailor the contracting language and thus eliminating many
aspects of the Federal acquisition regulations that may not be
pertinent, OTA requires some discretion to allow for effective
and seamless execution. The benefits of this flexibility have
been recognized most recently by the Air Force, which would
like to extensively rely on OTA contracting vehicles to more
rapidly acquire information technology systems. The committee
supports the Department of Defense in using flexible tools for
its contracting and believes such permanence will give the
Department additional confidence in the type of experimentation
and organizational learning that is necessary if the Department
is to remain competitive in the commercial marketplace. The
committee will continue to review efforts utilizing such
contracting mechanisms to prevent abuse or misuse by the
Department.
Section 854--Amendments to Certain Acquisition Thresholds
This section would amend section 134 of title 41, United
States Code, by raising the simplified acquisition threshold
from $100,000 to $500,000. The committee is aware that section
807 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) requires an
adjustment every 5 years of acquisition related thresholds for
inflation, except for Davis-Bacon Act, Service Contract Act,
and trade agreements thresholds, using the Consumer Price Index
for all urban consumers. The committee notes that the current
adjusted simplified acquisition threshold is $150,000. However,
the committee believes changing the simplified acquisition
threshold to $500,000 will further enable Federal agencies to
buy products and services more quickly, more economically, and
with a focus on small businesses.
In order to maintain parity with other established
thresholds, this section would also amend section 1902 of title
41, United States Code, by raising the micro-purchase threshold
from $3,000 to $5,000. Furthermore, this section would also
amend section 1903 of title 41, United States Code, by raising
the special emergency procurement authority threshold for
purchases inside the United States from $250,000 to $750,000
and raising the threshold for such authority for purchases
outside the United States from $1.0 million to $1.5 million.
Finally, this section would amend section 15(j)(1) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(j)(1)) by raising the small
business reservation threshold from $100,000 to $500,000.
Section 855--Revision of Method of Rounding When Making Inflation
Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Dollar Thresholds
This section would amend section 1908(e)(2) of title 41,
United States Code, to change the rounding method that is used
when scheduled adjustments are made to certain acquisition-
related dollar thresholds, such as the simplified acquisition
threshold. Specifically, this section would apply the rounding
to the dollar threshold calculated after the adjustment is made
based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all-urban
consumers. The current method rounds the value of the threshold
on the day before the adjustment is calculated and then applies
the adjustment based on CPI. Further, this section would
provide additional guidance for rounding increments for
acquisition-related thresholds that are $10.0 million or more
up to more than $1.00 billion.
The committee notes that section 1908 of title 41 provides
for an inflation adjustment every 5 years of acquisition-
related dollar thresholds that are specified in law as a factor
in defining the scope of the applicability of the policy,
procedure, requirement, or restriction to the procurement of
property or services by an executive agency, as determined by
the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council. However, the
committee is concerned that the current rounding procedures
can, in some circumstances, lead to an inconsistent and
inappropriate level of rounding.
Section 856--Repeal of Requirement for Stand-Alone Manpower Estimates
for Major Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would consolidate the statutory requirement
for a detailed manpower estimate prior to approval of
development or production and deployment of a major defense
acquisition program as established by section 2434 of title 10,
United States Code, with the independent estimate of the full
life-cycle cost of the program also required by section 2434.
The committee notes that the planning, inventory, and
reporting requirements of section 129a of title 10, United
States Code, may also assist in fulfilling the intent of the
requirement for manpower estimates for major defense
acquisition programs, which is to ensure the life-cycle cost of
the program, including sustainment, is considered early in the
acquisition process and so personnel decisions and training
requirements can be identified in time to take appropriate
action.
Section 857--Examination and Guidance Relating to Oversight and
Approval of Services Contracts
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to complete an
examination by March 1, 2016, of the decision authority related
to acquisition of services and to develop and promulgate
guidance to improve capabilities related to services contracts
requirements development, source selection, and contract
oversight and management.
Section 858--Streamlining of Requirements Relating to Defense Business
Systems
This section would revise section 2222 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify responsibilities for the management of
defense business systems. As a result, this section would
repeal the current reporting requirement contained in section
2222 of title 10, United States Code, and insert a new annual
reporting requirement through the year 2020 on the revised
requirements of section 2222.
Section 859--Consideration of Strategic Materials in Preliminary Design
Review
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to ensure that
Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 and other applicable
guidance receive full consideration during preliminary design
review for strategic materials requirements over the life cycle
of the product.
Section 860--Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment
This section would ensure the Secretary of Defense uses
best value contracting methods to the maximum extent
practicable when procuring an item of personal protective
equipment.
Section 861--Amendments Concerning Detection and Avoidance of
Counterfeit Electronic Parts
This section would amend section 818(c)(2)(B) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) to expand the eligibility for covered contractors
to include costs associated with rework and corrective action
related to counterfeit electronic parts as allowable costs
under Department of Defense contracts.
The committee expects that, not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
will revise the Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation to conform with the changes made by this
section.
Section 862--Revision to Duties of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering
This section would amend section 139b of title 10, United
States Code, to strengthen the authority of the Milestone
Decision Authority (MDA) by clarifying that the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and
Evaluation and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Systems Engineering advise the MDA regarding review and
approval of developmental test plans and systems engineering
plans. Under existing statute, both these positions review and
approve or disapprove those plans. The committee is proposing
this change to streamline decision-making authority and
strengthen accountability by ensuring that the MDA is fully
responsible for determining whether a program is ready to
proceed into the next phase of acquisition.
Section 863--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount
Available for Contract Services
This section would amend section 808 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), as most recently amended by section 813 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. Buck McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), by extending for 1
year the temporary limitation on the aggregate annual amounts
available for contract services for the Department of Defense.
Section 864--Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Evaluation
Method for Procurement of Audit or Audit Readiness Services
This section would state a series of findings related to
the use of the lowest price, technically acceptable (LPTA)
evaluation method for the procurement of audit or audit
readiness services. It would also require the Secretary of
Defense to establish values and metrics for the services being
procured and review the offeror's past performance before using
an LPTA evaluation method for the procurement of such services.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Improving Agility in Shaping the Workforce
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should strive for balance when managing the total workforce in
response to significant financial constraints. As such, the
committee believes that, commensurate to military end strength
reductions occurring in response to the Budget Control Act of
2011 (Public Law 112-25) and to sequestration-level funding,
reductions in Department of Defense civilian and contractor
personnel should be part of a sensible approach to personnel
management. However, the committee also believes that any
personnel reductions should be done smartly and aim to retain
high-performing personnel with the requisite talents,
multidisciplinary knowledge, and up-to-date skills to help the
Department remain agile in addressing the growing array of
diverse threats facing the country and missions assigned to the
Department.
However, the committee notes that managing employee
performance has been a longstanding Government-wide issue and
the subject of numerous reforms since the beginning of the
modern civil service. A February 2015 report by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO-15-19) indicated that without
effective performance management, agencies run the risk of
losing or failing to utilize the skills of top performers, and
also risk failing to recognize and correct or remove poor
performers. The GAO also reported that even a small number of
poor performers can negatively affect employee morale and the
capacity of agencies to meet its mission requirements.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
struggled in the past with building a system aimed at
performance management. It recognizes the Department's
continued focus on personnel management and supports the
Department's ongoing efforts to improve its performance
management system and appraisal process. However, in the
current fiscal environment, the committee believes that the
Department may need additional flexibility to manage the
workforce. The committee seeks to provide the Secretary of
Defense with the necessary authority and support to exercise
such flexibility. The committee will continue working with the
Department to enable it to make the tough decisions necessary
for shaping and managing the workforce and to provide the
Department with the tools necessary to recruit, hire, develop,
and retain the best and brightest men and women to serve and
support the Nation.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
June 30, 2015, on any legislative authority or regulatory
policies in place that limit the Secretary of Defense's ability
to appropriately balance the military, civilian, and contractor
personnel within the Department. As part of this briefing, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide an
evaluation of the Federal regulations governing the credit for
performance that the Department uses in its determination of
personnel retention standing, with a specific focus on how it
impacts the Department's ability to retain high-quality
personnel.
Productivity Goals
The committee is aware that the Defense Business Board
(DBB) completed the report ``Transforming Department of
Defense's Core Business Processes for Revolutionary Change'' in
January 2015. The review took a rigorous, data-driven view of
Department of Defense business operations to help identify a
potential for $125.0 billion in savings over the next 5 years.
In its findings, the DBB identified several institutional
reforms that could provide significant savings to the
Department, including early retirements and reductions in
service contractors. It also noted that key enablers to
realizing those savings will be focused, concerted efforts to
retain institutional memory, as well as addressing key
technology obsolescence challenges.
The committee believes that it is important to further
explore the recommendations of the DBB's review in order for
Congress to fully debate the merits, as well as the potential
pitfalls, of each of the DBB's suggestions. Much like the push
to achieve auditability, the committee believes that such
institutional reform will be necessary to maximize productivity
from the Department's funds so that ``saved'' dollars can be
redirected to important training, readiness, and modernization
challenges facing the warfighter.
In particular, the committee believes that the Department
should use the Defense Business Board's analysis of
productivity goals as a valuable metric that should be
institutionalized. Such productivity metrics may provide a more
useful analytical measure of workload output than some goals
that have traditionally been used by the Department, such as
reductions in the number of personnel billets or reductions in
funding levels. Not only will this be helpful to continue to
inculcate an attitude of measurable efficiency in the culture
of the workforce, but it will provide a useful analytic tool
for making cost-benefit tradeoffs on workforce levels,
facilities, and other areas of the budget traditionally
considered overhead or support functions.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 901--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the
Department of the Navy and Marine Corps
This section would redesignate the Department of the Navy
as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps, and change the
title of its Secretary to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine
Corps. This section would formally recognize the responsibility
of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy over both the Navy
and Marine Corps, and the Marine Corps' status as an equal
partner with the Navy.
Section 902--Change of Period for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Review of the Unified Command Plan
This section would amend section 161(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, by modifying the requirement for the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review the Unified
Command Plan (UCP), including the missions, responsibilities,
and force structure of each combatant command, from not less
than every 2 years to not less than every 4 years. This
modification would better align the UCP review with the Defense
Strategy Review, required by section 118 of title 10, United
States Code, as amended by the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
Section 903--Update of Statutory Specification of Functions of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Relating to Joint Force
Development Activities
This section would amend section 153 of title 10, United
States Code, relating to functions of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, to reflect additional joint force integration
functions already overseen by the Chairman resulting from the
disestablishment of United States Joint Forces Command on
August 31, 2011, and the subsequent deletion of that command
from the Unified Command Plan.
Section 904--Sense of Congress on the United States Marine Corps
This section would express a series of findings regarding
the global security environment and the importance of the
United States Marine Corps, as recognized by the 82nd Congress.
This section would also express a sense of Congress reaffirming
the Marine Corps' composition and functions as codified in
section 5063 of title 10, United States Code, and reaffirming
its responsibility as the nation's expeditionary, crisis
response force.
The committee notes that similar to the duties of the other
military service chiefs, the Commandant of the Marine Corps is
charged with significant responsibilities to organize, train,
and equip Fleet Marine Forces of combined arms, together with
supporting air components, for service with the fleet. The
committee believes the Secretary of the Navy should recognize
the particular interests of the Marine Corps and should
continue to fully enable the Commandant to represent those
interests in the same manner as the other military service
chiefs.
In this regard, the committee appreciates that particular
care must be taken by the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that
the Marine Corps, which has fewer personnel to devote to staff
duty than the Navy, receives evenhanded treatment in
organizing, manning, establishing work priorities, and
otherwise structuring and operating within the consolidated
Department of the Navy. The committee believes the Secretary's
office, and those of the assistant secretaries, should include
appropriate numbers of Marine generals and other Marine
officers to ensure that the interests of the Marine Corps will
be represented and that the Commandant will receive appropriate
support from these offices. Finally, the committee also intends
that the Headquarters, Marine Corps, shall have an appropriate
share of the total number of general officers, other members of
the Armed Forces, and civilian employees of the Department of
the Navy for the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, the
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Headquarters,
Marine Corps.
Section 905--Additional Requirements for Streamlining of Department of
Defense Management Headquarters
This section would express a series of findings and the
sense of Congress on the commitment of the Department of
Defense to reduce its headquarters budgets and personnel by 20
percent and to achieve $10.00 billion in cost savings over 5
years. It would also amend section 904 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66),
which requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for
streamlining Department of Defense management headquarters, by
requiring an accurate baseline accounting of defense
headquarters budgets and personnel, and more specific
information on actual and planned reductions in management
headquarters. In addition, this section would further modify
section 904 of Public Law 113-66 to require the Department to
implement its planned reduction in management headquarters
budgets and personnel for certain organizations in the National
Capital Region. Lastly, it would clarify that civilian
employees funded from working-capital funds are not subject to
the reduction requirement.
The committee notes that the Department has already claimed
the savings associated with these reductions in the budget
requests provided since the 20 percent goal was established in
2013. While the committee is interested in ensuring that true
cost savings result from these efficiencies, the committee also
desires to ensure that any reductions are taken in a manner
that increase the performance, accountability, and agility of
the Department. Moreover, the committee encourages the
Department to take the actions necessary to establish accurate
baselines and plans against which progress can be measured.
Section 906--Sense of Congress on Performance Management and Workforce
Incentive System
This section would express a series of findings on the
efforts by the Department of Defense to institute a performance
management and appraisal system for employees, named ``New
Beginnings,'' as required by section 1113 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84). It would also express the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of Defense should proceed with the collaborative work
with employee representatives on the new system and implement
it at the earliest possible date.
Section 907--Guidelines for Conversion of Functions Performed by
Civilian or Contractor Personnel to Performance by Military Personnel
This section would amend section 129a of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new section that establishes
guidelines for the conversion of functions performed by
civilian or contractor personnel to performance by military
personnel.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
Counter-Drug Authority Regarding Support to Certain Foreign Governments
The committee notes the importance of the counter-drug
authority (the section ``1033'' authority), which allows the
Department of Defense to provide equipment for the counter-drug
activities of designated foreign governments. This authority
originated in section 1033 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) and,
at the time, designated two South American governments as
eligible to receive support with an annual funding cap of $9.0
million. Since then, the number of designated countries
eligible for support under this authority has grown to 39
foreign governments over 4 continents, and the annual funding
cap has grown to $125.0 million. This growth reflects the
expanding reach and threat of drug traffickers and the
globalization of transnational organized crime.
The committee believes consideration should be given as to
whether this authority should remain a country-by-country
authority or become a global authority. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February
1, 2016, on the status of the section ``1033'' authority. The
briefing should include an assessment of the following: the
historical use of the authority and of the authority as it
currently stands; the evolution of requirements behind the
expansion of countries; the evolution of requirements behind
the expansion of the funding cap; how countries and regions are
prioritized; the advantages and disadvantages of a country-by-
country versus global authority; and the funding challenges
associated with a country-by-country versus global authority.
Finally, the Secretary is directed to make the briefing
available, upon request, to the other congressional defense
committees.
Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is
updating its Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy,
which was last updated in 2011, to ensure that it has an up-to-
date strategy that meets current and emerging threats and
security challenges.
While the 2011 strategy effectively laid out the goals that
the Department of Defense seeks to achieve, the committee is
concerned that it did not articulate a sound strategy to
achieve those goals. Given the growing demand for increasingly
limited resources, the committee is interested in ensuring that
the Department of Defense has specific strategic plans, which
are country and regionally based, that utilize authorities and
resources in an effective and sustainable way to achieve
measurable goals.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide an addendum to the Department of Defense's
Counternarcotics and Global Threats Strategy. The Department of
Defense shall include the following components in its updated
strategy:
(1) An assessment of the historical use of counternarcotics
authorities and how well-suited these authorities are to
address current and emerging threats;
(2) An analysis of the evolution of the expansion of the
number of countries touched by each authority and what is
driving the expansion;
(3) An analysis of the authorities as they stand currently,
while identifying strengths and weaknesses of each authority;
and
(4) An analysis of funding challenges.
The strategy should also include specific plans for each
country where counternarcotics authorities are utilized, as
well as regional strategic plans. For both the country and
regional plans, the strategy shall include the following:
(1) Specific goals for each country and region and metrics
to measure progress towards achieving each goal;
(2) How each counternarcotics authority fits into each
strategic plan and the limitations of each authority; and
(3) How training and/or equipment provided under each
authority provides a sustainable and lasting effect.
The committee further directs the Secretary to provide the
addendum to the Department of Defense's Counternarcotics and
Global Threats Strategy to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives upon completion of
the strategy.
National Guard Counterdrug Programs
The committee acknowledges the continued contributions of
the National Guard to domestic counterdrug programs. The
National Guard, working with law enforcement agencies and
community-based organizations, performs interdiction and anti-
drug activities to counter illicit drug trafficking. It also
operates regional counterdrug training centers across the
country to provide education and training to local, State, and
Federal law enforcement in counternarcotics and global threat
reduction efforts.
For the past 5 fiscal years, the budget request for
National Guard Counterdrug Programs has not included sufficient
funds to meet program requirements. Recognizing this shortfall
in funding, Congress has consistently provided additional funds
to enable the Guard to meet its requirements. However, this
additional funding has been made available for execution by the
Guard in the third or fourth quarter of the fiscal year, making
it difficult for the Guard to execute it by the end of the
fiscal year. The committee recognizes that this is not the most
efficient or effective way to plan for and execute a successful
program. The committee continues to encourage the Department of
Defense to submit an accurate budget request for National Guard
Counterdrug Programs consistent with its requirements.
However, the committee also believes that, with appropriate
planning, the National Guard should be able to obligate and
expend additional funds, if made available, for its counterdrug
programs even if received late in the fiscal year. Therefore,
the committee directs the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to
brief the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than
October 1, 2015, on the Guard's plan for how it can improve its
execution of additional funding should the program receive it.
Lastly, as the tight fiscal environment continues, the
committee continues to encourage the National Guard, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Defense, to refine its
priorities and missions.
Unaccompanied Alien Children
In calendar year 2014, approximately 65,000 unaccompanied
alien children (UAC) from Central America traveled through
Mexico and crossed over the U.S. southern border. This number
has grown exponentially over the past 3 years. In 2014, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was overwhelmed
with the rate at which these children were crossing the border.
At the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the Secretary of Defense entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with HHS to provide vacant facilities on
Department of Defense installations to temporarily house up to
7,700 children until they could be placed in the care of a
relative or other sponsor while their immigration status was
determined. The Department of Defense made available facilities
at three military installations across the country and the
committee acknowledges the efficiency with which the Department
performed these tasks.
The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that
the number of UACs crossing the southern border in calendar
year 2015 is expected to be similar to 2014. In February 2015,
HHS and the Department of Defense entered into a second MOU for
continued Department of Defense support, if the need arises, to
house UACs while they are being processed and placed. The
committee commends the interagency for its cooperation on this
matter but also recognizes the need for the Department of
Defense to maintain its readiness and support its primary
missions. The committee recognizes the efforts of the
Department of Defense, in its calendar year 2014 review of
facilities capable of housing UACs, to coordinate with
installation commanders to ensure that the use of facilities in
support of HHS would not disrupt scheduled facility
maintenance, training activities, or military operations.
The committee encourages both the Departments of Defense
and HHS to be as transparent as possible and to improve
communications with communities and Congress when a facility is
being considered for use. The committee believes the Secretary
of Defense should evaluate many factors when determining which
facilities can be made available to support HHS under the MOU.
The committee expects that any Department of Defense assistance
to HHS should not impact any scheduled maintenance, training,
housing plans, or exercises to be executed by the Department
during calendar year 2015.
Western Hemisphere Maritime Intelligence
The committee notes that the U.S. Navy has reduced its
maritime security operations in the Western Hemisphere and, as
a result, the U.S. Coast Guard has been increasingly relied
upon to conduct such operations. However, neither the Navy nor
Coast Guard have sufficient assets or capabilities in the
Western Hemisphere to provide accurate and timely maritime
intelligence information to support these operations.
The committee believes that the unique assets of the
Department of Defense, specifically those operated by U.S.
Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and U.S. Northern Command
(NORTHCOM), may be able to provide this intelligence
information, but the committee lacks a full understanding of
the maritime security intelligence gaps in the Western
Hemisphere, the specific intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities that could be brought to bear
against these gaps, and the options for improving intelligence
sharing with the Coast Guard.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than October 1, 2015, on the following:
(1) The maritime intelligence requirements in the Western
Hemisphere and the extent to which they are being fulfilled or
planned to be fulfilled;
(2) An assessment of ISR assets and capabilities that
NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM could employ to fulfill unmet
requirements;
(3) Options for how to improve maritime intelligence
sharing with the Coast Guard to assist with maritime security
operations; and
(4) The planned U.S. Navy presence in the SOUTHCOM area of
responsibility in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017.
Other Matters
Adequacy of Support Assets for Asia
The committee notes that in his January 2012 Defense
Strategic Guidance, the President announced that while the U.S.
military would continue to contribute to security globally, it
would of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region
since U.S. economic and security interests were inextricably
linked to development in the region. Further, the Defense
Strategic Guidance stated that the maintenance of peace,
stability, the free flow of commerce, and U.S. influence in the
Asia-Pacific region would depend in part on an underlying
balance of military capability and presence.
In light of the direction provided by the Defense Strategic
Guidance, the March 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
posited that the United States will maintain a robust footprint
in Northeast Asia while enhancing U.S. presence in, Southeast
Asia, and the Indian Ocean. Specifically, the QDR called for 60
percent of U.S. Navy assets to be stationed in the Pacific by
2020; an increase in the size of Navy, Air Force, and Marine
contingents on Guam; an increased U.S. military presence in
Australia; and the maintenance of a viable, substantial U.S.
Army presence on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia.
Finally, in February 2014, the President underscored the
country's continued commitment to rebalancing the U.S. military
toward the Asia-Pacific region in his National Security
Strategy, while also noting that the security dynamics of the
region, including contested maritime territorial claims and a
provocative North Korea, risk escalation and conflict.
The committee also notes that this rebalancing follows
almost 70 years of United States primary strategic focus on
defense of Western Europe and almost 13 years of conflict in
Iraq and Afghanistan that have, in large measure, eroded the
U.S. military's ability to conduct full-spectrum operations.
Moreover, this rebalancing will occur in a period of increasing
fiscal constraint. Nevertheless, in order to support the
rebalance to Asia and the Pacific, it is important that U.S.
Pacific Command and its subordinate commands have access to the
correct mix of support assets, especially given the vast
distances that define the theater as well as the range of
potential threats in the theater.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by April 30, 2016, that evaluates the
Department of Defense's support capabilities for current and
future operations in the Asia-Pacific region, including an
assessment of the following:
(1) The extent to which the Department of Defense has
identified support asset requirements, including related
funding needs, to enable current and future operations in the
region. Such support assets could include, but are not limited
to, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; sea and air
lift; command and control; logistical sustainment; pre-
positioned stocks; and any other assets commanders in the
region think necessary for the accomplishment of missions
across the range of military operations;
(2) The adequacy of the existing support assets to meet
operational requirements given the enlarged U.S. presence in
the region; and
(3) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to support capabilities in the Asia-
Pacific Region.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
brief the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2016,
on the Comptroller General's preliminary findings.
Attendance at Professional and Technical Conferences
The committee is concerned that many organizations within
the Department of Defense have either eliminated or severely
restricted temporary duty travel for professional and technical
conferences. While the committee supports efforts to reduce
non-essential costs, the committee believes such conferences
provide value by enabling Department of Defense engineers,
scientists, and other technical personnel to share research,
learn about cutting-edge innovations, and interact with their
peers from across the country and the world. Furthermore, the
committee recognizes that the formal presentation of one's own
research to the broader technical community is often a
requisite for professional advancement within that technical
community.
The committee is aware that in a February 2014 memorandum,
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics directed the Secretaries of the military departments,
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, and the directors of the defense science and
technology agencies to ``give appropriate consideration to the
importance of attendance at technical symposia and conferences
that enhance communication between Department of Defense
acquisition professionals and their industry counterparts.''
The memo went further to provide the Under Secretary's
``support [for] properly justified attendance by Department of
Defense personnel to the extent possible, subject to the
availability of resources, including travel funds.''
The committee supports the Under Secretary's guidance on
this matter but is concerned that the lengthy and complex
approval processes to enable conference attendance by Federal
employees is unduly hampering the ability of academic and
scientific personnel in the Department of Defense to perform
their jobs, may inhibit career progression, and could
discourage personnel with highly technical skills and
competencies from entering the workforce.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to examine the Department of Defense policies related to
professional travel and to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than October 1, 2015, on findings and
recommendations necessary to further enable professional
development of the workforce.
Comptroller General Review of Drawdown Authority
Since 1961, the President has had special authority to
order the ``drawdown'' of defense articles and other services
or military education and training from the Department of
Defense and military service inventories and transfer them to
foreign countries or international organizations. This
authority, as outlined in section 506 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195), as amended, allows the
President to provide this assistance without first seeking
additional authority or appropriations from Congress.
The committee has observed what appears to be an increasing
use of such authority in recent years to provide defense
articles and services to such countries as Ukraine, the
Republic of Iraq, the French Republic (for its operations in
the Republic of Mali), and those supporting the African Union-
led Central African Republic International Support Mission.
While the committee does not dispute the merits of providing
defense articles and services to such countries, it is
concerned about the use of such authority as a way to
circumvent Congress and the impact it may have on U.S. military
stockpiles and readiness.
The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office last examined this issue in 2002, as required by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public
Law 107-107). Its 2002 report (GAO-02-1027) noted that
drawdowns had been used with greater frequency and that the
Department was unable to systemically track and accurately
report to Congress on the status of these drawdowns. The
committee believes that an updated examination of the drawdown
authority is warranted, including whether the use of the
authority is achieving its intended purposes, and the impact,
if any, on U.S. defense inventories (military stockpiles and
readiness), as well as U.S. Government resources.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of drawdown authority and
submit a report to the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives,
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, not later
than December 8, 2015, to include the following:
(1) To what extent has the authority to drawdown U.S.
defense inventories been utilized to assist foreign countries
or international organizations in addressing security threats,
and what parameters were used to determine whether to provide
assistance through this special drawdown authority or other
security assistance authorities;
(2) The types of requirements that were met through this
assistance, including the extent to which U.S. assistance
provided through inventory drawdowns supported U.S. efforts to
build partner capacity and supported the efforts of other
nations to undertake operations that are in the U.S. interest;
(3) To what extent the executive branch has managed this
drawdown authority to ensure that it is used appropriately,
including the extent to which other authorities are considered
and duplication of other U.S. or international efforts is
minimized; and
(4) To what extent have drawdowns affected the readiness of
the military services, to specifically include whether such
drawdowns reduce the availability of defense articles (e.g.,
weapon systems) and spare parts needed for the military
services to complete their missions; require the use of
operation and maintenance funds to support drawdowns (e.g.,
refurbishing or repairing items and providing spare parts); and
to what extent mechanisms exist for the military services to
provide input regarding potential effects on readiness when
decisions regarding drawdowns are under consideration.
Comptroller General Review of Homeland Response Forces
The National Guard has completed fielding 10 regionally
aligned Homeland Response Forces to assist civil authorities in
responding to disasters, including Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosives (CBRNE) incidents. The
Homeland Response Forces are also meant to serve as a bridge
between initial National Guard response to an incident and the
arrival of assistance from Federal military forces. Each
Homeland Response Force is designed to provide life-saving,
command and control, and security capabilities and is expected
to plan, train, and exercise within its designated region with
the goal of establishing links between local, State, and
Federal authorities. Previous Government Accountability Office
work identified personnel, training, equipment, and command and
control challenges with related National Guard response forces
that could materially affect the preparedness or operational
effectiveness of the Homeland Response Forces.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to assess the preparedness of the Homeland Response
Forces to accomplish their mission. The Comptroller General
should provide a briefing on preliminary results of the
assessment to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2016. The assessment should address the following:
(1) The current state of readiness of each Homeland
Response Force with respect to personnel, training, and
equipment on hand, and their capability to respond to CBRNE
events.
(2) The extent to which the Department of Defense has
integrated the Homeland Response Forces operationally with
other Federal and State-level response forces, including the
National Guard's Civil Support Teams and CBRNE Enhanced
Response Force Packages, and the Defense CBRNE Force.
(3) Any related matters the Comptroller General finds
appropriate.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide the Comptroller General's final results to the House
Committee on Armed Services at a subsequent date and format to
be agreed upon at the time of briefing.
Comptroller General Review of Pandemic Civil Support Planning
Planning activities across Federal Government agencies,
including the Department of Defense, are key to responding to a
potential outbreak in the United States of a pandemic disease.
The Federal Government anticipates an influenza pandemic would
occur in multiple waves over a period of time, rather than as a
discrete event. During the peak weeks of an outbreak of a
severe influenza pandemic, an estimated 40 percent of the U.S.
workforce may not be at work due to illness, the need to care
for family members who are sick, or fear of infection.
The Department of Defense would play a key role in
responding to a domestic outbreak of a pandemic disease by
supporting domestic civil authorities in accordance with the
National Response Framework. Coordination with Federal, State,
local, tribal, and territorial authorities, as well as private
sector partners, to plan, train, and exercise a coordinated
response may prove essential. This coordination and support
would be complicated, because a large number of Department of
Defense personnel could potentially be affected by an influenza
pandemic, which could adversely affect the military's
readiness.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the Department of Defense's planning to
support civil authorities in the event of a pandemic disease
outbreak and to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 31, 2016, on the preliminary results. The review should
address the following:
(1) To what extent has the Department of Defense planned
for supporting civil authorities in the event of a domestic
outbreak of a pandemic disease?
(2) To what extent has the Department of Defense
coordinated with Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial
authorities, and the private sector, in preparation for a
domestic outbreak of a pandemic disease?
(3) To what extent has the Department of Defense conducted
or participated in training exercises with civil authorities
and private sector emergency medical response teams in
preparation for a domestic outbreak of a pandemic disease?
(4) Any related matters the Comptroller General finds
appropriate.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide the Comptroller General's final results to the House
Committee on Armed Services at a subsequent date and format to
be agreed upon at the time of briefing.
Comptroller General Review of Transferring Improvised Explosive Device
Knowledge and Technology Gained by Department of Defense to Civil
Authorities
The committee is aware that the Comptroller General of the
United States is conducting a review of Federal Government
coordination efforts to counter improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) in the United States.
The committee encourages the Comptroller General to
continue this review and to include within its analysis a
review of Department of Defense support to civil authorities
for counter-IED activities. The committee believes that there
are considerable amounts of expertise, technologies, and
capabilities resident within the Department of Defense for the
counter-IED mission that could now be leveraged for domestic
use and to assist Federal, State, and local authorities charged
with counter-IED missions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services by July 30, 2015, on the status of the
ongoing review of Federal Government coordination efforts to
counter improvised explosive devices in the United States.
Congressional Review of Federal Acquisition Regulation Rulemaking
The committee is concerned about the often lengthy
rulemaking process associated with the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR). The FAR Operating Guide, which details the
process, states that the standard timeline for FAR cases is 16
months from the time a report is submitted with a draft
proposed or interim rule to the final publication of the rule.
A variety of stakeholders have expressed concerns to the
committee that the FAR Council often fails to publish these
rules in a timely manner or even meet this standard 16 month
timeline goal.
The committee is aware that the FAR rulemaking process is
unique in that it does not follow the typical Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) processes. Such
rulemaking begins by going through the FAR Council process,
which includes several layers of approval that include the
Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council (DARC), Civilian Agency
Acquisition Council (CAAC), General Services Administration
(GSA), Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), and OIRA.
After the FAR Council process, rules are then sent for a final
check through the OIRA clearance process before publication as
a final rule. The committee notes that the FAR Council, CAAC,
and DARC all have members representing various agencies and are
all expected to reach consensus on these rules, which can be
very complex.
The committee believes that the FAR rulemaking process
should be reviewed with the goals of improving the timeliness
of this process and identifying efficiencies which could
improve the process. Therefore, the committee directs the
Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to
conduct such a review and provide a briefing to House Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform not later than September 30, 2015, on the
findings of the review. The briefing should include
recommendations for improving the FAR rulemaking process.
Counter Threat Financing and Analytic Tools
The committee recognizes that illicit financial networks
are critical enablers to destabilizing networks and
transnational criminal organizations, including terrorist,
narco-traffickers, human smugglers, proliferators and actors
seeking to avoid sanctions. The Department of Defense invested
heavily in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan to create counter threat finance capabilities to
detect and combat such illicit activity.
With the draw-down in Afghanistan and the pivot to Asia,
the committee is concerned that budget constraints may result
in divestiture of such counter-threat finance capabilities in
favor of traditional military capabilities. However, the
committee believes such capabilities will continue to be of
value to combat threats to our national security, including
state actors avoiding sanctions or maintaining black market
economic activities. The committee also believes such
capabilities can be useful in supporting surveillance and
indications and warning for national economic threats, such as
attempts to perpetrate economic warfare or sabotage. Therefore,
the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to continue to
sustain Department of Defense counter-threat finance programs
and capabilities as planned.
Defense Innovation Initiative
In November 2014, the Secretary of Defense announced the
Defense Innovation Initiative (DII) as a department-wide effort
to develop ``game changing'' technologies, new operating
concepts, and more innovative leaders to ``maintain and advance
the competitive advantage of America and its military allies.''
The Secretary also announced, as part of this Initiative, the
development of a third offset strategy, a new Long-Range
Research and Development Planning Program, and a new Advanced
Capability and Deterrence Panel.
Since then, DII and its related efforts have been cited by
senior Department of Defense officials in speeches and
referenced in the Department's fiscal year 2016 budget request
documentation. However, despite repeated requests for
information, the Department has provided little detail on DII
and its related efforts to the committee. While the speeches
and budget documentation suggest these could be promising
efforts, the committee is unable to oversee and assess their
merits because it lacks detailed information from the
Department.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide the House Committee on Armed Services with a
briefing on the Defense Innovation Initiative and its related
efforts not later than July 30, 2015. The briefing should
include a discussion of the objectives of and plans for DII and
its related efforts, how such efforts interrelate, and the
organizations involved.
Defense Strategy
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense's
assessment of the security environment shapes its decisions on
geographic and mission priorities, force sizing, and posture.
The committee notes that the security environment has changed
considerably since the Department of Defense released its
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) in early 2014. Although the
Department recognizes that the security environment is
``growing more volatile'' and ``unpredictable'' with an
expanding array of potential threats, the committee questions
whether certain assumptions about the security environment
contained in the QDR remain valid and therefore, whether the
defense strategy contained in the QDR remains viable.
Most notably, the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, growing instability across the Middle East and Africa,
and a revanchist Russian Federation, led the bipartisan
National Defense Panel (NDP), in its July 2014 report, to call
for a ``reevaluation of U.S. military posture in this critical
region [the Middle East],'' and to ``no longer simply assume
that Europe will be a net security provider. Europe will
require more attention and a higher sense of priority from U.S.
defense planners.'' Furthermore, the NDP recommended that,
``given the worsening threat environment, we believe a more
expansive force sizing construct . . . is appropriate.''
The committee believes that the Department should revisit
the assumptions underpinning its defense strategy and make
adjustments to the strategy as necessary. Furthermore, the
committee urges caution as the Department contemplates any
force sizing and posture changes as it recognizes that, once
implemented, such changes are difficult to reverse.
Department of Defense Installation Security
Since the tragic events at Fort Hood, the Washington Navy
Yard, and the USS Mahan, the Department of Defense has
conducted several reviews of its programs, policies, and
procedures to improve security at military installations. The
committee notes that the Secretary of Defense provided the
committee a briefing on the Department of Defense and military
departments' efforts related to physical access controls,
physical security infrastructure capabilities, and force
protection systems as directed by the committee report (H.
Rept. 113-446) accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The
committee also notes that other reports have been requested by
Congress related to installation security, including the
committee report (S. Rept. 113-211) accompanying the Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee report
(S. Rept. 113-176) accompanying the Carl Levin National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, and the Joint
Explanatory Statement (Committee Print No. 4) accompanying the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. While the committee
recognizes efforts to improve the programs, policies,
procedures, and infrastructure supporting the physical security
of military installations, the committee believes that
continued emphasis is needed. The committee looks forward to
receiving the additional reports directed by Congress on
installation security and conducting oversight of the current
programs and future initiatives in the areas of physical access
control systems, physical security infrastructure capabilities,
and force protection aimed at enhancing the security of
military installations.
Electromagnetic Spectrum Roadmap
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
been examining ways to better utilize the electromagnetic
spectrum (EMS) in the future. Spectrum is a finite resource
that provides necessary capabilities for both the Federal
sector, including the military and national security
establishment, and commercial interests. As noted by the
President's Council of Advisers for Science and Technology in
2012, ``If the Nation instead expands its options for managing
Federal spectrum, we can transform the availability of a
precious national resource--spectrum--from scarcity to
abundance . . . The essential element of this new Federal
spectrum architecture is that the norm for spectrum use should
be sharing, not exclusivity.''
The committee recognizes the significant effort that the
Department of Defense has made to improve its responsiveness to
changes in the technological and regulatory environment. For
example, the Department issued an Electromagnetic Spectrum
Strategy in February 2014 to address how the Department will
manage increased spectrum access risks, develop more effective
solutions, and focus on technological innovation and sharing.
That has led to an EMS Roadmap and Action Plan that is expected
to be issued in the coming months, which would implement the
goals and objectives of the EMS Strategy, and address
everything from systems acquisitions to operations to spectrum
management policy. The committee looks forward to seeing the
results of this roadmap, including how it will leverage the
government-industry-academia partnership of the National
Spectrum Consortium to bring together stakeholders, and the S&T
Roadmap, which is developing a technology roadmap for ensuring
a spectrally efficient and dynamic system in the future.
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account
The General Accounting Office (now the Government
Accountability Office, or GAO) noted in a 1986 report (NSIAD-
86-173) that the purpose of the Foreign Currency Fluctuation,
Defense (FCF,D) account is to provide a mechanism for
stabilizing the portion of operation and maintenance (O&M) and
Military Personnel funding used for purchasing foreign goods
and services. The FCF,D provides funds to O&M when foreign
exchange rates are unfavorable (when losses occur) and receives
funds from O&M when the rates are favorable (when gains occur).
This ensures, as GAO stated, that ``any given O&M appropriation
for the purchase of foreign goods and services will purchase
the budgeted amount of goods and services, regardless of the
gains and losses of the dollar caused by currency
fluctuations.'' Based on the rationale for the genesis of the
FCF,D account, the committee believes that when foreign
currency rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the
current balance of funds in the FCF,D account should be
considered.
When the FCF,D account has a balance close to or at the cap
of $970.0 million, the committee believes the budgeted rates
should be adjusted to generate losses within the account,
thereby drawing down the FCF,D account balance. This would
reduce the O&M budget requirement for foreign goods and
services, allowing excess funds to be allocated to other
readiness programs without changing the budget topline.
However, as the FCF,D account realizes a net gain, these gains
remain in O&M and are used for purposes not originally
requested in the annual budget submission to Congress. Without
visibility on these transactions through a reprogramming
request, the committee cannot determine whether funds remaining
in the FCF,D account are being used to reduce current readiness
shortfalls.
The committee notes that GAO estimates the O&M accounts
will realize a net gain of $587.4 million and the Military
Personnel accounts will realize a net gain of $304.0 million in
fiscal year 2016 when comparing the rates used to develop
fiscal 2016 budgetary needs to cover foreign currency
fluctuations with projected needs based on current exchange
rates.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee recommended the Department
of Defense take into consideration the current balance within
the FCF,D account when determining foreign currency levels in
upcoming budget submissions. The committee observes there has
been no such change to how foreign currency rates are
calculated. Accordingly, the committee recommends both a
reduction in the O&M budget for fiscal year 2016 as shown in
section 4301 of this Act and a reduction in the Military
Personnel budget for fiscal year 2016 as shown in section 4401
of this Act, and realigns those funds to support higher
priority defense requirements throughout the Department.
Importance of the Department of Defense Meeting Audit Deadlines
The committee stresses the importance of the Department of
Defense's financial management and audit efforts, and notes
that the Department has 2 fiscal years remaining to complete
its audit readiness work in preparation for meeting its goal of
full financial statement auditability by September 30, 2017.
However, the committee is concerned about the capability
and capacity of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) to fully support the financial requirements of the
Department and the military services. For example, the
Department of Defense Inspector General recently withdrew its
audit opinion of the U.S. Marine Corps fiscal year 2012
financial statements due to DFAS's failure to properly maintain
its suspense accounts. The committee is further concerned that,
absent near-term corrective actions by DFAS, the Department and
the military services may be at risk of failing to achieve
their audit readiness objectives by September 2017.
The committee also believes that it is important for the
Department to continue hiring qualified financial management
personnel, including certified public accountants, to address
these challenges. The committee further believes that the
military services should have greater influence in the DFAS
process for selecting independent public auditors for the
military services, and that communications between the military
services and DFAS must be improved to ensure that the services'
financial requirements are better understood by DFAS.
Lastly, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense, the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to continue prioritizing the Department's
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness plan, and continues
to emphasize the need for the Department to improve its
accountability for how defense dollars are spent.
Navy's Proposed Transition to an Evolved Contracting Strategy
The Department of the Navy has briefed the congressional
defense committees on an ``evolved contracting strategy'' to
change the existing contracting methodology to procure non-
nuclear surface ship maintenance and modernization, a critical
function in the readiness-generation process. The committee
notes that this change would generally, with some exceptions
for emergent repairs, move the overall ship repair vehicle from
a cost-plus type contract to fixed-price.
The Comptroller General of the United States in the March
17, 1982, report ``Actions Needed to Reduce Schedule Slippages
and Cost Growth on Contracts for Navy Ship Overhauls (PLRD-82-
29)'' found that ``overhauls were delayed an average of 64 days
and that contract cost growth over the award price was
averaging about 62 percent for frigates, 55 percent for
auxiliary ships, and 29 percent for amphibious ships.'' The
Comptroller General also indicated that ``contract cost growth
is of special concern because contract additives are price-
based on sole-source negotiation with the enterprise awarded
the basic contract. Under these conditions, the Navy is at a
great disadvantage in trying to assure that the best price is
being negotiated with the contractor. Furthermore, contract
changes often contribute to overhaul delays.'' The committee
believes that the Comptroller General's concerns of March 1982
may be applicable to the ``evolved contracting strategy'' that
the Navy is planning to implement in the near future.
Specifically, the committee is concerned these contracting
methodology changes could induce availability delays and cost
growth, especially as change orders are identified and
adjudicated between the Navy and industry.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 1, 2016, on the risks and benefits
of the proposed ``evolved contracting strategy'' to include the
following aspects of ship material readiness:
(1) The ability of the evolved contracting strategy to
reduce availability costs, shorten schedule, and improve
quality;
(2) The ability of third-party advance planning for ship
repair availabilities to develop stable, well-defined
requirements;
(3) The stability and viability of the ship repair
industrial base, including the ability to invest in and retain
critically skilled workers and safe, efficient facilities and
to provide insight and continuity across the industrial base;
(4) The ability of the Navy to retain ships in their
respective homeport locations during availabilities and the
applicability of section 7299a of title 10, United States Code,
and Secretary of the Navy ``Ship Depot Maintenance Solicitation
Policy'' memorandum dated June 16, 1995;
(5) The opportunities for small-business participation and
for industry teaming within the ship repair industrial base;
(6) The ability to support the Navy in meeting service-life
objectives for non-nuclear surface ships; and
(7) The ability to meet operational availability
requirements of the Navy Optimized Fleet Response Plan.
(8) The extent to which Navy installation and personnel
security protocols, procedures, and policies have been
streamlined to minimize impacts to contract personnel
supporting Navy sustainment while meeting force protection
requirements.
Notifications of Changes to the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement
to Congress
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
maintains a well-established and actively maintained website
and also uses other electronic media to provide timely
publication notices of changes to the Defense Federal
Acquisition Supplement. However, the committee continues to
also receive hard copies of these publication notices. The
committee believes that, should the Department continue to
actively maintain a publicly available website, and
sufficiently archive the notices, there is no need for hard
copies of the notices to also be provided to the committee.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review current
processes and, in coordination with the congressional defense
committees, take such steps as necessary to streamline the
delivery of publication notices to Congress not later than
March 1, 2016.
Pacific Command Operational Plans
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
updating many of its operational and contingency plans,
including those within the U.S. Pacific Command's (PACOM) area
of responsibility. The committee seeks a greater understanding
of the factors driving the changes in these plans and the
implications for PACOM's posture, force structure, and
capability requirements, so that it can better assess the
alignment of requirements and resources within the Department.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S.
Pacific Command to brief the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than September 30, 2015, on the factors influencing
and the implications of the updates to PACOM's operational and
contingency plans. Specifically, the briefing shall include a
discussion of the following:
(1) Changes in assumptions related to the threat and
strategic environment;
(2) Changes in assumptions related to Department-wide
policy, strategy, and defense planning guidance;
(3) Changes in strategic theater objectives; and
(4) The implications for the posture, force structure, and
capability requirements of the U.S Armed Forces within the
PACOM area of responsibility (AOR) and for U.S. forces outside
of the AOR that would be required to support the execution of
plans.
Proposed Retirement of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 84 and 85
Aircraft
The committee is aware that the Department of the Navy
plans to retire Helicopter Sea Squadron (HSC) 84 and 85
aircraft beginning in the third quarter of fiscal year 2015.
These aircraft are currently providing organic and inherent
special operations-peculiar rotary wing capabilities to Naval
Special Warfare training and operational components, and
Theater Special Operations Commands within U.S. Central Command
and U.S. Pacific Command.
The committee understands that the retirement of these
aircraft could cause a considerable capability gap particularly
for maritime interception operations, personnel recovery,
helicopter visit, board, search and seizure (HVBSS) operations,
and the countering weapons of mass destruction mission sets. As
such, Naval Special Warfare Command expects a major degradation
in capability and readiness for its forward deployed crisis
response units.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by July 30,
2015, on the planned retirement of HSC-84 and 85. The briefing
should include but not be limited to: plans for retirement of
HSC-84 and 85 including any cost-benefit analyses conducted to
justify retirement; plans to field replacement capabilities to
meet all operational requirements including special operations-
peculiar requirements of the geographic combatant commanders
and U.S. Special Operations Command; capability gaps and
limitations identified as a result of the potential retirement;
any other matters deemed appropriate by the Secretary of
Defense.
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Briefing
The committee understands the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) has proposed more restrictive vehicle
handling requirements for recreational off-highway vehicles
(ROVs). The committee notes the military services procure ROVs
in limited quantities for specific military applications and
missions, and further notes these new regulations may have
potential impacts on current Department of Defense ROV
programs. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by
September 9, 2015 on the potential implications and impacts
these new vehicle handling requirements posed by the CPSC could
have on current Department ROV programs.
Strategic Vision and Plan for an Effective Global Response Force
The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services within 180
days of enactment, on the strategic vision and plan for an
adequately resourced, trained, equipped, and manned effective
global response force (GRF). This report shall be submitted in
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
The committee believes that the GRF is a top priority and
having a fully resourced and supported GRF is critical to our
national security if ever needed. The committee strongly
believes that the GRF can serve the purpose of deterrence and
provide leverage in diplomatic negotiations. This was
reinforced by Secretary Carter, who stated the GRF has the
greatest deterrent value because of its global reach during his
testimony to the House Committee on Armed Services on ``The
President's proposed Authorization for the Use of Military
Force against ISIL and the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request from the Department of Defense.''
The committee directs that the Chairman of the Joints
Chiefs of Staff shall include in his report: a description of
current operational requirements and capability gaps for an
effective global response force to ensure that a fully
developed joint operational concept emerges that supports the
National Military Strategy; a description of any shortfalls in
joint capacity; an assessment of the ability of the Department
of Defense to meet current global response force requirements;
an assessment whether each of the military departments is
meeting expectations with respect to the global response force;
a discussion of what each of the military departments is doing
to address any concerns; an assessment of all supporting
elements of the global response force, including special
operations, air defense, capability to conduct logistical
resupply, follow-on forces, and other elements the Chairman
determines appropriate; and an assessment of the current
capacity and readiness of aircraft lift and maritime ships to
transport the global response force and additional forces in
support of war plans, including a description of how readiness
maneuverability and frequency in which maneuverability capacity
is assessed.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, with
certain limitations, to make transfers between amounts
authorized for fiscal year 2016 in division A of this Act. This
section would limit the total amount transferred under this
authority to $5.0 billion. This section would also require
prompt notification to Congress of each transfer made.
Section 1002--Authority to Transfer Funds to the National Nuclear
Security Administration to Sustain Nuclear Weapons Modernization and
Naval Reactors
This section would provide the Secretary of Defense the
authority to transfer up to $150.0 million to the nuclear
weapons and naval reactor programs of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) if the amount authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2016
for the weapons activities of the NNSA is less than $8.9
billion (the amount specified for fiscal year 2016 in the
report required by section 1251 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)).
Section 1003--Accounting Standards to Value Certain Property, Plant,
and Equipment Items
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
coordinate with the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
to establish accounting standards for large and unordinary
general property, plant, and equipment items.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities
Section 1011--Extension of Authority to Provide Additional Support for
Counter-drug Activities of Certain Foreign Governments
This section would extend, by 1 year, the authority to
provide support for counterdrug activities of certain foreign
governments, originally authorized by subsection (a)(2) of
section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), and most recently amended
by section 1013 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
Section 1012--Statement of Policy on Plan Central America
This section would express a series of findings and a
statement of policy on a Plan Central America to address the
threatening levels of violence, instability, illicit
trafficking, and transnational organized crime that challenge
the sovereignty of Central American nations and security of the
United States. This section would specifically state that it
shall be the policy of the United States to increase Department
of Defense efforts to support this plan.
In the past 10 years, violence and instability in Central
America has grown due to an increase in transnational organized
crime, a constant demand from the United States and other
nations for narcotics and illicit products, and a decrease in
illicit trafficking in Colombia, which has contributed to the
rise in illicit trafficking in Central America. The committee
recognizes the Administration's support of regional efforts to
address this violence and instability, including its fiscal
year 2016 request for $1.00 billion in Department of State
funds to provide assistance to Central America, focused on
promoting prosperity and regional economic integration,
enhancing security, and promoting improved governance. However,
the committee notes that the request contained no funding for
the Department of Defense to support these efforts, despite its
responsibility as the lead U.S. Government agency for directing
illicit trafficking detection and monitoring activities.
The committee believes that any whole-of-government
approach for a Plan Central America should also include the
Department of Defense, and leverage the unique capabilities the
Department of Defense can provide in areas such as aerial and
maritime capabilities, building partnership capacity, and the
detection and monitoring of illicit trafficking. Therefore, to
complement this statement of policy, elsewhere in this Act the
committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million for
Department of Defense Central American programs within the Drug
Interdiction & Counter-drug Activities appropriation. This
funding should be focused on aerial and maritime interdiction
capabilities, building partnership capacity, and increasing
detection and monitoring of illicit trafficking in Central
America, and complement the Department of State efforts. The
committee expects the Department of Defense to provide the
committee with details on the execution of these additional
funds.
The committee commends the work of the U.S. Government, and
particularly the Department of Defense, in addressing the
security challenges emanating from Central America. The
committee is dedicated to addressing these issues in the
Western Hemisphere and protecting U.S. national security.
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1021--Restrictions on the Overhaul and Repair of Vessels in
Foreign Shipyards
This section would amend section 7310 of title 10, United
States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
beginning in a shipyard outside the United States or outside a
territory of the United States any work that is scheduled to be
for a period of more than 6 months for the overhaul, repair, or
maintenance of a naval vessel whose homeport is not in the
United States or Guam. This limitation does not apply to
emergency or voyage repairs required during an overseas
homeporting period. This change would be effective on October
1, 2016, or upon enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, whichever comes later.
The committee notes that a covered naval vessel does not
include vessels unable to complete a maintenance availability
in the United States or a territory of the United States due to
mechanical, hull, or propulsion limitations.
Section 1022--Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of Expenses for
Certain Navy Mess Operations Afloat
This section would extend the authority originally provided
by section 1014 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417),
which authorizes the Department of Defense to fund from Navy
operation and maintenance accounts the cost of meals on United
States naval and naval auxiliary vessels for non-military
personnel, for five years through September 30, 2020.
Section 1023--Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of
Ticonderoga Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships
This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2016 for the retirement, inactivation, or
storage of Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Whidbey Island-class
amphibious ships. This section would also require the
modernization of two Ticonderoga-class cruisers to begin in
fiscal year 2016 only after sufficient materials are available
to begin the modernization period. Finally, the modernization
period would be limited to 2 years with the ability of the
Secretary of the Navy to extend the period for another 6
months.
Section 1024--Limitation on the Use of Funds for Removal of Ballistic
Missile Defense Capabilities from Ticonderoga Class Cruisers
This section would prohibit the removal of ballistic
missile capabilities from any of the Ticonderoga class cruisers
until the Secretary of the Navy certifies to the congressional
defense committees that the Navy has obtained the ballistic
missile capabilities required by the most recent Navy Force
Structure Assessment or determined to upgrade such cruisers
with an equal or improved ballistic missile defense capability.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Section 1031--Permanent Authority to Provide Rewards through Government
Personnel of Allied Forces and Certain Other Modifications to
Department of Defense Program to Provide Rewards
This section would modify section 127b of title 10, United
States Code, to make permanent the authority to make rewards to
a person providing information or non-lethal assistance to U.S.
Government personnel or government personnel of allied forces
participating in a combined operation with U.S. Armed Forces
conducted outside the United States against terrorism, or
providing such information or assistance that is beneficial to
force protection associated with such an operation. The
committee notes that this program has successfully contributed
to U.S. counterterrorism objectives at the tactical, strategic,
and national level. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense to review and consider how this authority could also be
used for transnational criminal organizations and activities
that hold a terrorism nexus.
Section 1032--Congressional Notification of Sensitive Military
Operations
This section would modify section 130f of title 10, United
States Code, by striking the exception to the notification
requirement for a sensitive military operation executed within
the territory of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan pursuant
to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-
40).
Section 1033--Repeal of Semiannual Reports on Obligation and
Expenditure of Funds for Combating Terrorism Program
This section would modify and streamline reporting
requirements for budget information related to program for
combating terrorism as required by section 229 of title 10,
United States Code. This section would specifically eliminate
subsection (d) of section 229, regarding semiannual reports on
obligations and expenditures.
Section 1034--Reports to Congress on Contact between Terrorists and
Individuals Formerly Detained at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would amend section 319 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32), which requires
the President to submit a report on individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to certain
members and committees of Congress, to include in the reporting
requirement a summary of all contact between individuals
formerly detained at Guantanamo Bay and individuals known or
suspected to be associated with a foreign terrorist group, and
whether any of those contacts included information or
discussion about hostilities against the United States or its
allies or partners. This section would require that the summary
of contact between individuals contain any means of
communication, including but not limited to telecommunications,
electronic or technical means, in person, or written
communications. Additionally, the summary of contact between
individuals shall include all contact, regardless of content.
The committee notes that the report should account for all
former Guantanamo detainees who have been in contact with
individuals known or suspected to be associated with foreign
terrorist groups regarding hostilities against the United
States or its allies or partners regardless of whether the
former detainee has been determined to be suspected or
confirmed of reengagement using definitions established by the
U.S. Intelligence Community.
The requirements of this report are in addition to those
already required by section 319 of Public Law 111-32, and
should not be construed to terminate, alter, modify, override,
or otherwise affect any reporting of information previously
required by such section.
Section 1035--Inclusion in Reports to Congress Information about
Recidivism of Individuals Formerly Detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would amend section 319 of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32), which requires
the President to submit a report on individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to include
in future quarterly reports the period of time between the date
on which an individual was released or transferred from
Guantanamo Bay, and the date on which the individual is
suspected or confirmed of reengaging in terrorist activities.
This section would also require a summary of the average amount
of time for all individuals from the date they were released or
transferred from Guantanamo Bay until the date on which they
are suspected or confirmed of re-engaging in terrorist
activities.
Section 1036--Prohibition on the Use of Funds for the Transfer or
Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would prohibit the use of any amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to
the Department of Defense to be used during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on December 31, 2016, to transfer or release detainees at U.S.
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United
States, its territories, or possessions.
Section 1037--Prohibition on Use of Funds to Construct or Modify
Facilities in the United States to House Detainees Transferred from
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
using any of the funds available to the Department of Defense
during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act and ending on December 31, 2016, to modify or
construct any facility in the United States, its territories,
or possessions to house any detainee transferred from U.S.
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of
detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the effective
control of the Department of Defense.
Section 1038--Prohibition on Use of Funds to Transfer or Release
Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to Combat Zones
This section would prohibit the use of funds by the
Department of Defense to transfer, release, or assist in the
transfer or release of any individual detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a combat zone, as
defined in this section.
Section 1039--Requirements for Certifications Relating to the Transfer
of Detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to
Foreign Countries and Other Foreign Entities
This section would prohibit the use of any amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to
the Department of Defense to be used during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on December 31, 2016, to transfer or release any individual
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
to the individual's country of origin, any other foreign
country, or any other foreign entity. This prohibition would
apply unless the Secretary of Defense provides a written
certification to Congress addressing several requirements at
least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such individual.
This section would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense
from using any funds for the transfer of any such individual to
the custody or effective control of the individual's country of
origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity
if there is a confirmed case of any individual transferred from
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the same
country or entity who engaged in terrorist activity subsequent
to their transfer.
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive
certain certification requirements if the Secretary determines
that alternative actions will be taken, that actions taken will
substantially mitigate risks posed by the individual to be
transferred, and that the transfer is in the national security
interests of the United States. Whenever the Secretary uses the
waiver, the Secretary must provide a report that includes a
copy of the waiver and determination, a statement of the basis
for the determination, and a summary of the alternative actions
to be taken.
Finally, this section would repeal current law, as
contained in section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
The committee notes that the Department of Defense failed
to comply with section 1035 of Public Law 113-66 by failing to
notify the appropriate committees of Congress not later than 30
days before the transfer of five individuals detained at
Guantanamo Bay to the State of Qatar on May 31, 2014.
Additionally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
concluded that the Department violated section 8111 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (division C of
Public Law 113-76) which prohibits the Department from using
appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at
Guantanamo unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain
congressional committees consistent with section 1035 of Public
Law 113-66. According to GAO, as a consequence of using its
appropriations in a manner specifically prohibited by law, the
Department also violated the Antideficiency Act (Public Law 97-
258).
The committee also has concerns regarding the Department's
recent actions related to the transfer of other detainees from
Guantanamo Bay and the implications for U.S. national security.
Section 1040--Submission to Congress of Certain Documents Relating to
Transfer of Individuals Detained at Guantanamo to Qatar
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Attorney General of the United States to submit to the
congressional defense committees and the Committees on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives
certain correspondence between the Department of Defense and
the Department of Justice, or any other agency or entity of the
U.S. Government, relating to the May 31, 2014, transfer of five
individuals from United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to the State of Qatar. Since the Department of Defense
has failed to comply with the committee's requests, this
section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of 25
percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise
made available for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for
fiscal year 2016 until the submission of all required
correspondence.
Section 1041--Submission of Unredacted Copies of Documents Relating to
the Transfer of Certain Individuals Detained at Guantanamo to Qatar
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the House Committee on Armed Services unredacted
copies of all documents produced in response to the committee's
June 9, 2014, request for information regarding the transfer of
five individuals from United States Naval Station Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to the State of Qatar. This requirement would apply
to submissions both prior to and subsequent to the date of the
enactment of this Act.
This section would also prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of 25 percent of the funds authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise made available for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense for fiscal year 2016 until the Secretary
submits to the committee unredacted copies of documents that
the Department has failed to unredact despite the committee's
requests.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Section 1051--Enhancement of Authority of Secretary of Navy to Use
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund
This section would amend section 1022 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) by expanding the
transfer authority provided to the National Sea-Based
Deterrence Fund from the Department of the Navy to the
Department of Defense; providing authority to enter into
economic order quantity contracts for ballistic missile
submarines and other nuclear powered vessels; and providing
incremental funding and facilities funding authority. This
section further requires the Secretary of the Navy to submit a
report on the Fund to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2016, and annually through the year 2025.
Section 1052--Department of Defense Excess Property Program
This section would make changes to excess defense article
donations authorized under section 2576a of title 10, United
States Code. Specifically, the provision would require the
establishment of a public website containing information on
certain transfers made under the program, establish specific
criteria for State program managers to be met before the
Defense Logistics Agency may transfer certain types of
equipment, and mandate several reviews of program objectives
and efficacy, to include training recommendations, by a
federally funded research and development center, the
Comptroller General of the United States, and the Department of
Defense.
Section 1053--Limitation of Transfer of Certain AH-64 Apache
Helicopters from Army National Guard to Regular Army and Related
Personnel Levels
This section would amend section 1712(b) of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to preserve the
60-day congressional review of the report from the National
Commission on the Future of the Army.
Section 1054--Space Available Travel for Environmental Morale Leave by
Certain Spouses and Children of Deployed Members of the Armed Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
amend the Air Transportation Eligibility Regulation, DOD
4515.13-R (1994) (as modified by the December 6, 2007,
memorandum of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Logistics and Materiel Readiness) to authorize space-available
travel for environmental morale leave by unaccompanied spouses
and dependent children of service members deployed for at least
30 consecutive days under priority category IV. This section
also requires the Secretary to update any other instructions,
directives, or internal policies necessary to facilitate this
expansion.
The committee notes that the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission, in its final report, found
that the average service member deploys 2.6 times during their
time of Active Duty service, with many military occupational
specialties deploying even more frequently. The Commission also
noted that an analysis conducted in 2012 showed that, of the
678,382 Active Duty personnel deployed from 2001 to 2006 as
part of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom,
a significant portion were deployed for fewer than 120 days.
The committee recognizes that the current policy governing
the use of space-available travel under section 2641b of title
10, United States Code, allowing unaccompanied space-available
travel for environmental morale leave for military dependents
of service members deployed for 120 days or more, leaves a
significant portion of recently deployed service member
dependents ineligible for this important privilege. The
committee concurs with the Commission's recommendation that the
Department of Defense expand space-available travel to a larger
population of dependents by shortening the deployment length
needed to qualify for unaccompanied travel on environmental
morale leave under priority category IV to 30 days.
Section 1055--Information-Related and Strategic Communications
Capabilities Engagement Pilot Program
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
establish a pilot program to assess information-related and
strategic communications capabilities to support the tactical,
operational, and strategic requirements of the various
combatant commanders, including urgent and emergent operational
needs, and the operational and theater security cooperation
plans of the Geographic and Functional Combatant Commanders.
The committee is concerned that the U.S. Government is
losing the battle to operationalize information, which can
shape the information environment and support its operational
goals. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al
Qaeda are using radical jihadist narratives to shape the
battlefield, drive recruitment and support, and inspire
imitators outside their main area of control. In the case of
ISIL, it is able to use the narratives in ways that reinforce
its battlefield successes.
In addition, the Russian Federation has reinvigorated its
uses of narratives to create uncertainty, providing cover for
its activities and helping to shape the battlefield. It deploys
similar narratives to mobilize support in society at home and,
where possible, in the local population of other countries.
The committee does not believe that the U.S. Government,
including the Department of Defense, is effectively
coordinating its efforts in ways that can fundamentally root
out and eliminate the narratives that drive these movements.
The committee believes that the lack of an overall strategy to
support unity of effort is a major deficit to the U.S.
Government's actions. The inability to be proactive in our
information engagement, or to be responsive enough from a
defensive perspective to operate on the timescales of our
adversaries, are also flaws in how the Department of Defense
and the U.S. Government approach this problem.
The committee believes that providing the authority for the
Department to carry out the pilot program established in this
section would provide the flexibility needed to try out
different approaches, tailored to the operating environment and
circumstances, to see more broadly which approaches work and
which do not. The committee also believes that there is an
important technology component that has not been well-utilized
in the past, which will help the military sense, respond and
plan for operations in the information environment in ways that
traditional approaches do not provide.
Section 1056--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Retirement of Helicopter
Sea Combat Squadron 84 and 85 Aircraft
This section would provide that none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 or otherwise
made available for such fiscal year for the Navy may be
obligated or expended to: (1) retire, prepare to retire,
transfer, or place in storage any Helicopter Sea Combat
Squadron 84 (HSC 84) or Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 85 (HSC-
85) aircraft; or (2) make any changes to manning levels with
respect to any HSC-84 or HSC-85 aircraft squadron.
The section includes an exception that would allow the
Secretary of the Navy to waive this restriction provided that
the Secretary certifies that he has conducted a cost-benefit
analysis identifying saving to the Department of Defense and
has identified a replacement capability to meet all operational
requirements.
Section 1057--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Destruction of
Certain Landmines
This section would provide that none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 or otherwise
made available for such fiscal year for the Department of
Defense may be obligated or expended for the destruction of
anti-personnel landmines (APL) of the United States until: the
Secretary of Defense publishes a study on the effects of a ban
of such landmines; alternatives to such landmines are
specifically authorized by law and provided appropriations;
such alternatives are fully deployed and members of the U.S.
armed forces and allies of the U.S. are fully trained in their
use; and, the Secretary has certified that the replacement of
current APL with such alternatives will not endanger members of
the U.S. Armed Forces or of the armed forces of allies of the
U.S.
This section includes an exception that would allow the
demilitarization or destruction of APL that the Secretary
certifies have become unsafe or pose a safety risk.
Section 1058--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Modifying Command
and Control of United States Pacific Fleet
This section would limit the availability of fiscal year
2016 funds to modify command and control relationships to give
Fleet Forces Command operational and administrative control of
Navy forces assigned to the Pacific Fleet.
Section 1059--Prohibition on the Closure of United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
This section would prohibit the closure of United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and require the President
to ensure that the obligations of the United States under
Article III of the Treaty between the United States and Cuba
signed at Washington, D.C., on May 29, 1934, are met. This
section would also express the sense of Congress on the
strategic importance of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and
require a report from the Commander of U.S. Southern Command on
a military assessment of the Naval Station.
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports
Section 1061--Provision of Defense Planning Guidance and Contingency
Planning Guidance Information to Congress
This section would amend section 113(g) of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide to
the congressional defense committees, not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, a report
containing summaries of the defense planning guidance and
contingency planning guidance developed in accordance with the
requirements of such section, and to include those summaries in
the annual budget documents submitted to Congress.
Additionally, this section would provide a limitation on the
obligation or expenditure of 25 percent of the funds,
authorized to be appropriated by this Act for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, for the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, until 15 days after the date on which the Secretary of
Defense submits the first report required by this section.
Section 1062--Modification of Certain Reports Submitted by Comptroller
General of the United States
This section would amend section 3255(a)(2) of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2455) to provide
the Comptroller General of the United States, in any odd-
numbered year, 150 days to submit the report required by such
section. The committee believes the Comptroller General's
analysis under this section would benefit from information
contained in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan and,
therefore, provides the Comptroller General additional time.
However, the committee expects the Comptroller General will
still provide the committee an interim briefing on these
matters in odd-numbered years to support the committee's
legislative calendar.
This section would also amend section 3134 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) to eliminate a requirement for the Comptroller General to
conduct a final review of all projects carried out by the
Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management using
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
5) funds. The committee understands that as of last year, only
one project within the scope of this review remained incomplete
and the Comptroller General believes no significant issues have
come to light that merit additional review and reporting. The
committee recommends repeal of this final reporting mandate so
that the Comptroller General can focus oversight resources on
higher-priority committee requirements.
Section 1063--Report on Implementation of the Geographically
Distributed Force Laydown in the Area of Responsibility of United
States Pacific Command
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command
(PACOM), to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than March 1, 2016, on the Department of
Defense's plans for implementing the geographically distributed
force laydown in the area of responsibility of U.S. Pacific
Command.
The committee notes that PACOM has made several posture
changes within its area of responsibility in recent years, and
several more are planned. These include the realignment of U.S.
Marine Corps forces across Japan, Guam, and Hawaii; the
rotation of U.S. forces to Darwin in the Commonwealth of
Australia; and the planned enhancement of a rotational presence
of U.S. forces in the Republic of the Philippines. While the
committee understands PACOM's desire for greater operational
resiliency and survivability, particularly given the complex
and lethal environment that PACOM expects to operate in, it is
concerned about the demands such posture changes place on
supporting commands and the military services. For example, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps testified before the Senate
Committee on Armed Services on March 10, 2015, on the
additional lift capabilities that would be required to support
PACOM's distributed force laydown. Therefore, the committee
seeks to understand the requirements for support assets and
infrastructure, and how the Department of Defense plans to
address them.
Section 1064--Independent Study of National Security Strategy
Formulation Process
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
contract with an independent research entity to carry out a
comprehensive study of the Department of Defense role in, and
process for, the formulation of national security strategy. The
study would include the following:
(1) A review of case studies of previous national security
strategy formulation processes;
(2) An examination of issues such as the frequency of
strategy updates, the synchronization of timelines and content
among different strategies, and the links between strategy and
resourcing; and
(3) A review of the current national security strategy
formulation process as it relates to the Department of Defense,
to include an analysis of current defense-related national
security strategy documents, such as the 2015 National Security
Strategy, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, and the 2011
National Military Strategy.
The committee believes such a study will enhance its
oversight of the national defense and national military
strategy development and execution process, and complement its
efforts to reform such strategies, such as its reform of the
Quadrennial Defense Review contained in section 1072 of the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
The committee further expects that the annual budget
request of the Department of Defense will contain clear
linkages to the relevant current national security strategies.
Section 1065--Study and Report on Role of Department of Defense in
Formulation of Long-term Strategy
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
direct the Office of Net Assessment to conduct a study on the
role of the Department of Defense in the formulation of long-
term strategy, and to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on the results of the study not later than
two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 1066--Report on Potential Threats to Members of the Armed
Forces of United States Naval Forces Central Command and United States
Fifth Fleet in Bahrain
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report, not later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on the threat posed to members of
the Armed Forces of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and
the U.S. Fifth Fleet from Naval Support Activity Bahrain, and
their families, should there be an increase in violent clashes
in the Kingdom of Bahrain.
Subtitle G--Repeal or Revision of National Defense Reporting
Requirements
Section 1071--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements Related to
Military Personnel Issues
This section would repeal or revise certain reporting
requirements related to acquisition that are overly burdensome
on the Department of Defense, duplicative, or outdated, to
include:
(a) Repealing section 1073b of title 10, United States
Code, related to health protection and health assessment data.
(b) Amending section 1566(c) of title 10, United States
Code, by striking subsections (2) and (3) related to voting
assistance programs.
(c) Amending section 301b(i) of title 37, United States
Code, by striking subsection (2) related to aviation officer
retention bonuses.
(d) Amending section 316a of title 37, United States Code,
by striking subsection (f) related to foreign language
proficiency incentive pay.
(e) Amending section 553 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) by
striking subsection (e) related to waiver authority for
military service academy appointments.
(f) Repealing subsection (e) of section 548 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417), related to Junior Reserve Officers'
Training Units.
(g) Amending section 582(e) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) by
striking paragraph (4) related to a report on the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program.
(h) Amending section 1648 of the Wounded Warrior Act (10
U.S.C. 1071) by striking subsection (f) related to facility
standards.
(i) Amending section 1662 of the Wounded Warrior Act (10
U.S.C. 1071) by striking subsection (b) related to inspection
of facilities.
(j) Amending section 3307 of the U.S. Troop Readiness,
Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007 (10 U.S.C. 1073) by striking
subsection (d) related to inspections of facilities.
(k) Amending section 574 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) by striking subsection (c) related to assistance to local
education agencies.
Section 1072--Repeal or Revision of Certain Reports Relating to
Readiness
This section would repeal or revise certain reporting
requirements to include:
(a) Amending chapter 9 of title 10, United States Code, by
striking section 228, which requires a biannual report on the
allocation of funds within operation and maintenance budget
sub-activities.
(b) Amending section 7431 of title 10, United States Code,
by striking subsection (c), which requires an annual report on
Naval Petroleum Reserve.
(c) Amending chapter 1013 of title 10, United States Code,
by striking section 10542, which requires an annual report on
Army National Guard combat readiness.
(d) Amending section 922 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) by
striking subsection (f), which requires a report on the insider
threat detection budget submission.
(e) Repealing section 892 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383), which requires a report on price trend analysis.
(f) Amending section 351 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) by
striking subsection (b), which requires a report on the use of
the authority for airlift transportation at Department of
Defense rates for non-Department of Defense Federal cargoes.
(g) Amending section 358 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417) by striking subsection (c), which requires a report on the
procurement of military working dogs, and by making other
technical conforming changes.
(h) Repealing section 958 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181),
which requires a report on foreign language proficiency.
(i) Amending section 343 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398) by striking subsection (g), which requires a report on the
arsenal support program initiative.
(j) Amending section 345 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
26) by striking subsection (d), which mandates an ongoing
Comptroller General review of the contractor-operated Civil
Engineering Supply Stores Program, and by making other
technical conforming changes.
(k) Repealing section 8104 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2014 (division C of Public Law 113-76),
which requires a quarterly report on end strength.
(l) Repealing section 8105 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division C of Public Law 113-6),
which requires a quarterly report on end strength.
(m) Repealing section 806 of the David L. Boren National
Security Education Act of 1991 (title VIII of Public Law 102-
183), which requires a report on the David L. Boren National
Security Education Act of 1991.
Section 1073--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements Related to
Naval Vessels and Merchant Marine
This section would repeal or revise certain reporting
requirements that are overly burdensome, duplicative, or
outdated, to include:
(a) Amending section 7292 of title 10, United States Code,
to strike subsection (d) that required a 30 day congressional
notice before the Secretary of the Navy names a naval vessel;
(b) Amending section 7306 of title 10, United States Code,
to strike subsection (d) that required a 30 day congressional
notice before Secretary of the Navy can transfer any vessel
from the Naval Vessel Register to any State or not-for-profit
entity;
(c) Amending section 126 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to
delete a requirement for a quarterly report on Mission Modules
of the Littoral Combat Ship;
(d) Deleting section 124 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181)
that required an assessment prior to the start of construction
on the first ship of a shipbuilding program;
(e) Amending section 122 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) to delete a quarterly reporting requirement associated
with the Ford class carrier;
(f) Amending section 50111 of title 46, United States Code,
to request the Secretary of Transportation to submit a report
to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate the Maritime Administration
authorization request for that fiscal year; and
(g) Deleting a monthly reporting mandate that is provided
by the Secretary of the Navy to the congressional defense
committees on open architecture, and a monthly report on the
USS Ford-class carrier.
Section 1074--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements Related to
Nuclear, Proliferation, and Related Matters
This section would repeal or revise certain reporting
requirements that are overly burdensome, duplicative, or
outdated to include:
(a) Amending section 179 of title 10, United States Code,
and strike subsection (g) related to an annual report by the
Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council.
(b) Amending section 1821(b) of the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (50 U.S.C.
2911) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) related to a biannual
reporting requirement on the Proliferation Security Initiative.
(c) Amending section 1282 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (22 U.S.C. 5951) by
striking subsection (a) related to briefings on dialogue
between the United States and the Russian Federation on nuclear
arms.
(d) Amending section 1072 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (50 U.S.C. 3043) by
striking subsection (b) requiring an annual update to an
implementation plan for the whole-of-government vision
prescribed in the National Security Strategy.
Section 1075--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements Related to
Missile Defense
This section would repeal or revise certain reporting
requirements that are overly burdensome, duplicative, or
outdated. This section would amend section 232 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) by striking subsection (b) requiring Annual Reports on
Missile Defense Executive Board. This section would also amend
section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) by striking subsections
(a) and (b) requiring a report on the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense system.
Section 1076--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements Related to
Acquisition
This section would repeal or revise certain reporting
requirements related to acquisition that are overly burdensome
on the Department of Defense, duplicative, or outdated, to
include:
(a) Repealing section 8305 of title 41, United States Code,
which requires that, not later than 60 days after the end of
each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense submit to Congress a
report on the amount of purchases by the Department of Defense
from foreign entities in that fiscal year.
(b) Striking subsection (f) of section 2334 of title 10,
United States Code, which requires an annual report on cost
assessment activities.
(c) Striking subsection (f) of section 2438 of title 10,
United States Code, which requires an annual report on
performance assessments and root cause analyses activities.
Section 1077--Repeal or Revision of Reporting Requirements Related to
Civilian Personnel
This section would repeal or revise certain reporting
requirements to include:
(a) Amending section 1110(i) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), by
striking a report on the pilot program for the temporary
exchange of information technology personnel.
(b) Amending section 1101(g) of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261) by striking the annual report on extension and
modification of experimental personnel management program for
scientific and technical personnel.
Section 1078--Repeal or Revision of Miscellaneous Reporting
Requirements
This section would repeal or revise certain reporting
requirements that are overly burdensome, duplicative, or
outdated. Reports to be repealed or revised include:
(a) Amending section 127b of title 10, United States Code,
by striking the annual report on rewards for assistance in
combating terrorism;
(b) Amending section 138b of title 10, United States Code,
by striking paragraph (2) that required a report by Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering assessing the
technological maturity of critical technologies of major
defense acquisition programs;
(c) Amending section 139b(d) of title 10, United States
Code, by striking the annual report required for the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering:
(d) Amending section 2249c of title 10, United States Code,
by striking the annual report on Regional Defense Combating
Terrorism Fellowship Program;
(e) Repealing section 2352 of title 10, United States Code,
which required the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
submit a biennial strategic plan;
(f) Repealing section 112 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)
which required annual reports on Army airlift requirements;
(g) Repealing the annual Comptroller General report on In-
Kind Payments required by section 2805 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239);
(h) Amending section 112(b) of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) by striking paragraph (3) which requires an annual report
on airborne signals intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance capabilities by the Department of Defense; and
(i) Repealing section 1034 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417), which required a semi-annual report on the Next
Generation Enterprise Network.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Section 1081--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law.
Section 1082--Executive Agent for the Oversight and Management of
Alternative Compensatory Control Measures
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
establish an executive agent for the oversight and management
of alternative compensatory control measures. This section
would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees not later than 30 days
after the close of each of the fiscal years 2016 through 2020,
on the oversight and management of alternative compensatory
control measures.
Section 1083--Navy Support of Ocean Research Advisory Panel
This section would modify the statutory requirement for the
Secretary of the Navy to make funds available on an annual
basis to support the activities of the Ocean Research Advisory
Panel (ORAP).
The committee believes that this realignment of agency
responsibility for supporting the ORAP from the Department of
the Navy to another agency is consistent with the function of
this advisory board and that the support responsibilities of
ORAP are more appropriately aligned outside of the Department
of the Navy. The committee notes that this change would not
affect or diminish the statutory authorities of the National
Ocean Research Leadership Council or the National Oceanographic
Partnership Program, or their respective relationships with the
ORAP.
Section 1084--Level of Readiness of Civil Reserve Air Fleet Carriers
This section would make a series of findings about the
National Airlift Policy and the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF).
This section would also amend Chapter 931 of title 10, United
States Code, by creating a new subsection addressing the
readiness of the CRAF. Specifically, this new section would
codify the importance of the CRAF and the need to provide
appropriate levels of commercial airlift augmentation to
maintain networks and infrastructure, exercise the system, and
interface effectively within the military airlift system. This
section also would require the Secretary of Defense to provide,
concurrent with the submission of the President's request:
1) An assessment of the number of block hours necessary to
achieve sufficient levels of commercial airlift augmentation;
2) A strategic plan for achieving necessary levels of
commercial airlift augmentation; and
3) An explanation of any deviation from the previous fiscal
year's assessment.
Section 1085--Authorization of Transfer of Surplus Firearms to
Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer surplus firearms, spare parts, and related accessories
under the control of the Secretary of the Army to the
Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms
Safety, also known as the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
Section 1086--Modification of Requirements for Transferring Aircraft
within the Air Force Inventory
This section would amend section 345 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) to ease administrative burdens and facilitate
routine transfers of aircraft from the Reserve Components to
the Active Component of the Air Force.
Section 1087--Reestablishment of Commission to Assess the Threat to the
United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks
This section would reestablish the Commission to Assess the
Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack,
including providing updated guidance on the membership and
duties of that commission.
Section 1088--Department of Defense Strategy for Countering
Unconventional Warfare
This section would required the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the President and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, to develop a strategy for the Department of
Defense to counter unconventional warfare threats posed by
adversarial state and non-state actors. This section would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit the strategy to the
congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
The committee is concerned about the growing unconventional
warfare capabilities and threats being posed most notably and
recently by the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of
Iran. The committee notes that unconventional warfare is
defined most accurately as those activities conducted to enable
a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or
overthrow a government or occupying power by operating through
or with an underground, auxiliary, or guerrilla force in a
denied area. The committee also notes that most state-sponsors
of unconventional warfare, such as Russia and Iran, have
doctrinally linked conventional warfare, economic warfare,
cyber warfare, information operations, intelligence operations,
and other activities seamlessly in an effort to undermine U.S.
national security objectives and the objectives of U.S. allies
alike.
Section 1089--Mine Countermeasures Master Plan
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a mine countermeasures master plan to the congressional
defense committees along with the annual budget request of each
fiscal year from 2018 through 2023. The master plan shall
include an assessment of the current and future capabilities,
capacities, requirements, and readiness levels associated with
mine countermeasure assets required to meet operational plans
and contingency requirements. This section would also require
the Secretary of the Navy to submit a one-time report to the
congressional defense committees within 1 year of enactment of
this Act as to current and future mine countermeasure force
structure based on current mine countermeasure capabilities,
including an assessment as to whether certain decommissioned
ships should be retained in reserve operating status.
Section 1090--Congressional Notification and Briefing Requirement on
Ordered Evacuations of United States Embassies and Consulates Involving
the Use of United States Armed Forces
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to provide joint notification to the
appropriate congressional committees as soon as practicable
after the initiation of an evacuation operation of a U.S.
embassy or consulate involving the use of U.S. Armed Forces. It
would also require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of State to provide a joint briefing to the appropriate
congressional committees within 15 days of an evacuation
operation of a U.S. embassy or consulate involving the use of
the Armed Forces.
Section 1091--Determination and Disclosure of Transportation Costs
Incurred by Secretary of Defense for Congressional Trips Outside the
United States
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
determine and disclose the transportation costs incurred by the
Department of Defense for certain congressional trips outside
the United States.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Assessment of Hiring Authorities for Personnel at the Major Range and
Test Facility Base
The committee is aware of the special civilian personnel
needs of the Department of Defense for its scientific and
engineering community, especially within the laboratories and
engineering centers. The committee has traditionally been
supportive of these unique authorities to be able to attract,
hire and retain high quality, skilled technical expertise
within the civilian workforce, and recognizes that many of
those technical skills will be needed in other parts of the
Department, such as the test and evaluation community. The
Laboratory Demonstration program was established to provide
personnel flexibility for that specialized community, and
because of the related needs of test community in the Major
Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB), the committee recognizes
that it would be valuable to understand whether those
flexibilities might be useful for that community, and if so,
how those authorities might be extended. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November
30, 2015 which assesses the feasibility of extending the
Laboratory Demonstration program to the entities of the MRTFB.
This briefing should include a cost-benefit assessment that
includes the advantages and disadvantages of such a decision,
as well as specification of the facilities that would most
benefit from inclusion in the Laboratory Demonstration program.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--One-Year Extension of Temporary Authority to Grant
Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Civilian Personnel on Official
Duty in a Combat Zone
This section would modify section 1603(a)(2) of the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law
109-234) to extend by 1 year the temporary discretionary
authority to Federal agencies to grant allowances, benefits,
and gratuities comparable to those provided to members of the
foreign service to an agency's civilian employees on official
duty in a combat zone.
Section 1102--Authority to Provide Additional Allowances and Benefits
for Defense Clandestine Service Employees
This section would enable the Secretary of Defense to
include certain civilians who are assigned to the Defense
Clandestine Service among the population of the Department of
Defense workforce eligible to receive special pay, allowances,
and benefits, in addition to basic pay, similar to that
provided to employees performing comparable, specialized work.
The committee intends that this section provide the authority
for the Secretary of Defense to establish a special allowance
to help create and maintain a workforce that is more mobile in
support of the Defense Intelligence Agency's worldwide mission.
Section 1103--Extension of Rate of Overtime Pay for Department of the
Navy Employees Performing Work Aboard or Dockside in Support of the
Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier Forward Deployed in Japan
This section would amend section 5542(a)(6)(B) of title 5,
United States Code, to extend for 2 years the authority for a
civilian employee of the Department of the Navy who is assigned
to temporary duty to perform work aboard or dockside in direct
support of the nuclear aircraft carrier that is forward
deployed in Japan, to receive overtime pay.
Section 1104--Modification to Temporary Authorities for Certain
Positions at Department of Defense Research and Engineering Facilities
This section would modify section 1107 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) to allow for the noncompetitive conversion of students that
have graduated from an applicable institution of higher learner
to a permanent appointment. Additionally, this section would
change the percentages of the work force that would be eligible
for direct hiring authorities.
Section 1105--Preference Eligibility for Members of Reserve Components
of the Armed Forces Appointed to Competitive Service; Clarification of
Appeal Rights
The section would grant hiring preferences for Federal
employment to members of a Reserve Component of the Armed
Forces who have successfully completed Officer Candidate
Training or entry level skill training, and performing a 6-year
commitment, completed 10 years of service, or retired.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
OVERVIEW
Framing the committee's oversight of national security
matters relating to foreign nations is the observation that the
Nation is in the midst of a complex and challenging security
environment. As senior U.S. statesman Dr. Henry Kissinger
testified to the Senate Committee on Armed Services in January
2015, ``The United States has not faced a more diverse and
complex array of crises since the end of the Second World
War.'' The Nation also faces unprecedented technological
challenges, with enemies and potential competitors focusing on
the development of technologies to offset areas of American
military strength. The committee believes that the magnitude,
scope, and simultaneity of the threats currently facing the
Nation are truly unprecedented.
The committee concurs with the observation by the National
Defense Panel in its July 2014 report to Congress that, ``Since
World War II, no matter which party has controlled the White
House or Congress, America's global military capability and
commitment has been the strategic foundation undergirding our
global leadership.'' Therefore, the provisions contained in
this title reinforce the committee's belief that American
military strength, commitment, and presence will continue to be
necessary to deter aggression, reassure U.S. allies and
partners, and exercise global influence to shape a world order
aligned with U.S. national interests.
The committee continues its focus on U.S. military
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, with the
bill providing extensions to key authorities, the authorization
of necessary funding, and expressing the committee's view that
the withdrawal of U.S. troops should occur only on a pace
consistent with the ability of the Afghan National Security
Forces to sustain itself and secure Afghanistan.
The committee has also focused its oversight on the efforts
of the Department of Defense to counter the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and address the growing instability
and terrorism threats across the Middle East and Africa. The
committee is concerned by many aspects of the Administration's
larger efforts in Iraq and Syria, in particular, as part of
Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR). It remains concerned by the
lack of a comprehensive strategy for the Middle East and to
counter Islamic extremism and would thus direct the Secretary
of Defense and Secretary of State to develop such a strategy.
The bill would also require the Department to provide greater
detail on OIR command and control arrangements, the numbers and
types of armed forces deployed as part of OIR, and provide
increased support to allies and partners in the region, such as
the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, to enhance their capability to
fight ISIL. Furthermore, the bill would provide greater
assistance to the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Sunni tribal security
forces with a national security mission, and the Iraqi Sunni
National Guard to increase their capability to fight ISIL,
while also conditioning security assistance funds on progress
towards on political inclusiveness by the Government of the
Republic of Iraq.
The committee also remains concerned about the Islamic
Republic of Iran's nuclear program and its malign military
activities, and H.R. 1735 would express the committee's view
that these destabilizing activities constitute a grave threat
to regional stability and U.S. national security interests,
that Congress should review and assess any agreement regarding
Iran's nuclear program, and that the United States must
continue to strengthen the defense of allies and partners in
the region.
The committee has also focused on the Department's efforts
to deter aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine
and other allies and partners in Europe. The committee
recognizes that Russia has employed unconventional warfare
methods in areas such as cyber warfare, economic warfare,
information operations, and intelligence operations, and
believes that the Department's European Reassurance Initiative
efforts should focus on countering such methods, as well as
continuing conventional reassurance and deterrence activities.
The bill would also authorize appropriations to provide
sustainment and assistance to the military and national
security forces of Ukraine, including the explicit
authorization of lethal weapons of a defensive nature to
enhance the defense of Ukraine and deter further Russian
aggression.
The year 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the
Allied military engagement in the Pacific theater and the end
of the Second World War. In recognition of this milestone, H.R.
1735 would express a sense of Congress the tremendous
sacrifice, bravery, and loss of U.S. and Allied Forces during
the war. The bill would also highlight the close relationship
forged between the United States and Japan since the end of the
war, including expressing the committee's support for the
recent finalization of the Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense
Cooperation, and require the President to develop a strategy to
promote U.S. interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
Lastly, the committee notes that the Department has placed
greater emphasis on security cooperation in general, and
building partner capacity specifically, and the committee
believes increased oversight of these activities is necessary.
Therefore, the bill would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to develop a
strategic framework for Department of Defense security
cooperation to guide prioritization of resources and
activities, and require the Comptroller General of the United
States to conduct an inventory of Department of Defense
security cooperation programs.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Central American Police Forces
The committee notes the continued, collective work of the
nations of Central America to address regional stability and
security. The committee acknowledges that there is a lack of
confidence by the citizens of many of these countries in their
domestic police forces. This lack of confidence in domestic
police forces, coupled with weak judicial institutions, results
in many of these countries utilizing their military forces to
provide internal security. However, these countries also
recognize that they must improve the public's confidence in
their police forces, which includes creating greater
accountability within these forces. As noted in the November
2014 agreement between the Republic of Honduras, the Republic
of Guatemala, and the Republic of El Salvador, the ``Alliance
for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle: A Road Map,'' these
nations will ``bring the police closer to the community,
including through solid accountability mechanisms that improve
the image of the policy and people's trust in them.'' The
Alliance for Prosperity has also articulated its commitment to
provide greater transparency and access to information on
government functions, actions, and plans to its nations'
citizens.
The committee commends the Alliance for Prosperity for
addressing this challenge. The committee urges the President of
the United States to encourage the Governments of Honduras,
Guatemala, and El Salvador to implement the public security
strategy contained in the Alliance for Prosperity road map and
to make those nation-specific implementation plans publicly
available. The committee further encourages these Central
American nations to transition responsibility for public
security from the military to domestic police forces as
stability and security in these nations strengthen and as their
police forces and judicial institutions improve.
Combatant Commander Requirements for Directed Energy Weapons
The committee remains committed to the development and
deployment of directed energy weapons, including both lasers
and high-powered microwave systems. While the committee sees
much progress amongst the services and the defense agencies in
investing in key programs, there are still concerns regarding
the planning for how to transition these developmental systems
into programs of record. The committee believes that refinement
of the technology is important in the long-run, but that
without strong warfighter support and buy-in, transition will
be a low priority for both the acquisition and operational
communities.
Elsewhere in this bill, the committee has directed the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop a plan for integrating
advanced weapon systems such as directed energy weapons, into
exercises already being conducted by the armed forces. The
committee believes this is necessary to do the concept
development and experimentation needed to get operational
warfighters comfortable with the technology and integrated into
the way they conduct operations. The committee also believes
that the Department of Defense should gain a better
understanding of the perspectives of the various combatant
commanders in how they might employ such systems. Such an
assessment will help the technology community better refine
what applications they should be developing, as well as provide
a more comprehensive understanding by the combatant commands on
how it might leverage advances in directed energy technology.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the relevant geographic
and functional combatant commanders, to review the integrated
priority lists of these commands for the potential requirements
they might have articulated that might be satisfied by
leveraging directed energy technology, and brief the results of
this review to the House Committee on Armed Services by
November 15, 2015. The briefing should also include any
recommendations on how to improve the coordination between the
combatant commands and the acquisition community on developing
these integrated priority lists, as well as any recommendations
on actions to improve the transition to developmental efforts
to support the affected commands.
Command and Control within Operation Inherent Resolve
The committee notes the complexity of Operation Inherent
Resolve (OIR). It comprises multiple lines of effort to
include: training and equipping of various security forces in
the Republic of Iraq and of vetted groups and individuals
opposing the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, conducting
air strikes in Iraq and Syria, combating the flow of foreign
fighters to and from Iraq and Syria, conducting liaison
activities across many elements in multiple countries,
maintaining the international coalition and coordinating their
activities, and improving the military capabilities of allies
and partners in the region.
The committee further notes the geographic dispersion of
OIR, which includes the operational planning and execution of
this mission across at least four different countries. The
committee believes that all of the lines of effort within OIR
must be carefully coordinated across the full spectrum and area
of operations. The committee is concerned that the current
command and control relationships and arrangements within OIR
are not achieving the coordination and synchronization required
to be effective in meeting the OIR endstates.
As currently structured, training and equipping efforts in
Syria, training and equipping efforts in Iraq, and the conduct
of airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria appear to be synchronized
at the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) level. Further, many of
the associated activities required to effectively combat the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as ending the flow
of foreign fighters and coordinating with the Government of the
Republic of Turkey, are, in large part, being conducted by
other combatant commands, including U.S. European Command and
U.S. Africa Command. The committee is concerned that the
ineffective approach to coordinating all of these lines of
effort could contribute to undermining the OIR mission.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
August 1, 2015, on the current command and control arrangements
within OIR. The briefing should include a discussion of the
command and control relationships of each command element
within OIR, as well as the processes for coordinating and
synchronizing efforts within CENTCOM, across combatant
commands, and between allies and partners. The briefing should
also include a description of how the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq integrates into the command and control
structure for Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and any
changes and recommendations under consideration to modify the
current command and control arrangements in order to further
enhance the effectiveness of the OIR mission.
Comptroller General Inventory of Department of Defense Security
Cooperation Programs
The committee supports Department of Defense security
cooperation efforts to develop and sustain partner nation
security capabilities. Improving the security capabilities of
partner nations may mitigate risks to U.S. national security
and reduce the likelihood of U.S. intervention. The committee
is concerned, however, that Department of Defense security
cooperation programs lack strategic direction, may not act in
concert with other programs, and are not resourced for long-
term sustainability. In this regard, the committee intends to
work with the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives on a broad review of U.S. security cooperation
and security assistance programs. To initiate this process, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, not later
than January 28, 2016, on an inventory of Department of Defense
security cooperation programs intended to build partner
security capabilities. The inventory should include, but is not
limited to, the following:
(1) The name of the program;
(2) The program's goals, objectives, and activities;
(3) The executive branch organizations with responsibility
for implementing the program;
(4) The legislative authority for the program; and
(5) The amount of funds expended for the program in each of
the past 3 fiscal years.
Department of Defense Training Programs on Military Justice and
Accountability
As the Department of Defense's military operations
increasingly focus on training and developing other nation's
security forces across the globe, it is critical that these
efforts include establishing the capacity within these forces
to prevent the commission of unlawful acts and to pursue
military justice and accountability in cases when members of
the partner forces violate local or international law. The
committee is concerned that a lack of emphasis on these core
values could materialize and erode all that the U.S. has
accomplished through its training programs.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to evaluate
the Department's efforts to promote the capacity and will of
partner security forces to carry out internal military justice
and accountability functions. The Comptroller General should
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 1, 2016, on preliminary results with a followup report to
follow on a date agreed to at the time of briefing. The
assessment should address the following:
(1) An identification of the statutory authorities,
applicable doctrine (including field manuals), strategic
guidance and programs the Department of Defense currently
utilizes to implement military justice and accountability
training efforts;
(2) The preparedness of U.S. forces to conduct military
justice and accountability training, including the necessary
training, skills and resources;
(3) A list of the countries receiving U.S. security
assistance to develop internal military justice and
accountability functions and the total dollar amount, by
statutory authority or program, for the three preceding fiscal
years.
(4) An assessment of the ways in which the efforts of the
Department of Defense to build military justice and
accountability capacity and will of foreign security forces are
part of overarching U.S. security assistance to those
countries, including the integrated country strategies
formulated by the Department of State.
(5) The extent to which there are any statutory or other
prohibitions on the provision of such assistance;
(6) How the Department of Defense assesses the
effectiveness of activities that are designed to promote
military justice and accountability capacity in foreign
security forces, including the extent to which enhanced
capacity leads to greater accountability.
(7) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to training foreign security forces on
military justice and accountability.
Foreign Military Financing in U.S. European Command
The committee recognizes the significant contributions of
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and non-NATO
partners to the International Security Assistance Force mission
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee notes
that the United States provided these allies and partners with
military equipment over the course of the mission in
Afghanistan that they are now bringing home, but is concerned
about their ability to sustain this equipment to ensure it is
available to meet urgent and emerging security challenges. As
noted by the Commander of U.S. European Command (EUCOM) in
written testimony provided to the committee in February 2015,
``the U.S. needs to be prepared to assist these countries, as
appropriate, with sustainment of U.S.-provided systems. The
only U.S. government program with this ability is Foreign
Military Financing (FMF), which has been reduced for the EUCOM
AOR [area of responsibility] (not including Israel), by more
than 50 percent since fiscal year 2010. Congressional support
for an increase in FMF for the European and Eurasian region
would greatly assist in helping to address this sustainment
challenge.'' The committee shares the commander's assessment
and encourages the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, to prioritize FMF funding for the EUCOM
AOR to support the sustainment of U.S.-provided systems.
Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation
The committee is aware that the Governments of the United
States and Japan are currently working towards finalizing a
revision to the Guidelines for U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation,
which were last updated in 1997. In October 2014, the United
States and Japan issued a joint interim report on the revised
guidelines that summarized the intent of both governments to
modernize their bilateral security relationship to reflect
current and emerging security challenges, a greater
contribution by Japan to the U.S.-Japan security alliance, and
expanded cooperation in areas such as space, cyber, maritime
security, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
The committee supports efforts by both governments to
update these defense cooperation guidelines. It recognizes
that, since 1997, the security environment in East Asia has
changed substantially. Similarly, the committee also recognizes
that Japan has enhanced its self-defense capabilities and
capacities since 1997, and appreciates the contributions Japan
continues to make to promote security in the region and
globally, particularly in areas such as peacekeeping
operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and
maritime security. The committee further commends the
Government of Japan for its July 2014 policy decision regarding
collective self-defense, which will enable Japanese Self-
Defense Forces to engage in a wider range of defense operations
and complement ongoing efforts to update bilateral guidelines
for defense cooperation.
The committee seeks to ensure that the updated guidelines
will endure and that the Department of Defense takes necessary
actions to implement the guidelines relevant to the Department
once they are finalized. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing not later than
September 11, 2015, to the House Committee on Armed Services on
the Department's plans for implementing the guidelines. The
briefing should include a discussion of the specific
implementation measures the Department plans to take; any
changes in the Department's roles, responsibilities, and
missions with respect to the bilateral security alliance; and
any changes to U.S. military posture, capabilities, and
investments that would be required to support the revised
guidelines.
Multilateral Sales to Allies
The committee is aware that the Department of State and the
Department of Defense, acting through the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency (DSCA), recently initiated a Lead-Nation
Procurement Initiative. This initiative would allow North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries and NATO
organizations, acting as a lead-nation, to procure defense
capabilities on behalf of others through foreign military
sales. The committee understands that this initiative may help
maximize NATO allies' defense budgets by enabling them to pool
resources to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain shared
defense capabilities. The committee notes that proposals for
such procurements will be considered on a case-by-case basis
for a 2-year trial period, and that lessons learned from this
trial period will inform the potential development of more
permanent policies to govern such transactions.
The committee is dedicated to ensuring the security of NATO
allies and other U.S. partners in Europe. This security is
often contingent on the ability of NATO allies and other
European partners to acquire, maintain, and operate significant
military equipment and other defensive military articles. The
committee notes that the Lead-Nation Procurement Initiative is
a potential mechanism which allows the United States to
increase desired foreign military support in Europe.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
monitor the Lead-Nation Procurement Initiative and to keep the
committee informed on the results of the initiative's 2-year
trial period.
National Guard State Partnership Program
The budget request contained $5.6 million for the National
Guard State Partnership Program (SPP).
The committee supports the role of SPP in Department of
Defense security cooperation efforts. Section 1205 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66) authorized SPP until September 30, 2016. Elsewhere
in this Act, the committee would extend the authority of the
program by 2 years.
In its fiscal year 2016 unfunded priority list, the
National Guard identified unfunded requirements totaling $7.0
million in SPP activities. Therefore, the committee recommends
$12.6 million, an increase of $7.0 million, for the National
Guard State Partnership Program. The committee notes, however,
that section 1205(e)(2) of Public Law 113-66 required the
Department to submit an annual report to Congress that
included, among other matters, a summary of expenditures. The
committee urges the Department to ensure Congress receives
information in a timely manner on the costs to plan, execute,
and administer SPP.
Nonlethal Military Support for Ukraine
The committee notes that Congress has provided the
President with the authority to provide increased military
assistance for the Government of Ukraine, most recently in
section 6 of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (Public
Law 113-272) and in section 1535 of the Carl Levin and Howard
P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), which authorized $75.0
million in assistance to Ukraine as part of the Department of
Defense's European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). The committee
further notes that, to date, the security assistance provided
by the United States to the Government of Ukraine has been
nonlethal assistance, including the March 2015 announcement
that $75.0 million in ERI funds would be allocated to provide
additional nonlethal equipment to Ukraine, including
communications equipment, medical supplies, and force
protection enablers.
The committee believes that defensive weapons and training
are also necessary to enhance the defense of Ukraine, and
elsewhere in this Act, it includes a provision that would
authorize the Secretary of Defense, in concurrence with the
Secretary of State, to provide assistance and sustainment to
the military and national security forces of Ukraine, including
the provision of lethal weapons of a defensive nature. However,
the committee also recognizes that the United States must
continue to provide nonlethal assistance as well to improve
other aspects of the performance and professionalization of the
Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to undertake a review of other, non-weapons-related activities
that could enhance the performance and professionalization of
the Ukrainian Armed Forces. In conducting such a review, the
committee believes that the Secretary should consider the
following areas: (1) logistics and transportation; (2)
maintenance; (3) medical evacuation and treatment; (4)
intelligence collection and analysis; (5) battlefield command
and control; (6) counterintelligence; (7) institutional
capacity building at the ministerial level; and (8) any other
areas the Secretary considers important. The committee further
directs the Secretary to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than September 30, 2015,
on the results of the review.
Operation United Assistance
The committee is pleased with the effectiveness and
responsiveness of the Department of Defense in its support to
Operation United Assistance to combat the Ebola Virus Disease
(EVD) in West Africa. The committee recognizes that the
Department provides unique capabilities, including command and
control, air- and sea-lift, construction, and training, that
other U.S. Government agencies and international organizations
are less able to provide. In a matter of weeks, the Department,
under the leadership of the United States Agency for
International Development, was able to assist in curbing the
EVD outbreak in the Republic of Liberia. The Department built
10 Ebola Treatment Units in the Republic of Liberia; performed
command and control out of Monrovia, Liberia; trained over
1,500 Liberian health care workers in precautionary safety
measures for treating EVD patients; supplied mobile
laboratories and personnel to diagnose EVD; and built the
Monrovia Medical Unit to treat health care workers diagnosed
with EVD. All of these tasks contributed to the international
effort to quickly and efficiently bring the EVD epidemic under
control.
While the committee believes pandemics are a national
security concern, it recognizes that the Department is not, and
should not be, the lead agency for monitoring and detecting
them, or for building the capacity of other nations to combat
them. However, the committee also recognizes that the U.S.
Government will likely call on the Department of Defense in
future outbreaks of EVD and other diseases to provide
assistance similar to that provided as part of Operation United
Assistance. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department
to remain engaged with other relevant U.S. Government and
international agencies as they capture lessons learned from
Operation United Assistance, and to support building capacity
and monitoring systems in Africa to allow for faster and more
effective responses in the future.
Lastly, the committee commends the leadership and fortitude
of the over 3,000 men and women in uniform who exhibited
professionalism and courage as they performed their tasks in a
challenging environment.
Oversight of Assistance to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
The committee applauds the positive agenda that President
Ashraf Ghani initiated upon his recent election as president of
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including a commitment to
fight corruption, support women's rights, ensure that Afghan
government institutions are effective, and initiate political
reform. However, the committee continues to be concerned about
the current state of these issues in Afghanistan.
Additionally, the committee notes that not less than $25.0
million in Afghanistan Security Forces Fund were made available
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66) for the programs and activities to support
the recruitment, integration, retention, training, and
treatment of women in the Afghanistan National Security Forces.
The committee also notes that the Department of Defense
Inspector General (DOD IG) was recently appointed by the
Council of Inspectors General to be the lead IG for oversight
of U.S. assistance in Afghanistan. The DOD IG should serve as
the focal point for all IG inspections and oversight in
Afghanistan. Further, the committee believes that the United
States should continually review the progress that is being
made within the Government of Afghanistan against corruption
and should evaluate the steps that the Government of
Afghanistan is taking to diminish corruption as part of any
assessment of continued U.S. assistance.
Report on Government Police Training and Equipping Programs
In 2012, the committee received a one-time Presidential
report on U.S. Government police training and equipping
programs outside the United States, consistent with the
requirements in section 1235(c) of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383).
The committee acknowledges the value of this report in
providing the relevant congressional committees with a
comprehensive, whole-of-government survey and assessment of
programs that the United States utilizes in training and
equipping foreign police forces. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the
Attorney General of the United States, to submit an update to
this report to the congressional defense committees, the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, the House Committee on Homeland Security, the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, the
House Committee on the Judiciary, and the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary by March 1, 2016, on U.S. Government police
training and equipping programs outside the United States. The
report shall include the following:
(1) A list of all U.S. Government departments and agencies
involved in implementing police training and equipping
programs;
(2) A description of the scope, size, and components of all
police training and equipping programs for fiscal years 2015
and 2016, to include: (a) the name of each country that
received assistance under the program; (b) for each training
activity, the number of foreign personnel provided training,
their units of operation, location of the training, cost of the
activity, the U.S. unit involved, and the nationality and unit
of non-U.S. training personnel (if any) involved in each
activity; (c) the purpose and objectives of the program; (d)
the funding and personnel levels for the program in each such
fiscal year; (e) the authority under which the program is
conducted; (f) the name of the U.S. Government department or
agency with lead responsibility for the program and the
mechanisms for oversight of the program; and (g) the metrics
for measuring the results of the program;
(3) An assessment of the requirements for police training
and equipping programs, and what changes, if any, are required
to improve the capacity of the U.S. Government to meet such
requirements;
(4) An evaluation of the appropriate role of U.S.
Government departments and agencies in coordinating on and
carrying out police training and equipping programs;
(5) An evaluation of the appropriate role of contractors in
carrying out police training and equipping programs, and what
modifications, if any, are needed to improve oversight of such
contractors; and
(6) Recommendations for legislative modifications, if any,
to existing authorities relating to police training and
equipping programs.
The report shall be delivered in unclassified form, that is
made available to the public, and may include a classified
annex, if necessary.
Lastly, the committee commends the work of the U.S.
Government to train, equip, and build partnership capacities
with its allies and partners across the globe.
Russian Unconventional Warfare
Tactics employed by the Russian Federation in its
aggression against Ukraine are not unique. However, Russia has
combined them in new, effective, and troubling ways. It has
fomented and taken advantage of ethnic disputes to train,
build, and equip a separatist army in Ukraine under Russian
direction. It has combined this line of effort with propaganda,
diplomatic, and economic measures to try to reduce the
effectiveness of Ukraine's response, as well as the response of
the United States and Europe, and to preserve and extend its
perceived sphere of influence.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the most
successful military alliance in history, defending the security
interests of its members against external threats for over 60
years. The committee supports the NATO alliance and believes
that it can successfully continue to serve as a bedrock for
U.S. and European security. However, the committee notes that
the methods currently being used by Russia in Ukraine pose a
challenge to the NATO system.
The core of the NATO alliance is provided by Article 5 of
the Washington Treaty, which enshrines the principle of
collective self-defense: ``The Parties agree that an armed
attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America
shall be considered an attack against them all . . .'' In the
wake of Russian actions in Ukraine, both the United States, in
a series of bilateral actions referred to as the European
Reassurance Initiative, and NATO collectively, in the Readiness
Action Plan, have taken steps to ensure that all parties are
postured to respond to any new aggression. The committee is
concerned, however, that these steps may not sufficiently
address the challenges posed by Russian tactics.
At its core, collective self-defense requires that the
parties to the treaty agree that one of the members is under
attack. This implies that such aggression can be correctly
attributed to some actor outside the alliance. Russia's actions
have been designed to be deniable and difficult to attribute
directly to Russian government activity. Should similar
tactics, or even more covert methods, be applied to NATO member
states that border Russia, it may be difficult to attribute
them to Russian activity and therefore difficult to trigger a
collective NATO response. It is likely that some NATO members
will have different views on the degree of Russian involvement.
In addition, it is possible that Russia would perceive NATO may
have difficulty in coming to an agreement about a collective
response, which could undermine NATO's ability to deter Russia
from engaging in attempts to intervene in sovereign issues of
NATO members.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense, and
NATO, should fully explore how the United States, NATO, and
member states can, as necessary, establish deterrence
mechanisms against activities such as those undertaken by the
Russian government in Ukraine. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Office of Net
Assessment or other such organization as the Secretary
considers appropriate, to undertake a study exploring various
strategies for deterring external efforts to interfere with the
internal workings of NATO member states by Russia, or any other
actor utilizing tactics such as propaganda in media, economic
warfare, cyber warfare, criminal acts, and intelligence
operations, similar to those being used by Russia in Ukraine.
The committee expects the Secretary to deliver a report to the
congressional defense committees containing the findings of
such study not later than March 31, 2016.
This study would complement a provision contained elsewhere
in this Act requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a
strategy for the Department of Defense to counter
unconventional warfare threats posed by adversarial state and
non-state actors.
Support to Coalition Partners Conducting Military Operations within
Operation Inherent Resolve
Coalition countries, conducting military operations as part
of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), have requested specific
U.S. military assets and assistance to support their efforts to
counter the threat presented by the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant in the Middle East and elsewhere. The committee
values the contributions of these countries and urges the
Department of Defense to continue consideration of their
requests. The committee also recognizes that some of these
coalition countries, including the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
and the United Arab Emirates, have requested unmanned aerial
systems (UAS) capability.
The committee notes that on February 17, 2015, the United
States announced a new export policy for military unmanned
aerial systems. The new policy permits the export of Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Category I intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) UAS and Unmanned Combat
Aerial Vehicles, subject to case-by-case interagency reviews
and consistent with all applicable U.S. law and policy,
including those related to the State of Israel's Qualitative
Military Edge and MTCR international commitments.
Consistent with UAS policy guidelines, the committee
supports the sale, lease, or transfer of U.S.-origin UAS,
including Category I systems, to those friends and allies in
the Middle East whose military requirements demand persistent
ISR assets. The committee notes that appropriate sale, lease,
or transfer of UAS technology can help build the capacity of
partner nation military forces, foster interoperability with
the United States, support critical counterterrorism
objectives, and sustain the U.S. defense industrial base. In
this context, the committee urges the interagency to review all
such outstanding letters of request or license applications for
the export of such systems.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs not later than September 15, 2015,
on all pending requests from Jordan, and other Middle Eastern
countries that are contributing to OIR, for the sale, lease, or
transfer of UAS systems. The briefing should include the dates
that requests were received, specific issues under
consideration, and time horizon for completing a review of each
request.
The Transition or Termination of the Mission to Counter the Lord's
Resistance Army
The committee continues to closely monitor the mission to
apprehend or remove Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's
Resistance Army (LRA), from the battlefield, which is otherwise
known as the Counter-LRA mission.
Section 1208 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) authorized the Secretary
of Defense, with the concurrence of Secretary of State, to
provide logistic support, supplies, and services, and
intelligence support, to foreign forces participating in
operations to mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the
LRA, through September 30, 2017. However, the committee remains
concerned that the Secretary of Defense has not provided to the
committee details on its plan to transition or terminate the
Counter-LRA mission should Joseph Kony be apprehended or
removed from the battlefield or when the authority expires.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the
House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2015, on the
transition plan for the Counter-LRA mission, to include
addressing the transition or termination plan for the Counter-
LRA mission; the authorities that would be required in any
transition; and how the authorized resources would be utilized
following any transition or termination of the Counter-LRA
mission.
The Utilization of General Purpose Forces to Meet U.S. Africa Command
Requirements
The committee notes the importance and value of engagements
with militaries of friendly foreign nations on the continent of
Africa. These engagements can provide critical training for
such militaries, as well as host nation familiarity with U.S.
forces that could be useful in the event that the U.S. military
finds itself conducting operations in Africa.
To that end, section 1203 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66)
authorized the General Purpose Forces (GPF) of the United
States military to conduct training with military and other
security forces of friendly foreign countries. This authority
was requested by the Secretary of Defense and, at the time, was
presented as a way to meet the requirements of the commander of
U.S. Africa Command.
However, to date, this authority has been utilized only
once on the continent of Africa. On February 6, 2015, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy provided a letter to the
committee that stated this authority would be utilized for a
training event in the Republic of Zambia and that the
incremental expenses would not exceed $4,000. The committee
believes this authority has not been employed to meet the
requirements of the commander of the U.S. Africa Command.
Additionally, the committee believes that because this
authority has only been used once, the Department of Defense
has not established a record that would support a request for
extension or re-authorization.
This authority does not terminate until September 30, 2017.
Additionally, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) authorized the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund
(CTPF), which could provide funding for this authority. The
committee believes that through this authority and the CTPF,
the Secretary of Defense could further achieve the training and
military engagement requirements of the commander of U.S.
Africa Command.
U.S.-Philippines Defense Cooperation
The committee notes that in April 2014, the Governments of
the United States and the Republic of the Philippines announced
a bilateral Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. This 10-
year agreement, building upon the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty,
would facilitate the enhanced rotational presence of U.S.
forces, expand opportunities for joint military training and
exercises, and support the long-term modernization of the
Philippine military. It would also provide for greater U.S.
presence in the region to reassure allies and partners and to
monitor U.S. interests, particularly freedom of navigation in
the South China Sea.
The committee welcomes the enhancement of defense
cooperation with the Philippines and the expansion of bilateral
military training opportunities. The committee also recognizes
the willingness of the Philippines to host U.S. forces on a
rotational basis as a strong signal of its commitment to the
bilateral strategic partnership. It further supports efforts to
modernize the Armed Forces of the Philippines and to strengthen
their maritime security, maritime domain awareness, and
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief capabilities, so
that they can enhance their defensive capabilities and provide
a greater contribution to regional security and stability.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Section 1201--One-Year Extension of Logistical Support for Coalition
Forces Supporting Certain United States Military Operations
This section would amend section 1234 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as most recently amended by section 1223 of the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), by
authorizing the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies,
services, transportation, and other logistical support to
coalition forces supporting U.S. operations in the Republic of
Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during fiscal year
2016.
Section 1202--Strategic Framework for Department of Defense Security
Cooperation
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to develop a
strategic framework for Department of Defense security
cooperation to guide prioritization of resources and
activities. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit
a report on the strategic framework for security cooperation to
the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives, not later than 90 days after
enactment of this Act.
The committee notes that key guiding documents for the
Department of Defense emphasize security cooperation in
general, and building partner capacity specifically, as a
priority for the Department. For example, the Department of
Defense 2012 strategic guidance, ``Sustaining U.S. Global
Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,'' states that,
``Building partnership capacity elsewhere in the world also
remains important for sharing the costs and responsibilities of
global leadership.'' Moreover, the Department's 2014
Quadrennial Defense Review states that, as a pillar of defense
strategy, the Department will ``Build security globally, in
order to preserve regional stability, deter adversaries,
support allies and partners, and cooperate with others to
address common security challenges.'' The committee recognizes
the Department's efforts to conduct a comprehensive review of
its security assistance authorities. The committee supports the
role of the U.S. Armed Forces in developing and maintaining the
security capabilities of partner nations across a broad range
of programs, but questions the extent to which the Department
has established goals and a comprehensive strategy for its
security cooperation efforts. Thus, the committee believes that
a strategic framework for security cooperation is necessary.
The committee recognizes these efforts should ideally be
coordinated with the Department of State and other departments
and agencies to achieve whole-of-government success in
enhancing the security sectors of partner nations.
Section 1203--Modification and Two-Year Extension of National Guard
State Partnership Program
This section would amend section 1205 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) by modifying and extending the authorization for the
National Guard State Partnership Program (SPP).
This section would specify that SPP should support the
national interests and security cooperation goals and
objectives of the United States. This section would also revise
the congressional notification requirements for SPP activities
to make a technical adjustment to the underlying language.
This section would require the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau to establish, maintain, and update a list of core
competencies, consistent with the roles and missions of the
Armed Forces as established by the Secretary of Defense, to
support SPP activities, and to submit the list of core
competencies to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a Fund to administer and execute the funds authorized
and appropriated for SPP, and to consider certain matters in
the establishment of the Fund. It would further require the
Secretary to include this Fund in future year budget requests.
This section would revise the matters included in the SPP
annual report and definitions of certain terms. Finally, this
section would extend the authority of the program by two years,
to September 30, 2018.
The committee encourages the Department to keep it informed
on progress toward establishing the Fund required in this
section, including, at a minimum, an assessment of the extent
to which the matters required for consideration will be
included in the Fund, and whether new legislation will be
required to establish the Fund.
Section 1204--Extension of Authority for Non-Reciprocal Exchanges of
Defense Personnel Between the United States and Foreign Countries
This section would amend section 1207(f) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) by extending the authorization for non-reciprocal exchanges
of defense personnel between the United States and foreign
countries for an additional 15 months, to December 31, 2017.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan
Section 1211--Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan
This section would amend section 1201 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), as most recently amended by section 1221 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), by extending for
1 year the Commanders' Emergency Response Program in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and authorizing $5.0 million
for fiscal year 2016.
Section 1212--Extension and Modification of Authority for Reimbursement
of Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States
Military Operations
This section would amend section 1233 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as most recently amended by section 1222 of the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), by
extending the authority for reimbursement of coalition nations
for support provided to the United States for military
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan through
fiscal year 2016.
Additionally, this section would extend, through September
30, 2016, the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to
notify the congressional defense committees, prior to making
any reimbursement to the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, of any logistical, military, or other support that
Pakistan provides to the United States.
Further, this section would extend the requirement for the
Secretary of Defense to certify, prior to providing
reimbursement to Pakistan, that Pakistan is: maintaining
security along the Ground Lines of Communications through
Pakistan; taking demonstrable steps to support counterterrorism
operations; disrupting cross-border attacks; and countering the
threat of improvised explosive devices.
Finally, this section would specify that, of the total
amount of reimbursements and support authorized for Pakistan
during fiscal year 2016 pursuant to section 1233(d)(1) of
Public Law 110-181, as amended, $400.0 million would not be
eligible for a national security waiver unless the Secretary of
Defense certifies that Pakistan is conducting military
operations against the Haqqani Network in North Waziristan, has
prevented the Haqqani Network from using North Waziristan as a
safe haven, and is actively coordinating with the Government of
Afghanistan to restrict the movement of militants, such as the
Haqqani Network, along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
Section 1213--Sense of Congress on United States Policy and Strategy in
Afghanistan
This section would express a sense of Congress on U.S.
policy and strategy in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
including that: the United States continues to have vital
national security interests in ensuring that Afghanistan
remains stable and sovereign; the Afghan President should be
applauded for his leadership; the U.S. President's decision to
maintain 9,800 U.S. troops through all of 2015 is appropriate
and should be supported by Congress; the U.S. President should
withdraw U.S. troops only on a pace that is consistent with the
ability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) to
sustain itself and secure Afghanistan; the U.S. President
should review maintaining the U.S. advisory mission beyond
2016; the United States should provide monetary and advisory
support to the ANSF through 2018; the ANSF should have the
independent capability to prevent Al Qaeda, the Haqqani
Network, and the Taliban from being able to conduct
destabilizing attacks in Afghanistan or against the United
States; and the United States should continue to vigorously
conduct counterterrorism operations, including against the
Haqqani Network, in Afghanistan beyond 2016.
Section 1214--Extension of Authority to Acquire Products and Services
Produced in Countries along a Major Route of Supply to Afghanistan
This section would extend section 801 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), as most recently amended by section 832 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), through December 31, 2016. The underlying authority
provides for limiting competition for products or services that
are from one or more countries along a major route of supply to
Afghanistan or providing a preference for such a product or
service, under certain circumstances.
Section 1215--Extension of Authority to Transfer Defense Articles and
Provide Defense Services to the Military and Security Forces of
Afghanistan
This section would extend section 1222 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), as amended by section 1231 of the Carl Levin and Howard
P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), for 1 year through
December 31, 2016.
This section also would extend the quarterly reporting
requirement for this authority through March 31, 2017.
Additionally, this section would authorize that, during fiscal
years 2015-16, the excess defense articles transferred from the
stocks of the Department of Defense to the military and
security forces of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan will not
be subject to the authorities and limitations set forth in
section 561 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law
87-195).
Section 1216--Sense of Congress Regarding Assistance for Afghan
Translators, Interpreters, and Administrative Aids
This section would express the sense of Congress that it is
in the interest of the United States to continue to assist
Afghan partners, and their immediate families, who have served
as translators or interpreters and those who have performed
sensitive and trusted activities for U.S. Armed Forces.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria and Iraq
Section 1221--Extension of Authority to Support Operations and
Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq
This section would amend and extend section 1215 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81), as most recently amended by section 1237 of the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), by
extending the authority for the Office of Security Cooperation
in Iraq (OSC-I) for 1 year through fiscal year 2016. This
authority would allow the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to authorize OSC-I to
conduct training activities in support of the Iraqi Ministry of
Defense and Counter Terrorism Service personnel at a base or
facility of the Government of the Republic of Iraq in order to
address capability gaps; integrate processes relating to
intelligence, air power, combined arms, logistics, and
maintenance; and manage and integrate defense-related
institutions.
This section would limit the total authorized funding for
operations and activities for OSC-I to $143.0 million in fiscal
year 2016. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of State to submit to the
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives a report within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, on the activities of
OSC-I, including how OSC-I integrates into Operation Inherent
Resolve in Iraq.
Section 1222--Comprehensive Strategy for the Middle East and to Counter
Islamic Extremism
This section would express findings and a sense of Congress
on United States strategy in the Middle East and the state of
Islamic extremism, including that Islamic extremism is growing
in the Greater Middle East; the Islamic Republic of Iran
continues to be a leading state sponsor of terrorism in the
Greater Middle East and across the globe; the Building
Partnership Capacity approach and limited counterterrorism
operations have had some positive effects in some locations but
have not prevented the proliferation and violence of terrorist
groups or instability in the Middle East; the United States
should take a greater leadership role in fighting Islamic
extremism; the United States remains an indispensable actor in
the greater Middle East; and the President should ensure that
U.S. Armed Forces remain forward postured in the region.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, not
later than February 15, 2016, a comprehensive strategy for the
Middle East and to counter Islamic extremism, including a
detailed description of the following: U.S. objectives; the
roles and responsibilities of the Department of Defense in such
strategy; actions to prevent the weakening and failing of
states; actions to counter Islamic extremism globally; and a
detailed definition of states and non-state actors the United
States will address in order to counter Islamic extremism.
Section 1223--Modification of Authority to Provide Assistance to
Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide $715.0 million in fiscal year 2016 for assistance to
the military and other security forces of, or associated with,
the Government of the Republic of Iraq, including the Kurdish
and tribal security forces or other local security forces with
a national security mission. In addition, this section would
require that not less than 25 percent of the fiscal year 2016
funds be expended for direct assistance to the Kurdish
Peshmerga, the Sunni tribal security forces with a national
security mission, and the Iraqi Sunni National Guard. It would
further require that not less than half of such funds be
obligated and expended for the Kurdish Peshmerga.
This section also would require the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of State to submit to the congressional
defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives, an assessment of the extent to which the
Government of Iraq is meeting certain conditions relating to
political inclusion of ethnic and sectarian minorities within
the security forces of Iraq. If the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of State do not assess that the Government of
Iraq has substantially achieved such conditions, the Secretary
of Defense would be required to withhold fiscal year 2016
assistance directly to the Government of Iraq. If the Secretary
of Defense withholds such fiscal year 2016 assistance to the
Government of Iraq, then the Secretary would be required to
provide not less than 60 percent of all fiscal year 2016
unobligated funds to the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Sunni tribal
security forces with a national security mission, and the Iraqi
Sunni National Guard.
Finally, this section would require that the Kurdish
Peshmerga, the Sunni tribal security forces with a national
security mission, and the Iraqi Sunni National Guard be deemed
a country, which would allow these security forces to directly
receive assistance from the United States under this section,
should the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State not
submit the assessment required by this section or submit an
assessment that the Government of Iraq has not substantially
met the conditions related to the requirements for assistance,
as outlined in this section.
Section 1224--Report on United States Armed Forces Deployed in Support
of Operation Inherent Resolve
This section would express the sense of Congress that: (1)
it should be a top priority to provide U.S. Armed Forces,
deployed as part of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), with the
necessary force protection and combat search and rescue (CSAR)
support; (2) U.S. military CSAR, casualty evacuation, and
medical support personnel should not be counted as part of any
limitation on the number of ground forces for OIR; (3) military
assets for OIR should be staged as far forward as possible and
should not be subject to any limitation on the number of ground
forces for OIR; and (4) the President, Secretary of Defense,
and commanders on the ground in support of OIR should
continuously evaluate the force protection and CSAR
requirements to ensure that such requirements are sufficient
and are optimally postured.
This section also would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees a report, 30
days after the date of the enactment of this Act and every 90
days thereafter, on the U.S. Armed Forces deployed in support
of OIR, including: the total number of U.S. Armed Forces
personnel deployed; the total number of U.S. Armed Forces
personnel expected to be deployed; the total number of U.S.
Armed Forces conducting force protection and CSAR; the
authorities and limitations on such personnel; and any changes
to the limitations, authorities, or U.S. policy. This section
would terminate on the date that OIR terminates or 5 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever occurs
earlier.
Section 1225--Modification of Authority to Provide Assistance to the
Vetted Syrian Opposition
This section would amend section 1209 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) by striking
subsection (f) and inserting a new subsection (f) that would
authorize $531.5 million to be appropriated from Overseas
Contingency Operations in title XV for fiscal year 2016 for the
Syria Train and Equip Fund for assistance to the vetted
opposition in the Syrian Arab Republic.
The committee would authorize $600.0 million for the
overall Syria Train and Equip program, which includes $531.5
million for the Syria Train and Equip Fund, $25.8 million for
costs that would be incurred by the Army for such program, and
$42.8 million for costs that would be incurred by the Air Force
for such program.
The committee notes that the challenges associated with
initiating the Syria train and equip program have been great.
The committee remains concerned about the elongated nature of
the timeline to start the training and equipping of the vetted
Syrian opposition. The committee will continue to conduct
rigorous oversight of how this program fits into the overall
strategy for Operation Inherent Resolve to determine whether it
will be able to effectively contribute to the fight against the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Section 1226--Assistance to the Government of Jordan for Border
Security Operations
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide
assistance on a reimbursement basis to the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan to support and enhance the efforts of its Armed Forces
to sustain security along its border with the Syrian Arab
Republic and the Republic of Iraq.
This section would also authorize $300.0 million in support
of this authority. Additionally, not later than 15 days before
providing assistance, the Secretary of Defense would be
required to provide to the congressional defense committees,
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives a
report that describes the type, amount, and timeline for
assistance that would be provided.
Lastly, under this section, the Secretary of Defense would
not be authorized to enter into any contractual obligation to
provide such assistance, and would not be able to provide
assistance after December 31, 2016.
Section 1227--Report on efforts of Turkey to fight terrorism
This section would 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, on the Republic of Turkey's
bilateral and multilateral efforts to combat the flow of
foreign fighters through its country to the Syrian Arab
Republic; Turkey's relationship with Hamas, including its
harboring of leaders of Hamas; and the efforts of Turkey to
fight terrorism, including Turkey's military and humanitarian
role in the coalition to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant.
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Iran
Section 1231--Extension of Annual Report on Military Power of Iran
This section would amend section 1245 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), as most recently amended by section 1277 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), by extending the
annual report on the military power of the Islamic Republic of
Iran to December 31, 2025, and adding a reporting requirement
that provides an assessment of transfers of military equipment,
technology, and training to Iran from non-Iranian sources.
Section 1232--Sense of Congress on the Government of Iran's Nuclear
Program and its Malign Military Activities
This section would set forth certain findings and express
the sense of Congress on the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran's nuclear program and its malign military activities.
The sense of Congress includes that: Iran's illicit pursuit,
development, or acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability and
its malign military activities constitute a grave threat to
regional stability and the national security interests of the
United States and its allies and partners; Iran continues to
expand its malign military activities in the Middle East and
globally, which may well increase under a Comprehensive Joint
Plan of Action (CJPOA); sanctions relief under the CJPOA will
provide Iran the ability to increase funding for its ballistic
missile development programs, acquisition of destabilizing
types and amounts of conventional weapons, support for
terrorism, and other malign activities throughout the Middle
East and globally; U.S. bilateral and multilateral sanctions
against Iran, once relieved, will be extremely difficult to
reconstitute in response to Iranian violations of its
international obligations; Iran would be an internationally-
approved nuclear threshold state under the framework of the
CJPOA, which will likely lead to the proliferation of nuclear
weapons across the Middle East; and Congress should review and
assess all elements of any agreement entered into between the
countries of the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic, the
Federal Republic of Germany, the Russian Federation, and the
People's Republic of China) and Iran, and it should approve or
disapprove of any sanctions relief that results from such an
agreement.
Further, this section would set forth that the United
States must continue to support the defense of allies and
partners in the region, including Israel, by strengthening
ballistic missile defense capabilities and increasing security
assistance; and that Congress supports efforts to reach a
peaceful, diplomatic solution to permanently and verifiably end
Iran's pursuit, development, and acquisition of a nuclear
weapons capability, and it reaffirms that it is U.S. policy
that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons
capability and that all instruments of U.S. power must be
considered to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Finally, this section would state that Congress reaffirms
the rights of U.S. allies to exercise their legitimate right to
self-defense against the Government of Iran.
Section 1233--Report on Military Posture Required in the Middle East to
Deter Iran from Developing a Nuclear Weapon
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to Congress, not later than 90 days after this
Act, regarding the military posture required in the Middle East
to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran from developing a nuclear
weapon. The report would include a discussion of the military
forces, bases, and capability required to maintain a military
option to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon, counter
Iran's military activities, and protect the U.S. military and
other interests in the region.
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation
Section 1241--Notifications and Updates Relating to Testing,
Production, Deployment, and Sale or Transfer to Other States or Non-
State Actors of the Club-K Cruise Missile System by the Russian
Federation
This section would require quarterly notifications by the
Secretary of Defense to the congressional defense committees on
the testing, production, deployment, sale, or transfer to other
states or non-state actors of the Club-K cruise missile system
by the Russian Federation.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
notify the congressional defense committees not later than 7
days after the Secretary determines that there is reasonable
belief that Russia has deployed, sold, or transferred the Club-
K cruise missile system to other states or non-state actors.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary to
submit quarterly updates to the specified congressional
committees on the coordination of allied responses to the
deployment, sale, or transfer of the Club-K cruise missile
system to other states or non-state actors by Russia.
Lastly, this section would require the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a strategy to detect, defend
against, and defeat the Club-K cruise missile system, including
opportunities for allied contributions to such efforts based on
consultations with them. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff would be required to submit the strategy to the
congressional defense committees not later than September 30,
2016. The committee encourages the Chairman to ensure such
strategy includes an estimation of its costs, if implemented in
whole or in part, as well as a military assessment of the risks
of such system to the United States, its deployed Armed Forces,
and its allies if deployed by Russia or by a non-state actor.
The notification requirements in this section would sunset
5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 1242--Notifications of Deployment of Nuclear Weapons by Russian
Federation to Territory of Ukrainian Republic
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the appropriate congressional committees quarterly
notifications on the status of the Russian Federation
conducting exercises with, planning or preparing to deploy, or
deploying certain weapon systems, including its nuclear
weapons, onto the territory of the Ukrainian Republic.
This section would also require prompt notification, not
more than 7 days, after the Secretary determines that there
exists reasonable grounds to believe that Russia has deployed
certain weapon systems onto the territory of Ukraine.
This section would further require the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a strategy to respond to the
military threat posed by Russia deploying certain weapon
systems into the territory of Ukraine, including opportunities
for allied cooperation in developing such responses based on
consultation with such allies. The Chairman would be required
to submit the strategy to the congressional defense committees
by September 30, 2016, along with the views of the Secretary of
Defense.
The notification requirement in this section would sunset 5
years after the date of the enactment of the Act.
Section 1243--Non-Compliance by the Russian Federation with its
Obligations under the INF Treaty
This section would express the sense of Congress concerning
ongoing violations of arms control agreements and treaties with
the United States by the Russian Federation. This section would
also require notification to the appropriate congressional
committees not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act regarding Russia's continued violation of
the Treaty on Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) or return
to compliance with such treaty, and not later than 30 days
after Russia takes any further actions related to the INF,
including any steps to return to compliance with that treaty.
This section would also require submission of a report by
the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to the appropriate congressional committees not later
than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
every 120 days thereafter, on the status of discussions with
allies of the United States on Russia's violation of the INF
Treaty, including efforts to develop collective responses to
said violation. This reporting requirement would sunset 5 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Lastly, this section would require the President, if on the
date of the enactment of this Act, Russia has not begun to
return to full compliance with the INF treaty, to begin
research and development of counter force and countervailing
U.S. responses, based on recommendations of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to fill current military requirements and
capability gaps, with a priority on capabilities that could be
deployed in 2 years. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee
recommends funds be authorized to be appropriated for the
purpose of research and development of these capabilities in
fiscal year 2016.
With respect to the options to be considered using the
funds that would be authorized by this provision, the committee
notes the testimony of the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy on December 10, 2014, that ``we are looking
at a number of possible countermeasures in the military sphere,
ranging from reactive defense to counterforce to countervailing
defense measures. I don't want to get into the specifics
because we are still working through various options, but we
have a broad range of options, some of which would be compliant
with the INF Treaty, some of which would not be, that we would
be able to recommend to our leadership if a decision were taken
to go down that path.''
Section 1244--Modification of Notification and Assessment of Proposal
to Modify or Introduce New Aircraft or Sensors for Flight by the
Russian Federation under Open Skies Treaty
This section would amend section 1242 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) by extending the
number of days before notification to the stated congressional
committees of the intention to approve a proposal of the
Russian Federation with respect to the Open Skies Treaty from
30 days to 90 days. This section would further amend section
1242 to require the views of any relevant combatant commander
to also be provided in the assessment required by the section.
Section 1245--Sense of Congress on Support for Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania
This section would express a sense of Congress on U.S.
support for the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia,
and the Republic of Lithuania, including support for their
sovereignty, concern over aggressive military actions of the
Russian Federation against these nations, and encouragement for
further defense cooperation between the United States and these
nations.
Section 1246--Sense of Congress on Support for Georgia
This section would express the sense of Congress on U.S.
support for Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity as
well as support for continued cooperation between the United
States and Georgia.
Subtitle F--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region
Section 1251--Sense of Congress Recognizing the 70th Anniversary of the
End of Allied Military Engagement in the Pacific Theater
This section would express the sense of Congress
recognizing the 70th anniversary of the end of the Allied
military engagement in the Pacific theater, and the end of the
Second World War. It would also express a series of findings
highlighting key events related to the Second World War in the
Pacific; recognize the tremendous sacrifice, bravery, and loss
of U.S. and Allied Forces; and note the close alliance
relationship that the United States and Japan have forged in
the years since the war.
Section 1252--Sense of Congress Regarding Consolidation of United
States Military Facilities in Okinawa, Japan
This section would provide the sense of Congress that the
Henoko location for the Futenma Replacement Facility has been
studied and analyzed for several decades, reaffirmed by both
the United States and Japan on several occasions, including the
2010 Futenma Replacement Facility Bilateral Experts study and
the independent assessment required by section 346 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81), and remains the only option for the Futenma
Replacement Facility.
Section 1253--Strategy to Promote United States Interests in the Indo-
Asia-Pacific Region
This section would require the President to develop an
overall strategy to promote United States interests in the
Indo-Asia-Pacific region that is informed by the U.S. National
Security Strategy, the Department of Defense strategy on
prioritizing defense interests in the Asia-Pacific region as
required by section 1251 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), and the Department of State
strategy for a rebalancing of U.S. policy in Asia as required
by section 7043 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014
(Public Law 113-76). This section would further require the
President to issue a Presidential Policy Directive to relevant
Federal departments and agencies that implement the required
strategy, and require that the annual budget request submission
to Congress include a description of how the programs and
projects funded in the request align with the required
strategy.
The committee notes that the President has issued
Presidential Policy Directives (PPD) containing strategies for
other regions of the globe, to include a PPD on Political and
Economic Reform in the Middle East and North Africa in 2011,
and a PPD on U.S. Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa in 2012. The
committee believes that such a PPD containing a strategy for
promoting U.S. interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, which
also includes specific implementing guidance to relevant
Federal departments and agencies, will help bring focus and
cohesiveness to, and establish priorities for, relevant
interagency and organization-specific programs and projects.
Section 1254--Sense of Congress on the United States Alliance with
Japan
This section would express a sense of Congress on the U.S.
alliance with Japan, including that the United States highly
values the alliance with the Government of Japan, supports
recent changes in Japanese defense policy and the new bilateral
guidelines for U.S.-Japan defense cooperation, and reaffirms
the U.S. commitment to the alliance.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 1261--Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities
This section would authorize a 1-year extension to the
Department of Defense to continue to develop, manage, and
execute a Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery personnel recovery
program for isolated Department of Defense, U.S. Government,
and other designated personnel supporting U.S. national
interests worldwide. This section would allow the Secretary of
Defense to use up to $25.0 million in funds authorized to be
appropriated for the Department of Defense for operation and
maintenance for such recovery program through fiscal year 2017.
Section 1262--Amendment to the Annual Report under Arms Control and
Disarmament Act
This section would amend section 2539a of title 22, United
States Code, regarding the requirement for the annual briefing
on arms control compliance, also known as the ``Report on
Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control,
Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments.''
This section would modify the associated requirement for
the President to brief certain congressional committees on the
report, to require that in any year in which that report is not
submitted by the statutorily required submission date of April
15, the Director of National Intelligence shall provide a
report, not later than June 15, detailing each instance of
inconsistent behavior by a state party to an arms control
treaty or related agreement to which the United States is a
party.
Section 1263--Permanent Authority for NATO Special Operations
Headquarters
This section would make permanent the authority for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Special Operations
Headquarters, as first authorized in section 1244(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84).
Section 1264--Extension of Authorization to Conduct Activities to
Enhance the Capability of Foreign Countries to Respond to Incidents
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction
This section would extend the authority to conduct
activities to enhance the capability of foreign countries to
respond to incidents involving weapons of mass destruction from
section 1204 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) from 2017 to 2020.
Section 1265--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, for Arms Control
Implementation
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit to the
specified committees of Congress a report on certain
information related to the Open Skies Treaty prior to the
obligation or expenditure of more than 50 percent of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for research, development, test,
and evaluation, Air Force (PE 35145F), for arms control
implementation.
Section 1266--Modification of Authority for Support of Special
Operations to Combat Terrorism
This section would modify the reporting requirement within
section 1208(f)(1) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as
most recently amended by section 1202(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), from annual to biannual, and raise the authorized amount
to $100.0 million. Given the increased focus on this authority
and additional authorization amount of $100.0 million, the
committee believes biannual reporting is required to ensure
robust congressional oversight of this important authority.
Section 1267--United States-Israel Anti-Tunnel Defense Cooperation
This section would establish a cooperative program with the
State of Israel to develop an anti-tunneling defense system to
detect, map, and neutralize underground tunnels.
Section 1268--Efforts of the Department of Defense to Prevent and
Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally
This section would express a series of findings and a
statement of policy on preventing and responding to gender-
based violence globally, and require the Secretary of Defense
to continue implementation of the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and
Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally, as appropriate.
Furthermore, it would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide training on such matters, and require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to certain congressional committees
on the Department of Defense's implementation efforts.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
OVERVIEW
The budget request for the Department of Defense
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program contained $358.5
million for fiscal year 2016. The request included $20.6
million for the Global Nuclear Security (GNS) Program, $264.6
million for the Cooperative Biological Engagement Program
(CBEP), and $438.9 million for the Proliferation Prevention
Program (PPP).
The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR
Program and believes that the program is important to United
States national security.
The committee notes that the CTR Cooperative Biological
Engagement Program now encompasses 70 percent of the CTR budget
request. The committee reaffirms its view, stated in the
committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011, and reaffirmed in the two most recent committee reports
accompanying the House of Representatives-passed national
defense authorization acts, that biological threat reduction
and engagement ``should be guided by a comprehensive long-term
interagency engagement and coordination; rigorous Department
management and oversight; coordination and integration with
other Department programs and activities; and concrete metrics
for measuring progress.'' The committee further reaffirms its
view that the CTR Program as a whole should ``maintain a strong
focus''' on the full range of threat reduction challenges. The
committee continues to believe that concrete metrics remain
important for measuring the impact and effectiveness of CBEP
activities.
Lastly, the committee welcomes efforts by the Department of
Defense to actively consult with the committee and to keep it
fully informed of efforts and developments in these areas.
The committee recommends $358.5 million, the amount of the
budget request, for the CTR Program. The committee believes
that no CTR funds for fiscal year 2016 should be authorized for
activities with the Russian Federation based on ongoing Russian
aggression towards Ukraine, as provided in the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds
This section would define Cooperative Threat Reduction
(CTR) programs and funds as those authorized to be appropriated
in section 301 of this Act and made available by section 4301
of this Act, and would specify that CTR funds shall remain
available for obligation for 3 fiscal years.
Section 1302--Funding Allocations
This section would allocate specific amounts for each
program under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) program from within the overall $358.5 million
that the committee would authorize for the CTR program. The
allocation under this section reflects the amount of the budget
request for fiscal year 2016.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Assessment of Current State of Global Tantalum Supply
The committee has repeatedly expressed concern regarding
supply chains for items critical to national security, such as
rare earth materials, titanium, beryllium, ammonium
perchlorate, and other materials. The committee understands
that the Department of Defense may seek to procure up to 46,750
pounds of tantalum for the National Defense Stockpile as stated
in the Department's Annual Materials Plan for Fiscal Year 2016.
The committee believes it is important to ensure a reliable
supply of tantalum for the production of military electronics
and capacitors, armor-piercing munitions, military turbine
engines, and rocket motor nozzles.
The committee is concerned about the reliability and
transparency of the tantalum supply chain. As part of its
biennial report on requirements, the National Defense Stockpile
relies upon production data generated by the U.S. Geological
Survey. While recent data from the U.S. Geological Survey
states that 786 tonnes of tantalum was produced in 2013,
industry publications indicate that global tantalum production
was in excess of 1,500 tonnes in that year. This significant
discrepancy is a serious concern for the committee, as the
National Defense Stockpile's report may markedly underestimate
global tantalum production and consumption.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit an assessment to the congressional defense
committees by February 1, 2016, of the current state of the
global tantalum supply chain, to include the following:
(1) An assessment of global tantalum production from
primary raw materials, slag materials, synthetic concentrates,
and secondary materials;
(2) A comparison and analysis of data available from
industry and data generated during the preparation of the
National Defense Stockpile's biennial requirements report for
2015;
(3) An assessment of the reliability of tantalum producers
during national defense emergency scenarios analyzed in the
National Defense Stockpile's biennial requirements report for
2015; and
(4) Any other elements the Comptroller General deems
relevant to the assessment.
Insufficient Working-Capital Fund Rate Calculations
The committee has been concerned for a number of years that
the determination of prices and rates for Defense Working-
Capital Fund activities is driven by an arbitrary, outdated
goal of maintaining 7 to 10 days of cash to sustain business
operations. This metric cannot respond to changes related to
external pressures such as fluctuations in commodity markets
that are outside of the Department of Defense's control.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report
examining a range of alternative cash balance parameters by
which the revolving funds could be managed to sustain a single
rate or price to the customer throughout the fiscal year.
Having found this report to be insufficient, the committee
mandated a study in section 1402 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) requiring an independent review of each working capital
fund within the Department to ascertain the appropriate cash
corpus required to maintain good financial management of each
fund. This study was thorough and informative but did not
provide for change within management of the working capital
funds. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013,
the committee responded by recommending that the Department
modify its Financial Management Regulations to adjust the range
of the cash corpus required for fuel-related working capital
funds to mitigate the continued fluctuation of rates charged to
the customer during the fiscal year.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee commended the Department
for initiating processes to determine the correct cash corpus
thresholds for each working-capital fund. In addition, the
committee looked forward to future budget submissions with
prices and rates set to maintain an adequate cash balance to
absorb external pressures, thereby maintaining a steady,
dependable rate for the customer throughout the fiscal year.
However, the committee is dismayed to find that the fuel
rates set within the budget request for fiscal year 2016 take a
step back from this thoughtful calculation. Rather than
assessing the current marketplace for fuel costs in this time
of lower crude oil prices, the request merely footnotes the
fact that the composite fuel rate for fiscal year 2015 was
reduced on February 1, 2015, by $18.48, or 11.9 percent. This
reduction was not accounted for in any of the decisions made by
Defense Working-Capital Fund managers in the determination of
fiscal year 2016 rates. In addition, the calculation of fuel
rates is no longer based on estimated market prices for the
upcoming fiscal year; rather, the rate is set on a 2009 funding
level, adjusted for inflation. This basic rate calculation does
not take into account the current cash balance of the fund and
absolves working-capital fund managers of their responsibility
of managing the fund. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
reduction in the O&M budget for fiscal year 2016 as shown in
section 4301 of this Act, and realigns those funds to support
higher priority defense requirements throughout the Department.
Review of Electronic Waste Recycling
The committee is aware that modern electronics contain many
valuable recyclable materials, including strategic and critical
materials and precious metals. The committee notes that through
the proper disposal of end-of-life electronics used by the
Department of Defense, these recyclable materials could be
reclaimed for use in U.S. military programs. It is unclear,
however, how the Department plans for, and executes this
disposal process, leading to the possibility that significant
quantities of these materials are being lost or wasted.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than September 30, 2016, on the current
state of electronic waste recycling by the Department of
Defense. Such a report shall include:
(1) Information on the disposition of used Department of
Defense electronics, including the volume of electronics that
are recycled, reused, refurbished, and demanufactured;
(2) Information on the value of all strategic and critical
materials, including precious metals, recovered from recycled
electronics of the Department during fiscal years 2010-14;
(3) Information on the economic models used by the
Department for the collection and capture of strategic or
critical materials from used electronics, including any
benefits and challenges associated with the models; and
(4) An identification and assessment of potential
opportunities for improving the efficiency or effectiveness of
the Department's efforts to recover strategic and critical
materials from used Department of Defense electronics.
Review of Non-Navy Workload within Navy Working Capital Fund Activities
The committee is aware of guidance issued by the Chief of
Naval Operations to Navy Working Capital Funded entities,
including the science and technology laboratories and test and
evaluation centers, to increase the scrutiny of and elevate the
approval levels for reimbursable work for other Federal
agencies. The committee is concerned that an unintended
consequence of such guidance is a failure to recognize how
working capital funded entities operate and the value that
outside, reimbursable work can have on reducing the overall
rate structure for entities such as the naval warfare centers.
The committee also believes that such a move could be
detrimental to the overall efficiency of the Federal research
and test enterprise by forcing other Federal partners to rely
on contractors to provide these services or to build
additional, redundant scientific and test capabilities. For
example, the Department of Homeland Security works closely with
the naval warfare centers to provide science, technology, test,
and evaluation capabilities for its programs, and without that
support, the Department of Homeland Security would have to
devote a larger percentage of its research, development, test,
and evaluation budget to providing those services itself.
The committee is concerned that the aforementioned guidance
could be affecting decisions at naval facilities, including the
Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) and the
Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC). The committee has received
information from the Department of the Navy that NAWCAD has not
rejected any Department of Homeland Security work; however,
NAWCAD had identified one instance where a fiscal year 2014
request by the Department of Homeland Security to extend the
period of performance of an existing effort did not continue.
Additionally, work valued at $3.7 million to procure and
install runway lighting systems for the New York Port Authority
was rejected in fiscal year 2014 because it was deemed not to
be within the NAWCAD mission area.
To understand the nature of the impact this guidance might
have on operations and budget requests of Navy Working Capital
Fund entities, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy,
in coordination with the Chief of Naval Operations, to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November
1, 2015, commenting on all discrepancies between the budgeted
position and actual workload, as presented in the President's
budget request for each fiscal year from 2012-15 for each
subcategory under ``Other Orders'' as shown in the Sources of
New Orders and Revenue budget display. The briefing shall
include a discussion of the discrepancies, to include the
rationale for refusing any workload from these entities.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Programs
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize appropriations for Defense
Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501
of division D of this Act.
Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Defense Sealift Fund at the levels identified in
section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense at the levels
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
Wide
This section would authorize appropriations for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1405--Defense Inspector General
This section would authorize appropriations for the Office
of the Inspector General at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1406--Defense Health Program
This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense
Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of
division D of this Act.
Section 1407--National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund at the levels identified in
section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile
Section 1411--Extension of Date for Completion of Destruction of
Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical Agents and Munitions
This section would modify section 1412(b)(3) of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (Public Law 99-
45) by extending the stockpile elimination deadline from
December 31, 2017, to December 31, 2023.
Subtitle C--Working-Capital Funds
Section 1421--Limitation on Furlough of Department of Defense Employees
Paid Through Working-Capital Funds
This section would prohibit the furlough of Department of
Defense employees paid through working capital funds unless the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military department
determines that the working capital fund is insolvent or there
are insufficient funds to pay working capital fund labor costs
of the employee. This section would also provide the authority
for the Secretary concerned to waive the prohibition in the
interest of national security.
Section 1422--Working-Capital Fund Reserve Account for Petroleum Market
Price Fluctuations
This section would amend section 2208 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new subsection that establishes a
reserve account within the Defense Working Capital Fund to
provide fund managers a contingency account for sudden
fluctuations in market rates for petroleum. With the volatility
of the current fuel market, the committee believes setting fuel
rates up to 18 months prior to execution is a difficult and
imprecise action. This account would allow fund managers to
maintain the standard price for fuel to customers when market
prices suddenly increase, which the committee believes would
keep operation and maintenance accounts unaffected during the
year of execution.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 1431--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
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funds 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).
Section 1432--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home
This section would authorize $64.3 million to be
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home during fiscal year 2016.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee notes that section 1008 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) requires the budget submission to Congress for
each fiscal year to include:
(1) A request for the appropriation of funds for ongoing
operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan;
(2) An estimate of all funds expected to be required in
that fiscal year for operations; and
(3) A detailed justification of the funds requested.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations to
be available upon enactment of this Act to support overseas
contingency operations. These authorizations support, but are
not limited to, current operations against the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); enhanced security and military
capabilities for countries in the region to include Jordan, a
key member of the coalition against ISIL; increased assistance
and sustainment to the military and national security forces of
Ukraine to deter Russian aggression; reassurance and support
for our allies and partners; and continued support for the
Afghanistan National Security Forces to support stability and
security in Afghanistan.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund
The committee notes that the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) authorized the Secretary of
Defense to provide assistance to foreign security forces and to
improve the capacity of the U.S. Armed Forces in the U.S.
Central Command and U.S. Africa Command areas of responsibility
under the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF). Public Law
113-291 also authorized $1.30 billion for this fund.
The budget request contained $2.10 billion in Overseas
Contingency Operations funding for the CTPF. However, the
committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense has not
provided the plan for CTPF, as required by section 1534 of
Public Law 113-291, and has not devised a strategy for this
fund. Given the complexities of the CTPF, the nascent stage of
the execution of the fiscal year 2015 CTPF authorization, and
that no funds have been obligated or executed under the fiscal
year 2015 CTPF authorization, the committee recommends not
authorizing a fiscal year 2016 CTPF. Elsewhere in this Act, the
committee realigns such CTPF funds to areas in which the
requirements have been determined.
The committee intends to conduct close and thorough
oversight of the fiscal year 2015 CTPF authorization in order
to ensure that: (1) the CTPF serves the purpose that the
Secretary of Defense envisions for this fund; (2) the CTPF is
executed consistent with the fiscal year 2015 CTPF
authorization; and (3) the Department of Defense is able to
execute the fiscal year 2015 CTPF authorized funding
effectively.
Funding and Support for the European Reassurance Initiative
The budget request included $789.3 million for the European
Reassurance Initiative (ERI). The committee supports the policy
and activities contained in the ERI, which was originally
proposed as part of the budget request for fiscal year 2015.
However, the committee observes that these initiatives are
largely focused on conventional reassurance and deterrence
activities. The committee also recognizes that the Russian
Federation has employed unconventional warfare methods in areas
such as cyber warfare, economic warfare, information
operations, and intelligence operations, and believes the
Department of Defense should increase its focus on countering
such methods.
The committee believes that ERI funds for fiscal year 2016
should be allocated for continued conventional reassurance and
deterrence activities, as outlined in section 1535 of the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), as
well as countering unconventional threats. Therefore, elsewhere
in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would: (1)
lay out a statement of policy regarding ERI; (2) require a
Department of Defense strategy to address unconventional
warfare methods; and (3) authorize increased funding for U.S.
intelligence and warning capabilities related to the European
theater, technologies supporting U.S. information operations
and strategic communications activities, the Javelin weapon
system, and Stryker combat vehicle upgrades to meet U.S. Army
Europe operational needs.
The committee further believes that, as part of the U.S.
effort to increase security assistance to allies and partners
in Europe, ERI funds should be allocated to provide both
nonlethal equipment and lethal equipment of a defensive nature
to Ukraine. Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee
includes a provision that would authorize appropriations to
provide sustainment and assistance to the military and national
security forces of Ukraine.
The committee believes that all of these U.S. efforts taken
in combination are vital to address regional security and to
deter and counter continued Russian aggression. The committee
further believes that these efforts should be enduring and must
be sustained as core activities of the Department of Defense in
Europe.
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account
The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations
contained no funding for National Guard and Reserve Component
equipment account. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee notes
that the base budget request contained $3.1 billion for
procurement of National Guard and Reserve Component equipment.
Given the uncertainty of the current and projected fiscal
environment, the availability of equipment needed to sustain
and modernize the National Guard and Reserve Components as an
operational reserve and for their domestic support missions
remains a concern. The committee recognizes the National Guard
and Reserve Components continue to report significant equipment
shortages in modernized equipment. For example, the committee
notes there are significant modernization and capability
challenges associated with the current Air National Guard
aircraft charged with the Aerospace Control Alert mission.
The committee believes additional funds would help
eliminate identified shortfalls in the areas of critical dual-
use equipment. The committee expects these funds to be used for
the purposes of, but not limited to, the procurement of
aircraft, avionic and radar upgrades for legacy strike fighter
aircraft, wheeled and tracked combat vehicles, tactical wheeled
vehicles, ammunition, small arms, tactical radios to include
single channel ground and airborne radio systems, non-system
training devices, logistics automation systems, sense and avoid
system upgrades for unmanned aerial systems, civil support
communication systems, semipermanent humidity controlled
aircraft shelters, chemical/biological protective shelters,
internal and external fuel tanks for rotorcraft, F-16 center
display units, mobile ad hoc network emergency communications
equipment, and other critical dual-use, unfunded procurement
items for the National Guard and Reserve Components.
The committee recommends additional funding for a National
Guard and Reserve Component equipment account within the
Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. The committee
also recommends $3.1 billion, the full amount of the base
budget request, for National Guard and Reserve equipment.
Support to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to Counter the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would increase support
to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan for training, operations,
and enhancement of their capability to fight the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Specifically, this Act would provide: (1) $300.0 million
for support to the border security of Jordan, (2) $16.5 million
for support to the training and operations of the Jordanian
military, and (3) $300.0 million for enhancements to the
capabilities of the Jordanian military.
The committee continues to believe that the United States
should take all steps to ensure that it is supporting Jordan in
its fight against ISIL to include providing parts, equipment,
training, and enhanced capability in a timely manner.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 1501--Purpose
This section would establish the purpose of 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 and
other additional funding requirements.
Section 1502--Procurement
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
procurement at the levels identified in section 4102 of
division D of this Act.
Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
research, development, test, and evaluation at the levels
identified in section 4202 of division D of this Act.
Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
operation and maintenance programs at the levels identified in
sections 4302 and 4303 of division D of this Act.
The committee notes that funds authorized for the Syria
Train & Equip Fund shall be executed pursuant to section 1209
of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291).
Section 1505--Military Personnel
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of
division D of this Act.
Section 1506--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in
section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Section 1507--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
Wide
This section 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.
Section 1508--Defense Inspector General
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
the Office of the Inspector General at the levels identified in
section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Section 1509--Defense Health Program
This section 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
Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations
This section would state that amounts authorized to be
appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise
authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority
This section would authorize the transfer of up to $3.5
billion of additional war-related funding authorizations in
this title among the accounts in this title.
Subtitle C--European Reassurance Initiative and Related Matters
Section 1531--Statement of Policy Regarding European Reassurance
Initiative
This section would express a series of findings
highlighting continued aggression and intimidation by the
Russian Federation against U.S. allies and partners in Europe,
in particular, and include a statement of policy on efforts by
the United States to continue and expand initiatives to
reassure U.S. allies and partners and to deter aggression and
intimidation by the Russian Government, in order to enhance
security and stability in the region.
Section 1532--Assistance and Sustainment to the Military and National
Security Forces of Ukraine
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, in
concurrence with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance
and sustainment to the military and national security forces of
Ukraine through September 30, 2016. This assistance would
include the explicit authority for the Secretary of Defense to
provide lethal weapons of a defensive nature to the security
forces of Ukraine.
This section would also require a notification to specified
congressional committees containing a description of the plan
for providing assistance, and require a quarterly report on the
status of the activities and assistance. Lastly, this section
would authorize appropriations of $200.0 million to carry out
this authority.
While the committee acknowledges the Administration's
efforts to provide nonlethal security assistance to Ukraine,
including its March 2015 announcement that $75.0 million in
Department of Defense European Reassurance Initiative funds
would be allocated to provide additional nonlethal equipment to
Ukraine, the committee believes that defensive weapons and
training are also necessary to enhance the defense of Ukraine.
The committee notes that a February 2015 Atlantic Council,
Brookings Institute, and Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Report, ``Preserving Ukraine's Independence, Resisting Russian
Aggression: What the United States and NATO [the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization] Must Do,'' authored by former senior U.S.
diplomatic and military officials, came to a similar conclusion
in its recommendation that the United States and NATO ``bolster
Ukraine's defense and deter further Russian aggression by
providing military assistance to Ukraine--including lethal
defensive assistance.''
The committee views this Ukraine assistance authority as
part of a larger policy to reassure U.S. allies and partners in
Europe and to deter further Russian aggression in both
conventional and unconventional forms. Therefore, elsewhere in
this Act, the committee includes a provision that would
authorize funds for the Department of Defense to continue its
European Reassurance Initiative activities, including
increasing training, exercises, and partnership capacity with
European allies and partners. Additionally, elsewhere in this
report, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
undertake a study on how the Department should address
unconventional warfare methods.
Subtitle D--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters
Section 1541--Continuation of Existing Limitation on Use of Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund
This section would continue the existing limitation on the
use of funds in the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF)
subject to conditions of section 1513 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as
amended by section 1531 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383),
through fiscal year 2016.
Additionally, this section would require that $50.0 million
from ASFF be used for the recruitment and retention of women in
the Afghanistan National Security Forces, including the
modification of facilities of the Ministry of the Interior and
the Ministry of Defense to accommodate female service members
and police.
Further, this section would require that, not later than
120 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, submit
to the congressional defense committees, and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives, an inventory of the
facilities and services of the Afghan Ministry of Defense and
the Ministry of the Interior that are lacking in adequate
resources for Afghan female service members and police.
In addition, this section would require that, not later
than 60 days after the submission of such an inventory, the
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, submit to the congressional defense committees, and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, a plan to
address the shortcomings of such facilities and services that
the Secretaries consider to be most significant and to identify
the funding that would be required to fully address such
shortcomings.
This section also would require the Secretary of Defense,
with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to submit to
the congressional defense committees, and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives, updates to the
inventory and plan required at the same time that the President
submits the budget under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, for each fiscal year through fiscal year 2020.
Section 1542--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
This section would authorize various transfer authorities,
reporting requirements, and other associated activities for the
Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Fund, as managed
by the Joint IED Defeat Organization, or director of the
successor defense agency to the Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Organization, during fiscal year 2016. This
section would also modify the implementation requirements
associated with the plan for consolidation and alignment of
rapid acquisition organizations required to be developed by
section 1533(b) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291). Finally, this section would repeal the
prohibition in section 1533(d) of Public Law 113-291 on the use
of fiscal year 2015 funds for the Joint IED Defeat Fund to
assign personnel or contractors to combatant commands or
associated military components under certain circumstances.
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Army Space Programs
The committee is aware of various U.S. Army Space and
Missile Defense Command (SMDC) investments in space
technologies to support the warfighter. One program that SMDC
is developing, called Kestrel Eye, will launch two low-cost
imaging satellites, which are controlled by and provide direct
support to tactical forces. Additionally, there are other
investments in low-cost communications satellites for beyond-
line-of-sight mission command for tactical forces in forward-
deployed operating areas. These communications satellites may
also offer the ability to provide greater situational awareness
and rapid targeting information to tactical operations, as well
as provide a testbed for telemetry collection and technology
demonstration of a space-based range. Lastly, the Enhanced
Advanced Space Data Exploitation capability is designed to
provide consumable, real-time information and intelligence to
the warfighter. Further space data exploitation and integration
may offer significant cost savings and operational advantage to
military forces.
The committee fully supports these SMDC activities and
encourages the Army to continue technology development for
tactical forces to harness the unique advantages that space
provides.
The committee also encourages the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, which are
both combat support agencies, as well as the National
Reconnaissance Office, to partner with SMDC on opportunities to
further leverage the advantages of space capabilities for
tactical forces.
Calibration of Space Sensors
The committee supports the calibration of space sensors
prior to launch. Without proper calibration, characterization,
testing, and evaluation, there is risk of under-performance for
the warfighter, and waste of investment of the taxpayer. In
this regard, the committee notes that short-term decisions
based on budget-driven solutions could have longer-term
implications. Therefore, the committee recommends that space
sensors being developed by the Department of Defense be
properly calibrated, tested, and evaluated prior to launch.
Combatant Command Commercial Imagery Tasking
The committee is aware that the flexibility for a combatant
command to directly task a space-based reconnaissance asset
enhances the warfighter's ability to address intelligence and/
or operational gaps. In this regard, the Operationally
Responsive Space satellite (ORS-1) provided direct tasking
ability for the commanders of the combatant commands, most
directly to U.S. Central Command. However, the ORS-1 satellite
is currently operating well beyond its design life, and there
is no related follow-on program planned. The committee believes
that allowing the combatant commands to directly task
commercial imagery assets could be the logical next step in
providing that flexibility and improving responsiveness to the
warfighter.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, based on the feedback from each of the
combatant commanders, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence by November 1, 2015, on the utility
and impacts of combatant commanders directly tasking commercial
imagery satellites. Based on feedback from the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the committee further directs the
Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA),
in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and the Director of National Intelligence, to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by January
1, 2016, on current and potential future activities, including
costs, to address the ability of the combatant commands to
directly task commercial imagery satellites. The Director of
NGA should consider current and future complementary commercial
imagery capabilities to support this activity.
Commercial Space-based Environmental Monitoring
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
various requirements for accurate and relevant characterization
of the atmospheric, maritime, terrestrial, and space
environments to support the full spectrum of military
operations worldwide. The committee is also aware that multiple
U.S. companies are planning to develop and commercially sell
space-based environmental monitoring capabilities. The
committee is interested in the utility of these potential
future commercial capabilities for Department of Defense
requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December
1, 2015, on the current and projected commercial space-based
environmental monitoring capabilities, the utility of these
capabilities to meet Department of Defense requirements, the
cost and benefit analysis of opportunities in the future to
leverage these potential commercial capabilities, and any other
considerations the Under Secretary deems appropriate.
Comptroller General Review of Patriot System
The committee is aware of the increasing operational
demands being made on the Patriot system to meet current and
emerging threats, as well as the Army's rising investments to
modernize the Patriot system, and the impact that modernization
has on coordinating systems in the Army's Air and Missile
Defense portfolio.
In the President's request, excluding costs for the
development and acquisition of a new radar, the Army plans to
invest a combined total of nearly $2.00 billion in
modernization of the Patriot system over the next 5 years in
research, development, test, and evaluation and missile
procurement. Given the significant planned investment of
funding and the large number of concurrent modernization
activities, the committee is interested in increasing oversight
of the Patriot system and its modernization, including testing
and fielding, particularly in the next 5 years, both within the
Patriot modernization program elements and other Army Air and
Missile Defense coordinating programs.
In addition, the committee is aware that Patriot
modernization efforts not only affect Army coordinating
systems, but have greater implications since many of these
modernization efforts are for increased interoperability with
elements in the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile
Defense System.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide an interim report to the congressional
defense committees not later than March 1, 2016, and a final
report not later than June 1, 2016, that includes an assessment
of the following: (1) the current status of the Army's Patriot
System performance, including how well the system's current
performance is meeting combatant commander requirements, and
any gaps that may exist between how the system currently
functions and functionality the combatant commanders need in
order to meet the growing and changing threat; (2) the Army's
strategy, including its cost, schedule, and testing plans to
upgrade and modernize its Patriot system as well as other
coordinating systems in the Army's Air and Missile Defense in
order to meet combatant commander requirements and address the
growing threat; (3) the effect that Patriot modernization
requirements for integration and interoperability has on
Ballistic Missile Defense Systems and coordinating allied
systems for regional defense; (4) how well the Army has and is
currently providing the training, size, capability, and
availability of Patriot operators necessary to meet combatant
commander needs and to remain current with the latest
modernizations being added to the Patriot system; and (5) any
other findings and recommendations on other acquisition issues
with Patriot or its interfaces with other coordinating systems
that the Comptroller General considers appropriate.
The committee expects the Comptroller General to take into
consideration the findings and analysis of the Department of
Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office as it
completes its ongoing Analysis of Opportunities on Patriot
modernization, as well as other appropriate reviews and studies
underway in the Joint Staff and Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy.
Continuing Oversight of Missile Defense Discussions with the Russian
Federation
The committee continues to have an interest in maintaining
and protecting U.S. missile defense capability. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than 1 week after
the date on which the Department of Defense conducts any
discussions with the Russian Federation pertaining to missile
defense during fiscal year 2016. The committee notes that
similar direction was provided to the Secretary for fiscal year
2015 in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying
the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
Cyber Defense Network Segmentation
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
looking at modifying the way it builds, maintains, and upgrades
data center, including increased use of commercial cloud
capabilities and public-private partnerships. The committee is
aware that as the Department increasingly looks at software-
defined networking, it could potentially reduce the mobility of
cyber threats across data center and other networks by
increasing the compartmentalization and segmentation between
systems, and providing a mix of security techniques to enable
access to those compartments. Such actions have the potential
to lessen the chance of a widespread or catastrophic breach,
including breaches caused by insider threats. The committee
encourages the Department to explore ways to use
compartmentalization or segmentation as part of a software-
defined networking approach in order to increase the security
of its networks.
Cyber Support to Civil Authorities
The committee recognizes that the danger of disruptive and
destructive cyber attacks is growing and that the U.S. military
and civilian cyber infrastructure is being targeted by
malicious government, criminal, and individual actors who try
to avoid attribution. Although the Department of Defense
generally does not resource support to civil authorities in
response to a domestic cyber incident, the Department possesses
an array of capabilities that may be requested when civilian
response capabilities are overwhelmed or exhausted, or in
instances where the Department offers unique capabilities not
likely to be found elsewhere. For instance, the nexus with the
authorities and responsibilities of the National Guard provides
a valuable link between military capabilities and civilian
State, local, tribal and Federal needs.
In 2012, the Government Accountability Office highlighted
gaps in the Department of Defense's plans and guidance for
assisting civil authorities in the event of a domestic cyber
incident. The committee notes that the Department of Defense
has worked in coordination with the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Justice to agree upon shared
roles and responsibilities for Federal cyber security. The
committee also notes that among the challenges the Department
of Defense continues to face are determining the scope of the
potential cyber support it may be requested to provide, and the
appropriate mixture and involvement of Active and Reserve
Component military cyber forces to meet anticipated defense
cyber civil support needs. In testimony before the Subcommittee
on Emerging Threats and Capabilities on March 4, 2015, the
Commanding General of U.S. Army Cyber Command stated that
``While title 10 authorities are clear, title 32 and State
active duty require the application of varied State
constitutional, legislative, and executive authorities and
coordination with state Agencies and officials. While every
State is different, there is merit in developing a common
approach for authorities and capabilities to facilitate rapid
and effective response in cyberspace.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Department of Defense's plans
and actions for providing support to civil authorities in the
event of a domestic cyber incident, and to provide a report on
the findings to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives. The Comptroller General
should provide a briefing on preliminary results to the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2016, with the report
to follow on a date agreed to at the time of briefing. The
assessment should address the following:
(1) To what extent has the Department of Defense planned
and identified its critical capabilities for responding to
domestic cyber civil support incidents, including the use of
Active and Reserve Component cyber capabilities and personnel
for civil support?
(2) To what extent has the Department of Defense trained
and exercised for domestic cyber civil support incidents and
coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security and other
relevant Federal agencies?
(3) To what extent has the Department of Defense or the
Department of Homeland security developed a common approach for
title 32 and State Active Duty forces that balances the
differences in State approaches, authorities, and
responsibilities?
Department of Defense Cyber Mission Forces
The committee recognizes the growing importance of the
Cyber Mission Forces within the Department of Defense to
address current and future cyber security requirements. The
committee is aware that the evolving nature of cyber threats
and missions will require the Department to reassess their
force structure and operations on a continuous basis. Section
1631 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291) requires the Secretary of Defense to provide to Congress
an annual budget justification display that includes (1) a
major force program category for the Future Years Defense
Program of the Department of Defense for the training, manning,
and equipping of the cyber mission forces; and (2) program
elements for the cyber mission forces, beginning with the
fiscal year 2017 budget request.
The committee believes that these annual budget
justification displays will provide the transparency necessary
to address challenges with efficiently using resources towards
the evolving cyber threats and missions and maintain
congressional oversight of cyber investments.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
by September 1, 2015, on progress towards meeting the
requirements of Section 1631 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
Deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Battery in the
Republic of Korea
The committee is aware that bilateral discussions have
taken place regarding the potential deployment of a U.S.
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery to the
Republic of Korea. The committee sees mutual benefit in the
deployment of such a capability that protects both Koreans and
deployed U.S. forces from the nuclear and ballistic missile
threat posed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
As noted by the Commander of U.S. Forces Korea in testimony
before the committee in March 2015, ``[I]t is critical for the
alliance to build a layered and interoperable BMD capability.''
The commander has further stated that, ``[t]he THAAD system
provides a greater sensor array, better awareness of the
threats and adds to the interoperability of all our systems.''
The committee shares this assessment of THAAD and believes it
would both enhance and complement the current air and missile
defense capabilities maintained by both countries, including
across the entire ballistic missile kill chain, on the
peninsula.
The committee recognizes that any deployment decision
regarding THAAD rests with the Government of the Republic of
Korea. Should such a decision be made, the committee would
welcome it as a further demonstration of the collective
security commitments of both countries.
Development of Missile Defense Targets Related to the Hypersonic Threat
The committee is aware of the rapidly evolving threat from
potential adversaries' development of hypersonic weapons;
consequently, the committee discusses potential responses to
these developments elsewhere in this report.
The committee is also aware of several recent tests by the
People's Republic of China of hypersonic weapons, as well as
other hypersonic weapon developments by the Russian Federation
and the Republic of India. The committee believes this rapidly
emerging capability could be a threat to national security and
our operational forces.
The committee recognizes U.S. Army Space and Missile
Defense Command's Advanced Hypersonic Weapons (AHW)
developments have resulted in significant work in design,
technology development, hardware engineering, and understanding
relevant to hypersonic threats. The committee is aware that
Flight 1A of the AHW program successfully demonstrated a medium
range flight of a hypersonic boost-glide system. AHW Flight 2
was intended to mature these technologies and demonstrate a
longer range capability, but it failed shortly after ignition
for reasons related to launch configuration control.
The committee believes that the residual hardware, designs,
and technology from these earlier developments should be used
to develop and provide a hypersonic threat target system to
improve U.S. defenses, based on successfully flight-tested
designs, to characterize emerging foreign threat developments,
and understand potential threat capabilities.
The committee is concerned that without proper
understanding of and testing against realistic threats, the
United States will not be prepared for the emerging
capabilities of our adversaries. The committee believes that
increasing our understanding and testing is important given
significant investments and capability developments by the
United States and an emerging threat.
Distributed Common Ground System--Army GAO Report
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the
General Accountability Office (GAO) to provide a report to the
House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2016, that
reviews the schedule and cost estimates for all increments of
the Distributed Common Ground System--Army (DCGS-A). This
review should examine the program to determine the extent to
which:
(1) The current schedule was prepared in accordance with
standard government best practices for program management;
(2) The current cost estimates are consistent with GAO's
cost estimation guidelines;
(3) The program has changed or modified their planned cost
and schedule estimates over the course of the program; and
(4) The extent to which the program has met cost goals and
performance targets.
Evaluation of Missile Defense Options to Confront Hypersonic Missile
Systems
The committee is aware that the worldwide ballistic missile
threat is growing in sophistication, capability, and numbers.
The committee also notes the Future Years Defense Program for
the Missile Defense Agency submitted along with the budget
request for fiscal year 2016 included $291.0 million for the
development of an extended range (ER) variant of the Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). The committee supports an
investment in such a capability, understanding that although a
material solution decision has not yet been made, THAAD-ER
could be a vital capability improvement for the Ballistic
Missile Defense System to defeat evolving and emerging threats,
including hypersonic vehicles and anti-ship ballistic missiles.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with the Commander, U.S.
Central Command, the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, and the
Commander, U.S. European Command, to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1,
2016, concerning the potential utility of THAAD-ER or similar
capability to counter emerging and evolving threats in each of
their respective geographic area of responsibility.
The committee further directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy to provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services not later than February 1, 2016, on potential
opportunities for co-development or co-financing of THAAD-ER or
a similar capability with an allied nation, and any policies,
technology release decisions, data sharing, or other related
issues that would need to be resolved prior to entering into
such an arrangement.
Lastly, the committee directs the Director, Missile Defense
Agency to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than December 1, 2015, on the results of the
THAAD-ER concept development, and the Director's analysis of
regional sensors and interceptors against emerging threats,
including on the value and cost of developing such capability.
Evaluation of National Security Space and Missile Test Ranges and
Infrastructure
The committee is aware that several Department of Defense
offices and agencies, including the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air
Force, the U.S. Army, and the Missile Defense Agency, conduct
multiple test launches each year to collect data on system
performance and reliability. The committee is also aware that
while some of these tests have different standards for data
fidelity collection and timeliness, they share the basic goal
of collecting large amounts of telemetric and other data, and
almost all of these users have similar range safety
requirements. The committee understands that, combined, these
Department of Defense users spend multiple billions of dollars
per year on test activities, including hundreds-of-millions of
dollars on test ranges and infrastructure. The committee
believes the Department should conduct an intensive review to
understand these costs and how it could realize savings across
the defense test enterprise. For example, the committee
understands that the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command (SMDC)/Army Forces Strategic Command has conducted
limited experimentation on potentially promising technologies
to yield savings.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation to collect data from all
entities and offices involved in relevant test activities and
to conduct a Business Case Analysis (BCA) on specific options,
including the SMDC Space Based Range, for how to accomplish the
goals of these Department of Defense users' test activities
while achieving meaningful savings. The committee intends that
the BCA focus on national security space and missile defense
users, including the U.S. Air Force Intercontinental Ballistic
Missile test program, the U.S. Navy Strategic Systems Program
test launches, Missile Defense Agency test efforts, and other
similar test activities within the Department of Defense.
The committee further directs the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation to provide the data and
conclusions from this review to the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics not later than
December 1, 2015. Finally, the committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than February 15, 2016, consisting of the findings
and recommendations of the BCA and the Under Secretary's views
on the analysis, and recommendations for a roadmap for the
Department to implement a way ahead on its test enterprise
based on the BCA.
Funding for Pilot Program for Acquisition of Commercial Satellite
Communication Services
The budget request contained $53.5 million in PE 33600F,
but contained no funding for the pilot program for acquisition
of commercial satellite communication services, also known as
pathfinder programs, as authorized in section 1605 of the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
Therefore, the committee recommends $79.5 million, an increase
of $26.0 million, in PE 33600F for the pilot program for
acquisition of commercial satellite communication services.
Funding Mechanism for Department of Defense Priorities at the National
Nuclear Security Administration
The committee is aware that, from fiscal year 2011 to
fiscal year 2015, the Department of Defense has transferred
billions of dollars in defense budget authority to the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) during formulation of
the President's annual budget request to support priorities set
by the Nuclear Weapons Council. The committee notes the
cooperation between NNSA and the Department of Defense, through
the Nuclear Weapons Council, is to ensure the military's
requirements related to nuclear weapons sustainment and
modernization, including nuclear weapons life extension
programs and plans for building a responsive infrastructure and
capability, are met. The committee is also aware of the
challenges related to management, accountability, and
transparency resulting from this budget authority transfer.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December
1, 2015, containing the Under Secretary's assessment of costs,
benefits, and risks of various options for either continuing,
discontinuing, or modifying the current budget authority
transfer mechanism, including assessing the benefit and risk of
using a Work-For-Others funding mechanism. Such assessment
should discuss what additional authorities may be needed to
carry out each option.
Global Positioning System
The committee notes that the Global Positioning System
(GPS) is a critical national asset that provides a worldwide
navigation and timing source which supports military, civil,
and commercial users. There are multiple segments of the Air
Force GPS program, including space, user terminals, and the
ground system. The committee supports the GPS program.
The committee recognizes the challenges during the initial
development of GPS III space vehicles. The committee is also
aware that some of the major technical hurdles associated with
the initial technology development may have been overcome. The
committee supports the GPS III program, and recommends the Air
Force fully leverage the non-recurring investment in program
planning for the future space vehicles. The committee continues
to support evolutionary acquisition with technology insertion
plans to meet warfighter requirements.
The committee continues to recommend that the Department
take the necessary steps to accelerate the development and
fielding of M-code capable user terminals. M-code capable
receivers, when paired with the necessary space and ground
capabilities, will provide significantly greater anti-jam
capabilities for the warfighter. The committee addresses this
matter elsewhere in this Act.
Regarding the ground segment, the committee is also aware
of the challenges with the Next Generation Operational Control
Segment (OCX). OCX is designed to deliver incremental
capabilities in multiple blocks. The program has rigorous
information assurance requirements to ensure the system is
secure from adversary threats. The committee believes that an
independent advisory team, compromised of experts from other
Department of Defense agencies and federally funded research
and development centers, may provide valuable support to ensure
the Government meets its objectives on this critical program.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1,
2015, on the potential value and feasibility of establishing a
temporary independent advisory team for GPS OCX.
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
The committee commends the Air Force for its proposal to
structure the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program,
which will create a follow-on to the Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), as an integrated
system consisting of the missiles, launch facilities, launch
control centers, communications, and related infrastructure and
equipment. The committee believes the Air Force's structural
approach to creating a GBSD ``weapon system'' will ease both
acquisition and long-term sustainment of all the core
components that comprise the ICBM capability.
As the Air Force continues the materiel solution analysis
phase for the GBSD program, the committee believes that the Air
Force should carefully consider the program's effects on the
solid rocket motor industrial base. Due to the volume of rocket
motors likely to be procured, the Air Force's acquisition
strategy for GBSD will have lasting impacts on the health and
vitality of this key element of the U.S. defense industrial
base. As with all major defense acquisition programs, the
committee believes competition generally provides the Air Force
with the best combination of innovation, cost reduction, and
performance. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air
Force to develop an affordable acquisition strategy for GBSD
that considers the value of competition to maximize benefit to
the Government and maintains a strong solid rocket motor
industrial base. To better understand the GBSD strategy, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September
30, 2015, that provides an assessment of GBSD's potential
impacts on the solid rocket motor industrial base, what
acquisition strategy options are available to the Secretary,
and an evaluation of the costs and benefits of options that may
provide the Secretary the ability to leverage competition
throughout the life cycle of the GBSD program.
Imagery Analysis and Acquisition
The committee commends the Director, National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency (NGA) for his leadership in assessing the
merit of using potentially new approaches to intelligence
collection and analysis that could inform, complement, and add
to NGA's support of warfighter requirements. While recognizing
the need to take the appropriate steps to protect national
security, the committee notes the benefit of the expanding
commercial imagery capabilities which could support defense
requirements. The committee remains interested in the
commercial capability developments, as well as the steps to
protect national security, and encourages the Director and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to keep the committee
informed on these issues as they relate to the Department of
Defense.
Improving Contract Cost Data Collection and Analysis at the Missile
Defense Agency through Evaluation of Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense Multiyear Procurement
The committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) briefly evaluated multiyear procurement of Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors in the process of
developing the fiscal year 2016 budget request. Multiyear
procurement of THAAD interceptors could have helped to arrest a
significant decline in such interceptor production across the
past several fiscal years by reducing per unit interceptor
cost. However, such evaluation was hindered by the lack of high
fidelity and detailed cost information of the parts and
components of THAAD interceptors.
The committee believes that effective cost analysis depends
on the availability and quality of historical program cost
data. The committee is aware that the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) currently manages the
Department of Defense's primary weapon system cost data
collection system. The components of the system include
defining cost data requirements, development of cost collection
plans to meet these requirements, insuring these plans are
included in acquisition contracts, performing quality control
on the contractor data submissions, archiving and organizing
the cost data to facilitate analysis, and protecting access to
the data.
The committee believes CAPE could assist MDA in developing
practices and policies, including contract requirements, to
improve contract cost data collection at MDA. Therefore, the
committee directs the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation, in coordination with the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency, to evaluate the potential per unit cost savings
of THAAD interceptors if acquired through multiyear procurement
as compared to recent MDA procurement contracts. In conducting
the evaluation, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation should also assess and make recommendations for (1)
reducing the barriers to collect adequate contract cost data
for THAAD interceptors specifically; and (2) what contract cost
data collection policies, practices, and requirements MDA
should adopt to achieve identified Department of Defense best
practices more broadly. The committee further directs the
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to brief the
results of the evaluation to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than February 15, 2016.
In addition, the committee directs the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than March 31, 2016, on
its plan to implement the assessment and recommendations for
cost data collection improvements made by the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation.
Integrated Air and Missile Defense Strategy
The committee has reviewed the ``Joint Integrated Air and
Missile Defense: Vision 2020'' strategy approved by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on January 27, 2014. The
committee commends the Chairman for the thoughtful and forward-
leaning approach he has brought to a critical challenge this
nation will face in the near future when it comes to air and
missile defense.
The committee is interested in understanding how the
``Vision 2020'' is being implemented by the Joint Staff and the
relevant combatant commanders. Therefore, the committee directs
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
September 3, 2015, on the following:
(1) How the Global Employment for the Force has been or is
being updated to reflect the six ``Imperatives'' stated by the
Chairman in the ``Vision 2020'' strategy;
(2) Specific initiatives undertaken by the Commander, U.S.
European Command, the Commander, U.S. Central Command, and the
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command to implement ``Vision 2020'' or
to otherwise ensure the true and complete integration of air
and missile defense, including prioritization of operational
and planning resources, and exercises; and
(3) The terms of reference, assumptions, analysis, and
results of the Joint Capabilities Mix Study, IV.
Interagency Collaboration on Physical Security for Nuclear Weapons
As a key element of the ``3+2'' strategy for the future of
the nuclear weapons stockpile, the Nuclear Weapons Council has
identified collaboration and interoperability between the Navy
and the Air Force as an integral measure for fulfilling the
nuclear deterrence mission while minimizing costs. While at
this early stage the success of the 3+2 in achieving this goal
is uncertain, the committee is interested in exploring this
principle within other areas of the council's jurisdiction.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the
Nuclear Weapons Council, in coordination with the Administrator
for Nuclear Security, the Secretary of the Navy, and the
Secretary of the Air Force, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2015, on
opportunities, challenges, and plans for enhanced collaboration
and interoperability of technologies between the military
departments, the Department of Defense, and the National
Nuclear Security Administration on physical security for
nuclear weapons. The briefing should describe opportunities for
collaboration on: physical security efforts in general; joint
development or use of analysis tools, methodologies, and
technologies; integration and prioritization of technology
needs; and development of common standards and processes for
each organization to utilize physical security technology
approved for general use in nuclear weapon security
environments.
Joint Integrated Lifecycle Surety
The committee believes the Joint Integrated Lifecycle
Surety (JILS) analysis tool developed through cooperation of
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the
Department of Defense may provide operators, analysts, and
senior leaders unique insights into the safety and security of
U.S. nuclear weapons across the full spectrum of scenarios that
they may encounter throughout their life cycle. The committee
believes this tool could be utilized to inform future
investments intended to reduce nuclear weapon safety and
security risks across the entire Department of Defense and NNSA
nuclear enterprise and each warhead's life cycle, from cradle
to grave and from stockpile to target.
The committee directs the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons
Council to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services on JILS by November 1, 2015. The briefing should
include the methodology and current results of the JILS tool;
the scenarios examined by the tool; any impacts the tool has
had on previous decision-making; any plans for enhancing the
tool in the future; and a description of how the Nuclear
Weapons Council, the military services, and NNSA will leverage
JILS to study cost-benefit and risk in future life extension
programs, delivery system acquisition programs, and other
efforts to enhance safety, security, or use control for U.S.
nuclear weapons.
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System
The committee continues to support the Air Force
development of the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System
(JMS) program. JMS is a critical program designed to deliver an
integrated, net-centric space situational awareness and command
and control capability. Given the growing space threat
environment, the committee encourages the Air Force to look for
reasonable opportunities to accelerate the delivery of key
capabilities, or increments, of the program. The committee also
recognizes and supports the Air Force's efforts to leverage
mature commercial software for JMS, in an effort to reduce
costs, increase capability, and shorten schedule timelines. The
committee expects the Air Force to perform thorough market
research and evaluation of mature commercial capabilities for
the follow-on increment of the JMS program.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by December 1, 2015, on the status and potential to
reasonably accelerate the current increment of the JMS program
and the plan for future increments, including the status of
market research to leverage commercially available
capabilities.
Mission System Cybersecurity
The committee is aware that the weapon and mission systems
upon which warfighters rely are increasingly being networked
together for greater effectiveness and interoperability.
However, this has happened without a sufficient appreciation of
the cybersecurity threat environments currently facing such
systems. As noted in the final report of the Defense Science
Board Task Force on Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced
Cyber Threat from January 2013, the Department should be doing
more to build a cyber-resilient force that should extend beyond
traditional networks and information systems to include these
weapon and mission systems. Included in this would be the
introduction and incorporation of cyber resiliency requirements
throughout the Department, for both new and emerging systems,
and developing the means to red-team, test, model and provide
feedback to the acquisition community and Intelligence
Community.
Despite Department of Defense policies designed to address
this threat, such as Department of Defense Instruction 5200.44,
and the formation of task forces for the Navy and the Air
Force, the committee is concerned that progress on the
identification and remediation of cyber vulnerabilities on
vital legacy platforms may be lagging. Moreover, the committee
is concerned that without the direction and funding to
immediately address these vulnerabilities, program leaders will
continue to focus limited resources on other platform needs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in
coordination with the military service chiefs, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February
1, 2016, detailing the process for identifying and assessing
vulnerabilities on legacy weapons and mission systems, as well
as for designating funding to remedy these vulnerabilities. The
briefing shall also include an accounting of the legacy weapon
and mission systems that the military service chiefs have
directed to be assessed through this process, the budget and
acquisition processes designed to support assessment and
remediation efforts, and a schedule and proposed budget for
conducting the required assessments and completing any
necessary remediation.
Mobile User Objective System
The committee supports the U.S. Navy Mobile User Objective
System (MUOS) program to provide next-generation narrow-band
tactical satellite communications to U.S. forces. The committee
is aware of the progress being made on the program, and
continues to support efforts that accelerate the schedule to
provide the full MUOS capability to the warfighter.
Modeling and Simulation for Nuclear Targeting and Planning
The committee is aware of efforts to improve both tactical
and strategic targeting and planning processes to better
incorporate modeling and simulation of nuclear strikes'
potential effects and consequences across a range of factors
including political, military, economic, social,
infrastructure, and information. The committee believes such
efforts could provide planners and senior decision-makers
important information when considering strike options,
particularly with regards to nuclear weapons employment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command and the
Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October
31, 2015, on the Department's efforts to integrate modeling and
simulation of a broad spectrum of a nuclear strike's potential
effects and consequences into nuclear targeting analysis and
planning.
Multi-source Cyber Intelligence Analysis Needs
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense is
making significant strides in building out a cyber mission
force to operate and defend critical Department information
systems, and is on track to have full operational capability by
2017. However, the committee is concerned that those teams,
while they have needed organic intelligence analysis
capability, may not be adequate to meet the full multi-source
cyber intelligence collection and analysis needs required to
support and enable those cyber mission forces. As recommended
in the final report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on
the Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat
from January 2013, the Department should be working with the
Intelligence Community to increase the priority of support for
collection and analysis of high-end cyber threats, including
the identification and understanding of adversarial cyber
weapon development organizations, tools, leadership, and
intentions, and the development of targeting information to
support initiatives to counter cyber weaponization. While the
National Security Agency provides significant support to those
units, the need to provide multi-source intelligence support
from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the service
intelligence centers remains. It is unclear to the committee
whether resourcing decisions related to personnel to support
cyber has extended to the multi-source intelligence support
centers within the Department.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
to assess and validate the multi-source cyber intelligence
collection and analysis needs of the Department of Defense, and
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by
November 1, 2015, on the findings of the analysis. The
assessment should cover both the number of personnel needed, as
well as the types and priority for current missions and
tasking.
Multiyear Procurement of Commercial Satellite Communications
The committee believes that the current statutory language,
specifically section 2306c of title 10, United States Code,
provides the necessary authority to the Department of Defense
to enter into contracts for periods of not more than 5 years
for commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) services which
support the broadly covered services identified in section
2306c. When done appropriately, the committee supports
multiyear leasing of commercial SATCOM as a way to lower costs
for the Department, provide greater assurance to meet stable
warfighter requirements, and partner with industry providers.
The committee recognizes that multiyear leasing is not the
solution for all of the Department's commercial satellite
communications requirements, but is one useful acquisition
approach that Department officials should use. Analysis
provided by the Department and industry has shown the potential
for significant savings in longer term contracts. Specifically,
one group of industry providers publicly stated that ``studies
have shown that buying capacity on the spot-market with IDIQ
[indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity] contracts costs the
DOD [Department of Defense] up to 25 percent more than it would
pay with a long-term contract for the same capacity.''
The committee looks forward to working with the Department
on this important area to meet the requirements of the
warfighter while reducing the costs to the taxpayers.
National Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Resilience
The committee recognizes that the Global Positioning System
(GPS) is a critical national security capability, as well as a
key element of critical infrastructure, and other civilian and
commercial applications. The use and dependence on GPS signals
in the United States continues to grow, despite the reality
that GPS jammers are relatively inexpensive and widely
available.
Regarding a backup system to GPS, the committee is aware of
a related National Security Presidential Directive which
assigns the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the responsibility to
develop, acquire, operate, and maintain backup position,
navigation, and timing capabilities that can support critical
transportation, homeland security, and other critical civil and
commercial infrastructure applications within the United
States. This system could be of some benefit to the Department
of Defense, but would not address all Department of Defense and
warfighter requirements, as this system would be focused
geographically within the United States.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by January
15, 2016, on the Department of Defense requirements for backup
position, navigation, and timing capabilities, including the
plan and estimated cost to address such requirements. The
committee expects the briefing to also include an assessment of
the potential benefit of a U.S.-based ground system and any
current or planned funding for this activity.
National Security Space Acquisition
The committee is aware that acquiring and developing space
programs, including satellites, ground segments, and user
segments is a challenging task. The committee believes in the
importance of well-developed acquisition strategies that are
designed to manage risks, reduce costs, support the industrial
base, and provide for technology insertion planning to meet
warfighter and national security requirements.
As an example of the current challenges, the General
Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported on the Space-
based Infrared Systems Program and stated that ``current
efforts--such as individual science and technology projects,
including those in the Space Modernization Initiative--are
limited by lack of direction, focusing on isolated
technologies, and therefore are not set up to identify specific
insertion points for a desired future system.'' The committee
is concerned with the GAO's finding.
The committee is aware of different acquisition planning,
strategies, and approaches being taken throughout national
security space programs. While there is not one answer for
every program, there are best practices and lessons learned
that could be applied across the national security space
enterprise.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), in coordination with
the Assistant Director of National Intelligence for Systems and
Resource Analyses (SRA) regarding intelligence programs, to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by
February 1, 2016, on a review of the acquisition practices for
national security space programs of the Department of Defense,
including with respect to the National Reconnaissance Office.
The review should include the following:
(1) An analysis of the costs, schedules, and performances
of selected, recent, and relevant major current and previous
contracts entered into for the acquisition of national security
space programs;
(2) An analysis of acquisition practices to determine
differences in practices and which practices have proven
effective in meeting requirements and appropriately managing
cost and schedule;
(3) An analysis of the technology insertion planning,
achievements, and challenges for various programs and agencies;
(4) Any recommendations to improve the acquisition and/or
cost estimation practices for national security space programs
by the Department of Defense; and
(5) Any other related matters the Director, CAPE and the
Assistant Director, SRA deem appropriate.
Network Access Control Technologies for Secure Facilities
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
continues to pursue enhancements to the security of its
networks and systems to deal with new and evolving cyber
security threats. Further, the committee recognizes that the
Department's Secure Compartmented Information Facilities need
to be both highly secure and highly connected from an
information management perspective, which poses unique
challenges in that kind of cyber threat environment. The
prevalence of mobile devices increases the complexity of
defending those facilities from the diverse array of cyber
threats facing the Department. The committee encourages the
Department to explore the use of network access control
technologies to intelligently manage appropriate mobile device
usage by cleared personnel, and to use such systems to
determine the location of any unauthorized mobile devices
within a secured facility.
Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Budget Displays
The committee maintains an interest in ensuring the
reliability and capability of a robust nuclear command,
control, and communications (NC3) system. The committee is
aware that, in response to an October 2014 letter from the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Armed
Services, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
responded in a December 2014 letter that the Department would
work with the committee to ``improve visibility into the
content and funding'' for the NC3 system. The committee
believes that an improved budget structure could ensure that
the Department and Congress are in the best possible position
to make available needed resources for the NC3 system.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller), in coordination with any Department of
Defense offices as the Under Secretary deems useful, to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than September 30, 2015, that details the Under Secretary's
views of the viability of options to improve the defense budget
structure for such programs.
Nuclear Detection Capability
The committee recently received a joint Air Force-National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) briefing, as directed in
the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the Howard
P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015, on the requirements and plans for the nuclear
detection capability. The committee notes that although the
Secretary of State was also directed to be part of the
briefing, there was no State Department representative at the
briefing to the committee. The committee continues to be
concerned about the long-term coordination between the
Department of Energy, the Department of State, and the
Department of Defense. The committee notes the March 2015
Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration
report, ``Prevent, Counter and Respond--A Strategic Plan to
Reduce Global Nuclear Threats (FY2016-FY2020),'' that
recognized program challenges remains with regard to
``sustaining a nuclear detonation detection sensor production
rate and capability that aligns with [the Department of
Defense's] changing satellite launch schedule and long-term
procurement plans and requirements,'' and, ``identifying a
long-term satellite host platform that addresses the
requirement to maintain current nuclear detonation detection
capabilities at geosynchronous altitude.'' The committee
expects the Department of Defense, in coordination with the
Department of Energy and the Department of State, to keep the
committee informed on the way forward (including on the Space
and Atmospheric Burst Reporting System), including
identification of requirements and attribution of the
requirements to a particular Department(s) or agency mission,
and the specific current and future funding being provided by
each Department or agency to meet each such requirement.
Nuclear Enterprise Review
Following revelations about troubling lapses of integrity
in the nation's nuclear forces, on February 10, 2014, the
Secretary of Defense directed the initiation of comprehensive
internal and external assessments of the health of all
components of the Department of Defense's nuclear enterprise.
According to recent testimony before the committee from a
senior Department official, this ``Nuclear Enterprise Review
(NER) highlighted evidence of systemic problems in the
strategic deterrent forces that threaten the future safety,
security, and effectiveness of our nuclear forces,'' and ``made
clear the need to refocus attention and resources at all levels
of the [Department of Defense] on this essential mission.''
Upon conclusion of the Nuclear Enterprise Review in
November 2014, the Secretary of Defense sent a ``Message to the
Force on our Nuclear Enterprise'' saying, ``[o]ur nuclear
deterrent plays a critical role in assuring U.S. national
security, and it is [the Department of Defense's] highest
priority mission. No other capability we have is more
important.'' The Secretary appointed the Deputy Secretary of
Defense to lead a group of senior leaders from the Department
and the military services to address problems identified by the
NER. This group, called the Nuclear Deterrent Enterprise Review
Group (NDERG), has met regularly to provide oversight and
direction to efforts by the Air Force and Navy to implement
corrective actions. As a result of the NER and NDERG, the
fiscal year 2016 budget request contained approximately $1.00
billion in additional funding for the Department of Defense
nuclear enterprise, with a total of $8.00 billion in additional
funding planned over the next 5 years.
The committee recognizes and applauds the robust personal
engagement of the Deputy Secretary and the former Secretary in
beginning to address these difficult and longstanding problems.
The committee believes sustained leadership, follow-through,
and investment will be required to ensure the revitalization of
our nuclear enterprise, including in certain instances
improving or changing the culture and leadership standards. The
committee believes the NDERG seems to be successful in this
regard, but cautions that institutionalization of such a
process may be required to ensure sustained attention after key
leaders depart. The committee expects the Secretary, the Deputy
Secretary, and all leaders within the Department of Defense to
ensure continued focus and resources for the Department's
``highest priority mission.''
Operationally Responsive Space
The budget request contained $6.5 million in PE 64857F for
the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. The committee
is encouraged that this program was included in the budget
request this year, although the funding is not enough to make
substantial progress on addressing urgent warfighter space
requirements. The committee recognizes and generally supports
the concept that the Air Force Space and Missile System Center
may leverage the ORS program office to execute urgent
activities that are identified within other relevant space
budget lines.
Additionally, the committee is aware that leadership of the
ORS program office will change over time due to normal
rotations of assignments. Since the ORS is a jointly manned
office, with a mission to meet joint military operational
requirements, the committee recommends that the ORS Executive
Committee consider an Army, Navy, or Marine Corps officer to
serve as the military commander of ORS.
Lastly, the committee is aware of potential urgent
requirements for space situational awareness and space-based
weather collection, and supports ORS concepts and management to
meet these requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends
$20.5 million, an increase of $14.0 million, in PE 64857F for
the Operationally Responsive Space program.
Organization of the Military Service and Technical Intelligence Centers
The committee is aware of disparities in the organization
and command structure of the intelligence centers aligned to
the military services and the Defense Intelligence Agency,
namely the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, the
Office of Naval Intelligence, the Marine Corps Intelligence
Activity, the National Ground Intelligence Center, and the
Missiles and Space Intelligence Center. The committee believes
that there would be benefits in applying a similar organizing
model and command structure across the centers, including
increased efficiencies, best practices, and improved overall
long-term performance.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence to review the current organization and
command structure of the military service and technical
intelligence centers and to provide a report to the
congressional defense and the congressional intelligence
committees by December 1, 2015, on the current structure of the
centers and recommendations for improvements.
Patriot Product Improvement
The committee is aware of the ongoing evaluation by the
Department of Defense, including the U.S. Army, to determine
the future path for investment in the lower tier of the U.S.
Army's air and missile defense capability. The committee
supports retention of U.S. technical superiority in integrated
air and missile defense capability to protect U.S. deployed
forces and allied forces.
The committee therefore applauds the U.S. Army for
thoroughly assessing future radar capabilities, beyond the
currently deployed legacy system. The committee is aware of
significant technological developments since the initial
deployment of the Patriot radar capability, including active
electronically scanned array and gallium nitride technology.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would direct the Army to provide the analysis and
recommendations of the analysis of alternatives for the Army's
Lower Tier Integrated Air and Missile Defense Capability. The
committee expects this review would thoroughly evaluate
multiple facets of the sustainment and modernization of the
Patriot air and missile defense system over the next 25 years,
including modernization of the Patriot radar.
Programmable Embedded Information Security Product
The committee is aware that the Naval Research Laboratory
has been working for a number of years on a new cryptographic
system to more rapidly enable upgrading of encryption
algorithms. This effort, known as PEIP, or the Programmable
Embedded Information Security Product, is not tied to any
hardware implementation, and thereby provides flexibility,
adaptability, and the ability to be rapidly upgraded and
modified over time. The committee recognizes that this approach
is a vast improvement from the traditional method for upgrading
and modifying cryptographic hardware and algorithms, which can
be a time-consuming and lengthy process. The committee
encourages the Navy and the Department of Defense to continue
investing in ways to expand the functionality of the PEIP
system and to use that as a model for future cryptographic
modernization efforts.
Protected Tactical Satellite Communications
The committee recognizes the importance of protected
satellite communications. In a statement for the record, the
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency informed the
committee that ``Chinese and Russian military leaders
understand the unique information advantages afforded by space
systems and are developing capabilities to deny U.S. use of
space in the event of a conflict. Chinese military writings
specifically highlight the need to interfere with, damage, and
destroy reconnaissance, navigation, and communication
satellites. China has satellite jamming capabilities and is
pursuing other antisatellite systems.''
In response to the increasing foreign threat, the committee
supports efforts that leverage existing military and commercial
satellites to provide greater protection for the warfighter.
The committee is aware of multiple ongoing activities within
the Air Force to increase capacity of protected satellite
communications. One such activity is a capabilities insertion
program which will provide increased capacity on the Advanced
Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite through a software
enhancement. Another activity is the development of a protected
tactical waveform for commercial satellites and Wideband Global
Satellite Communications (WGS). The committee is aware that
these activities will provide different levels of protection
but has not yet seen a strategic approach to address the
warfighter requirements, including against a determined foreign
adversary. Additionally, the committee believes that further
evaluation of enterprise-level satellite communications ground
architecture is necessary. This requires consideration of the
ground command and control as well as user terminals. The
warfighter will require situational awareness of the threat
activity as well as options to rapidly respond to maintain the
necessary warfighter capabilities. The committee recognizes
that terminals, which represent a major driver for any
architecture, will need to be considered in future concepts
that are designed to permit flexible operations in threatened
environments.
The committee is aware of the benefits the Air Force has
seen by co-locating space operations squadrons with
complementary missions. The committee also believes that there
may be opportunities for doing space operations more jointly,
within the Air Force and Army for instance, as well as
appropriately integrating commercial capabilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in
coordination with the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, the
Secretary of the Air Force, and the Chief Information Officer,
to provide the House Committee on Armed Services a briefing by
December 15, 2015 on the requirements and plan to provide
protected tactical communications to the warfighter through
existing satellite programs; the necessary funding for such
plan, and opportunities for acceleration as needed, in
accordance with the highest priority warfighter requirements;
and a strategic approach and concept definition for enterprise
level satellite communications ground architecture for
threatened environments.
Quarterly Briefings on Strategic Forces
The committee is concerned that certain matters are not
reported to the committee in a timely way. For example, the
committee had to learn about a recent weather satellite break-
up from press reporting rather than from the Department. The
committee acknowledges the satellite in question was operated
by another federal department; nonetheless, matters related to
the break-up of satellites and the creation of debris are
closely tracked by the Department and that information should
be shared with the congressional defense committees as soon as
practicable.
The committee is concerned with the current reporting
structure, or lack thereof, to keep the committee abreast of
national security space-related issues. In an effort to resolve
this, the committee is aware that the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command plans to take certain specific steps to
address this. The committee welcomes this commitment. The
committee expects prompt notification of matters related to
national security space. The committee notes the Director of
the National Reconnaissance Office has set a benchmark standard
that the Commander should look to as he seeks to improve
notifications to the congressional defense committees.
The committee further notes that it is not just in the area
of national security space where notification to the
congressional defense committees needs improvement. The
committee notes that several significant issues that prompted
the Department's Nuclear Enterprise Review had not been
disclosed to the committee and several specific problems in the
Air Force component of the Department's nuclear enterprise were
only made known to the committee through press reporting.
To improve notification, the committee directs the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide quarterly briefings to
the committee, starting June 1, 2015 and continuing through
September 30, 2016, detailing the following: readiness and
disposition of ballistic missile defense assets, including
interceptors (including Patriot, THAAD, Aegis BMD ships and
ashore sites, A/N TPY-2 radars); and readiness and disposition
of assets and personnel in the nuclear triad (including
ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental ballistic
missiles, and nuclear certified heavy bombers), as appropriate.
The committee notes that notifications concerning matters
affecting national security space are being addressed through
the aforementioned agreement with the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command, and the committee expects to be briefed on
any major issue affecting national security space.
Report on Current and Anticipated Global Demand for U.S. Missile
Defense Systems
The committee understands the significant requirement for
limited quantities of missile defense capability. Therefore,
the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than March 1, 2016, that includes the following
information:
(1) A quantitative assessment of the current demand and
projected demand (in 5 and 10 years) for U.S. missile defense
systems, including Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense cruisers,
destroyers, and Aegis Ashore sites, Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense batteries, Patriot batteries, and missile interceptors
associated with such missile defense systems;
(2) The current availability, projected availability (in 5
and 10 years) of such systems and interceptors;
(3) An identification of the sources of demand for missile
defense systems, including combatant commander requests,
international commitments, and contingency plans;
(4) An explanation of how demand for missile defense
systems is adjudicated within the Department of Defense;
(5) The current and projected costs (in 5 and 10 years) for
missile defense capability across the Department of Defense,
including as a percentage of the total defense budget; and
(6) Any other matters the Chairman deems appropriate.
Report on Improving Discrimination for Missile Defense
The committee supports and commends the efforts of the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency to invest in
discrimination improvements to counter ballistic missile
threats from states, including the Democratic People's Republic
of North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran. These
ballistic missile threats include increasingly complex
countermeasures, threatening the U.S. homeland, its deployed
forces, and allies. The committee agrees that improving this
capability is important to achieving a higher degree of
reliability, effectiveness, and efficiency, including improving
shot doctrine.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees not later than October 15, 2015, on the
cost, schedule, and options to accelerate and field
discrimination improvements based on robust acquisition
practices.
Report on Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile Tactical Ballistic Missile
Recertification for Allied Inventory
The committee is aware that allied nations continue to
acquire and maintain the Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile
Tactical Ballistic Missile (GEM-T) interceptor missile as an
effective and efficient defense against lower-tier, air-
breathing threats. The committee is also aware that the Army
has chosen not to maintain its own inventory of GEM-T
interceptors through recertification. The committee is
concerned not only about the resulting impact on the Army's
magazine depth in countering lower-tier, air-breathing threats
to deployed forces, but also the impacts to the inventories of
these interceptors held by allies.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
March 1, 2016, that assesses the impacts of the Army's decision
with respect to re-certification of its inventory of GEM-T
interceptors on the industrial base, including at Army depots
involved in maintaining this system, to ensure that allies will
continue to be able to maintain their inventories of these
interceptors for as long as technically safe and reliable. The
report should also recommend any steps (along with estimated
costs) that might be necessary to guarantee that allies will
not lose their ability to re-certify their inventories as a
result of the Army's decision. In addition, the Under
Secretary, in consultation with relevant regional combatant
commanders, should assess the impacts of the decision not to
re-certify GEM-T on their plans and requirements, and what the
cost would be to re-certify the system if a decision was made
to do so. The committee further directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide
an interim briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services on
the report not later than January 15, 2016.
Report on Strategic Missile Commonality
The committee strongly supports the nuclear triad and is
aware of the urgent need for modernization of all three legs of
the triad. The committee is also aware of the substantial
cumulative cost to accomplish this modernization. The committee
seeks to further understand opportunities to accomplish this
effort at reduced cost and without reducing capability or
delaying modernization plans.
Specifically, the committee is interested in assessing the
potential to reduce or avoid certain costs by pursuing various
types of commonality between the future ground- and sea-based
strategic deterrent weapon systems. The committee notes that
the Air Force plans to acquire a replacement weapon system for
the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile through
the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program, while the
Navy continues the D5 sea-launched ballistic missile life
extension program and will similarly require a replacement in
the longer-term future.
As these programs develop, the committee seeks to
understand the opportunities for commonality and its impacts on
program executability, technical and schedule risk, and
potential cost savings or avoidances from pursuing commonality
in components, subsystems, supply chain, logistics, or other
elements affecting acquisition or lifecycle costs. While the
committee believes the benefits of limited commonality may be
substantial, the committee continues, as it stated in the
committee's report accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (House Report 113-102),
to urge the Department of Defense ``to use caution in
implementing this approach to ensure that commonality does not
lead to unacceptable risk of widespread impacts to the
deterrent force, should a technical risk cause a common
component or subsystem to fail.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force and the
Secretary of the Navy, to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees, by November 30, 2015, on the benefits and
risks of pursuing various types of commonality in these
programs, including the range of possible options for
commonality and any associated cost-reduction potential or
technical risks.
Responsive Launch
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66) directed the Department of Defense
Executive Agent (EA) for Space to conduct a study on
responsive, low-cost launch efforts. The study required a
review of the existing and past efforts, an identification of
the requirements that would provide the necessary military
utility, viability for greater utilization of innovative
methods, a consolidated plan for a way ahead, among other areas
of review. While the committee has received an interim briefing
on this study, the final report is overdue. The committee
appreciated the briefing, but is disappointed in what appears
to be an overall lack of attention, unity of effort, and
strategic approach in this area.
In general, the committee supports responsive, low-cost
launch efforts to rapidly reconstitute or replenish critical
space capabilities, and believes that the Department needs to
appropriately investigate and develop this area, including
launch and the appropriate payloads. Therefore, the committee
encourages the EA for Space to work with the necessary
stakeholders in the Department and apply the resources to
finish the study and provide a consolidated plan for
development within the Department of Defense of an
operationally responsive, low-cost launch capability in
accordance with warfighter requirements.
Roadmap for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
The committee believes that as adversaries of the United
States develop or acquire ballistic missiles, the United States
must maintain, improve, and expand our capability to protect
the homeland from ballistic missile attack through the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System. The committee also
believes that by 2020, the GMD system requires a significant
block upgrade of an ALL-Up-Round (AUR) Ground Based Interceptor
that incorporates a redesigned Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle;
incorporating increased capability and reliability at much
lower production and maintenance costs, an upgrade of the
booster to eliminate obsolescence, and incorporate nuclear
hardening and lightening protection. The committee further
believes that the ground system supporting the GMD system must
be improved to incorporate system modernization and upgrades to
mitigate obsolescence, improve operations and reliability
through re-architecturing, and upgrade the associated software
to currently supported language. The committee also notes that
the GMD system of 2020 needs to incorporate improved
discrimination to address advanced complex threats that the
system is most likely to encounter as the threat grows in
numbers and complexity. The committee also notes the need to
use robust acquisition practices as appropriate to avoid delays
and cost increases.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency, in coordination with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, to provide to the congressional defense committees
by February 15, 2016, a roadmap of recommended time-phased
improvements that should be incorporated into the GMD program
from 2016 to 2025 to ensure the viability of the GMD system
paced ahead of the threat to the U.S. homeland from the growing
threat of ballistic missiles.
Satellite Communications Interference
The committee believes in the importance of a robust
ability for the warfighter to monitor, detect, characterize,
geolocate and report sources of radio frequency interference on
U.S. military and commercial satellites that are in direct
support of combatant commanders. The committee is concerned
that the Department has not developed a clear strategy to meet
the related warfighter requirements. Therefore, the committee
directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Commander
of U.S. Strategic Command and the Secretary of the Air Force,
to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by
September 15, 2015 on the related JROC-validated requirements;
identification of current SATCOM interference monitoring
activities and funding within the Department; cost-benefit
analysis of options to meet the requirements; and a recommended
strategy including a description of future program, or
programs, and funding to meet the requirements. The committee
would be concerned if the Department of Defense made any
substantial changes to the counter-electromagnetic interference
programs of record, including EAGLE SENTRY and ARC STORM,
before providing the required briefing.
Satellite Ground Systems and Overhead Persistent Infrared Data
The committee is aware that the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is developing a
Department-wide long-term plan for satellite ground control
systems in response to Section 822 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
With military personnel reductions and more austere budgets, it
has become an imperative that the Department identify the most
efficient and effective method to meet associated military
requirements. The committee is aware that satellite control
functions are accomplished routinely by commercial industry for
very large satellite constellations. As such, industry may be
able to accomplish some of the military's ground control
activities in a secure, reliable, and cost effective manner.
This approach would allow military space operators to focus on
operating satellite payloads that deliver military effects on
the battlefield and to invest in areas that only the military
can do, which includes protecting and defending space assets.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Under Secretary to
include the potential contribution of commercial industry in
the long-term plan for satellite ground control systems.
Separately, regarding overhead persistent infrared (OPIR),
the committee is aware that the data is classified and used for
multiple purposes by the Department including missile warning,
missile defense, battlespace awareness, and technical
intelligence. OPIR data may also be very useful in civil
applications, including firefighting, but the civil agencies
and first responders may not currently have timely access to
relevant data. Therefore, the committee encourages the Air
Force to consider methods that would enable the
declassification of certain appropriate OPIR data to support
civil agencies.
Science and Technology Intelligence
The committee remains concerned about the ability of the
Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community to
maintain the level of awareness needed to understand the impact
of various advances in science and technology, and their impact
on national security. The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has written and spoken on
the eroding technological superiority of the United States
compared to the efforts of potential adversaries. Maintaining
visibility into those technological developments will be a
challenge for the Intelligence Community, both to inform the
acquisition community, but also to provide some strategic
warning for operational planners that will have to incorporate
needed insights of technology trends into their plans. For that
reason, the Under Secretary has also specifically called for a
stronger relationship between the acquisition, requirements and
intelligence communities as part of the Better Buying Power 3.0
initiative.
The committee also recognizes that the Intelligence
Community is grappling with how to deal with the issue of
maintaining global awareness of technological advances to
prevent surprise and support the acquisition process. The
unclassified ``Report of the National Commission for the Review
of the Research and Development Programs of the United States
Intelligence Community'' made several key findings and
recommendations in this area. In particular, the commission
called for comprehensive strategic scientific and technical
intelligence to improve understanding of foreign strategies for
science and technology development and to use such assessments
for planning and resource allocation.
The committee applauds recent efforts by the Department of
Defense science and technology (S&T) community to reinvigorate
its relationship with the intelligence community, including the
establishment of an Office of Technical Intelligence within the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering and development of an Intelligence Needs lan in
order to formally convey the S&T communities' intelligence
requirements to the Intelligence Community. The committee
believes that such efforts are important in order to position
science and technology for the development of capabilities for
new and emerging threat areas. The committee encourages both
the Department and the Intelligence Community to continue to
make progress in strengthening the role of science and
technology intelligence in both enterprises.
Smart Building Cyber Vulnerability Assessment
The committee recognizes that Department of Defense
facilities are transitioning to smart buildings increasingly
utilizing wireless controls for heating, ventilation and air
conditioning, security systems, lighting, electrical power,
fire alarms, elevators, visitor controls, cellular
communications, Wi-Fi networks, and first responder
communications and other systems are increasing interconnected
and online. This higher connectivity has increased the threat
and vulnerability to cyber-attacks. A recent Government
Accountability Office study (GAO-15-6) highlighted the
vulnerabilities and cyber risks to building and access control
systems. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by January 1, 2016 on the cyber risks to smart
buildings and access control systems from radio frequency
systems and wireless communications, and identification of
available technologies and practices available to potentially
counter and mitigate the identified security risks.
Space Situational Awareness
The committee continues to support improvements to the
space surveillance network (SSN) of the United States. Ground-
based optical systems are a critical component of the SSN. The
committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to
incorporate emerging technologies in order to accelerate
augmentation or replacement of the legacy ground-based optical
systems in support of U.S. Strategic Command requirements.
Spaceports
The committee is aware of commercially licensed spaceports
and range complexes, including ones which also receive funding
from State and local governments. Regarding national security
space launch, these spaceports may offer potential schedule
flexibility for missions that fit within the spaceport's launch
parameters. The spaceports may also provide backup capabilities
for increased resilience.
Section 1617 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291) directed the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide a briefing on range support for launches in support of
national security. As part of the briefing, the committee
encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to evaluate the broad
national security space launch infrastructure requirements and
priorities, including an assessment of the potential role of
commercial and State-sponsored launch infrastructure in
supporting such requirements.
Strategic Deterrence Research and Education
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee noted that ``challenges remain in educating airmen on
their role in safeguarding national security. Educating the
warfighters who execute the daily mission of nuclear deterrence
remains a critical element to ensuring the level of excellence
required for the mission.''
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee noted that ``the [Secretary
of Defense] should take appropriate steps to refocus the
military member education to ensure it is adequately covering,
across-the-board, the essentials of nuclear deterrence policy
and operations (including such concepts as strategic stability
and escalation control)''.
In addition, the 2014 study by the National Research
Council titled, ``U.S. Air Force Strategic Deterrence Analytic
Capabilities,'' identified a continued deficiency in the
science and research of nuclear deterrence and assurance. The
Council found that, ``The Air Force, working with its Service
partners and the Department of Defense more generally, should
pursue research on deterrence and assurance with a coherent
approach that involves content analysis, leadership profiling,
abstract modeling, and gaming and simulations as a suite of
methods. It should organize its investments in analytic and
other activities accordingly.''
The committee also notes that today's geopolitical
environment presents various threats and opportunities related
to nuclear deterrence. With several internal reviews and
outside assessments suggesting an increased focus on strategic
deterrence education and research programs, and the committee's
multi-year emphasis on this subject, the committee seeks more
clarity on the concrete actions taken by the Secretary of the
Air Force, as well as future plans, for strengthening nuclear
deterrence education and research within the Air Force.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2016, on the steps taken by various
elements of the Air Force to improve service member education
on nuclear deterrence and establish a sustainable, coherent,
and robust strategic deterrence research program. Such
education and research program should include examining the
linkages among strategic deterrence and assurance, strategic
stability, escalation control, missile defense, strategic
conventional capabilities, nuclear terrorism, and
nonproliferation efforts. This report should provide an
overview of recent actions, as well a multi-year plan, to
develop and sustain a research program that addresses the
deficiencies identified by the National Research Council and
other groups. The committee encourages the Secretary to
leverage academia, industry, the other services, and other
Government partners to meet the needs of this program.
Strengthening National Security Space
The committee is aware of the strategic challenges due to a
growing foreign threat to national security space. At a recent
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing, a senior Department
of Defense official stated in a statement for the record that,
``today the U.S. is not adequately prepared for a conflict,
which might extend to space.'' The committee is concerned by
this inadequate posture.
However, the committee recognizes and commends the
Department on the considerable analysis that has been done
throughout the past year to develop an initial plan to assure
space capabilities. As a result of the analysis, the Department
has planned for substantial additional resources over the next
5 fiscal years for space security-related activities.
While investment in capabilities is essential, the
committee also believes that in order to address the challenges
posed by the increasingly contested space environment that the
Department has described, the Department should review the
organization and management of space activities within the
Department of Defense to ensure that it is organized most
effectively to address these challenges. Elsewhere in this Act,
the committee includes a provision that would direct the
establishment of a major force program for space with a plan
for more unified authorities. Consistent with previous
independent commissions, however, the committee believes this
is only the first step that the Department should take to
strengthen national security space.
Therefore, in recognition of the changing space
environment, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Director of National Intelligence and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to submit to
the congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees by December 1, 2015, a plan that
strengthens national security space stewardship, leadership,
management, and organization within the Department of Defense,
including the National Reconnaissance Office, while
streamlining decision-making and limiting unnecessary
bureaucracy, and respecting the existing Director of National
Intelligence authorities. Such plan shall identify and assess
actions that achieve:
(1) Greater unity of funding and authorities within the
Department of Defense to prioritize national security space
activities in accordance with defense and national security
requirements;
(2) Improved focus on Department of Defense space strategy
and architectures that align to budgets and specific programs
to provide coherence across the space domain, including space,
ground, and user terminals;
(3) Improved management of the Department of Defense space
portfolio, to ensure that the Department of Defense, in
cooperation with the Director of National Intelligence,
facilitates strategic trades, identifies under-resourced areas
and redundant functions, and more effectively manages the
critical space industrial base;
(4) Further appropriate integration of the space
acquisition and operations of the Department of Defense
military and intelligence activities; and
(5) Any other matters the Secretary deems appropriate.
Study on Left-of-Launch
The committee notes the November 5, 2014, memo to the
Secretary of Defense from the Chief of Naval Operations and
Chief of Staff of the Army about the U.S. ballistic missile
defense strategy and developing a long-term holistic approach
that addresses homeland missile defense and regional missile
defense priorities. The committee is aware that the memo stated
that, ``the recent Army-Navy Warfighter Talks highlighted the
growing challenges associated with ballistic missile threats
that are increasingly capable, continue to outpace our active
defense systems, and exceed our Services' capacity to meet
Combatant Commanders' demand.'' The memo concluded that,
``[o]ur present acquisition-based strategy is unsustainable in
the current fiscal environment and favors forward deployment of
assets in lieu of deterrence-based options to meet contingency
demands,'' and that, ``[n]ow is the opportunity to develop a
longterm approach . . . that is more sustainable and cost
effective . . . to balance priorities, inform resourcing
decisions and restore our strategic flexibility.''
The committee is aware that then-Secretary of Defense Hagel
responded on February 4, 2015, that, ``[d]uring last fall's
Strategic Portfolio Review (SPR), the Deputy's Management
Action Group (DMAG) reviewed the question of how to address the
growing GCC demand for regional BMD forces. The DMAG concluded
that our current national BMD policy is sound, but an update to
the 2011 Joint Capability Mix (JCM) sufficiency study was
needed to inform force requirements and related issues for the
FY 2017 Program and Budget Review.''
The committee also notes that the ``Joint Integrated Air
and Missile Defense: Vision 2020'' was released by the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on December 5, 2013, and stated,
``the approach for [Integrated Air and Missile Defense] IAMD in
2020 will be balanced, taking into account a full range of
opportunities including diplomacy, a robust approach to passive
defense both left and right of enemy launch, electronic
warfare, active defense, and increased cooperation with our
friends and allies.''
The committee is also aware of several other ongoing
reviews looking at regional ballistic missile defense and left-
of-launch (including an additional review proposed in another
section of this Act), but believes there is good reason to
specifically focus on a number of the elements referenced in
the memo by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief of
Staff of the Army.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later
than December 1, 2015, a report outlining how the concepts
outlined in the ``Vision 2020'' plan authored by the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the memo authored by the
Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chief of Naval Operations in
November 2014, are being implemented, including left-of-launch
opportunities and non-kinetic means of defense. The report
should include the Secretary and the Chairman's evaluation of
the feasibility and value of a missile defense strategy that
increasingly relies on left-of-launch and non-kinetic means of
defense against ballistic missiles; an analysis of the cost-
benefit for such an approach to complement current missile
defense capabilities and strategy; a description of the
programs involved in achieving such capability and the
technology readiness levels of such programs if applicable,
including projected costs to develop and deploy such
capabilities; projected cost-savings; the acquisition strategy
to develop and deploy such capabilities and an optimal timeline
for their development and deployment; any impacts on force
structure of the military departments; any impacts on the
current ballistic missile defense strategy; and any related
Department of Defense policy decisions in place or needed
concerning the use of U.S. military options left-of-launch.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Space Activities
Section 1601--Major Force Program and Budget for National Security
Space Programs
This section would amend chapter 9 of title 10, United
States Code, to establish a unified major force program for
national security space programs to prioritize national
security space activities in accordance with the requirements
of the Department of Defense and national security. This
section would also include an assessment of the budget for
national security space programs for fiscal years 2017-20. This
assessment, in report form from the Secretary of Defense, would
provide an overview of the budget including a comparison
between the current budget and the previous year's budget, as
well as the current Future Years Defense Program and the
previous one with specific budget line identification. This
assessment would include any significant changes, priorities,
challenges and risks related to the budget. The Secretary would
also include any additional matters that the Secretary deems
appropriate.
In addition, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense, not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, to provide to the congressional defense
committees a report on the plan to carry out the unified major
force program, including any recommendations for legislative
action the Secretary considers necessary to fully implement the
plan.
Section 1602--Modification to Development of Space Science and
Technology Strategy
This section would modify and streamline section 2272 of
title 10, United States Code, by removing specific direction on
elements of the strategy, coordination, and reporting
requirements to Congress.
Section 1603--Rocket Propulsion System Development Program
This section would amend section 1604 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) by inserting a
section on streamlined acquisition which would require the
Secretary of Defense to use a streamlined acquisition approach,
including tailored documentation and review processes.
In addition, this section would clarify that, of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2016 for the rocket propulsion system
required by section 1604 of Public Law 113-291, the Secretary
of Defense would be permitted to obligate or expend such funds
only for the development of such rocket propulsion system, and
the necessary interfaces to the launch vehicle, to replace non-
allied space launch engines by 2019 as required by such
section.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, and make a briefing
available to any other congressional defense committee, not
later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
on the streamlined acquisition approach, requirements, and
acquisition strategy.
Section 1604--Modification to Prohibition on Contracting with Russian
Suppliers of Rocket Engines for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Program
This section would amend section 1608 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). As amended, this
section would prohibit, with certain exceptions and a waiver,
the Secretary of Defense from awarding or renewing a contract
for the procurement of property or services for space launch
activities under the evolved expendable launch vehicle program
if such contract carries out such space launch activities using
rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian
Federation. This section would also prohibit the Secretary from
modifying contract number FA8811-13-C-0003 awarded on December
18, 2013, if such modification increases the number of cores
procured under such contract to a total of more than 35.
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive
one or both of the prohibitions if the Secretary determines,
and certifies to the congressional defense committees not later
than 30 days before the waiver takes effect, that the waiver is
necessary for the national security interests of the United
States, and the space launch services and capabilities covered
by the contract could not be obtained at a fair and reasonable
price without the use of rocket engines designed or
manufactured in the Russian Federation.
The prohibition on the award or renewal of a contract would
not apply to either the placement of orders or the exercise of
options under the contract numbered FA8811-13-C-0003 and
awarded on December 18, 2013; or, subject to certification from
the Secretary, a contract awarded for the procurement of
property or services for space launch activities that includes
the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in Russia
if, prior to February 1, 2014, the contractor had fully paid
for such rocket engines or had entered into a contract to
procure such rocket engines.
The Secretary would not be authorized to award or renew a
contract for the procurement of property or services for space
launch activities described in the prohibition unless the
Secretary, upon the advice of the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense, certifies to the congressional defense
committees that the offeror has provided to the Secretary
sufficient documentation to conclusively demonstrate that the
offeror meets the requirements of the exception.
Section 1605--Delegation of Authority Regarding Purchase of Global
Positioning System User Equipment
This section would modify section 913 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) by limiting the delegation of waiver authority to
a level no lower than the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
Section 1606--Acquisition Strategy for Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle Program
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of the Air Force needs to develop an updated, phased
acquisition strategy and contracting plan for the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program; that the acquisition
strategy and contracting plan should eliminate the currently
structured EELV launch capability (ELC) arrangement after the
current contractual obligations; the Secretary should acquire
launch services in a manner consistent with full and open
competition; that the Secretary should be consistent and fair
with EELV providers regarding the requirement for certified
cost and pricing data, selection of contract types, and the
appropriate audits to protect the taxpayer; and that the
Secretary should consider various contracting approaches,
including launch capability arrangements with multiple
certified providers which continue to provide the necessary
stability in budgeting and contracting, and flexibility to the
Government.
This section would require the Secretary to discontinue the
ELC arrangement by the latter of either the date on which the
Secretary determines that the obligations of the contracts
relating to such arrangement have been met, or by December 31,
2020. This section would provide a waiver to the
discontinuation of the ELC arrangement if the Secretary
determines that such waiver is necessary for the national
security interests of the United States, the Secretary notifies
the congressional defense committees of such waiver, and a
period of 90 days has elapsed following the date of such
notification.
This section would also require the Secretary to apply
consistent and appropriate standards to certified EELV
providers with respect to certified cost and pricing data, and
audits, in accordance with section 2306a of title 10, United
States Code.
Additionally, this section would require the Secretary to
develop and carry out a 10-year acquisition strategy for the
EELV program, in accordance with section 2273 of title 10,
United States Code, and other elements of this provision. This
acquisition strategy would establish a contracting plan that
uses competitive procedures and provides the necessary
stability in budgeting and acquisition of capabilities, and
flexibility to the Federal Government. The strategy would
ensure that a contract awarded for launch services,
capabilities, or infrastructure specifically takes into account
the effect of all Federal contracts entered into and any
assistance provided to certified EELV providers, including the
ELC; the requirements of the Department of Defense that are met
by such providers including launch capabilities and pricing
data; the cost of integrating a satellite onto a launch
vehicle; and any other matters the Secretary considers
appropriate.
Also, in awarding any contract for launch services in a
national security space mission pursuant to a competitive
acquisition, the evaluation shall account for the value of the
ELC per contract line item numbers in the bid price of the
offer as appropriate per launch.
This section would require the Secretary to provide to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees, by not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, a report on the acquisition
strategy detailed within this section.
Section 1607--Procurement of Wideband Satellite Communications
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
designate a senior Department of Defense official to procure
wideband satellite communications, both military and
commercial, to meet the requirements of the Department.
This section would provide for an exception to the
preceding requirement if an appropriate official (Secretary of
a military department; Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Chief Information
Officer of the Department; or a combatant commander) determines
that such procurement is required to meet an urgent need. This
section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
March 1, 2017, and each year thereafter through 2021, with a
brief description of the urgent need, the date, the length of
the contract, and the value of such contract.
Finally, this section would also require the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, a plan for the Secretary to meet the requirements of the
Department for satellite communications, including
identification of roles and responsibilities.
Section 1608--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Weather Satellite
Follow-On System
This section would limit any funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2016 for the weather satellite follow-on system until: (1)
the Secretary of Defense provides a briefing to the
congressional defense committees on a plan to address the
requirements of the Department of Defense for cloud
characterization and theater weather imagery; and (2) the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certifies to the
congressional defense committees that such plan will not
negatively affect the commanders of the combatant commands and
will meet the requirements of the Department for cloud
characterization and theater weather imagery.
Section 1609--Modification of Pilot Program for Acquisition of
Commercial Satellite Communication Services
This section would modify the pilot program for acquisition
of commercial satellite communications services that was
established pursuant to section 1605 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). This section would
require the Secretary of Defense to conduct the pilot program,
while removing the requirement to use the working capital fund.
The committee is aware of the Secretary's commercial
satellite communications ``pathfinder'' efforts, the term
currently used by the Department, to more effectively and
efficiently acquire commercial satellite communications
services. The committee believes these pathfinder efforts meet
the intent and direction of the pilot program. Therefore, the
committee would authorize multiple methods or pathfinder
efforts to be used within the pilot program. Additionally, the
Secretary would have to establish metrics to track the progress
of meeting the objectives of the program. Lastly, the Secretary
would be required to provide annual briefings on the progress
of the pilot program, concurrent with the submission of the
budget request in each year from fiscal year 2017 through
fiscal year 2020.
The committee recognizes that a great deal of work remains
to be done, but the committee commends the efforts to date that
the Secretary is putting forth in this area.
Section 1610--Prohibition on Reliance on China and Russia for Space-
Based Weather Data
This section would prohibit reliance on space-based weather
data from the Government of the People's Republic of China or
the Government of the Russian Federation, and would require the
Secretary of Defense to certify that the Department of Defense
does not rely on, or in the future does not plan to rely on,
space-based weather data for national security purposes, that
is provided by the Government of the People's Republic of
China, the Government of the Russian Federation, or an entity
owned or controlled by the Government of China or the
Government of Russia.
Section 1611--Evaluation of Exploitation of Space-based Infrared System
Against Additional Threats
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in cooperation with
the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and
the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct an evaluation
of the Space-based Infrared System to detect, track, and
target, or develop the capability to do the detect, track and
target, against the full-range of threats to the United States,
deployed members of the Armed Forces, and the allies of the
United States, and provide the results of such evaluation to
the congressional defense committees not later than December
31, 2016. Further discussion related to this section is
contained in the classified annex to this report.
Section 1612--Plan on Full Integration and Exploitation of Overhead
Persistent Infrared Capability
This section would require that the Commander, U.S.
Strategic Command and the Director, Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation jointly submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a plan for the integration of overhead persistent
infrared (OPIR) capabilities to support specified mission
capabilities of the Department of Defense. These mission areas
include strategic missile warning, missile defense, and
tactical intelligence (for example, the capability to detect
illicit weapons of mass destruction-related shipments).
The section would also require the Secretary of Defense, in
the budget justification materials to accompany the annual
budget submission, to certify that the plan on integration of
OPIR capabilities is implemented under the budget submission.
The committee recognizes that requirements for OPIR
capability are not driven exclusively by the Department of
Defense. The committee expects the Department's plan will focus
on defense exploitation of OPIR, and it should not impose costs
on other customers who will need to use this data.
Section 1613--Options for Rapid Space Reconstitution
This section would state the sense of Congress regarding
rapid reconstitution of critical space capabilities. It would
also direct the Secretary of Defense to evaluate options for
the use of current assets of the Department of Defense for the
purpose of rapid reconstitution of critical space-based
warfighter enabling capabilities and provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees not later than March 31, 2016.
Section 1614--Sense of Congress on Space Defense
This section would state a sense of Congress regarding
space defense, as outlined in the National Space Policy of
2010.
Section 1615--Sense of Congress on Missile Defense Sensors in Space
This section would state the sense of Congress that a
robust multi-mission space sensor network will be vital to
ensuring a strong missile defense system.
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities
Section 1621--Executive Agent for Open-Source Intelligence Tools
This section would amend chapter 21 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new section that would require the
Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official of the
Department of Defense to act as an executive agent for open
source intelligence tools.
Section 1622--Waiver and Congressional Notification Requirements
Related to Facilities for Intelligence Collection or for Special
Operations Abroad
This section would modify section 2682 of title 10, United
States Code, regarding the requirement to accomplish
maintenance and repair of a real property facility for an
activity or agency of the Department of Defense (other than a
military department) by or through a military department
designated by the Secretary of Defense. Section 2682(c)
provides the Secretary of Defense with the authority to waive
this requirement if necessary to provide security for
authorized intelligence collection or special operations
activities abroad undertaken by the Department of Defense. This
section would modify the waiver requirement to include a
notification requirement for the Secretary of Defense to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees when waiver authority is used and to
sunset the waiver authority on December 31, 2017.
Section 1623--Prohibition on National Intelligence Program
Consolidation
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
using any of the funds authorized to be appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Defense during
the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act
and ending on December 31, 2016, to execute: the separation of
the portion of the Department of Defense budget designated as
part of the National Intelligence Program from the rest of the
Department of Defense budget; the consolidation of the portion
of the Department of Defense budget designated as part of the
National Intelligence Program within the Department of Defense
budget; or the establishment of a new appropriations account or
appropriations account structure for such funds.
Section 1624--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Distributed
Common Ground System of the Army
This section would limit the availability of funds for the
Army's Distributed Common Ground System to 75 percent of the
funds authorized to be obligated by the program until the
Secretary of the Army conducts a review of the program planning
and submits the findings of such review to the congressional
defense committees and the congressional intelligence
committees.
Section 1625--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Distributed
Common Ground System of the United States Special Operations Command
This section would limit the availability of funds for the
Special Operations Command's Distributed Common Ground System
to 75 percent of the funds authorized to be obligated by the
program until the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command
conducts a review of the program planning and submits the
findings of such review to the congressional defense committees
and the congressional intelligence committees.
Section 1626--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of 25 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated by
this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2016 for
the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
(OUSD(I)) until the Secretary of Defense establishes the policy
required by section 922 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). Section 922
required the Secretary to develop a written policy by June 24,
2014, governing the internal coordination and prioritization of
intelligence priorities of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, and the
military departments to improve identification of the
intelligence needs of the Department of Defense.
The committee understands that OUSD(I) is responsible for
creating the required policy and is troubled that OUSD(I) has
missed the statutory deadline.
Section 1627--Clarification of Annual Briefing on the Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Requirements of the Combatant Commands
This section would modify section 1626 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to include U.S.
Special Operations Command within the annual briefing
requirement by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements to
the congressional defense committees and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and
the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
Section 1628--Department of Defense Intelligence Needs
This section would require the Director of National
Intelligence to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees and the congressional intelligence committees on how
the Director ensures that the National Intelligence Program
budgets for the elements of the Intelligence Community that are
within the Department of Defense are adequate to satisfy the
national intelligence needs of the Department, as required by
section 102A(p) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
3024(p)). The report would specifically include a description
of how the Director incorporates the needs of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of the unified and
specified commands into the metrics used to evaluate the
performance of the elements of the Intelligence Community that
are within the Department of Defense in conducting intelligence
activities funded under the National Intelligence Program.
While the committee applauds the continued efforts to
integrate the Department of Defense and the Intelligence
Community, it is critical to ensure that unique warfighter
needs remain a priority at the national level and are
incorporated into the metrics used to assess performance under
the National Intelligence Program.
Section 1629--Report on Management of Certain Programs of Defense
Intelligence Elements
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence to review the Science and Technology Research
and Foreign Material Exploitation work being conducted by the
intelligence elements of the Department of Defense and
recommend any changes and realignment of organizations that
should take place.
The committee believes that there are significant synergies
and potential savings to be gained through consolidation of
these activities within the intelligence elements of the
Department of Defense.
Section 1630--Government Accountability Office Review of Intelligence
Input to the Defense Acquisition Process
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to carry out a comprehensive review of the
processes and procedures for the integration of intelligence
into the Department of Defense acquisition process. The review
would include the integration of intelligence on foreign
capabilities into the acquisition process from initial
requirement through deployment, including staffing and training
of intelligence personnel assigned to the program offices, as
well as the procedures for identifying opportunities for weapon
systems to collect intelligence, and accounting for the support
requirements the weapon systems will place on the Defense
Intelligence Enterprise once fielded.
The committee believes it is important to ensure that the
Department is taking into consideration both intelligence
assessments of potential adversaries, as well as the exquisite
intelligence required to make new weapon systems work to their
fullest potential.
Subtitle C--Cyberspace-Related Matters
Section 1641--Codification and Addition of Liability Protections
Relating to Reporting on Cyber Incidents or Penetrations of Networks
and Information Systems of Certain Contractors
This section would codify and amend section 941 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239) as a new section 393 of title 10, United States
Code, and also amend section 391 of such title, to provide for
liability protection for covered contractors reporting cyber
incidents to the Department of Defense through these two
statutorily required mechanisms.
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces
Section 1651--Organization of Nuclear Deterrence Functions of the Air
Force
This section would require that, subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of the Air Force, the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force shall be responsible for
overseeing the safety, security, effectiveness, and credibility
of the nuclear deterrence mission of the Air Force.
This section would also require that, by March 1, 2016, the
Chief of Staff designate a Deputy Chief of Staff to carry out
the following duties: (1) provide direction, guidance,
integration, and advocacy regarding the nuclear deterrence
mission; (2) conduct monitoring and oversight activities
regarding the safety, security, reliability, effectiveness, and
credibility of the nuclear deterrence mission; and (3) conduct
periodic comprehensive assessments of all aspects of the
nuclear deterrence mission and provide such assessments to the
Secretary and the Chief of Staff.
This section would also require that, by March 30, 2016,
the Secretary shall consolidate, to the extent the Secretary
determines appropriate, under a major command commanded by a
single general officer, the responsibility, authority,
accountability, and resources for carrying out the nuclear
deterrence mission. The major command would be made
responsible, to the extent the Secretary determines
appropriate, for carrying out all elements and activities
related to nuclear deterrence, including nuclear weapons,
nuclear weapon delivery systems, and the nuclear command,
control, and communication system. The activities would include
planning and execution of modernization programs; procurement
and acquisition; research, development, test, and evaluation;
sustainment; operations; training; safety and security;
research, education, and applied science relating to nuclear
deterrence and assurance; and such other functions of the
nuclear deterrence mission as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
Finally, the Secretary would be required to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 2016, on
the plans of the Secretary and the resources required to
implement this section.
Section 1652--Assessment of Threats to National Leadership Command,
Control, and Communications System
This section would require the Council on Oversight of the
National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications
System, established by section 1052 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to
collect and assess (consistent with the provision of classified
information, and intelligence sources and methods) all reports
and assessments conducted by the Intelligence Community
regarding foreign threats, including cyber threats, to the
command, control, and communications system for the national
leadership of the United States and the vulnerabilities of such
system to the threats.
This section would also require that, in its annual report
to the Congress, the Council include its assessment of such
intelligence reports and assessments along with any plans to
address such threats and vulnerabilities.
Section 1653--Procurement Authority for Certain Parts of
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Fuzes
This section would authorize $13.7 million of the funds
made available by this Act for Missile Procurement, Air Force,
for the procurement of certain commercially available parts for
intercontinental ballistic missile fuzes, notwithstanding
section 1502(a) of title 31, United States Code, under
contracts entered into under section 1645(a) of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
Section 1654--Annual Briefing on the Costs of Forward-Deploying Nuclear
Weapons in Europe
This section would require that, not later than 30 days
after the date on which the President submits to Congress the
budget for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020, the
Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense
committees a briefing on specific costs related to forward-
deploying nuclear weapons in Europe.
Section 1655--Sense of Congress on Importance of Cooperation and
Collaboration between United States and United Kingdom on Nuclear
Issues
This section would express the sense of Congress that: (1)
cooperation and collaboration under the 1958 Mutual Defense
Agreement and the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement are fundamental
elements of the security of the United States and the United
Kingdom, as well as international stability; (2) the recent
renewal of the Mutual Defense Agreement and the continued work
under the Polaris Sales Agreement underscore the enduring and
long-term value of the agreements to both countries; and (3)
the vital efforts performed under the purview of both the
Mutual Defense Agreement and the Polaris Sales Agreement are
critical to sustaining and enhancing the capabilities and
knowledge base of both countries regarding nuclear deterrence,
nuclear nonproliferation and counterproliferation, and naval
nuclear propulsion.
Section 1656--Sense of Congress on Organization of Navy for Nuclear
Deterrence Mission
This section would state that Congress finds that: (1) the
safety, security, reliability, and credibility of the nuclear
deterrent of the United States is a vital national security
priority; (2) nuclear weapons require special consideration
because of the political and military importance of the
weapons, the destructive power of the weapons, and the
potential consequences of an accident or unauthorized act
involving the weapons; and (3) the assured safety, security,
and control of nuclear weapons and related systems are of
paramount importance.
This section would also express the sense of Congress that:
(1) the Navy has repeatedly demonstrated the commitment and
prioritization of the Navy to the nuclear deterrence mission of
the Navy; (2) the emphasis of the Navy on ensuring a safe,
secure, reliable, and credible sea-based nuclear deterrent
force has been matched by an equal emphasis on ensuring the
assured safety, security, and control of nuclear weapons and
related systems ashore; and (3) the Navy is commended for the
actions it has taken subsequent to the 2014 Nuclear Enterprise
Review to ensure continued focus on the nuclear deterrent
mission by all ranks within the Navy, including the
clarification and assignment of specific responsibilities and
authorities within the Navy contained in OPNAV Instruction
8120.1 and SECNAV Instruction 8120.1B.
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs
Section 1661--Prohibitions on Providing Certain Missile Defense
Information to Russian Federation
This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized to
be appropriated for the Department of Defense to provide the
Russian Federation with ``hit-to-kill'' technology and
telemetry data for missile defense interceptors or target
vehicles.
This section would also prohibit the use of funds
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense to
provide Russia with information relating to the velocity at
burnout of missile defense interceptors or targets of the
United States, or classified or otherwise controlled missile
defense information.
This section would provide the President with a single use
waiver to provide Russia with information regarding ballistic
missile early warning in the event the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, and the
Commander, U.S. European Command, jointly certify to the
President and the congressional defense committees that the
provision of such information is required because of a failure
of the early warning system of Russia.
The prohibitions established by this section would expire
on January 1, 2031.
Section 1662--Prohibition on Integration of Missile Defense Systems of
China into Missile Defense Systems of United States
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of any funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for
fiscal year 2016 for the integration of a missile defense
system of the People's Republic of China into any missile
defense system of the United States.
Section 1663--Prohibition on Integration of Missile Defense Systems of
Russian Federation into Missile Defense Systems of United States and
NATO
This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2016 for the Department of Defense or for
contributions of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) to integrate a missile defense system of
the Russian Federation into any missile defense system of the
United States or NATO.
The prohibition in this section would expire at the end of
fiscal year 2031.
Section 1664--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Long-Range
Discriminating Radar
This section would state the sense of the Congress
concerning the priority of the Long-Range Discriminating Radar
(LRDR) for improving the ballistic missile defense system and
achieving operational status of the LRDR in 2020.
This section would provide that no funds authorized to be
appropriated may be obligated or expended for military
construction for the LRDR (other than for planning and design)
until (1) the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation (CAPE) submits an assessment to the congressional
defense committees concerning the cost of the MDA sensor
architecture required if such radar is based at certain
potential sites; (2) the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command and
the Commander, U.S. Northern Command jointly certify the
proposed site for the LRDR best supports missile defense and
space situational awareness and is the most cost-effective
option, as informed by the CAPE assessment; and (3) such
certification has been submitted to the congressional defense
committees for at least 60 days.
Finally, this section would require the Director of CAPE,
not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, to submit the CAPE assessment to the congressional defense
committees, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, the
Commander of the United States Strategic Command, and the
Commander of the United States Northern Command.
Section 1665--Limitations on Availability of Funds for Patriot Lower
Tier Air and Missile Defense Capability of the Army
This section would provide that none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for programs related to the
Patriot lower tier air and missile defense capability that
depend specifically on the results of the analysis of
alternatives (AOA) regarding the Patriot lower tier air and
missile defense capability of the Army, may be obligated or
expended until the results of the AOA are submitted to the
congressional defense committees.
This section would also provide that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics could waive
the application of the limitation in this section if the Under
Secretary determines that it is necessary to prevent an
unacceptable risk to mission performance of the Patriot system
and notifies the congressional defense committees of the
decision to use such waiver authority.
The committee understands that the AOA will be completed by
September 2015, prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2016. The
committee does not intend to limit funding for programs or
technology that could support Patriot modernization regardless
of the options chosen based on the AOA. The committee believes
a modernized Patriot capability is vital to a robust air and
missile defense capability of the Army, and that such
capability is further required for the protection of deployed
U.S. Armed Forces and allied forces. The committee is committed
to the modernization of Patriot and, elsewhere in this Act,
recommends full funding of the budget request for these
activities.
Section 1666--Integration and Interoperability of Air and Missile
Defense Capabilities of the United States
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure the
interoperability and integration of U.S. certain covered air
and missile defense systems, including by directing operational
testing that they determine is necessary to ensure militarily
useful interoperability and integration of such systems.
This section would further require that the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency and the Secretary of the Army conduct a
minimum of at least one intercept or flight test per year that
demonstrates interoperable and integrated air and missile
defense capability. The Director and the Secretary of the Army
would be authorized to waive this subsection if the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
determines such waiver is necessary and submits to the
congressional defense committees an explanation for how such
waiver will not negatively affect demonstrating the
interoperability and integration of the air and missile defense
capability of the United States.
For the purposes of this section, covered air and missile
defense systems are Patriot air and missile defense batteries
and associated interceptors and systems, Aegis ships and
associated ballistic missile interceptors (including Aegis
Ashore capability), AN/TPY-2 radars, and Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense system batteries and interceptors.
Section 1667--Integration of Allied Missile Defense Capabilities
This section would require that, not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commander,
U.S. European Command, the Commander, U.S. Central Command, and
the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command shall submit to the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff an assessment of the opportunities for integration and
interoperability of air and missile defenses of the United
States with those capabilities of allies of the United States.
This section would require the Secretary and the Chairman to
submit such assessments to the congressional defense committees
not later than 30 days after receipt from the combatant
commander concerned.
This section would further require the Secretary of Defense
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in cooperation
with the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the
Army, and the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Staff of
the Navy, to carry out the planning, risk assessments, policy
development and concept of operations development necessary to
assure the integration and interoperability of U.S. and allied
air and missile defenses by December 31, 2016. The Secretary of
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be
required to provide quarterly updates on the progress of such
planning and related activities by not later than 270 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and each 90 period
thereafter, until such integration and interoperability has
been achieved.
For the purposes of this section, covered air and missile
defense systems are Patriot air and missile defense batteries
and associated interceptors and systems, Aegis ships and
associated ballistic missile interceptors (including Aegis
Ashore capability), AN/TPY-2 radars, and Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense system batteries and interceptors.
Section 1668--Missile Defense Capability in Europe
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure the Aegis Ashore site to be deployed in the Republic of
Poland has anti-air warfare (AAW) capability upon the site
achieving full operating capability. This section would also
require that the Aegis Ashore site in Romania be retrofitted
with AAW capability not later than December 31, 2018. This
section would further require the Secretary to evaluate the
feasibility, benefit, and cost of using the evolved sea sparrow
missile or the Standard Missile 2 in providing the anti-air
warfare capability that would be required by this Act.
This section would also require that the Secretary of
Defense ensure a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
battery is available for rotational deployment to the U.S.
European Command (EUCOM) area of responsibility not later than
180 days after the enactment of this Act, as appropriate to
respond to military requirements, unless required in another
combatant command's area of responsibility. The Secretary would
also be required to examine sites to pre-position such THAAD
battery if such pre-position is necessary for military
requirements.
This section would also require that the Secretary study
not fewer than three sites in the EUCOM area of responsibility
for the deployment of a THAAD battery, in the event one is
determined to be necessary and not fewer than three sites for
the deployment of a Patriot air and missile defense battery, in
the event one is determined to be necessary.
The Secretary of Defense would be required to work with the
Secretary of State to enter into any necessary agreements with
prospective host nations and to coordinate with the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Section 1669--Availability of Funds for Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket
Defense System
This section would make available $41.4 million of the
funds authorized to be appropriated by section 101 of this Act,
and as specified in the funding table in section 4101, for the
Government of Israel for components for the Iron Dome short-
range rocket defense system.
This section would condition those funds such that they are
available subject to the terms, conditions, and co-production
targets specified for fiscal year 2015 the ``Agreement Between
the Department of Defense of the United States of America and
the Ministry of Defense of the State of Israel Concerning Iron
Dome Defense System Procurement.''
This section would also require that not less than 30 days
prior to the initial obligation of these funds, the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall jointly submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a certification
that the Agreement is being implemented as provided in the
Agreement and an assessment detailing any risks relating to the
implementation of such Agreement.
Section 1670--Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Program Co-
Development and Potential Co-Production
This section would authorize $165.0 million out of such
funds as are authorized to be appropriated in section 101 of
this Act, and as specified in the funding table in section
4101, for procurement and coproduction of the David's Sling
Weapons System and the Arrow 3 Upper Tier missile defense
system. This section would further specify the terms and
conditions that shall be achieved by the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics prior to the
disbursement of the authorized funds. These terms and
conditions would include, achievement of the knowledge points
and production readiness agreements within the current
bilateral research, development, test, and evaluation
agreements; matched funding by the Government of the State of
Israel; the successful negotiation of a bilateral agreement
between the United States and the Government of Israel; agreed
co-production targets based on the teaming agreements for the
co-development programs; and, certain other matters.
The committee notes it recommends the authorization of
these funds for procurement of missile defense system batteries
and interceptors for the Government of Israel based on the
availability of these funds as opposed to specific production
goals (e.g., numbers of batteries or numbers of interceptors).
The committee is mindful of the hundreds of millions of dollars
already invested in the David's Sling and Arrow 3 programs
during co-development of these systems. The committee remains
committed, even during a constrained budget environment, to
support the missile defense requirements of the Government of
Israel.
Section 1671--Development and Deployment of Multiple-Object Kill
Vehicle for Missile Defense of the United States Homeland
This section would state the sense of the Congress that the
ballistic missile defense of the U.S. homeland is the highest
priority of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA); that the Missile
Defense Agency is appropriately prioritizing the design,
development, and deployment of the redesigned kill vehicle;
and, the multiple-object kill vehicle (MOKV) is critical to the
future of the ballistic missile defense of the U.S. homeland.
This section would require that the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency develop a highly reliable multiple-object kill
vehicle for the ground-based midcourse defense system using
best acquisition practices, with rigorous flight testing to
occur by not later than 2020, and deployment of such vehicle as
soon as practicable thereafter. This section would also require
that the management of the MOKV program be undertaken by the
Deputy Director of the Missile Defense Agency. This section
would also require the Director of the Missile Defense Agency
to provide the funding profile required for the MOKV program to
the congressional defense committees not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
While the committee supports the development of the MOKV by
MDA, it expects, and will conduct close oversight to ensure
that such development does not interfere with the development,
flight test and deployment of the Redesigned Kill Vehicle, also
known as the CE-III kill vehicle.
Section 1672--Boost Phase Defense System
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
prioritize technology investments to develop and field a boost
phase missile defense system by fiscal year 2022; ensure that
development and fielding of a boost phase missile defense
system can benefit multiple warfighter requirements; continue
development of high-energy lasers and high-power microwave
systems as part of a layered architecture to defend ships and
theater bases against air and cruise missile strikes; and
encourage collaboration among the military departments and the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency with respect to high
energy laser efforts carried out in support of the Missile
Defense Agency.
This section would also require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency to establish a senior level advisory group to
recommend to the Director promising technologies that the
Director can evaluate for use as a boost phase missile defense
layer.
Finally, this section would require the Director to provide
a briefing to the congressional defense committees not later
than May 1, 2016, on the recommendations of the senior-level
advisory group; a plan for developing one or more programs of
record for boost phase missile defense systems; and the views
of the Director regarding the recommendations and plan.
Section 1673--East Coast Homeport of Sea-Based X-Band Radar
This section would require that the sea-based X-band radar
(SBX) shall be relocated to a new homeport on the East Coast of
the United States not later than December 31, 2020, and shall
have an at-sea capability of not less than 120 days per year.
Prior to executing the relocation, the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency would be required to certify that the relocation
will not impact the missile defense of Hawaii.
This section would also require that not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency shall begin siting studies,
environmental impact studies (as necessary), and any other
appropriate studies and evaluations to base SBX at a site on
the East Coast.
Section 1674--Plan for Medium Range Ballistic Missile Defense Sensor
Alternatives for Enhanced Defense of Hawaii
This section would state the sense of Congress regarding
ballistic missile defense sensor and sensor discrimination
capability.
This section would further require the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency to conduct an evaluation of potential
options for fielding a medium range ballistic missile defense
sensor for the defense of Hawaii. Such evaluation would have to
be submitted to the congressional defense committees not later
than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 1675--Research and Development of Non-terrestrial Missile
Defense Layer
This section would require that, not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency shall commence a concept definition,
design, research, development, and engineering evaluation of a
space-based ballistic missile intercept and defeat layer to the
ballistic missile defense system.
This section would further require that, not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
on the findings of such concept development, a plan for
developing one or more programs of record for a non-terrestrial
missile defense layer, and the views of the director regarding
such findings and plan. The Director would be required to brief
the congressional defense committees on an interim basis not
later than March 31, 2016.
Section 1676--Aegis Ashore Capability Development
This section would require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency, in coordination with the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Chief of Staff of the Army, to evaluate the
role, feasibility, cost, and cost benefit of additional Aegis
Ashore sites and upgrades to current ballistic missile defense
system sensors to offset capacity demands on current Aegis
ships, Aegis Ashore sites, and Patriot and Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense capability and to meet the requirements
of the combatant commanders. Such evaluation should be
submitted by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, after their review, not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of the Act.
This section would further require that the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy and the Secretary of State shall jointly
identify any obstacles to foreign military sales of Aegis
Ashore or co-financing of additional Aegis Ashore sites. Such
review would have to include the feasibility of host nation
manning or dual manning with the United States and such host
nations. The results of such review would have to be briefed to
the specified congressional committees not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act and a final report
provided not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Finally, this section would require the President to seek
to enter into host nation agreements for Aegis Ashore sites and
co-financing and co-development opportunities as appropriate if
the sites meet the requirements of the combatant commanders.
Section 1677--Briefings on Procurement and Planning of Left-of-Launch
Capability
This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to provide the specified congressional committees a
briefing on the military requirement for left-of-launch
capability and any current capability gaps in meeting such
requirement.
This section would further require that not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Defense and the Director National Intelligence jointly
provide a briefing to the specified congressional committees on
the plan of the Secretary and the Director to develop and
procure the left-of-launch capabilities described in the
briefing to be provided by the Chairman.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
Division B provides military construction, family housing,
and related authorities in support of the military departments
during fiscal year 2016. As recommended by the committee,
division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$7,683,000,000 for construction in support of the Active
Forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for
fiscal year 2016.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense requested $6,641,995,000 for
military construction, $251,334,000 for Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) activities, and $1,413,181,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2016. The committee recommends
authorization of $5,873,003,000 for military construction,
$251,334,000 for BRAC activities, and $1,413,181,000 for family
housing in fiscal year 2016. The committee also recommends
$532,000,000 for military construction for Overseas Contingency
Operations military construction within title XXIX.
Section 2001--Short Title
This section would cite division B of this Act as the
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016.''
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to be
Specified by Law
This section would ensure that the authorizations provided
in titles XXI through XXVII and title XXIX of this Act shall
expire on October 1, 2018, or the date of enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2019, whichever is later.
Section 2003--Effective Date
This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXIX of this Act shall take effect
on October 1, 2015, or the date of enactment of this Act,
whichever is later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $743,245,000 for Army military
construction and $493,206,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2016. The committee recommends authorization of
$663,245,000 for military construction and $493,206,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Generator and Rail Equipment Center
The Defense Generator and Rail Equipment Center (DGRC) is
currently located at Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah. This is
the Department of Defense's sole organic capability for depot-
level repair and maintenance of rail stock and rail equipment,
as well as certain types of large-scale power generation
equipment. DGRC currently services not only the Army's
nationwide rail fleet, but also rail equipment for the Air
Force and the Navy.
The committee notes that the DGRC's present location may
interfere with the long-term viability of an Air Force Enhanced
Use Lease project at Hill AFB. The committee also notes that
the Army has conducted two cost studies for relocation of the
DGRC from its present location to the Anniston Army Depot
(ANAD), Alabama. The most recent cost validation, dated
September 30, 2014, estimated the costs to relocate DGRC to
ANAD to be $17.1 million. This included costs associated with
military construction and the relocation of personnel and
equipment. However, the committee also notes that the estimate
examined only one-time costs for the relocation and did not
account for the potential life-cycle savings gained from
relocating the function to an Army installation. In addition,
the estimate did not address the feasibility of a public-
private partnership with the State and local community that may
assist in financing the costs of relocating the center. The
committee also notes that if the DGRC were to stay in its
present location at Hill AFB, the Army's tenant agreement with
the Air Force would need to be renegotiated to account for
increased operating costs to secure an isolated land parcel,
plus the cost to construct new fencing and gates in accordance
with Department of Defense Force Protection standards.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
December 15, 2015, that revalidates the personnel, equipment,
and military construction costs associated with a relocating
the DGRC from Hill AFB to ANAD. The report should also address
the life-cycle costs associated with the functions of DGRC
remaining in place compared to relocating to ANAD, including
the feasibility of a private-public partnership arrangement.
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for projects
contained in the budget request for military construction and
family housing. These reductions include:
(1) $43.0 million for a Homeland Defense Operations Center
at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas. The budget request included
$43.0 million to provide a command and control facility in
support of Army North, the Army Service Component Command of
U.S. Northern Command. The committee believes that the
requirements for this facility are undefined and the facility
is early-to-need. As such, the committee recommends no funds, a
decrease of $43.0 million, for this project.
(2) $37.0 million for an Instruction Building at Joint Base
Myer-Henderson, Virgina. The budget request included $37.0
million to construct a training facility for the U.S. Army Band
at Joint Base Myer-Henderson. The committee is sympathetic to
the constraints of the existing facility, but does not support
this requirement at this time. As such, the committee
recommends no funds, a decrease of $37.0 million, for this
project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2016. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
2016.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 2016.
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize appropriations for Army
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-239) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of a certain
projects originally authorized in section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81) until October 1, 2016, or the date of the
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. This section was
included in the President's request.
Section 2107--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2013
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239) until October 1, 2016, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2108--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year
2016 Projects
This section would authorize a military construction
project in the amount of $6,000,000 to construct a multi-sport
athletic field and track and perimeter road and fencing and
acquire approximately 5 acres of land adjacent to the existing
Sterrebeek Dependent School site in Brussels, Belgium, to allow
relocation of Army functions to the site in support of the
European Infrastructure Consolidation effort. In addition, this
section would authorize a payment-in-kind project in the amount
of $12,400,000 to construct a vehicle bridge and traffic circle
to facilitate traffic flow to and from the Medical Center at
Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Germany.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,605,929,000 for Navy
military construction and $369,577,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2016. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,361,925,000 for military construction and $369,577,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustment
The committee recommends reduction of funding for several
projects contained in the base budget request for military
construction and family housing and recommends a transfer of
these projects to the Overseas Contingency Operations title of
this Act. These reductions include:
(1) $37.7 million for the Mina Salman Pier Replacement at
Bahrain. The budget request included $37.7 million to support
berth requirements for homeported, forward deployed, and
visiting ships in Bahrain. The committee supports this
requirement. However, the committee recommends no funds in the
base budget, a reduction of $37.7 million, for this project in
order to transfer this project to Title XXIX, Overseas
Contingency Operations Military Construction.
(2) $52.1 million for the Ship Maintenance Support Facility
at Bahrain. The budget request included $52.1 million to
support forward deployed Littoral Combat Ships in Bahrain. The
committees supports this requirement. However, the committee
recommends no funds in the base budget, a reduction of $52.1
million, for this project in order to transfer this project to
Title XXIX, Overseas Contingency Operations Military
Construction.
(3) $62.3 million for the P-8 Hangar and Fleet Support
Facility at Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy. The budget
request included $62.3 million to support squadron maintenance
for P-8A aircraft operating at Naval Air Station Sigonella. The
committee supports this requirement. However, the committee
recommends no funds in the base budget, a reduction of $62.3
million, for this project in order to transfer this project to
Title XXIX, Overseas Contingency Operations Military
Construction.
(4) $40.6 million for the Triton Hangar and Operation
Facility at Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy. The budget
request included $40.6 million to support operations and
maintenance for the MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
platforms operating from Naval Air Station Sigonella. The
committee supports this requirement. However, the committee
recommends no funds in the base budget, a reduction of $40.6
million, for this project in order to transfer this project to
Title XXIX, Overseas Contingency Operations Military
Construction.
(5) $51.3 million for the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense
Complex at Redzikowo Base, Poland. The budget request included
$51.3 million to support personnel operating the Aegis Ashore
Missile Defense System in Redzikowo, Poland. The committee
supports this requirement. However, the committee recommends no
funds in the base budget, a reduction of $51.3 million, for
this project in order to transfer this project to Title XXIX,
Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2016. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Department of the
Navy for fiscal year 2016.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 2016.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize appropriations for Navy
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2205--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed, and
originally included in section 2201 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 11281), until October 1, 2016, or the date of the
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. This section was
included in the President's request.
Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2013
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed until
October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2017, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2207--Townsend Bombing Range Expansion, Phase 2
This section would provide special conveyance authority to
the Secretary of the Navy for two fire and emergency response
stations as part of the land acquisition agreement to support
emergency services for Townsend Bombing Range Expansion, Phase
2, Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, Townsend, Georgia.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,354,785,000 for Air Force
military construction and $491,730,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2016. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,279,785,000 for military construction and $491,730,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
Items of Special Interest
Explanation of Funding Adjustment
The committee recommends reduction of funding for several
projects contained in the base budget request for military
construction and family housing and recommends a transfer of
these projects to the Overseas Contingency Operations title of
this Act. These reductions include:
(1) $50.0 million for Construct Airfield and Base Camp at
Agadez, Niger. The budget request included $50.0 million for
airfield infrastructure at Agadez, Niger, to support operations
in western Africa. The committee supports this requirement.
However, the committee recommends no funds in the base budget,
a reduction of $50.0 million, for this project in order to
transfer this project to Title XXIX, Overseas Contingency
Operations Military Construction.
(2) $25.0 million for an Airlift Apron at Al Musanah Air
Base, Oman. The budget request included $25.0 million to
construct an airlift apron in support of strategic and tactical
aircraft at Al Musanah Air Base, Oman. The committee supports
this requirement. However, the committee recommends no funds in
the base budget, a reduction of $25.0 million, for this project
in order to transfer this project to Title XXIX, Overseas
Contingency Operations Military Construction.
Former Norton Air Force Base, California
The committee notes that Norton Air Force Base, California,
was closed on March 31, 1994, as part of the 1988 Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The committee is aware
that the Department of the Air Force conveyed portions of the
Former Norton Air Force Base, to include land, improvements
thereon, and easements, to the San Bernardino International
Airport Authority by quitclaim deed on December 17, 1999. In
addition to the 1999 quitclaim deed, the committee is aware
that section 2851 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) directed the
Administrator of General Services to convey two avigation
easements to the Inland Valley Development Agency. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in
coordination with the Administrator of the General Services
Administration, to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than February 1, 2016, regarding the
conveyance directed by section 2851 of Public Law 107-107. The
report should discuss the ownership status of the land and
easements associated with the Former Norton Air Force Base, the
ability to complete the conveyance as directed by section 2851
of Public Law 107-107, and the impact of the enacting
legislation that results in the repeal or amendment of section
2851 of Public Law 107-107.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 2016. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2016.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 2016.
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2305--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2010 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-84) and authorize the
Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2306--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) and authorize the
Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section would also require a notification and 14-day wait
period, or 7-day wait period if submitted via electronic
medium, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on the selected project location
before commencing construction. This section was included in
the President's request.
Section 2307--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (division B of Public Law 113-291) to authorize the
Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2308--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2012
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed,
originally provided by section 2301 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81), until October 1, 2016, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2309--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2013
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed,
originally provided by section 2301 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239), until October 1, 2016, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2310--Limitation on Project Authorization to Carry Out Certain
Fiscal Year 2016 Project
This section would limit the Secretary of the Air Force
from expending any funds authorized by this title that are
associated with the construction of Joint Intelligence Analysis
Complex Consolidation, Phase 2, at Royal Air Force Croughton,
United Kingdom, until the Secretary submits a report on the
continuity of operations considerations for the critical
communications and intelligence capabilities located at or
being located to Royal Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom.
This section would also limit action to realign forces at Lajes
Air Force Base, Azores, until the Secretary of Defense
certifies that Lajes Air Force Base is not an optimal location
for the Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex, or any of the
critical communications or intelligence capabilities considered
in the continuity of operations planning.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $2,300,767,000 for defense
agency military construction and $58,668,000 for family housing
for fiscal year 2016. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,939,879,000 for military construction and $58,668,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
Items of Special Interest
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for several
projects contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. These reductions include:
(1) $10.4 million for the Special Operations Force (SOF)
Performance Resiliency Center-West at Camp Pendleton,
California. The budget request included $10.4 million to
support the U.S. Special Operations Command's Human Performance
Initiative at Camp Pendleton. The committee continues to have
concerns regarding the Human Performance Initiative. As such,
the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $10.4
million, for this project.
(2) $47.2 million for the SOF Logistics Support Unit One
Ops Fac. #2 at Naval Base Coronado, California. The budget
request included $47.2 million in support of air operations,
operational gear storage and distribution, and combat services
support at Naval Base Coronado. The committee notes that the
utilities needed to support this facility are not available and
are not programmed until fiscal year 2017. Without these
utilities, the committee notes that the facility would not be
complete and usable and believes that this project is early-to-
need based on the sequencing of the supporting utilities. As
such, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $47.2
million, for this project.
(3) $20.0 million for the Operations Support Facility at a
classified location. The committee has concerns regarding this
project, and believes that the requested construction project
may be early-to-need. As such, the committee recommends no
funds, a reduction of $20.0 million, for this project.
(4) $31.8 million for the Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement
at Marine Corps Base Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. The budget request
included $122.1 million to construct a replacement clinic to
provide primary medical care at Marine Corps Base Kaneohe Bay.
The committee supports the requirement for this project and
provides the full project authorization included in the budget
request. However, the committee supports the authorization of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2016. As such, the
committee recommends $90.3 million, a reduction of $31.8
million, for this project.
(5) $36.0 million for the Behavioral Health/Dental Clinic
Addition at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. The budget request
included $123.8 million for a health clinic and dental clinic
addition, as well as a new parking structure to support the
beneficiary population at Schofield Barracks. The committee
supports the requirement for this project, but believes that it
would be more efficient to construct the parking structure in
coordination with a future planned medical clinic project that
also contains a parking structure. Therefore, the committee
reduced the authorization for the project by $16.3 million. In
addition, the committee supports the authorization of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2016. As such, the
committee recommends $87.8 million, a reduction of $36.0
million, for this project.
(6) $0 million for the NSAW Recapitalization Building #2,
Increment 1 at Fort Meade, Maryland. The budget request
included a request for an authorization of $782.3 million, with
a request for an authorization of appropriations of $34.9
million in fiscal year 2016 for a new operations facility to
support mission operations. The committee supports the
requirements for this project but does not believe it is cost-
effective to spend $93.2 million on a parking garage when
compared to the cost per parking space of a paved surface
parking area. As such, the committee recommends an
authorization of $692.0 million, a decrease of $93.2 million,
for this project. In addition, the committee recommends full
funding for the authorization of appropriations, as requested
in the budget request, in the amount of $34.9 million in fiscal
year 2016. In future budget requests, the committee expects the
Department of Defense to seek additional authorizations of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations.
(7) $2.5 million for the SOF 21 STS Operations Facility at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The budget request included $16.9
million to support training, planning, and equipping combat
controllers at Fort Bragg and includes a project element in
support of the U.S. Special Operations Command's Human
Performance Initiative. The committee continues to have
concerns regarding the Human Performance Initiative. As such,
the committee recommends $14.4 million, a reduction of $2.5
million, for this project.
(8) $50.0 million for the Hospital Replacement, Increment 7
at Fort Bliss, Texas. The budget request included $239.9
million to support the replacement of a hospital that provides
inpatient and outpatient care to the beneficiary population at
Fort Bliss. The committee supports the authorization of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
military department to execute in the year of the authorization
for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes
that the Department of Defense has exceeded its ability to
fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2016. As such, the
committee recommends $189.9 million, a reduction of $50.0
million, for this project.
(9) $212.9 million for the Construct Fuel Storage and
Distribution Facilities at Camp Lemonier, Djibouti, and the
Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System Complex at Redzikowo Base,
Poland, that was transferred to Title XXIX, Overseas
Contingency Operations Military Construction.
(10) $10.0 million for contingency construction at various
worldwide locations. The budget request included $10.0 million
to support contingency construction requirements not previously
authorized by law. The committee notes that the Department of
Defense has not requested a military construction project using
funds from this account since 2008. In addition, the committee
notes that unobligated balances remain available in the
military construction account and other authorities exist to
construct projects that are in keeping with a national security
interest. As such, the committee recommends no funds, a
reduction of $10.0 million, for this program.
In addition, the committee recommends an increase of
funding for projects contained in the budget request for
military construction and family housing. These increases
include:
(1) $30.0 million for Arlington Cemetery Defense Access
Roads at Arlington, Virginia. This project would realign
roadways and supporting infrastructure to make the land
previously known as the Navy Annex site contiguous to Arlington
National Cemetery and increase burial space. The budget request
did not include funding for this project, but it was included
in the Army Chief of Staff's Unfunded Requirements List. As
such, the committee recommends $30.0 million, an increase of
$30.0 million, for this project.
(2) $30.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency Military
Construction Planning and Design activities for an East Coast
site for homeland missile defense. The budget request did not
include funding for this project. The committee recommends
$30.0 million, an increase of $30.0 million, for this project.
Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility
The committee is aware that the Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command has stated that the Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage
Facility ``serves as a critical asset supporting United States
Pacific Command operations in peacetime and contingency'' and
will ``remain vitally important to our security interests for
the next thirty years.'' The committee is also aware that U.S.
Pacific Command, the Department of the Navy, and the Defense
Logistics Agency have determined the storage requirement to
remain between 13 and 15 operational storage tanks at the
facility, with the ability to bring additional tanks online at
the end of the repair and modernization cycle should future
requirements warrant.
The committee is further aware that the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command is currently conducting an engineering
assessment to determine the best available practicable
technological (BAPT) solutions for the recapitalization of the
storage tanks to ensure long-term integrity and environmental
compliance in a cost-effective manner. Therefore, the committee
directs the Commander of the Defense Logistics Agency Energy,
not later than 30 days after the date of approval of the BAPT
by the regulatory agencies, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services on the BAPT solutions and the
proposed recapitalization plan for the Red Hill Underground
Fuel Storage Facility. Once the BAPT solution is determined,
the committee encourages the Defense Logistics Agency to
proceed with efforts to recapitalize the Red Hill Underground
Fuel Storage Facility as quickly as possible, subject to
available resources.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized defense
agencies' construction projects for fiscal year 2016. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects valued at a cost greater
than $3.0 million at the amounts authorized for each project at
a specific location. This section would also authorize the sum
total of projects across various locations, each project of
which is less than $3.0 million. This section would also
preclude the ability to set-aside operation and maintenance
facilities restoration and modernization funds for the
exclusive purpose of funding energy projects. It would require
installation energy projects to compete in the normal process
of determining installation requirements.
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize appropriations for defense
agencies' military construction at the levels identified in
section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Section 2404--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2012 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 112-81), as amended, to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to make certain
modifications to the scope of a previously authorized
construction project. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed,
originally authorized by section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81), until October 1, 2016, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2406--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2013
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed,
originally authorized by section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239), until October 1, 2016, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2407--Modification and Extension of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66), to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to make certain modifications to the scope
of a previously authorized construction project. This section
would also extend the authorization authority of the project
through October 1, 2018, or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2019. This section was included in the President's request.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $120,000,000 for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP)
for fiscal year 2016. The committee recommends authorization of
$150,000,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2016.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section 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 Act
and the amount collected from the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization as a result of construction previously financed by
the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program at the
levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $517,269,000 for military
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for
fiscal year 2016. The committee recommends authorization of
$478,169,000 for military construction for fiscal year 2016.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends the decrease of funding for
several projects requested by the Department that were
previously authorizations in the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). These decreases include:
(1) $10.8 million for Nation Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop
at Dagsboro, Delaware. The committee continues to support this
valid authorization from fiscal year 2015, however, the
committee encourages the Department of the Army to use
available unobligated balances for this requirement. As such,
the committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $10.8 million,
for this project.
(2) $19.0 million for Enlisted Barracks and Transit
Training at the Yakima Training Center, Washington. The
committee continues to support this valid authorization from
fiscal year 2015, however, the committee encourages the
Department of the Army to use available unobligated balances
for this requirement. As such, the committee recommends no
funds, a decrease of $19.0 million, for this project.
(3) $9.3 million for an Army Reserve Center and Land at
Starkville, Mississippi. The committee continues to support
this valid authorization from fiscal year 2015, however, the
committee encourages the Department of the Army to use
available unobligated balances for this requirement. As such,
the committee recommends no funds, a decrease of $9.3 million,
for this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2016. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2016. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction projects for
fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in
this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2016. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2016. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Guard and Reserve military construction at the levels
identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 2611--Modification and Extension of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2013 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-239) to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. This
section would also extend the authorization listed until
October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2017, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2612--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2012
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed,
originally provided by section 2602 the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public
Law 112-81) until October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment
of an act authorizing funds for military construction for
fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. This section was included
in the President's request.
Section 2613--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2013
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed,
originally provided by sections 2601, 2602, and 2603 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(division B of Public Law 112-239) until October 1, 2016, or
the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
This section was included in the President's request.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $251,334,000 for activities
related to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities. The
committee recommends authorization of $251,334,000 for BRAC
activities.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and
Closure Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account
This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing
activities that are required to implement the Base Realignment
and Closure activities authorized by the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510), at the levels identified in section 4601 of division
D of this Act.
Section 2702--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) Round
This section would state that nothing in this Act shall be
construed to authorize an additional Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) round, affirming congressional intent to reject
the budget request to authorize another BRAC round in 2017.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Collaboration on Electromagnetic Pulse Threats to the Electrical Grid
The committee remains concerned with the Nation's
preparedness to withstand, mitigate, and respond to the effects
of naturally occurring or manmade electromagnetic pulse (EMP)
events. The committee notes that the Department of Defense
maintains military standards for the protection of critical
military infrastructure to enhance EMP preparedness and
survivability of key national security systems and
capabilities. However, the Department of Defense relies heavily
on civilian utility providers to meet installation energy
requirements. The committee notes that Department of Defense
missions and systems may be adversely impacted by civilian
power grid failures due to natural or manmade threats,
including cyber threats and EMP events. Given the Department of
Defense expertise on EMP issues and reliance on civilian
electrical utilities, the committee encourages the Department
to collaborate with and, as appropriate, share information with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation, and civilian utility
commissions and utility providers, with the intent of enhancing
protection of the electrical grid from natural or manmade EMP
events.
Conveyance of Water and Wastewater Systems on Guam
The committee notes that section 2822 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) authorized the Secretary of Defense to convey the
Navy's water and wastewater treatment utility systems on Guam,
including the Fena Reservoir, to the Guam Waterworks Authority.
The committee is aware that the Navy, through Navy-owned and
operated water and wastewater infrastructure, continues to
provide water and wastewater services to several villages in
southern Guam. Further, it is noted that Navy water rates
increased from $5.41 to $7.59 per 1,000 gallons in October
2014. The committee is aware of significant concerns that have
been raised about these price increases by local leaders,
stakeholders, and rate payers. Further, the committee notes
that recent press reports indicate that the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command may increase water rates again in fiscal
year 2016.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense, working
through the Secretary of the Navy, has not utilized the
authority provided to them to convey the water and wastewater
system to the Guam Waterworks Authority. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report
to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October
1, 2015, on the feasibility, cost effectiveness, and impact of
integrating the Navy and Guam Waterworks Authority utility
systems. The report should also indicate whether the Navy
intends to utilize its authority to convey the water and
wastewater utility systems, provide a timeline for the
conveyance if the Navy intends to utilize its authority, and
cover the steps being taken to provide the Guam Waterworks
Authority with third party assistance to bring its operations
of the system to mutually agreed upon standards.
Defense Laboratory Enterprise Infrastructure
The committee recognizes the important role that the
Defense Laboratory Enterprise plays, ensuring the United States
maintains technological superiority, responding to the needs of
the Department of Defense, and accelerating delivery of
technical capabilities to the warfighter. To ensure the Defense
Laboratory Enterprise is able to continue its mission, the
committee believes it is important that the military
departments make appropriate investments to sustain and
recapitalize the infrastructure supporting the Defense
Laboratory Enterprise. The committee notes that several
critical technologies, including hypersonic weapons, directed
energy, unmanned aerial systems and electromagnetic railgun,
will potentially transition from development into production in
the coming years. However, the budget request for fiscal year
2016 and the current Future Years Defense Program do not
include military construction projects in support of the
Defense Laboratory Enterprise.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 15, 2016, on the infrastructure
supporting the Defense Laboratory Enterprise. At minimum, the
briefing should address the current condition and capacity of
existing infrastructure supporting defense laboratories,
infrastructure-related investments made to defense laboratory
infrastructure since fiscal year 2011, and the required
infrastructure investments in laboratories, offices, and
support facilities necessary in the coming years to synchronize
Defense Laboratory capacity with the capability to transition
emerging technologies into programs of record.
F-35 Stationing, Basing, and Laydown Selection Process
The committee believes that the military departments'
selection process for stationing, basing, and laydown decisions
for units and missions should remain transparent, repeatable,
and defendable in nature. While the committee recognizes that
the military departments each have their own unique
requirements that may require variations in their stationing,
basing, and laydown decisions, the committee believes that
engagement with the congressional defense committees at
multiple points throughout each of the military services'
stationing, basing, and laydown processes is critical. The
committee notes that congressional engagements prior to initial
screening criteria, upon determining candidate locations, upon
determining specific site survey criteria, upon determining
preferred and reasonable alternatives, and upon making a final
decision have been the most effective in keeping the process
transparent, repeatable, and defendable. With respect to the
criteria used, the committee believes that the military
departments should assess the ability of a military
installation and its associated or adjacent training areas to
support the unit or mission, the capacity of a military
installation to accommodate the unit or mission, the costs
associated with the stationing, basing, or laydown action, and
encroachment and environmental considerations.
Specifically, for future F-35 basing decisions, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services before the Secretary concerned
announces the initial screening and site survey criteria for
the next aviation basing or stationing action, or by December
1, 2015, whichever date is earlier. The briefing should address
each military services' existing process for station, basing,
and laydown decisions for F-35s, outlining existing criteria
with an explanation of the calculus involved for each criteria.
In addition, the briefing should detail when and how existing
military service criteria consider actual routings and
altitudes traveled to reach the training areas, the types or
spectrum of training activities the range or ranges concerned
can support, annual operating costs of transiting to and from
the training areas, and how weather at both the basing location
and the training areas are considered in support of mission
requirements. The briefing should also address how each
military service currently factors in installations that
control training areas versus installations that share training
areas controlled by other users, whether Air Traffic Control
Assigned Airspace is factored into available airspace
calculations, and if proximity to joint partners for training
requirements is evaluated.
Facilities Sustainment and Recapitalization Policy and Funding
The committee notes that the Department of Defense manages
and operates more than 562,000 facilities, which the Department
needs to sustain and recapitalize to keep them in the condition
and configuration to support the Department's missions. The
committee also notes that the Department has not fully funded
sustainment to meet its estimated needs, which can lead to
deterioration of the facility, limited use and performance of
the facility, and can impact mission and readiness of the
installation. Further, the committee notes that deferred
maintenance and repair of facilities leads to a need for more
recapitalization funding in the future to restore and replace
facilities that become deteriorated and outdated faster than
expected.
On March 3, 2015, the Acting Assistant Secretary Of Defense
for Energy, Installations, and Environment testified before the
Subcommittee on Readiness that the military departments are
accepting risk in not sustaining, restoring, and modernizing
facilities. In an effort to better track and limit risk, in
fiscal years 2013-14, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Energy, Installations, and Environment issued two memoranda
establishing a sustainment and recapitalization policy,
directing the military components to complete certain actions,
such as funding sustainment to at least 90 percent of the
Facility Sustainment Model estimate, standardizing gathering of
facility condition data, and developing mitigation plans for
facilities that are in failing condition to help improve the
condition of the facilities in coming years.
As such, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the Department of Defense's plans
and actions and to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 14, 2016, that addresses the state
of the Department's facility sustainment and recapitalization
programs. At a minimum, the report should address the
following:
(1) To what extent has the Department of Defense made
progress in meeting its policy goals for sustainment and
recapitalization of its facilities as outlined in the two
Department memoranda?
(2) What is known about the condition of facilities and the
trend in conditions since fiscal year 2011?
(3) To what extent have the military departments addressed
deferred facility sustainment needs and what is known about the
impact of deferred sustainment on facility condition and
mission readiness?
(4) What is known about the effect of facilities
sustainment and recapitalization policy and funding since
fiscal year 2011 on the quality of life of personnel and
readiness of the installation?
Impact of Wind Energy Developments on Military Installations
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
negotiated mitigation efforts with proposed wind energy
developments in proximity to military installations, training
ranges, and low-level training routes. The committee is aware
that some of these mitigations were negotiated prior to the
completion of scientific studies to determine the effects of
the wind energy structures and rotating blades on military
aircraft's main and terrain-following radars. Without the
results of these studies, the committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense may not have the information necessary to
determine the actual impact of mitigation efforts or the extent
of risk to military missions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than October 1, 2015, on the science, standards,
assumptions, and criteria by which the Department assesses the
risks to military missions posed by wind energy developments in
proximity to military installations or training ranges. The
report shall also include the proposed parameters and distances
from military training routes and ranges that are considered an
acceptable risk, and a review of the success of mitigation
measures included in past agreements with wind energy
developments, including the cost of mitigation measures.
Finally, the report shall include an analysis of feedback from
local military installation commanders of the impact or
effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.
Improvement of Design-Build Selection Process
The committee continues to remain interested in the
Department of Defense's use and implementation of the two-phase
design-build selection procedures. The committee notes that
Section 2305a, title 10, United States Code, was modified in
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, limiting the number of
offerors specified in a solicitation to five for contract
values that exceed $4,000,000, but not requiring the use of a
two-phase selection procedures for these procurements. The
committee continues to be concerned about how these changes
have affected the industry and the Department's ability to
award construction projects.
As such, the committee requests the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 1, 2016, that addresses how the Department has
implemented the modifications to the law enacted last year, any
feedback the Department has received from industry, and any
challenges to the implementation of the statue. Further, the
briefing should include the list of instances in which the
agency awarded a design-build contract pursuant to this section
that had more than five finalists for phase-two request for
proposals during fiscal year 2015, and the list of design-build
requests for proposals that used a one-step process.
Intergovernmental Support Agreements
The committee notes that section 331 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) authorized the Department of Defense to enter into
intergovernmental support agreements with State or local
governments for the procurement of installation support
services. Section 351 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291) provided additional clarification to the
authorities for military installations to enter into
intergovernmental support agreements with State or local
governments. The committee supports the use of
intergovernmental support agreements between the Department of
Defense and State and local governments, and believes that such
agreements provide an opportunity to streamline costs, realize
efficiencies, and enhance the quality of services to the
Department of Defense. The committee notes that the authority
to enter into intergovernmental support agreements is broad and
encourages the Department of Defense to leverage this authority
in a manner that provides cost savings and improved services in
support of Department of Defense installations, military
personnel, and their families.
Joint Basing
The committee notes that in 2005, the Department of Defense
recommended to the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC)
Commission that 26 installations be combined into 12 joint
bases to generate efficiencies and savings. This recommendation
was implemented, and the committee commends the Department and
military departments on their implementation of joint basing.
The BRAC Commission estimated that joint basing would result in
$183.0 million in annual recurring savings. The committee notes
that, according to the Department's Report to Congress on the
Joint Basing Initiative, joint bases saved $255.0 million in
fiscal year 2012 and $830.0 million in fiscal year 2013,
surpassing both the one-time implementation cost of $155.0
million and the estimated savings predicted by the BRAC
Commission. The committee believes there is a strong fiscal and
operational incentive to joint basing, evident in the
efficiencies that have occurred to date. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department to continue looking for
opportunities to streamline operations at joint bases and
continue its efforts to achieve additional efficiencies through
joint basing.
Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization
The committee recognizes the role that Lincoln Laboratory
plays in conducting research and developing technologies that
address critical national security challenges. In the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
the committee noted its concern about the need to recapitalize
the infrastructure supporting Lincoln Laboratory's facilities
at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts. The committee is
aware that the Department of Defense is conducting an analysis
of alternatives to determine the most appropriate and fiscally
responsible approach to recapitalize the infrastructure
supporting Lincoln Laboratory. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than September 1, 2015,
to review the results of the analysis of alternatives and the
Department's plan for ensuring that Lincoln Laboratory's
facilities are able to appropriately support research and
development that is vital to the security of the United States.
Major Range and Test Facility Base Military Construction Assessment
The Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) is a set of
test installations, facilities, and ranges which are regarded
as ``national assets.'' This designated core set of Department
of Defense Test and Evaluation (T&E) infrastructure and
associated workforce is a critical capability to be preserved
in order to conduct necessary T&E analyses to support the
Department's acquisition process. The MRTFB exists primarily to
provide T&E information for Department of Defense decision
makers and to support T&E needs of Department of Defense
research and weapon system development programs. The committee
recognizes that the MRTFB must remain sized, operated, and
maintained to preserve core, governmental T&E capabilities.
The committee is aware that the Test Resource Management
Center (TRMC), a field activity within the Department of
Defense, has the lead responsibility for oversight of the
Department's facilities, ranges, and all other physical assets
that are used to support Department of Defense T&E. TRMC
exercises that responsibility in a number of ways, including
the biennial strategic plan for Department T&E Resources, as
well as annual budget certification to ensure each military
department and Department of Defense agency with responsibility
for T&E is proposing adequate funding within its annual budget
submission. In the Strategic Plan for Department of Defense T&E
Resources from March 2013, the report noted, ``Due to age and
outmoded technology, many test facilities are increasingly
difficult to sustain and/or maintain. Obsolescence and
deterioration contribute significantly to increased levels of
maintenance, reductions in reliability, and an overall increase
in operating costs. Services are under pressure to keep
existing ground test facilities viable and relevant to meet
immediate and forecasted needs. Across all services, there has
been a downward trend in T&E Military Construction (MILCON)
appropriations to address ongoing maintenance, sustainment, and
modernization needs of our T&E facilities. Further analysis is
required (e.g., recapitalization rate) to provide a
comprehensive assessment of MRTFB-only MILCON needs and
investments.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Test
Resource Management Center to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2016, on the
results of the comprehensive assessment of MRTFB-only military
construction needs and investments called for by the March 2013
strategic plan. The assessment should include an estimated cost
to replace or bring to code deficient structures, as well as a
plan for ensuring sufficient capacity for all Department of
Defense MRTFB facilities to support current and projected
future operations. Additionally, the committee encourages TRMC
to use the results from this assessment to inform future budget
certifications from the military departments and Department of
Defense agencies.
The committee further directs the Director of the Test
Resource Management Center to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2016, on the
Director's preliminary findings.
Non-Federally Connected Civilian Children Residing in Military
Privatized Housing
The committee notes its continued support for the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI), which has worked to
improve military family housing by allowing private developers
to improve, maintain and operate housing communities. In the
two decades since it was enacted, private ventures created
under the program have improved quality of life for those who
serve. Recent testimony to the committee notes that the
department completed its MHPI award phase in fiscal year 2013
with award of the final three Air Force MHPI projects, bringing
the total privatized inventory to about 205,000 housing units.
The committee is aware that under the program, priority for
housing goes first to military personnel, federal employees,
and retirees. However, if occupancy rates drop below certain
levels for a period of time, housing can be made available to
the general public. While the committee believes that this is
an important part of ensuring the financial viability of these
public-private ventures, it is concerned that this approach
could also pose unanticipated challenges to the communities
that support them.
To this end, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by March 1, 2016 with an analysis that includes:
(1) Site-by-site census of non-federally connected civilian
children living in housing under the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative (MHPI) annually between FY2011 and
FY2015;
(2) An evaluation of projected force structure trends over
the next decade that may influence the levels of non-federally
connected civilian children; and
(3) A discussion of any impacts to civilian communities as
a result of any changes in the levels of non-federally
connected civilian children residing in such housing, and
recommendations to mitigate such impacts.
Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense,
acting through the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), has
provided grants to local educational agencies to construct,
renovate, repair, or expand elementary and secondary public
schools on military installations. In awarding grants to local
educational agencies, OEA has given priority consideration to
those military installations with schools having the most
serious capacity and facility condition deficiencies, as
determined by the Department of Defense in a July 2011 priority
list.
The committee recognizes the efforts of the Department of
Defense to improve the condition and capacity deficiencies of
elementary and secondary public schools on military
installations in support of military dependents. Therefore, the
committee encourages the the Department of Defense to continue
to take appropriate steps to address condition and capacity
deficiencies at elementary and secondary public schools on
military installations. Furthermore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide an updated report to the
congressional defense committees by March 14, 2016, on the
condition and capacity of schools in bands 7, 8, and 9 of the
July 2011 Priority List.
Utility Privatization
The committee notes that the military departments have
leveraged existing authorities to privatize the utility systems
providing electricity, water, wastewater, and natural gas to
military installations. Through utilities privatization,
military installations have been able to achieve greater
efficiencies and reduce operating costs while recapitalizing
aging utilities infrastructure with modern, reliable systems.
In addition, the committee notes that utilities privatization
can also enhance support to military missions. Therefore, the
committee encourages the military departments to continue to
pursue utility privatization initiatives when they are
supported by a business case analysis and are in the best
interest of the government in terms of efficiency, operating
costs, and mission assurance.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Revision of Congressional Notification Thresholds for
Reserve Facility Expenditures and Contributions to Reflect
Congressional Notification Thresholds for Minor Construction and Repair
Projects
This section would align Reserve Component minor
construction and repair thresholds with the threshold specified
in chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2802--Authority for Acceptance and Use of Contributions from
Kuwait for Construction, Maintenance, and Repair Projects Mutually
Beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait Military Forces
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense,
after consultation with the Secretary of State, to accept
contributions from the Government of the State of Kuwait in
support of construction, maintenance, and repair projects
within Kuwait that are mutually beneficial to the Department of
Defense and the Kuwait military forces. The section would also
limit the maximum amount the Secretary of Defense may obligate
to $50.0 million annually, require a congressional notification
with 21-day wait period, 14-day period if notification is
provided in electronic medium, for projects exceeding the
thresholds prescribed by section 2805, title 10, United States
Code, and expire on September 30, 2020.
Section 2803--Defense Laboratory Modernization Pilot Program
The section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out a pilot program, using amounts authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Defense for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, such military construction
projects for any Department of Defense Science and Technology
Reinvention Laboratory or Department of Defense federally
funded research and development center as are authorized in the
Military Construction Authorization Act. This section would
also limit the maximum amount that may be obligated in any
fiscal year under this authority at $150.0 million and would
expire on October 1, 2020.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Enhancement of Authority to Accept Conditional Gifts of
Real Property on Behalf of Military Service Academies
This section would provide consistency across the military
service academies on the acceptance of a gift of real property,
if the gift of such real property is conditioned upon the
property bearing a specified name. This section would authorize
the military service academies to accept such a gift if the
acceptance and naming would not reflect unfavorably on the
United States, and the real property has not otherwise been
named by an act of Congress. This section would also require
the Secretaries of the military departments to issue uniform
regulations governing circumstances under which gifts
conditioned on naming rights may be accepted.
Section 2812--Consultation Requirement in Connection with Department of
Defense Major Land Acquisitions
This section would modify section 2664(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to require consultation by the Secretary
concerned with the chief executive officer of the State,
district, or territory as to options for completing the real
property acquisition.
The committee notes that the Secretary concerned is already
required to obtain a specific military construction
authorization in accordance with section 2802 of title 10,
United States Code, and comply with National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) before any major land
acquisition can be implemented.
Section 2813--Additional Master Plan Reporting Requirements Related to
Main Operating Bases, Forward Operating Sites, and Cooperative Security
Locations of Central Command and Africa Command Areas of Responsibility
This section would amend section 2687a(a) of title 10,
United States Code, by adding a requirement for the Secretary
of Defense to include with the existing overseas basing report
a strategic summary for each main operating base, forward
operating site, or cooperative security location within the
U.S. Central Command and U.S. Africa Command area of
responsibility. This section would sunset in fiscal year 2020.
Section 2814--Force-Structure Plan and Infrastructure Inventory and
Assessment of Infrastructure Necessary to Support the Force Structure
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report, as part of the budget justification documents
accompanying the President's budget request for fiscal year
2017, that details a 20-year force structure plan for each of
the military services and a comprehensive inventory of
worldwide infrastructure. The report would also compare these
two items to determine the infrastructure necessary to support
the force structure, discuss the categories of excess
infrastructure and infrastructure capacity, and assess the
value of retaining certain excess infrastructure to accommodate
contingency, mobilization, or surge requirements. In addition,
this section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to prepare an evaluation of such force-structure
plans and infrastructure inventory not later than 60 days after
the date on which the plans and inventory are submitted to
Congress. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and
the Comptroller General to also take into consideration, as
appropriate, the recommendations regarding force structure and
force sizing provided by the July 31, 2014, assessment of the
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review by the National Defense Panel.
Subtitle C--Provisions Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment
Section 2821--Restriction on Development of Public Infrastructure in
Connection with Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific
Region
This section would amend restrictions placed on the
development of civilian infrastructure on Guam to support the
realignment of Marine Corps Forces in the Asia-Pacific region
to allow the use of funds for infrastructure projects that are
identified in the report of the Economic Adjustment Committee
required by section 2831(d) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
This section would also permit the use of funding for the
planning and design of such projects.
Section 2822--Annual Report on Government of Japan Contributions toward
Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit an annual report to the congressional defense committees
for each of fiscal years 2017-26 that addresses the total
amount contributed from the Government of Japan to the Support
for United States Relocation to Guam Account during the most
recent year, as well as the anticipated contributions to be
made during the current and next Japanese fiscal years. The
report would also cover the infrastructure projects carried out
on Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in
the previous fiscal year using funds from the Support for
United States Relocation to Guam Account, as well as the
projects anticipated to be carried out during the next fiscal
year. This section would also repeal a reporting requirement
from the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Section 2831--Land Exchange Authority, Mare Island Army Reserve Center,
Vallejo, California
This section would authorize a land exchange involving a
parcel of real property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
of the Army on the site of the former Mare Island Naval
Shipyard, Vallejo, California, in the event that a current real
property exchange process is unsuccessful.
Section 2832--Land Exchange, Navy Outlying Landing Field, Naval Air
Station, Whiting Field, Florida
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey a parcel of real property, including any improvements
thereon, containing Navy Outlying Landing Field Site 8 in
Escambia County, Florida, to Escambia County. In exchange, this
section would require Escambia County to convey to the
Secretary of the Navy a parcel of property that is suitable for
use as a Navy outlying landing field to replace Navy Outlying
Landing Field Site 8.
Section 2833--Release of Property Interests Retained in Connection with
Land Conveyance, Fort Bliss Military Reservation, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
release the rights and the reversionary interests reserved by
the United States for a parcel of land in El Paso, Texas, to
authorize the State of Texas to sell a portion of the property
and use all proceeds from the sale to fund improvements or
repairs for the National Guard facilities on the remainder of
the property.
Subtitle E--Military Land Withdrawals
Section 2841--Withdrawal and Reservation of Public Land, Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake, California
This section would provide for the withdrawal and
reservation of additional public land in San Bernardino County,
California, to support operations at Naval Air Weapons Station
China Lake, California.
Section 2842--Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military Lands
Efficiency and Savings
This section would extend the public lands withdrawn for
military purposes listed in the Military Lands Withdrawal Act
of 1999 (title 30 of Public Law 106-65) until the Secretary of
the military department determines a military purpose does not
exist, or the Secretary of Interior permanently transfers the
administrative jurisdiction to the Secretary of the military
department concerned.
Subtitle F--Military Memorials, Monuments, and Museums
Section 2851--Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National
Historical Park, Ohio
This section would modify the name of the John W. Berry,
Sr. Wright Brothers Aviation Center, Dayton, Ohio, to the John
W. Berry, Sr. Wright Brothers National Museum, Dayton, Ohio.
Section 2852--Extension of Authority for Establishment of Commemorative
Work in Honor of Brigadier General Francis Marion
This section would extend the authority to establish a
commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia
and its environs to honor Brigadier General Francis Marion and
his service, originally provided by section 331 of the
Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-
229), through May 8, 2018.
Section 2853--Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act
This section would prohibit the designation of Federal
property as a National Historic Landmark or for nomination to
the World Heritage List if the head of the agency managing the
Federal property objects to such inclusion or designation for
reasons of national security. This section would also authorize
the expedited removal of Federal property listed on the
National Register of Historic Places if the managing agency of
that Federal property submits a request to the Secretary of
Interior for such removal for reasons of national security.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 2861--Modification of Department of Defense Guidance on Use of
Airfield Pavement Markings
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
modify the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications for pavement
markings, an Air Force engineering technical letter, and any
other Department of Defense guidance on airfield pavement
markings as necessary to permit the use of Type III category of
retro-reflective beads. In addition, the Secretary shall
develop appropriate policy to ensure that determination of the
category of retro-reflective beads used on airfields is
determined on an installation-by-installation basis based on
local conditions and the life-cycle maintenance costs of the
pavement markings.
Section 2862--Protection and Recovery of Greater Sage Grouse
This section would delay any finding by the Secretary of
the Interior with respect to the Greater Sage Grouse under
clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of section 4(b)(3)(B) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B))
through September 30, 2025. In an effort to foster greater
coordination between the States and the Federal Government
regarding management plans for the Greater Sage Grouse, this
section would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture from amending any Federal resource
management plan applicable to Federal lands in a State in which
the Governor of the State has notified the Secretaries
concerned that the State has a State management plan in place.
Lastly, this section would also require the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly submit an
annual report to the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives on the effectiveness of the systems to
monitor the status of Greater Sage Grouse on Federal lands
under their jurisdiction through 2021.
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request did not contain a request for Overseas
Contingency Operations military construction for fiscal year
2016. The committee recommends authorization of $532,000,000
for military construction for fiscal year 2016.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Project
This section would contain the list of a certain authorized
Army construction project for fiscal year 2016. This project
represents a binding list of the specific projects authorized
at this location.
Section 2902--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of certain authorized
Navy construction projects for fiscal year 2016. These projects
represent a binding list of the specific projects authorized at
these locations.
Section 2903--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of certain authorized
Air Force construction projects for fiscal year 2016. These
projects represent a binding list of the specific projects
authorized at these locations.
Section 2904--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of certain authorized
Defense-Wide construction projects for fiscal year 2016. These
projects represent a binding list of the specific projects
authorized at these locations.
Section 2905--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for overseas
contingency operations military construction at the levels
identified in section 4602 of division D of this Act.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $18.87
billion for atomic energy defense activities. The committee
recommends $18.69 billion, a decrease of $175.3 million to the
budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $12.57
billion for the programs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The committee recommends $12.77 billion, an
increase of $204.7 million to the budget request.
Weapons Activities
Advanced radiography
The committee notes the fiscal year 2016 budget request
justification materials for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) described a technology gap identified by
the directors of the national security laboratories and the
director of the Nevada National Security Site regarding NNSA's
ability to assess the final stages of a nuclear weapon's
primary implosion without nuclear explosive testing. The
committee supports NNSA's initiative to fill this gap through
the development of enhanced radiography for integrated
subcritical plutonium experiments at NNSS and therefore reduce
risks in scientific understanding necessary to design and
certify future stockpile life extension programs.
However, the committee notes that NNSA has requested
initial funding for this project but has not yet submitted a
project data sheet for it, which would provide increased
transparency on the project's multi-year cost and schedule. The
committee understands that certain aspects of this project may
require significant cutting-edge science and substantial
research and development before implementation, but other,
largely separate, portions of the project are focused on more
standardized equipment and infrastructure improvements. The
committee believes these latter aspects of this project, at
least, should be accelerated and managed under a full or
streamlined capital asset acquisition process under Department
of Energy (DOE) Order 413.3B, ``Program and Project Management
for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.'' The committee believes
that portions of the project requiring significant further
technology maturation and research and development may, if the
Administrator determines it appropriate, continue to be
developed under other authorities.
The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to provide the congressional defense committees, by
September 1, 2015, a project data sheet in compliance with DOE
Order 413.3B for part or all of the enhanced radiography
project to enable transparency and accountability for this
program. As always, the committee expects NNSA to follow a best
practices acquisition approach for this project.
B61-12 and W76-1 Life Extension Programs
The budget request contained $643.3 million for the B61-12
Life Extension Program (LEP) and $244.0 million for the W76-1
LEP. The committee continues to believe that the National
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) primary focus must be
its nuclear weapon stockpile stewardship program. Within that
broader program the deliverables directly supporting Department
of Defense requirements must be paramount. Successfully
delivering LEPs efficiently and on schedule must be NNSA's
central focus.
The committee highlights the value of the B61-12 LEP in
producing a nuclear gravity bomb that will be both a tangible
and credible extended deterrent to U.S. allies, as well as a
critical component of the United States' own strategic
deterrent. The committee also notes the importance of the W76-1
to the strategic triad. With the sea-based leg of the triad
expected to soon carry approximately 70 percent of the nation's
operationally deployed strategic warheads, the W76-1 will be
the cornerstone of the U.S. nuclear deterrent for decades to
come.
The committee notes the significant progress made on both
of these LEPs in the past year. Information from NNSA and its
laboratories indicates that the B61-12 LEP continues to meet
all major milestones on-schedule and on-budget. The B61-12 LEP
is scheduled to enter Phase 6.4, Production Engineering, in
2016 and the committee looks forward to this progress.
Meanwhile, the W76-1 LEP recently completed over 50 percent of
the planned warhead production. The committee commends the
progress in both programs and believes sustained success in
these crucial national security programs will continue to help
NNSA rebuild trust with the Department of Defense and Congress.
The committee recommends $643.3 million for the B61-12 LEP
and $244.0 million for the W76-1 LEP, the full amount of the
budget request.
Defense nuclear security
As the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) continue to implement corrective
actions resulting from the intrusion at the Y-12 National
Security Complex in 2012, the committee notes modest
improvements in certain aspects of the defense nuclear security
program. For instance, a degree of clarification of roles,
responsibilities, authority, and accountability for security
has been undertaken, though the committee believes more should
be done to formalize and institutionalize these efforts. The
committee is also encouraged by ongoing efforts to review and
update certain security policies, including the Department's
design basis threat.
As its oversight of these matters continues, the committee
is concerned about the long list of deferred physical security
expenditures across the nuclear security enterprise. Recent
estimates by NNSA show a list of deferred security expenditures
of over $1.4 billion, which appears to be in addition to the
$3.6 billion backlog of general deferred maintenance across the
enterprise. Modernization and recapitalization of the Perimeter
Intrusion Detection and Assessment Systems (PIDAS) at the Y-12
National Security Complex and the Pantex Plant account for more
than half of the $1.4 billion. The committee believes NNSA must
undertake a comprehensive program to prioritize and manage its
physical security recapitalization efforts over the next 10
years. To enable this recapitalization to be both cost
effective and appropriately designed, NNSA must conduct
rigorous analysis of policies, technologies, and options to
ensure it is postured to address current and future threats
while striving for standardization and cost efficiencies
wherever possible.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator for
Nuclear Security to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by September 30, 2016, containing a 10-year
plan to recapitalize the nuclear security enterprise's physical
security systems. Such risk-based plan should include the
following: a condition assessment for physical security
equipment; a prioritized list with costs and schedules for
recapitalization of individual systems and equipment; an
analysis of security policies, technologies, and gaps related
to current and evolving threats; and how standardization and
cost efficiencies will be sought across the enterprise. The
committee encourages NNSA to conduct rigorous and comprehensive
analyses of alternatives for all major components of this
recapitalization program, particularly the PIDAS modernization
programs. The committee further directs the Administrator to
provide an interim briefing to the congressional defense
committees on the development of this plan by February 15,
2016.
To begin this planning and initial recapitalization of the
NNSA physical security infrastructure, the committee recommends
$631.9 million, an increase of $12.0 million to the budget
request, for Defense Nuclear Security, Operations and
Maintenance.
Deferred maintenance
Within a proposed Infrastructure and Safety budget
category, the budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) contained $227.0 million for Maintenance
and $257.7 million for Recapitalization. Respectively, these
programs fund day-to-day preventative or corrective maintenance
activities and efforts to reduce the large backlog of deferred
maintenance across the nuclear security enterprise. Combined,
these programs are critical to arresting the declining state of
NNSA's infrastructure.
Budget request justification materials submitted by NNSA
note that NNSA's deferred maintenance backlog is over $3.6
billion and growing. The materials highlight that, of NNSA's
approximately 3,800 facilities, almost 30 percent were built
during the Manhattan Project era and over 50 percent are more
than 40 years old. Moreover, 12 percent of NNSA's buildings are
no longer in use, but must be maintained in a safe state until
funds can be allocated for demolition and disposition.
The committee agrees with NNSA that infrastructure risk, if
left unaddressed, becomes safety risk and mission risk. This
fact was made vivid in March 2014 and July 2014 when large
blocks of concrete fell from ceilings in two separate
facilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee.
Multiple fire suppression system leaks last year at the Pantex
Plant and the Device Assembly Facility resulted in shutdowns,
and broken basic infrastructure resulted in program delays at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Y-12, and other sites.
The committee reiterates its position that the decrepit state
of the nation's nuclear infrastructure is unacceptable and must
be expeditiously corrected. The nation cannot expect to attract
and retain first-class scientists, engineers, and technicians
to the nuclear security enterprise if several of its facilities
present safety hazards.
The committee believes the Administrator for Nuclear
Security has taken a major and important step in finding
creative solutions to this problem by pursuing a lease option
to acquire administrative support capabilities at Pantex. The
committee encourages the Administrator and the Secretary to
continue to seek such solutions (when they are fiscally sound)
and to refine and improve their methodology for understanding,
calculating, and prioritizing infrastructure projects.
The committee is encouraged that the Administrator and the
Secretary have taken steps to stop the growth in the backlog of
deferred maintenance, but believes more must be done to
actually decrease the total amount of the backlog. Therefore,
the committee recommends $407.7 million, an increase of $150.0
million, for Recapitalization, and $251.0 million, an increase
of $24.0 million, for Maintenance.
Funding prioritization within Weapons Activities
The budget request contained $8.85 billion for the Weapons
Activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA). These programs support NNSA's central mission of
ensuring and sustaining the safety, security, reliability, and
credibility of the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile.
Within Weapons Activities, the committee continues to
believe NNSA must emphasize programs and capabilities that
directly support NNSA's deliverables to the Department of
Defense. The committee believes NNSA has taken significant
steps in this regard within its budget request and recommends
no adjustment from the budget request level for life extension
programs.
As NNSA focuses on its concrete deliverables to the
military, the committee seeks to ensure NNSA does not neglect
longer-term requirements and needs. Therefore, the committee
recommends $203.8 million, an increase of $11.2 million, for
R&D Certification and Safety, to support an increased rate of
underground subcritical experiments. The committee also
recommends $26.9 million, an increase of $2.4 million, for
Nuclear Survivability, to support an increased level of effort,
and $51.9 million, an increase of $1.1 million, for Enhanced
Surety, to support continued development and maturation of
safety, security, and use-control technologies. Finally, the
committee recommends $67.3 million, a decrease of $6.0 million,
for Ignition, and $322.8 million, a decrease of $11.0 million,
for Facility Operations and Target Production, to redirect
funds from fusion ignition efforts towards higher priority
needs.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee explains other
recommendations regarding funding priorities within NNSA's
Weapons Activities. Overall, the committee recommends $9.08
billion, an increase of $237.7 million, for Weapons Activities.
Funding related to execution of life extension programs
The committee understands that certain funding within the
National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) budget
request for Weapons Activities, but not within the life
extension program (LEP) budget lines themselves, directly
affect NNSA's ability to successfully execute LEPs. For
instance, if cut, certain funding within Advanced Simulation
and Computing or Stockpile Services would have a direct and
negative impact on the B61-12 LEP. The committee acknowledges
the difficulty, transparency issues, and possible inefficiency
in ensuring all such funding resides in the LEP budget lines,
but encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security make
clear in future budget requests what funding within the broader
Weapons Activities account supports and is considered critical
to successful execution of LEPs.
Governance and management of the nuclear security enterprise
The committee thanks the co-chairs and members of the
Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear
Security Enterprise that was established by section 3166 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239). The work of this advisory panel is a valuable
contribution to the ongoing effort to address longstanding
governance and management problems at the Department of Energy
(DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
The advisory panel's final report, ``A New Foundation for the
Nuclear Enterprise,'' makes a series of recommendations for
action, many of them aligning with suggestions from previous
studies and many of them new.
The committee notes that the advisory panel's final report
makes several recommendations for legislative action, stating
that, ``inadequate implementation of the legislation
establishing NNSA as a separately organized sub-element of DOE
has resulted in overlapping DOE and NNSA headquarters staffs
and blurred ownership and accountability for the nuclear
enterprise missions.'' The committee agrees that the executive
branch's implementation of the NNSA Act (50 U.S.C. 2401 et
seq.) has been inadequate, but does not believe this is
sufficient reason, or that there is sufficient trust at this
time, for Congress to change key elements of this statute and
return to an organizational structure within DOE that proved
deficient in the past. The proposed remedy of fully
reintegrating NNSA's defense functions back into DOE may merely
compound the difficult problem of fixing NNSA by requiring a
fix to larger problems across the much broader Department as a
whole. Therefore, the committee has decided not to make any
statutory changes at this time to the NNSA Act or related
legislation to address the advisory panel's recommendations,
and believes DOE and NNSA should not take any steps
inconsistent with current law. However, the committee looks
forward to rebuilding trust and seeking cooperative solutions
with the Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Secretary
of Energy.
Based on its oversight, the committee believes the
Administrator and the Secretary have begun taking significant
initial steps in this regard. More, however, must be done, and
the effort must be sustained for the long-term and across
administrations. The advisory panel's final report points to
cultural, management, and leadership problems as root causes.
The committee recognizes that leadership from both the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator will be essential and
believes it will take sustained, personal engagement by the
Administrator and the Secretary to remedy these problems. For
instance, actions to reduce detailed, transactional oversight
without reducing oversight of health, safety, and security will
require major long-term cultural shifts driven by senior
leaders. Similarly, moving to rebuild trust and partnership
among Federal officials and the NNSA laboratories and plants
will require clear direction, requirements, and vision as well
as strong accountability for implementing concrete and
measurable changes. Successfully taking action on many other
recommendations, including adopting proven management and best
business practices, making fundamental changes to contracting
approaches and award fees, and establishing very clear roles,
responsibilities, authorities, and accountability, will require
the Administrator and the Secretary to guide major shifts away
from NNSA's and DOE's traditional practices and address NNSA's
and DOE's challenges.
In the end, the advisory panel concluded that
``demonstrated performance is the ultimate measure of success
and the foundation for credibility and trust.'' The committee
agrees. The committee expects continued action and focused
attention from Congress and the administration can provide the
nation a nuclear security enterprise that is focused on
achieving its mission effectively and efficiently as well as
safely and securely.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would provide NNSA and DOE an implementation framework for
taking actions to address the recommendations of the advisory
panel (and other studies) that do not require legislative
action. The committee looks forward to continued engagement
with the Administrator and the Secretary on this issue and to
significant progress in the years ahead.
Plutonium strategy
The budget request contained $174.7 million for Plutonium
Sustainment and $155.6 million for the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement Project. Combined, these two budget lines
provide funding for achieving the nation's plutonium strategy
to revitalize plutonium pit production capabilities.
The committee supports the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) plutonium strategy, which aligns with
the statutory pit production requirements established by
section 3112 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291). The committee believes the three-step approach
proposed by NNSA, coupled with line item budgeting, will ensure
transparency while providing NNSA the flexibility to execute
this important strategy. The committee will continue to closely
monitor the plutonium strategy, as well as efforts to address
the concerns that resulted in the plutonium operations safety
stand-down at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and particularly
emphasizes the imperative to cease operations in the Chemistry
and Metallurgy Research building, which is over 60 years old,
by 2019.
To support NNSA's plutonium strategy, and ensure NNSA meets
safety and statutory pit production requirements, the committee
recommends $183.1 million, an increase of $8.4 million, for
Plutonium Sustainment, and $155.6 million, the full amount
requested, for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement Project.
Primary Assessment Technologies
The budget request contained $98.5 million for Primary
Assessment Technologies within the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) Research, Development, Testing, and
Evaluation Science program.
Among other activities, Primary Assessment Technologies
supports capabilities needed for Intelligence Community
assessments of foreign nuclear weapon activities. The committee
also understands that NNSA proposes to fund fiscal year 2016
efforts to carry out section 4509 of the Atomic Energy Defense
Act (50 U.S.C. 2660) related to design and use of prototypes of
nuclear weapons for intelligence purposes within Primary
Assessment Technologies. The committee expects that these
efforts will be intelligence-driven and tightly linked to
designs based on intelligence assessments.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
to create a nuclear weapon design responsiveness program to
sustain, enhance, and continually exercise all capabilities
required to conceptualize, study, design, develop, engineer,
certify, produce, and deploy nuclear weapons.
To facilitate all of these efforts, the committee
recommends $120.1 million, an increase of $21.6 million, for
Primary Assessment Technologies. Due to the tightly coupled
nature of these programs, the committee believes this is an
appropriate location for funding these efforts in fiscal year
2016. However, as these efforts gain further clarity and grow
more distinct, the committee urges the Administrator for
Nuclear Security to consider whether other funding mechanisms
may be more appropriate.
Stockpile Surveillance and Assessment
The budget request contained $52.2 million for B61
Stockpile Systems and $42.2 million for B83 Stockpile Systems.
This funding provides for, among other things, weapon
maintenance, surveillance, and assessment activities.
The budget request proposes significant reductions in
funding for these activities, amounting to an over 50 percent
reduction for B61 Stockpile Systems and a 33 percent reduction
for B83 Stockpile Systems as compared to fiscal year 2015.
These reductions are based on the administration's proposals to
retire these weapons in the mid- or late-2020s, when the B61-12
has been fully produced and is operational. The proposed
funding reductions allow the National Nuclear Security
Administration to increase funding for the W88 Alt 370 program
to support an expanded scope for this effort. While the
committee supports the expansion of the W88 Alt 370 to include
a refresh of the weapon's conventional high explosives, the
committee is concerned about the increased risk that is being
accepted in surveillance and assessments of the safety and
reliability of the B61 and B83. The budget justification
materials provided to the committee highlight that the
``reduction in surveillance activities increases risk in
ability to detect and investigate anomalies and increases the
uncertainty in reliability assessments.''
To decrease this risk, the committee recommends $73.2
million, an increase of $21.0 million, for B61 Stockpile
Systems, and $51.2 million, an increase of $9.0 million, for
B83 Stockpile Systems.
Uranium for national security purposes
The committee understands that the Secretary of Energy, the
Administrator for Nuclear Security, the Secretary of State, and
the Secretary of Defense are reviewing the available stockpile
of unencumbered uranium and considering potential options for
ensuring a long-term supply of enriched uranium is available
for national security purposes. Within the nuclear enterprise,
enriched uranium is required for nuclear weapons, production of
tritium for use in nuclear weapons, and for naval nuclear
propulsion.
The committee directs the Secretary of Energy, in
coordination with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, the
Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September
15, 2016, assessing the options for ensuring a supply of
enriched uranium for national security purposes for the long-
term. For the options considered, the briefing should provide a
description and cost-benefit analysis, as well as timelines and
costs. The briefing should also identify available and
potentially available stocks of uranium, policy changes or
international agreements that could be considered, and include
any other matters that the Secretaries concerned and the
Administrator determine appropriate.
The committee also expects the Administrator to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on the results
of the related cost study that the Office of Cost Estimating
and Program Evaluation plans to prepare.
W78/88-1 Life Extension Program
As noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446)
accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee does not
object, in principle, to the deferral of a first production
unit from the W78/88-1 Life Extension Program (LEP) to fiscal
year 2030. The committee notes the potential cost of this
program and believes this deferral has allowed resources to be
focused on higher priority programs, such as the W80-4 LEP. The
committee is also aware of the recent JASON advisory panel
report examining the viability and requirements of the ``3+2''
concept.
The committee also notes the potential impact this deferral
could have upon critical design and development skills within
the nuclear security enterprise, if not mitigated in another
manner. For instance, deferral of all funding for this program
until fiscal year 2020, coupled with constrained funding in
programs such as Enhanced Surety and R&D Certification and
Safety, could place significant limits on efforts to develop
and mature technical options and certification tools for this
LEP. The committee notes ongoing technical, reliability, and
cost challenges and uncertainties expected with this LEP. The
committee encourages the Administrator for Nuclear Security and
the Nuclear Weapons Council to review and consider what small
investments, if any, may be warranted between now and fiscal
year 2020 that could enhance critical design skills, develop
technology options, improve understanding of certification
challenges, and consider creative or novel design and
manufacturing paradigms that could reduce costs and reliability
challenges for the W78/88-1 LEP and other future Directed
Stockpile Work.
W88 Alt 370 and W80-4 Life Extension Program
The budget request contained $220.2 million for the W88 Alt
370 program and $195.0 million for the W80-4 Life Extension
Program (LEP).
With the fiscal year 2016 budget request, the
Administration has proposed significant changes for each of
these programs. First, in November 2014 the Nuclear Weapons
Council approved the addition of a ``refresh'' of the
conventional high explosives within the W88 warhead as part of
the ongoing W88 Alt 370 program. Based on review of stockpile
assessment data, cost estimates, and proposed timelines for
life extension programs, the committee supports this decision.
As the W88 Alt 370 moves into Phase 6.4, Production
Engineering, in fiscal year 2016, the committee expects the
National Nuclear Security Administration to rigorously manage
this additional work scope and provide additional transparency
on its plans, and the related costs, benefits, and risks,
through the Weapon Design Cost Report.
Second, last year the Nuclear Weapons Council took action
to align the production schedule of the cruise missile warhead
LEP with the requirements of section 3119 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), which required the
Secretary of Energy to deliver a first production unit for the
long-range standoff weapon by September 30, 2025. The committee
believes this schedule will mitigate risks in the nation's
standoff capabilities and ensure a consistent and manageable
LEP workload within the nuclear security enterprise. The
committee notes the Nuclear Weapons Council's decision to
downselect to the W80 warhead for this LEP and looks forward to
continued refinement of design options, requirements, and cost
estimates as the LEP moves into Phase 6.2, Feasibility Study.
The committee recommends $220.2 million for the W88 Alt 370
program and $195.0 million for the W80-4 LEP, the full amount
of the budget request.
Weapons dismantlement and disposition
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) plans
to dismantle, by the end of fiscal year 2022, all U.S. nuclear
weapons retired prior to fiscal year 2009. In an April 2014
report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended
that NNSA clarify its dismantlement performance goal and how
NNSA measures progress towards this goal. The report stated
that ``having clear goals and measures is a key element of
program management,'' but, ``[b]ecause the dismantlement
performance goal does not make these practices clear, NNSA
risks providing misleading information about progress related
to its goal.'' It noted that ``NNSA does not track the actual
date that dismantled weapons were retired and may be counting
some dismantled weapons retired after fiscal year 2009 as
equivalent to weapons retired prior to fiscal year 2009,'' and,
``NNSA will not dismantle some weapons retired prior to fiscal
year 2009 but will reinstate them to the stockpile to save on
rebuilding other weapons and count the reinstated weapons as
equivalent dismantlements.'' The GAO also recommends NNSA
consider extending the goal because it is unclear whether NNSA
will meet the fiscal year 2022 date and, if the goal is
successfully met, there will be a ``significant dismantlement
workload gap during the mid-2020s.'' The GAO also found that
``NNSA's ability to significantly accelerate dismantlement and
complete planned workload earlier than fiscal year 2022 could
be costly, and it is unclear whether Pantex would have
sufficient capacity to do so.''
To provide clarity on these matters, the committee directs
the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2015,
detailing the plan for dismantlement, including the timeline
and the funding and capacity required to meet the NNSA's goal
to dismantle nuclear weapons retired before 2009 by 2022. The
committee expects this briefing to address dismantlement
performance goals, including how dismantled weapons are
counted, whether that goal should be extended, the risk of a
significant dismantlement workload gap during the mid-2020s
that could result in the loss of certified dismantlement
personnel at Pantex, requirements at the Pantex site for
effectively managing its component inventory management system,
and any impacts of delaying any planned dismantlement of
weapons retired prior to 2009 past 2022. The briefing should
also include the Administrator's estimate of the capacity and
costs for accelerating this goal, including any costs
associated with increasing Pantex's capacity to address such an
increased workload to accelerate this goal. In addition, the
briefing should include any plans and assess the capacity for
dismantlement of nuclear weapons retired since 2009.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Comptroller General assessment of Nonproliferation Research and
Development Program
The National Nuclear Security Administration's Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) program manages several efforts
to research and develop technologies to prevent or combat the
proliferation of nuclear materials. While the committee is
supportive of efforts to explore and develop such technologies,
the committee desires an independent assessment regarding how
DNN manages and prioritizes these programs to create
technologies that are actively deployed, as compared to longer-
term research and development efforts.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2016, containing the Comptroller General's
assessment of DNN's nonproliferation technology research and
development efforts. In particular, the briefing should provide
the Comptroller General's assessment of: (1) how much of the
research and development conducted thus far under DNN's
programs has translated into technologies that are actively
deployed; (2) how the DNN program prioritizes technology
research and development funding in support of near-term and
long-term goals, including technology to improve monitoring,
detection, and in-field inspection and analysis capabilities;
(3) how the DNN program measures success in technology
development efforts, the role deployment of technology plays in
such measures, and to what extent DNN has met its performance
measures; and (4) how the technology research and development
program is managed and the roles of and funding for
participating national laboratories.
Funding prioritization within Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
The budget request contained $1.94 billion for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN). Of this amount, $426.8 million
was requested for Global Material Security, $311.6 for Material
Management and Minimization, and $419.3 million for DNN
Research and Development (R&D).
As in past years, within Global Material Security's Nuclear
Smuggling Detection and Deterrence (NSDD) subprogram, the
committee continues to question the value of fixed site
detection units at major international border crossings and
ports in deterring and intercepting nuclear weapons-usable
special nuclear material. The committee believes NSDD funds
would be better focused on mobile detection capabilities to
reduce the risk of nuclear smuggling. Therefore, the committee
recommends $336.8, a decrease of $90.0 million, for Global
Material Security. Elsewhere in this title, the committee
includes a provision that would deauthorize the subprogram
related to fixed site radiological monitors.
The committee recommends an increase in funding for higher
priority efforts within DNN. The committee recommends $331.6
million, an increase of $20.0 million, for Material Management
and Minimization, to allow acceleration of clean-out efforts
and security upgrades at the highest-risk sites in countries
other than the Russian Federation. The committee recommends
$439.3 million, an increase of $20.0 million, for DNN R&D, to
support early research and development of next-generation
verification and remote sensing technologies.
Overall, the committee recommends $1.90 billion, a decrease
of $39.0 million, for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program
The budget request contained $234.4 million for the Nuclear
Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This program, which the
budget request proposes to move from Weapons Activities into
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, is responsible for countering
nuclear terror threats, responding to nuclear incidents
worldwide, and providing the Department of Energy's emergency
management capability.
As one of the most direct contributions NNSA makes to the
nation's warfighters, the committee highlights the importance
and value of NNSA's programs that help counter and respond to
nuclear terrorism threats. These programs leverage unique
technical knowledge and tools enabled by NNSA's nuclear weapons
program to detect, evaluate, disable, and respond to any
potential nuclear threat. The committee notes that the ability
to provide the nation's responders with detailed technical
information on nuclear threats is dependent upon robust and
timely communication between those responders and NNSA experts.
The committee believes the Administrator for Nuclear Security
must ensure that the knowledge, tools, and communications
systems that are the foundation of this program remain strong.
The committee notes the serious deficiencies within the
Department of Energy's emergency management program that were
identified by the February 2014 incidents at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant and further highlighted by the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and various other entities. As
the emergency management lead for the entire Department of
Energy, the NNSA Associate Administrator for Emergency
Operations shoulders a unique responsibility for preparing for
and responding to a broad spectrum of emergencies. The range of
emergencies the Department must be prepared for range from
those faced by any organization to nuclear weapon accidents.
The committee believes the Secretary of Energy and the
Administrator, acting through the Associate Administrator for
Emergency Operations, should undertake a comprehensive
assessment of the Department's emergency management program,
develop actions and a risk-based investment plan to address any
deficiencies, and carry out swift remedies.
The committee recommends $245.4 million for the Nuclear
Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program, an increase of
$11.0 million, to support emergency management enhancements
across the nuclear security enterprise, as well as upgrades to
the communications systems utilized by nuclear incident
response teams.
Verification and detection technology
The committee continues to support the need for improved
interagency coordination and focus on verification and
detection technology research and development (R&D) to address
current and future proliferation threats, and notes the
potential challenges associated with the spread of nuclear
energy and new technologies, such as additive manufacturing,
that could impact nuclear proliferation. The committee agrees
with the 2014 Defense Science Board report, ``Assessment of
Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies,'' which
concluded that ``monitoring for proliferation should be a top
national security objective, but one for which the nation is
not yet organized or fully equipped to address.''
The committee notes that section 3133 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) requires the
President to submit, not later than September 1, 2015, a
comprehensive national plan for verification and monitoring to
address the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons,
components of such weapons, and fissile material, including
policy, operations, and research, development, testing, and
evaluation efforts. The committee understands that this plan is
being developed and expects that it will be delivered to
Congress on time. The committee also reiterates its expectation
that the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear
Security Administration keep the committee informed on the
development of this plan and on improving focus and investments
in these areas.
The committee also notes the March 2015 Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board (SEAB) ``Report of the Task Force on Nuclear
Nonproliferation,'' that recommended improving research and
development on new verification and nonproliferation
technologies. The report stated that DOE's ``approach of
spreading nonproliferation R&D investment to large numbers of
laboratories in small increments is inhibiting nonproliferation
technology innovation within the labs,'' and that ``it may
still be difficult for high-risk, `out of the box' ideas to get
funded.''
Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends
an increase of $20.0 million for nonproliferation and
verification R&D. The committee intends this increase in
funding to support R&D of next-generation verification and
remote sensing technology, as well as R&D on high-risk, high-
reward ideas as recommended by the SEAB report.
Naval Reactors
Naval Reactors and Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project
The budget request contained $1.38 billion for the Naval
Reactors program. Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects
of naval nuclear propulsion efforts, including reactor plant
technology design and development, reactor plant operation and
maintenance, and reactor retirement and disposal. The program
ensures the safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in
nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers that comprise
over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants.
The committee is concerned that, due to funding challenges,
Naval Reactors has only recently been able to begin a project
to replace its Expended Core Facility (ECF) in Idaho. This
facility, which handles and processes spent naval nuclear fuel,
is over 60 years old and the water pool that is central to the
operation of the facility is deteriorating. The current ECF is
also physically unable to handle and process the larger spent
fuel assemblies being off-loaded from modern aircraft carriers.
Because of delays in construction of the Spent Fuel Handling
Recapitalization Project, which will replace the ECF with a
modern facility, the U.S. Navy has bought several otherwise
unnecessary and expensive temporary storage and transportation
containers to hold the spent aircraft carrier fuel while
awaiting construction of the new facility.
The committee recommends $1.39 billion, an increase of
$12.0 million, for the Naval Reactors program to support
acceleration of the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization
Project.
Federal Salaries and Expenses
Classification guidance
The committee notes the Department of Energy Inspector
General's February 2015 report (DOE/IG-0935) that reviewed Los
Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL) classification program
found that LANL's, ``Classification Officer had not always
adequately protected and controlled classified information
resulting in the misclassification and improper disclosure of
sensitive, national security information.'' The Inspector
General's investigation revealed six incidents in which LANL
documents were misclassified. The report concluded that the
classification officer had not always ensured that derivative
classifiers had appropriate and updated classification
bulletins, including detailed interpretive guidance; had not
classified information properly; and had not always reported
security incidents as required.
The committee notes the importance, across the nuclear
security enterprise and particularly at a national security
laboratory, of consistent and rigorous application of
classification standards. The committee is concerned about the
inadequate response by LANL leadership on this problem and the
lack of awareness of National Nuclear Security Administration
officials. The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services, not later than July 31, 2015, on the measures taken
to improve the effectiveness of the classification process and
related oversight.
Director for Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation
The committee notes that section 3112 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) established a Director for Cost Estimating and Program
Evaluation (CEPE) to improve the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) cost estimating and program management.
The committee is encouraged that NNSA has stood up this
position but notes that progress hiring experienced staff to
support the Director is taking time. The committee recognizes
the challenges of standing up a new office staffed by personnel
with the requisite and unique expertise required may be
difficult, but believes this is a crucial capability needed to
continue rebuilding NNSA's trust and credibility with Congress.
The committee is aware of the plan to have CEPE staff train
alongside the staff of the Department of Defense's Office of
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE). The committee
encourages the Director to ensure CEPE staff receive effective
training and meaningful experience in this manner, and restates
the importance of the joint NNSA and Department of Defense
implementation plan to standing up this new office. The
committee reiterates the statement contained in the Joint
Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which states, ``we
expect the DOD CAPE to play an active role in not only training
personnel of the new NNSA office, but helping shape and ensure
quality cost estimates and program evaluations during the early
years of the new NNSA office.'' The committee is hopeful that
CEPE, coupled with this initial interagency collaboration, will
prove effective in improving NNSA's track record on program
management and cost estimation, particularly for major
projects.
Improvements to National Nuclear Security Administration budget
structure
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee noted that it was
encouraged by an effort by the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) and the White House Office of Management
and Budget to propose an updated and streamlined NNSA budget
structure that would provide better transparency, increased
efficiency and flexibility, and greater focus on NNSA's mission
and priorities. The committee is concerned that this effort has
been slow and has lacked transparency. The committee believes
the Administrator for Nuclear Security should make every effort
to revive this effort and improve dialogue with Congress on the
matter. The committee continues to believe that, if carefully
considered with input from all stakeholders, an improved budget
structure can increase efficiency and agility for NNSA programs
while also ensuring robust transparency and accountability. The
committee expects the Administrator to consult closely with the
committee as budget structure changes are considered.
Labor cost review
As part of previous efforts to improve the Department of
Defense's visibility into National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) programs, the Department of Defense
Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
conducted reviews of labor costs at the facilities comprising
NNSA's nuclear security enterprise. The committee believes
these reviews should be updated and may provide significant
insight into improvement of NNSA's cost accounting systems,
financial reporting standardization efforts, and overall
efficiency.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation, supported by the Director of
the NNSA Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation, to
provide to the House Committee on Armed Services by November
15, 2015, a briefing on the labor costs at each facility of
NNSA's nuclear security enterprise and the laboratories of the
Naval Reactors program. The briefing shall include an
assessment of the various components that comprise total labor
costs at each NNSA facility and the laboratories of the Naval
Reactors program as compared to similar, comparable high-
technology facilities and defense entities in the United States
(including other facilities of the Department of Energy);
accounting practices with regards to direct and indirect costs
as compared to typical defense contractors or federally funded
research and development centers; effects of labor costs on
spending for materials, equipment, and other non-labor
resources; and, such other matters as the Director of CAPE
determines appropriate. The briefing shall also discuss both
base labor costs and labor cost-rate growth at the comparable
entities reviewed. In addition, the briefing should include the
recommendations of the Director of CAPE for modifying NNSA's
cost accounting and financial reporting structure to accurately
reflect direct and indirect costs, improve financial reporting
standardization, and improve efficiency while continuing to
attract and retain highly-qualified personnel. To facilitate
this briefing, the committee directs the Administrator for
Nuclear Security to provide the Director of CAPE full access to
all information, including information from the management and
operating contractors of the NNSA, as well as the resources the
Director of CAPE determines are required to carry out this
review.
Provision of information to Congress by management and operating
contractors
The committee reaffirms and restates its statutory
prerogative to both receive and seek information, advice, and
professional views related to their mission from the
laboratories and plants of the nuclear security enterprise.
These exchanges are critical to enabling the committee's
understanding and oversight of the complex issues related to
the National Nuclear Security Administration's mission and must
not be restricted or hindered in any way. However, the
committee cautions that unsolicited requests from management
and operating contractors of the nuclear security enterprise
for funding increases or legislative changes may be construed
as lobbying. The committee urges the directors of the
laboratories and plants of the nuclear security enterprise to
be mindful of restrictions on lobbying and clear on
distinctions between providing program updates or other
information which help inform the committee's work, as compared
to advocacy on behalf of certain programs.
Reforming and streamlining access authorizations for Restricted Data
The committee continues to emphasize efforts to streamline
Government operations, seek efficiencies, and apply cost
savings directly to defense missions. The committee is aware of
a proposal within the Department of Energy to reform and
streamline processes regarding access authorizations for
Restricted Data. Such an effort may allow elimination of the
separate ``Q'' and ``L'' access authorization process
administered by the Secretary of Energy and instead institute
Restricted Data as a compartment of sensitive information
administered by the Secretary of Energy within the broader
Government's access authorization program. If properly planned
and executed, this effort could significantly streamline work
among the agencies that deal with Restricted Data, reduce the
number of personnel with access to Restricted Data that do not
have a direct requirement for such access to carry out their
work activities, and provide substantial cost savings. However,
the committee cautions that any such effort must maintain
commensurate and rigorous security measures for Restricted
Data.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy,
in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the Director
of National Intelligence, to provide the House Committee on
Armed Services a briefing by November 1, 2015, on the risks and
benefits of making such a change, as well as on the potential
costs and cost-savings, and whether they recommend pursuing a
plan for reforming and streamlining processes regarding access
authorizations for Restricted Data.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 contained $6.30
billion for environmental and other defense activities. The
committee recommends $5.92 billion, a decrease of $380.0
million to the budget request.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Hanford and Savannah River
The budget request for Defense Environmental Cleanup
contained $843.8 million for cleanup activities at the Hanford
Site (excluding the Office of River Protection, which is
authorized at $1.41 billion, the amount of the budget request)
and $1.21 billion for cleanup activities at the Savannah River
Site. As the two primary production sites for plutonium during
the Cold War, long-term cleanup efforts at these sites are top
priorities of the program.
The committee supports increased levels of effort at both
sites to reduce risk and accelerate the most critical cleanup
efforts. Therefore, the committee recommends $915.8 million, an
increase of $72.0 million, for cleanup activities at the
Hanford Site, and $1.22 billion, an increase of $11.6 million,
for cleanup activities at the Savannah River Site.
Report on pension adjustments
The committee is aware that retired employees from various
facilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration's
nuclear security enterprise and the Department of Energy's
Office of Environmental Management defense environmental
cleanup program have been under financial strain due to fixed
pension payments. For instance, retirees from the Savannah
River Site have not received a cost-of-living adjustment in
their pension payments for over fifteen years. With an increase
in inflation of 30 percent since that time, the committee is
concerned that the lack of pension adjustments may not be
commensurate with other government and public sector pension
plans over that period of time.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to
provide a briefing on pension cost-of-living adjustments to the
House Committee on Armed Services by January 31, 2016. This
briefing shall include the following elements:
(1) An assessment and comparison of pension plan cost-of-
living adjustments since 2000 for retirees from Department of
Energy facilities, including those of the nuclear security
enterprise and defense environmental cleanup sites as compared
to other facilities of the Department;
(2) An assessment and comparison of how such cost-of-living
adjustments since 2000 compare to those in other U.S.
Government pension plans and comparable public sector pension
plans; and
(3) An assessment of the impacts on site operations, the
current workforce, and the costs associated with providing a
cost-of-living adjustment to any pension plan that has not
received one for more than ten years.
Technology development
The budget request contained $14.5 million for the
technology development program of the Office of Environmental
Management. This program provides key investments in mid- to
long-term research and development efforts that seek to develop
new technologies to reduce cleanup costs and accelerate cleanup
schedules.
The committee has long been supportive of this program
because it believes that, since the defense environmental
cleanup program is expected to last until 2070 and cost
hundreds of billions of dollars, even small amounts of funding
invested in technology development efforts have the potential
to provide large cost savings to taxpayers through new or more
efficient cleanup methods. Therefore, the committee recommends
$18.5 million, an increase of $4.0 million, for the technology
development program.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
The committee continues to monitor the investigations and
corrective actions resulting from the February 2014 incidents
at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New
Mexico. The committee has reviewed a series of reports on the
incidents, including the most recent Phase 2 Report of the
Department of Energy's Accident Investigation Board (AIB)
examining the root cause of the February 14, 2014, release of
radioactive material from a transuranic waste drum underground
at WIPP. The AIB found that the release was caused by a
reaction involving incompatible materials in a drum that was
processed at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in December
2013 and sent to WIPP. The AIB concluded that, ``if LANL had
adequately developed and implemented repackaging and treatment
procedures that incorporated suitable hazard controls and
included a rigorous review and approval process, the release
would have been preventable.'' Separate investigations have
found serious deficiencies in the emergency management and
response actions taken at WIPP during and after the event.
The committee expects the Secretary of Energy and the
Administrator for Nuclear Security to seriously consider all of
the recommendations resulting from the various investigations
into the events at WIPP. Efforts to improve operations,
oversight, and emergency response at WIPP are well underway,
but the committee expects these important lessons learned to be
transferred across the Department. Furthermore, the committee
expects the Secretary and the Administrator to continue to take
robust action to hold accountable the officials and contractors
responsible for these failures.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Defense nuclear waste repository
The committee notes the Secretary of Energy's recent
proposal to seek a separate geological repository for high-
level defense nuclear waste. While the committee believes a
pathway for final disposition of high-level defense waste from
facilities such as the Hanford Site and the Savannah River Site
is necessary, the committee is concerned that construction and
operation of a defense-only repository would require
significant funding from the already-oversubscribed national
defense budget function. With the many defense priorities
facing the Department of Energy in the next decade, the
committee expresses caution that construction of a high-level
defense waste repository must not come at the expense of
currently planned priorities in atomic energy defense
activities. The committee will continue to conduct oversight of
this matter as the plans develop.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2016,
including funds for weapons activities, defense nuclear
nonproliferation programs, naval reactor programs, and Federal
Salaries and Expenses (formerly known as the Office of the
Administrator), at the levels identified in section 4701 of
division D of this Act. This section would also authorize a new
plant project for the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup
This section would authorize appropriations for defense
environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2016, at the
levels identified in section 4701 of division D of this Act.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize appropriations for other
defense activities for the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2016 at the levels identified in section 4701 of division D of
this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3111--Authorized Personnel Levels of National Nuclear Security
Administration
This section would amend section 3241A of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2441a) to
require that, by October 1, 2016, the total number of employees
within the Office of the Administrator may not exceed 1,350.
This section would also amend section 3241 of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2441) by
striking ``600'' and inserting ``450'' as the number of
employees allowed to be appointed under the authority provided
by such section. This section would also clarify that any
employees appointed pursuant to the authority provided by such
section 3241 would not be counted for the purposes of the cap
of 1,350 employees. To facilitate transparency, this section
would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to include
certain information regarding the number of various types of
employees within the Office of the Administrator in each annual
budget request submission.
Section 3112--Full-time Equivalent Contractor Personnel Levels
This section would amend section 3241A of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2441a) to
specify that the total number of full-time equivalent employees
working under a service support contract of the NNSA may not
exceed the number that is 30 percent of the number of employees
of the Office of the Administrator authorized under subsection
(a)(1) of such section 3241A. The Administrator for Nuclear
Security would be required to not exceed this total number of
full-time equivalent contractor employees unless, during each
fiscal year in which the Administrator exceeds such authorized
number, the Administrator submits a report to the congressional
defense committees justifying such excess.
This section would also require the Administrator to
submit, with each fiscal year budget request, information on:
(1) the number of full-time equivalent employees of the Office
of the Administrator; (2) the number of service support
contracts of the NNSA; (3) the number of full-time equivalent
contractor employees working under each service support
contract; and (4) the number of full-time equivalent contractor
employees that have been employed under a service support
contract for a period greater than two years.
Section 3113--Improvement to Accountability of Department
of Energy Employees and Projects
This section would amend subtitle C of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) Act (50 U.S.C. 2441) to add a
new section requiring the Secretary of Energy and the
Administrator for Nuclear Security to jointly notify, at the
time of the annual budget request, the appropriate
congressional committees of the number of covered employees
whose security clearance was revoked during the previous year
and the length of time such employees were employed by the
Department of Energy or NNSA since such revocation. In
addition, whenever the Secretary or the Administrator
terminates the employment of a covered employee or removes and
reassigns a covered employee for cause, the Secretary or the
Administrator shall notify the appropriate congressional
committees of such termination or reassignment by not later
than 30 days after the date of such termination or
reassignment.
This section would also require that not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and
the Administrator shall jointly submit to the congressional
defense committees, the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate written certification that the
Secretary and the Administrator possess the authorities needed
to terminate the employment of an employee for cause relating
to improper program management.
This section would require that the Secretary or the
Administrator may not pay to a covered employee a bonus during
the one-year period beginning on the date on which the
Secretary or the Administrator determines that the covered
employee committed improper program management. This section
includes a waiver on a case-by-case basis if the Secretary or
the Administrator notifies the appropriate congressional
committees of such waiver and a period of 60 days elapses
following such notification.
This section would modify subtitle A of title 47 of the
Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2741) to add the sense of
Congress that the Administrator should use all contractual
remedies available to the Administrator, including through the
withholding of all award fees, in case in which the
Administrator determines that a contractor of a covered project
is responsible for delaying the project; reducing the scope of
the project; increasing the cost of the project; or undermines
health, safety, and security. At or about the time that the
President's budget request is submitted to Congress, this
section would require the Administrator to certify to the
appropriate congressional committees that each covered project
is being carried out on time, on budget, and within the planned
scope of the project, while protecting health, safety, and
security. Not later than 30 days after the date on which the
Administrator makes each certification, the Administrator shall
notify the appropriate congressional committees of any covered
project for which the Administrator could not make such a
certification; except as provided in the section, an
explanation as to whether termination of contract for the
project is an appropriate remedy, a description of the terms of
the contract regarding award fees and performance, and a
description of how the Administrator plans to exercise
contractual options; and, in the case in which the
Administrator could not make such certification or provide such
information by reason of a contract enforcement action, a
notification of such contract enforcement action and the date
on which the Administrator plans to submit the information
described.
Section 3114--Cost-Benefit Analyses for Competition of Management and
Operating Contracts
This section would amend section 3121 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) to require that the report submitted by the Administrator
for Nuclear Security pursuant to section 3121 must include a
description of the factors considered and processes used by the
Administrator to determine: (1) whether to compete or extend a
contract to manage and operate a facility of the nuclear
security enterprise; and (2) whether and which activities at
the facility should be covered under the management and
operating contract rather than under a different contract. The
report would also be required to include a detailed description
of the analyses conducted by the Administrator to reach the
conclusions presented in the report, including any assumptions,
limitations, and uncertainties relating to such conclusions.
This section would also extend the requirement for the
Administrator to submit a report under section 3121 of Public
Law 112-239 by 2 years, through fiscal year 2019. Finally, this
section also would express the sense of Congress regarding
competition of management and operating contracts of the
nuclear security enterprise.
Section 3115--Nuclear Weapon Design Responsiveness Program
This section would express the sense of Congress that: (1)
a modern and responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure is only
one component of a nuclear posture that is agile, flexible, and
responsive to change; and (2) to ensure the nuclear deterrent
of the United States remains safe, secure, reliable, credible,
and responsive, the United States must continually exercise all
capabilities required to conceptualize, study, design, develop,
engineer, certify, produce, and deploy nuclear weapons.
This section would also amend the Atomic Energy Defense Act
(50 U.S.C. 2521) to establish that it is the policy of the
United States to sustain, enhance, and continually exercise all
capabilities required to conceptualize, study, design, develop,
engineer, certify, produce, and deploy nuclear weapons to
ensure the nuclear deterrent of the United States remains safe,
secure, reliable, credible, and responsive. The Secretary of
Energy, acting through the Administrator for Nuclear Security
and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, would be
required to carry out a program in parallel with the stockpile
stewardship program and stockpile management program to fulfill
this policy. This section would also stipulate a series of
objectives for this program. Finally, this section would amend
certain existing annual reporting requirements to ensure robust
attention on the program by senior leaders and enable
congressional oversight of the status and effectiveness of the
program.
The committee notes that this section does not authorize
the development and production of new or modified nuclear
weapons, and does not modify the statutory requirement
contained in section 4209 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50
U.S.C. 2529) for the Secretary of Energy to seek congressional
authorization by making specific requests for funding if the
Secretary seeks to carry out activities that are intended to
lead to production of new or modified nuclear weapons.
Section 3116--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to carry
out construction and program support activities for the Mixed
Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility with any funds authorized
to be appropriated or otherwise made available for such
purposes for fiscal year 2016 and any prior fiscal years.
This section would also require the Secretary to include in
the budget justification materials submitted to Congress for
fiscal year 2017 an updated performance baseline for
construction and project support activities relating to the MOX
facility.
Section 3117--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Fixed Site
Radiological Portal Monitors in Foreign Countries
This section would prohibit any funds authorized by this
Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2016 or any
fiscal year thereafter for the National Nuclear Security
Administration from being obligated or expended for the
research and development, installation, or sustainment of fixed
site radiological portal monitors or equipment for use in
foreign countries. This section would clarify that this
prohibition does not apply to such activities for mobile
radiological inspection equipment.
Section 3118--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Provision of
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Assistance to Russian Federation
This section would provide that none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2016 for defense nuclear
nonproliferation activities may be obligated or expended to
enter into a contract with, or otherwise provide assistance to,
the Russian Federation. The Secretary of Energy, without
delegation, would be provided the authority to waive this
prohibition if the Secretary submits a report to the
appropriate congressional committees containing notification
that such a waiver is in the national security interest of the
United States, a justification for such waiver, and a period of
15 days elapses.
Section 3119--Limitation on Authorization of Production of Special
Nuclear Material Outside the United States by Foreign Country with
Nuclear Naval Propulsion Program
This section would require that, prior to the approval by
the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) of any part 810 authorization (regarding
the transfer of certain civil nuclear technology) for a foreign
state with a nuclear naval propulsion program, the Director of
National Intelligence and the Chief of Naval Operations shall
submit an assessment to the specified congressional committees
on the risks of diversion, and the likely consequences of such
diversion, of technology authorized by such part 810
authorization to such foreign state's nuclear naval propulsion
program.
This section would also require that, not less than 90 days
prior to the approval of any part 810 authorization for a
foreign state with a nuclear naval propulsion program, the
Administrator of the NNSA shall certify to the specified
congressional committees that there is sufficient diversion
control and such transfer presents a minimal risk of diversion
of such technology to a military program that would degrade the
technical advantage of the United States.
Section 3120--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Development of
Certain Nuclear Nonproliferation Technologies
This section would prohibit any funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2016 for the National Nuclear Security Administration's
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation program from being obligated
or expended to develop nonproliferation or arms control
verification or monitoring technologies beyond Technology
Readiness Level 5 (TRL 5) unless the Secretary of Energy
certifies that such technologies are being developed to fulfill
the rights or obligations of the United States under either:
(1) a current arms control or nonproliferation treaty or
agreement; or (2) a treaty or agreement that the Secretary
expects will enter into force within 2 years. The Secretary
would be required to submit this written certification to the
appropriate congressional committees and include, for each
technology the Secretary certifies for development beyond TRL
5, an identification of the amount of fiscal year 2016 funds
that will used and how such development helps to fulfill the
rights or obligations of the United States under the treaty or
agreement.
This section would also provide the Secretary the authority
to waive this prohibition if the Secretary determines the
waiver is in the national security interests of the United
States and submits a certification of such determination to the
appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to carrying
out the waiver.
Section 3121--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Unilateral
Disarmament
This section would provide that, of the funds authorized
to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
any of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 for the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), not more than $50.0 million may
be obligated or expended in each such fiscal year to carry out
nuclear weapons dismantlement and disposition activities.
This section would also prohibit any funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act, or otherwise made available for any
of fiscal years 2016 through 2020, to be obligated or expended
to dismantle a nuclear weapon of the United States unless: (1)
the nuclear weapon was retired on or before September 30, 2008;
(2) the Administrator for Nuclear Security certifies that the
components of the nuclear weapon are directly required for the
purposes of a current life extension program; or (3) the
President certifies that the nuclear weapon is being dismantled
pursuant to a nuclear arms reduction treaty or similar
international agreement that has entered into force after the
date of enactment of this Act and was approved with the advice
and consent of the Senate or by an Act of Congress.
This section would also prohibit any funding authorized to
be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for any
of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 from being used to dismantle
or dispose of a W84 nuclear weapon.
Finally, this section would include an exception to these
prohibitions for any activities necessary to conduct
maintenance or surveillance of the nuclear weapons stockpile or
activities to ensure the safety or reliability of the nuclear
weapons stockpile.
Section 3122--Use of Best Practices for Capital Asset Projects and
Nuclear Weapon Life Extension Programs
This section would require that, within 30 days of the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in
coordination with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, shall
ensure that analyses of alternatives are conducted (including
through contractors, as appropriate) in accordance with best
practices for capital asset projects and life extension
programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
as well as capital asset projects relating to defense
environmental management.
This section would also require that, within 30 days of the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in
coordination with the Administrator, shall develop cost
estimates in accordance with cost estimating best practices for
capital asset projects and life extension programs of NNSA as
well as capital asset projects relating to defense
environmental management.
Finally, this section would require that, as soon as
practicable, but not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise:
(1) The capital asset project management order of the
Department of Energy to require the use of best practices for
preparing cost estimates and for conducting analyses of
alternatives for NNSA and defense environmental management
capital asset projects; and
(2) The nuclear weapon life extension program procedures of
the Department to require the use of best practices for
preparing cost estimates and conducting analyses of
alternatives for NNSA life extension programs.
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports
Section 3131--Root Cause Analyses for Certain Cost Overruns
This section would amend section 4713(c) of the Atomic
Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2753) to require the Secretary of
Energy to conduct and submit to the congressional defense
committees a root cause assessment when certain programs
experience a significant cost overrun. The assessment would be
required to include the contribution of any shortcomings in
cost, schedule, or performance of the program, including the
role, if any, of the following: (1) unrealistic performance
expectations; (2) unrealistic baseline estimates for cost or
schedule; (3) immature technologies or excessive manufacturing
or integration risk; (4) unanticipated design, engineering,
manufacturing, or technology integration issues arising during
program performance; (5) changes in procurement quantities; (6)
inadequate program funding or funding instability; (7) poor
performance by personnel of the Federal Government or
contractor personnel responsible for program management; or (8)
any other matters.
Section 3132--Extension and Modification of Certain Annual Reports on
Nuclear Nonproliferation
This section would amend section 3122(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) by striking the date of 2016 and inserting 2020. This
section would also amend such subsection to clarify that, in
the Secretary of Energy's annual assessment, the Secretary must
(1) identify any highly-enriched uranium around the world that
is obligated by the United States and (2) provide a list, by
country and by site, of the separated plutonium around the
world, identify such plutonium that is obligated by the United
States, and provide an assessment of the vulnerability of such
plutonium to theft or diversion.
Section 3133--Governance and Management of Nuclear Security Enterprise
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
governance and management problems with respect to the nuclear
security enterprise, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), and the Department of Energy.
This section would also require the Secretary of Energy and
the Administrator for Nuclear Security to jointly establish a
team of senior officials from the Department of Energy and NNSA
to develop and carry out an implementation plan to reform
governance and management to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of the nuclear security enterprise. The plan would
be required to be developed and implemented in accordance with
the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C.
2401), the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501), and any
other provision of law. This section would require the team to
be co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Energy and the
Administrator for Nuclear Security. The plan developed by the
team would be required to address all recommendations contained
in certain studies (including the final report of the advisory
panel established by section 3166 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)),
except those requiring legislative action to carry out. The
Secretary and the Administrator would be required to submit the
plan to the appropriate congressional committees by January 30,
2016.
This section would also require the Administrator to seek
to enter into a joint agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration to
establish a panel of external, independent experts to evaluate
the plan developed by the Department of Energy and NNSA and to
evaluate the implementation of such plan. The panel's duties
would include providing advice to the Secretary and the
Administrator on the plan, tracking its implementation, and
assessing its effectiveness. The panel would also be required
to submit several reports to the appropriate congressional
committees and the Secretary and the Administrator. In
addition, the Secretary and the Administrator would be required
to provide full and timely access to all information,
personnel, and systems that the panel determines necessary.
Finally, this section includes rules of construction that
nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any
action: (1) in contravention of section 3220 of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2410); or (2)
that would undermine or weaken health, safety, or security.
Section 3134--Assessments on Nuclear Proliferation Risks and Nuclear
Nonproliferation Opportunities
This section would require the Director of National
Intelligence to submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees, by March 1 of each year from 2016-20,
containing: (1) an assessment and prioritization of
international nuclear proliferation risks and nuclear
nonproliferation opportunities; and (2) an assessment of the
effectiveness of various means and programs for addressing such
risks and opportunities.
Section 3135--Independent Review of Laboratory-Directed Research and
Development Programs
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to seek to enter into a contract with the JASON
Defense Advisory Panel to conduct a review of the laboratory-
directed research and development (LDRD) program authorized
under section 4811 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2791). The review would be required to include assessments of
whether and how the projects within the LDRD program support
the mission of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA), whether the science conducted under LDRD underpin the
advancement of scientific understanding necessary for NNSA's
core programs, the scientific and programmatic opportunities
and challenges in the LDRD program, recent significant
accomplishments and failures within the LDRD program, and how
LDRD projects are selected for funding. This section would
require the Administrator to submit to the congressional
defense committees, by November 1, 2016, a report containing
the review carried out by the JASON Defense Advisory Panel.
This section would also require a briefing to the
congressional defense committees by the Comptroller General of
the United States by November 1, 2016. The Comptroller General
would be required to assess: how NNSA LDRD funding limits
compare to other Department of Energy and Department of Defense
laboratories and federally funded research and development
centers; how many NNSA personnel are supported by LDRD funding,
including how many receive a majority of their compensation
from LDRD; and how many devote the majority of their time to
LDRD programs for more than three years.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 3141--Transfer, Decontamination, and Decommissioning of
Nonoperational Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
establish and carry out a plan under which the Administrator
for Nuclear Security transfers to the Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Environmental Management the responsibility for
decontaminating and decommissioning facilities of the National
Nuclear Security Administration that the Secretary of Energy
determines are not operational as of the date of the enactment
of this Act and meet the requirements for such transfer. The
plan would be required to include:
(1) A schedule for transferring the facilities within 3
years;
(2) A prioritized list and schedule, including how such
priorities and schedules integrate with other facility
disposition priorities and schedules of the Office of
Environmental Management; and,
(3) A description of the estimated life-cycle costs for the
facilities.
The Secretary of Energy would be required to submit the
plan to the appropriate congressional committees, along with
any additional views of the Secretary, by February 15, 2016.
Section 3142--Research and Development of Advanced Naval Nuclear Fuel
System Based on Low-Enriched Uranium
This section would require that, of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2016 for defense nuclear nonproliferation for
material management and minimization, not more than $5.0
million shall be made available to the Deputy Administrator for
Naval Reactors for initial planning and early research and
development of an advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on
low-enriched uranium.
In addition, this section would require that, at the same
time the President submits the fiscal year 2017 budget to
Congress, the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Navy
shall jointly submit to the congressional defense committees
their determination as to whether the United States should
continue to pursue research and development of an advanced
naval nuclear fuel system based on low-enriched uranium. If the
Secretaries determine to continue the research and development,
the Secretaries would be required to ensure the budget request
for fiscal year 2017 includes funding to carry out the program
within the defense nuclear nonproliferation, material
management and minimization budget line.
Not later than 30 days after the date of the submission of
such determination, the Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors
would be required to submit to the congressional defense
committees a plan for such research and development, as well as
ensuring that the budget includes amounts for defense nuclear
nonproliferation for material management and minimization
necessary to carry out the plan. This plan would be required to
include timelines; costs, including an analysis of the cost of
such research and development as compared to the cost of
maintaining current navel nuclear reactor technology;
milestones; identification of any benefits or risks for nuclear
nonproliferation; identification of any military benefits or
risks; a discussion of potential security cost savings,
including for transportation and the relation of cost savings
to the cost of fuel fabrication; distinguishment between
requirements for aircraft carriers from submarines; and any
other matters the Deputy Administrator determines appropriate.
Finally, this section would require that, if the
Secretaries determine such research and development should
continue, not later than 60 days after the date on which the
Deputy Administrator submits the plan, the Deputy Administrator
for Naval Reactors would be required to enter into a memorandum
of understanding with the Deputy Administrator for Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation regarding the research and development
of an advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on low-enriched
uranium, including with respect to how funding for such
research and development will be requested for the ``Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation'' account for material management and
minimization and provided to Naval Reactors to carry out the
program.
Section 3143--Plutonium Pit Production Capacity
This section would express the sense of Congress that: (1)
the requirement to create a modern, responsive nuclear
infrastructure that includes the capability and capacity to
produce, at minimum, 50 to 80 pits per year, is a national
security priority; (2) delaying creation of a modern,
responsive nuclear infrastructure until the 2030's is an
unacceptable risk to the nuclear deterrent and the national
security of the United States; and (3) timelines for creating
certain capacities for production of plutonium pits and other
nuclear weapons components must be driven by the requirement to
hedge against technical and geopolitical risk and not solely by
the needs of life extension programs.
This section would also require the Chairman of the Nuclear
Weapons Council, in consultation with the Administrator for
Nuclear Security and the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, to
provide a briefing to congressional defense committees by March
1, 2016, on the annual plutonium pit production capacity
requirement of the nuclear security enterprise. The briefing
would be required to include a description of the number of
pits produced that are needed for life extension programs and
the number of pits produced that are required to support a
responsive nuclear weapons infrastructure and hedge against
technical and geopolitical risk.
Section 3144--Analysis of Alternatives for Mobile Guardian Transporter
Program
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to submit to the congressional defense committees the
analysis of alternatives conducted by the Administrator for the
Mobile Guardian Transporter (MGT) program within 60 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act. The Administrator would
also be required to enter into a contract with a federally
funded research and development center to conduct an
independent assessment of the analysis of alternatives for the
MGT program. The Administrator would be required to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2016, containing the independent assessment, without change,
and any views of the Administrator on the assessment or the MGT
program. Finally, this section would also require the Secretary
of Energy to include in the annual budget request submission, a
separate, dedicated program element for the MGT program.
Materials provided to the committee by the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) state that, ``Not only must the
[MGT] design take into account current technology and
production costs, it must also have the engineering flexibility
to serve the nuclear security enterprise for up to 20 years.''
The committee believes that, due to the 20 year service life of
the MGT and the importance of its cargo, the NNSA must conduct
a rigorous and comprehensive analysis of alternatives to inform
acquisition decisions. This analysis must consider all safety
and security scenarios the MGT may encounter as well as the
costs, benefits, and risks of various engineering and policy
changes that could affect the program.
Section 3145--Development of Strategy on Risks to Nonproliferation
Caused by Additive Manufacturing
This section would require the President to develop and
pursue a strategy to address the risks to the goals and
policies of the United States regarding nuclear
nonproliferation caused by the increased use of additive
manufacture technology (including 3D Printing). This section
would require the President to brief the appropriate
congressional committees on the development and execution of
such strategy not later than March 31, 2016, and every 120 days
thereafter until January 1, 2019. Finally, this section would
highlight the importance of pursuing such strategy at the
Nuclear Security Summit in Chicago in 2016.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $29.2 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2016. The
committee recommends $29.2 million, the amount of the budget
request.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize funds for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2016.
Section 3202--Administration of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
This section would amend section 311(c) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2886(c)) to clarify that, in
carrying out certain duties, the Chairman of the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Board may not withhold from any member of
the Board any information that is made available to the
Chairman regarding the Board's functions, powers, and mission
(including with respect to the management and evaluation of
employees of the Board). This section would further amend
section 311(c) to clarify that the Chairman of the Board,
subject to the approval of the Board, may appoint and remove
particular senior employees of the Board: (1) the senior
employee responsible for budgetary and general administration
matters; (2) the general counsel; and (3) the senior employee
responsible for technical matters.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize $17.5 million for fiscal year
2016 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum
Reserves.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Merchant Mariner Workforce
The committee notes that the number of United States
merchant mariners has declined in recent years. This is in
large part due to the decline in the number of United States
flagged merchant vessels. The committee is concerned that there
may not be enough qualified merchant mariners to meet the
demands of the Department of Defense should it ever need to
activate the Ready Reserve fleet of the United States Navy.
Therefore, the committee directs the Maritime Administrator, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to provide a
comprehensive report to the congressional defense committees by
September 30, 2015 on the status of the merchant mariner
workforce and whether there are sufficient merchant mariners to
meet the Navy's surge fleet requirements in the event of a
national emergency. If they conclude there are insufficient
mariners, it should analyze options for correcting the problem
and take into account U.S. national security interests, U.S.
commercial shipping interests, and budgetary implications.
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel
The committee understands that the existing six State
Maritime Academies are vital maritime training and education
assets that provide unique maritime learning opportunities. The
State Maritime Academies produce annually two-thirds of the
total of trained, Coast Guard-credentialed officers for service
in the United States Merchant Marine, thus ensuring a cadre of
well-educated and trained merchant mariners in the event of a
national emergency or contingency. Because United States
Merchant Marine credentialed officers remain vital to ensure
the economic and national security of the United States, State
Maritime Academies remain valuable partners with the Department
of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and other
Federal agencies. However, the quality of maritime training
available at State Maritime Academies is limited by the
advanced age of State Maritime Academy training ships, which
reduce available days at sea, increase annual maintenance
costs, and create other obstacles to ensuring such vessels
fully comply with international and domestic maritime statutes,
rules, and regulations. Recapitalizing the State Maritime
Academy training fleet would improve mariner education, reduce
operational risks and annual operation and maintenance costs,
and ensure that State Maritime Academies have modern and
reliable training platforms for the future. A national security
multi-mission ship would maximize mariner training
opportunities for cadets and midshipmen while providing a
flexible platform suitable and available for national security,
emergency, or humanitarian response or meeting other
contingencies.
The committee supports the planning and design investment
for the development of a new class of National Security Multi-
Mission Training Vessels for use by State Maritime Academies
and for deployment in support of Federal agency security or
emergency missions. The ships designed under this process will
provide a modern, functional, environmentally compliant
maritime training platform and will be capable of deployments
in support of homeland and national security missions, natural
disasters, emergencies, and humanitarian missions.
The committee encourages the Department of Transportation
to continue budgeting for the design and construction of a
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel in order to recapitalize
the aging fleet of State Maritime Academy training vessels.
Small Shipyard Grants
The committee notes the need for continued investment in
small shipyards, taking advantage of existing grant programs,
to sustain the ship repair and shipbuilding industries. The
committee also notes that many of these shipyards are in need
of repair and upgrade after being used extensively in operating
environments of the past decade. Furthermore, the committee
notes that many small businesses ancillary to public shipyards
have invested in maritime research and development and have
multiyear track records conducting ship repair operations.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense
and the Administrator of the Maritime Administration to use
existing programs, like the Assistance to Small Shipyards Grant
program, to fund infrastructure upgrades in small shipyards.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for National Security
Aspects of the Merchant Marine for Fiscal Year 2016
This section would authorize appropriations for the
national security aspects of the merchant marine for fiscal
year 2016.
Section 3502--Sense of Congress Regarding Maritime Security Fleet
Program
This section would express the sense of Congress that
dedicated and enhanced support is necessary to stabilize and
preserve the Maritime Security Fleet program.
The committee notes that declines in the U.S.-flag
international fleet have diminished the pool of U.S. civilian
mariners critical to crewing not only commercial U.S.-flag
vessels but also national defense surge sealift. The drop in
the number of U.S.-flag vessels in the international trades is
in part a result of reductions in government-impelled cargoes,
both Department of Defense cargoes and food aid cargoes. The
committee is concerned that future reductions in U.S.-flag
commercial vessels, especially militarily useful vessels in the
Maritime Security Program, could put at risk the Nation's
ability to fully activate, deploy, and sustain Armed Forces
around the globe.
Section 3503--Update of References to the Secretary of Transportation
Regarding Unemployment Insurance and Vessel Operators
This section would update sections 3305 and 3306(n) of
title 26, United States Code, to reflect the Maritime
Administration's transfer from the Department of Commerce to
the Department of Transportation that occurred in 1981.
Section 3504--Reliance on Classification Society Certification for
Purposes of Eligibility for Certificate of Inspection
This section would modify section 53102 of title 46, United
States Code, and require the U.S. Coast Guard to implement
certain class society certification standards.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables
This section 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
guidance in accordance with established procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, this section would also require that a decision by
an Agency Head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the
requirements of section 2304(k) and section 2374 of title 10,
United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House House
FY 2016 Request Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
National Defense Funding, Base
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations
Title I--Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army....................................... 5,689,357 179,800 5,869,157
Missile Procurement, Army........................................ 1,419,957 76,000 1,495,957
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.......................... 1,887,073 148,617 2,035,690
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.................................. 1,233,378 -11,000 1,222,378
Other Procurement, Army.......................................... 5,899,028 -91,000 5,808,028
Aircraft Procurement, Navy....................................... 16,126,405 2,214,100 18,340,505
Weapons Procurement, Navy........................................ 3,154,154 77,800 3,231,954
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................... 723,741 723,741
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy.................................. 16,597,457 -327,190 16,270,267
Other Procurement, Navy.......................................... 6,614,715 111,500 6,726,215
Procurement, Marine Corps........................................ 1,131,418 37,500 1,168,918
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.................................. 15,657,769 290,500 15,948,269
Missile Procurement, Air Force................................... 2,987,045 2,987,045
Space Procurement, Air Force..................................... 2,584,061 26,000 2,610,061
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................. 1,758,843 -20,000 1,738,843
Other Procurement, Air Force..................................... 18,272,438 22,900 18,295,338
Procurement, Defense-Wide........................................ 5,130,853 132,480 5,263,333
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund.............................. 99,701 -99,701 0
Subtotal, Title I--Procurement................................... 106,967,393 2,768,306 109,735,699
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................... 6,919,178 105,500 7,024,678
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................... 17,885,916 -1,233,693 16,652,223
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force.............. 26,473,669 -515,700 25,957,969
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........... 18,329,861 217,220 18,547,081
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense........................... 170,558 170,558
Subtotal, Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation... 69,779,182 -1,426,673 68,352,509
Title III--Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army.................................... 23,822,655 -58,310 23,764,345
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve............................ 1,035,017 6,000 1,041,017
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard..................... 3,576,169 513,990 4,090,159
Operation & Maintenance, Navy.................................... 32,430,364 -828,900 31,601,464
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps............................ 4,595,074 -325,200 4,269,874
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve............................ 819,847 4,500 824,347
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.................... 276,112 400 276,512
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................... 31,317,486 -426,530 30,890,956
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve....................... 2,817,743 -98,200 2,719,543
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard...................... 6,956,210 -60,600 6,895,610
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................ 30,480,285 -391,600 30,088,685
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid.................... 100,266 100,266
Subtotal, Title III--Operation and Maintenance................... 138,227,228 -1,664,450 136,562,778
Title IV--Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations................................ 130,491,227 -291,492 130,199,735
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions.............. 6,243,449 6,243,449
Subtotal, Title IV--Military Personnel........................... 136,734,676 -291,492 136,443,184
Title XIV--Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army....................................... 50,432 5,000 55,432
Working Capital Fund, Navy....................................... 0 5,000 5,000
Working Capital Fund, Air Force.................................. 62,898 5,000 67,898
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide............................... 45,084 45,084
Working Capital Fund, DECA....................................... 1,154,154 322,000 1,476,154
National Defense Sealift Fund.................................... 474,164 674,190 1,148,354
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund............................... 0 1,390,693 1,390,693
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction.......................... 720,721 720,721
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities.................... 850,598 50,000 900,598
Office of the Inspector General.................................. 316,159 -1,000 315,159
Defense Health Program........................................... 32,243,328 -508,000 31,735,328
Subtotal, Title XIV--Other Authorizations........................ 35,917,538 1,942,883 37,860,421
Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations.......... 487,626,017 1,328,574 488,954,591
Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
Military Construction
Army............................................................. 743,245 -80,000 663,245
Navy............................................................. 1,605,929 -244,004 1,361,925
Air Force........................................................ 1,354,785 -75,000 1,279,785
Defense-Wide..................................................... 2,300,767 -360,888 1,939,879
NATO Security Investment Program................................. 120,000 30,000 150,000
Army National Guard.............................................. 197,237 -29,800 167,437
Army Reserve..................................................... 113,595 -9,300 104,295
Navy and Marine Corps Reserve.................................... 36,078 36,078
Air National Guard............................................... 123,538 123,538
Air Force Reserve................................................ 46,821 46,821
Subtotal, Military Construction.................................. 6,641,995 -768,992 5,873,003
Family Housing
Construction, Army............................................... 99,695 99,695
Operation & Maintenance, Army.................................... 393,511 393,511
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps.............................. 16,541 16,541
Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps................... 353,036 353,036
Construction, Air Force.......................................... 160,498 160,498
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................... 331,232 331,232
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................ 58,668 58,668
Subtotal, Family Housing......................................... 1,413,181 0 1,413,181
Base Realignment and Closure
Base Realignment and Closure--Army............................... 29,691 29,691
Base Realignment and Closure--Navy............................... 157,088 157,088
Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force.......................... 64,555 64,555
Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure........................... 251,334 0 251,334
Undistributed Adjustments
Prior Year Savings............................................... 0 -386,518 -386,518
Subtotal, Undistributed Adjustments.............................. 0 -386,518 -386,518
Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations.......... 8,306,510 -1,155,510 7,151,000
Total, 051, Department of Defense-Military....................... 495,932,527 173,064 496,105,591
Function 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Nuclear Energy................................................... 135,161 135,161
Weapons Activities............................................... 8,846,948 237,700 9,084,648
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................................. 1,940,302 -39,000 1,901,302
Naval Reactors................................................... 1,375,496 12,000 1,387,496
Federal salaries and expenses.................................... 402,654 -6,000 396,654
Defense Environmental Cleanup.................................... 5,527,347 -384,197 5,143,150
Other Defense Activities......................................... 774,425 4,200 778,625
Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities............. 19,002,333 -175,297 18,827,036
Independent Federal Agency Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.......................... 29,150 29,150
Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization............... 29,150 0 29,150
Subtotal, Division C: Department of Energy National Security 19,031,483 -175,297 18,856,186
Authorization and Other Authorizations..........................
Subtotal, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities.................. 19,031,483 -175,297 18,856,186
Total, National Defense Funding, Base............................ 514,964,010 -2,233 514,961,777
National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations and Additional Authorizations
National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army....................................... 164,987 164,987
Missile Procurement, Army........................................ 37,260 37,260
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.......................... 26,030 26,030
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.................................. 192,040 192,040
Other Procurement, Army.......................................... 1,205,596 1,205,596
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.................... 493,271 -50,700 442,571
Aircraft Procurement, Navy....................................... 217,394 217,394
Weapons Procurement, Navy........................................ 3,344 3,344
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................... 136,930 136,930
Other Procurement, Navy.......................................... 12,186 12,186
Procurement, Marine Corps........................................ 48,934 48,934
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.................................. 128,900 128,900
Missile Procurement, Air Force................................... 289,142 289,142
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force............................. 228,874 228,874
Other Procurement, Air Force..................................... 3,859,964 3,859,964
Procurement, Defense-Wide........................................ 212,418 212,418
National Guard & Reserve Equipment............................... 0 250,000 250,000
Subtotal, Procurement............................................ 7,257,270 199,300 7,456,570
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................... 1,500 1,500
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................... 35,747 35,747
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force.............. 17,100 17,100
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........... 137,087 25,000 162,087
Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation............. 191,434 25,000 216,434
Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army.................................... 11,382,750 120,800 11,503,550
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve............................ 24,559 24,559
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard..................... 60,845 60,845
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund................................. 3,762,257 337,743 4,100,000
Iraq Train & Equip Fund.......................................... 715,000 715,000
Syria Train & Equip Fund......................................... 600,000 -68,550 531,450
Operation & Maintenance, Navy.................................... 5,131,588 5,131,588
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps............................ 952,534 952,534
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve............................ 31,643 31,643
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.................... 3,455 3,455
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................... 9,090,013 659,250 9,749,263
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve....................... 58,106 58,106
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard...................... 19,900 19,900
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................ 5,805,633 294,000 6,099,633
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund............................... 2,100,000 -2,100,000 0
Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance.............................. 39,738,283 -756,757 38,981,526
Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations................................ 3,204,758 3,204,758
Subtotal, Military Personnel..................................... 3,204,758 0 3,204,758
Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Air Force.................................. 2,500 2,500
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide............................... 86,350 86,350
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities.................... 186,000 186,000
Office of the Inspector General.................................. 10,262 10,262
Defense Health Program........................................... 272,704 272,704
Subtotal, Other Authorizations................................... 557,816 0 557,816
Military Construction
Army............................................................. 0 76,000 76,000
Navy............................................................. 0 244,004 244,004
Air Force........................................................ 0 75,000 75,000
Defense-Wide..................................................... 0 136,996 136,996
Subtotal, Military Construction.................................. 0 532,000 532,000
Subtotal, Overseas Contingency Operations........................ 50,949,561 -457 50,949,104
Subtotal, 051, Department of Defense-Military.................... 50,949,561 -457 50,949,104
Total, National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations. 50,949,561 -457 50,949,104
National Defense Funding, Additional Authorizations
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army.................................... 11,284,891 11,284,891
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve............................ 1,630,775 1,630,775
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard..................... 3,141,808 3,141,808
Operation & Maintenance, Navy.................................... 9,770,392 9,770,392
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps............................ 1,633,708 1,633,708
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve............................ 181,911 181,911
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.................... 924 924
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................... 6,874,443 6,874,443
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve....................... 246,514 246,514
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide............................ 1,960,558 1,960,558
US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense................ 14,078 14,078
Cooperative Threat Reduction..................................... 358,496 358,496
Defense Acquisition Development Workforce Fund................... 84,140 84,140
Environmental Restoration, Army.................................. 234,829 234,829
Environmental Restoration, Navy.................................. 292,453 292,453
Environmental Restoration, Air Force............................. 368,131 368,131
Environmental Restoration, Defense............................... 8,232 8,232
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Sites................... 203,717 203,717
Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance.............................. 38,290,000 0 38,290,000
Subtotal, Additional Authorizations.............................. 38,290,000 0 38,290,000
Subtotal, 051, Department of Defense-Military.................... 38,290,000 0 38,290,000
Total, National Defense Funding, Additional Authorizations....... 38,290,000 0 38,290,000
Total, National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations 89,239,561 -457 89,239,104
and Additional Authorizations ..................................
Total, National Defense.......................................... 604,203,571 -2,690 604,200,881
MEMORANDUM: BASE BUDGET REQUIREMENTS
Base Funding..................................................... 514,964,010 -2,233 514,961,777
Additional Authorizations........................................ 38,290,000 0 38,290,000
Total, Base Budget Requirements............................. 553,254,010 -2,233 553,251,777
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600)........... 64,300 64,300
Title XIV--Cemeterial Expenses, Army (Function 700).............. 70,800 70,800
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (Function 17,500 17,500
270)............................................................
Title XXXV--Maritime Administration (Function 400)............... 184,637 184,637
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADD)
Title X--General Transfer Authority.............................. [5,000,000] [5,000,000]
Title XV--Special Transfer Authority............................. [3,500,000] [3,500,000]
MEMORANDUM: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE (NON-ADD)
Defense Production Act........................................... [46,680] [46,680]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 House House
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 495,932,527 173,064 496,105,591
(051).........................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 19,031,483 -175,297 18,856,186
PROGRAMS (053)................
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)-- 514,964,010 -2,233 514,961,777
BASE BILL.....................
TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 89,239,561 -457 89,239,104
OPERATIONS....................
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE.. 604,203,571 -2,690 604,200,881
Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the
Jurisdiction
of the Armed Services Committee or Do Not Require Additional
Authorization
Defense Production Act 25,000 25,000
Purchases.....................
Indefinite Account: Disposal Of 8,000 8,000
DOD Real Property.............
Indefinite Account: Lease Of 33,000 33,000
DOD Real Property.............
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 66,000 66,000
051...........................
Formerly Utilized Sites 104,000 104,000
Remedial Action Program.......
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 104,000 104,000
053...........................
Other Discretionary Programs... 7,566,000 7,566,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 7,566,000 7,566,000
054...........................
Total Defense Discretionary 7,736,000 7,736,000
Adjustments (050).............
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary
Department of Defense--Military 585,238,088 172,607 585,410,695
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 19,135,483 -175,297 18,960,186
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 7,566,000 7,566,000
(054).........................
Total BA Implication, National 611,939,571 -2,690 611,936,881
Defense Discretionary.........
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Baseline)
Concurrent receipt accrual 6,932,000 6,932,000
payments to the Military
Retirement Fund...............
Revolving, trust and other DOD 1,135,000 1,135,000
Mandatory.....................
Offsetting receipts............ -1,593,000 -1,593,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 6,474,000 6,474,000
051...........................
Energy employees occupational 1,168,000 1,168,000
illness compensation programs
and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 1,168,000 1,168,000
053...........................
Radiation exposure compensation 59,000 59,000
trust fund....................
Payment to CIA retirement fund 514,000 514,000
and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 573,000 573,000
054...........................
Total National Defense 8,215,000 8,215,000
Mandatory (050)...............
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory
Department of Defense--Military 591,712,088 172,607 591,884,695
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 20,303,483 -175,297 20,128,186
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 8,139,000 8,139,000
(054).........................
Total BA Implication, National 620,154,571 -2,690 620,151,881
Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
FIXED WING
002 UTILITY F/W 879 879
AIRCRAFT.
004 MQ-1 UAV....... 15 260,436 17,000 15 277,436
Extended [17,000]
Range
Modificatio
ns.
ROTARY
006 HELICOPTER, 28 187,177 28 187,177
LIGHT UTILITY
(LUH).
007 AH-64 APACHE 64 1,168,461 64 1,168,461
BLOCK IIIA
REMAN.
008 ADVANCE 209,930 209,930
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
011 UH-60 BLACKHAWK 94 1,435,945 8 128,000 102 1,563,945
M MODEL (MYP).
Additional [8] [128,000]
8
rotorcraft
for Army
National
Guard.
012 ADVANCE 127,079 127,079
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
013 UH-60 BLACK 40 46,641 8 8,800 48 55,441
HAWK A AND L
MODELS.
Additional [8] [8,800]
8
rotorcraft
for Army
National
Guard.
014 CH-47 39 1,024,587 39 1,024,587
HELICOPTER.
015 ADVANCE 99,344 99,344
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
016 MQ-1 PAYLOAD 97,543 97,543
(MIP).
019 MULTI SENSOR 95,725 95,725
ABN RECON
(MIP).
020 AH-64 MODS..... 116,153 116,153
021 CH-47 CARGO 86,330 86,330
HELICOPTER
MODS (MYP).
022 GRCS SEMA MODS 4,019 4,019
(MIP).
023 ARL SEMA MODS 16,302 16,302
(MIP).
024 EMARSS SEMA 13,669 13,669
MODS (MIP).
025 UTILITY/CARGO 16,166 16,166
AIRPLANE MODS.
026 UTILITY 13,793 13,793
HELICOPTER
MODS.
028 NETWORK AND 112,807 112,807
MISSION PLAN.
029 COMMS, NAV 82,904 82,904
SURVEILLANCE.
030 GATM ROLLUP.... 33,890 33,890
031 RQ-7 UAV MODS.. 81,444 81,444
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
032 AIRCRAFT 56,215 56,215
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.
033 SURVIVABILITY 8,917 8,917
CM.
034 CMWS........... 78,348 26,000 104,348
Apache [26,000]
Survivabili
ty
Enhancement
s--Army
Unfunded
Requirement.
OTHER SUPPORT
035 AVIONICS 6,937 6,937
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
036 COMMON GROUND 64,867 64,867
EQUIPMENT.
037 AIRCREW 44,085 44,085
INTEGRATED
SYSTEMS.
038 AIR TRAFFIC 94,545 94,545
CONTROL.
039 INDUSTRIAL 1,207 1,207
FACILITIES.
040 LAUNCHER, 2.75 3,012 3,012
ROCKET.
TOTAL 280 5,689,357 16 179,800 296 5,869,157
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
001 LOWER TIER AIR 115,075 115,075
AND MISSILE
DEFENSE (AMD).
002 MSE MISSILE.... 80 414,946 80 414,946
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
003 HELLFIRE SYS 113 27,975 113 27,975
SUMMARY.
004 ADVANCE 27,738 27,738
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
ANTI-TANK/
ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
005 JAVELIN (AAWS- 331 77,163 519 91,000 850 168,163
M) SYSTEM
SUMMARY.
Program [519] [91,000]
increase to
support
Unfunded
Requirement
s.
006 TOW 2 SYSTEM 1,704 87,525 1,704 87,525
SUMMARY.
008 GUIDED MLRS 1,668 251,060 1,668 251,060
ROCKET (GMLRS).
009 MLRS REDUCED 3,121 17,428 3,121 17,428
RANGE PRACTICE
ROCKETS (RRPR).
MODIFICATIONS
011 PATRIOT MODS... 241,883 241,883
012 ATACMS MODS.... 30,119 -15,000 15,119
Early to [-15,000]
need.
013 GMLRS MOD...... 18,221 18,221
014 STINGER MODS... 2,216 2,216
015 AVENGER MODS... 6,171 6,171
016 ITAS/TOW MODS.. 19,576 19,576
017 MLRS MODS...... 35,970 35,970
018 HIMARS 3,148 3,148
MODIFICATIONS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
019 SPARES AND 33,778 33,778
REPAIR PARTS.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
020 AIR DEFENSE 3,717 3,717
TARGETS.
021 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,544 1,544
$5.0M
(MISSILES).
022 PRODUCTION BASE 4,704 4,704
SUPPORT.
TOTAL 7,017 1,419,957 519 76,000 7,536 1,495,957
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
001 STRYKER VEHICLE 181,245 181,245
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
002 STRYKER (MOD).. 74,085 44,500 118,585
Lethality [44,500]
Upgrades.
003 STRYKER UPGRADE 62 305,743 62 305,743
005 BRADLEY PROGRAM 225,042 225,042
(MOD).
006 HOWITZER, MED 60,079 60,079
SP FT 155MM
M109A6 (MOD).
007 PALADIN 30 273,850 30 273,850
INTEGRATED
MANAGEMENT
(PIM).
008 IMPROVED 31 123,629 72,000 31 195,629
RECOVERY
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).
Additional [72,000]
Vehicles -
Army
Unfunded
Requirement.
009 ASSAULT BRIDGE 2,461 2,461
(MOD).
010 ASSAULT 2,975 2,975
BREACHER
VEHICLE.
011 M88 FOV MODS... 14,878 14,878
012 JOINT ASSAULT 4 33,455 4 33,455
BRIDGE.
013 M1 ABRAMS TANK 367,939 40,000 407,939
(MOD).
Program [40,000]
Increase.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
015 PRODUCTION BASE 6,479 6,479
SUPPORT (TCV-
WTCV).
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT
VEHICLES
016 MORTAR SYSTEMS. 4,991 4,991
017 XM320 GRENADE 26,294 26,294
LAUNCHER
MODULE (GLM).
018 PRECISION 1,984 -1,984 0
SNIPER RIFLE.
Army [-1,984]
request -
schedule
delay.
019 COMPACT SEMI- 1,488 -1,488 0
AUTOMATIC
SNIPER SYSTEM.
Army [-1,488]
request -
schedule
delay.
020 CARBINE........ 34,460 34,460
021 COMMON REMOTELY 8,367 8,367
OPERATED
WEAPONS
STATION.
022 HANDGUN........ 5,417 -5,417 0
Army [-5,417]
request -
early to
need and
schedule
delay.
MOD OF WEAPONS
AND OTHER
COMBAT VEH
023 MK-19 GRENADE 2,777 2,777
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
024 M777 MODS...... 10,070 10,070
025 M4 CARBINE MODS 27,566 27,566
026 M2 50 CAL 44,004 44,004
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
027 M249 SAW 1,190 1,190
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
028 M240 MEDIUM 1,424 1,424
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
029 SNIPER RIFLES 2,431 -1,451 980
MODIFICATIONS.
Army [-1,451]
request -
schedule
delay.
030 M119 20,599 20,599
MODIFICATIONS.
032 MORTAR 6,300 6,300
MODIFICATION.
033 MODIFICATIONS 3,737 3,737
LESS THAN
$5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
034 ITEMS LESS THAN 391 391
$5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).
035 PRODUCTION BASE 9,027 2,457 11,484
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).
Army [2,457]
requested
realignment.
036 INDUSTRIAL 304 304
PREPAREDNESS.
037 SMALL ARMS 2,392 2,392
EQUIPMENT
(SOLDIER ENH
PROG).
TOTAL 127 1,887,073 148,617 127 2,035,690
PROCUREMEN
T OF
W&TCV,
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM
CAL AMMUNITION
001 CTG, 5.56MM, 43,489 43,489
ALL TYPES.
002 CTG, 7.62MM, 40,715 40,715
ALL TYPES.
003 CTG, HANDGUN, 7,753 -1,000 6,753
ALL TYPES.
Army [-1,000]
request -
program
reduction.
004 CTG, .50 CAL, 24,728 24,728
ALL TYPES.
005 CTG, 25MM, ALL 8,305 8,305
TYPES.
006 CTG, 30MM, ALL 34,330 34,330
TYPES.
007 CTG, 40MM, ALL 79,972 -10,000 69,972
TYPES.
Program [-10,000]
reduction.
MORTAR
AMMUNITION
008 60MM MORTAR, 42,898 42,898
ALL TYPES.
009 81MM MORTAR, 43,500 43,500
ALL TYPES.
010 120MM MORTAR, 64,372 64,372
ALL TYPES.
TANK AMMUNITION
011 CARTRIDGES, 105,541 105,541
TANK, 105MM
AND 120MM, ALL
TYPES.
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
012 ARTILLERY 57,756 57,756
CARTRIDGES,
75MM & 105MM,
ALL TYPES.
013 ARTILLERY 77,995 77,995
PROJECTILE,
155MM, ALL
TYPES.
014 PROJ 155MM 45,518 45,518
EXTENDED RANGE
M982.
015 ARTILLERY 78,024 78,024
PROPELLANTS,
FUZES AND
PRIMERS, ALL.
ROCKETS
016 SHOULDER 7,500 7,500
LAUNCHED
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
017 ROCKET, HYDRA 33,653 33,653
70, ALL TYPES.
OTHER
AMMUNITION
018 CAD/PAD, ALL 5,639 5,639
TYPES.
019 DEMOLITION 9,751 9,751
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
020 GRENADES, ALL 19,993 19,993
TYPES.
021 SIGNALS, ALL 9,761 9,761
TYPES.
022 SIMULATORS, ALL 9,749 9,749
TYPES.
MISCELLANEOUS
023 AMMO 3,521 3,521
COMPONENTS,
ALL TYPES.
024 NON-LETHAL 1,700 1,700
AMMUNITION,
ALL TYPES.
025 ITEMS LESS THAN 6,181 6,181
$5 MILLION
(AMMO).
026 AMMUNITION 17,811 17,811
PECULIAR
EQUIPMENT.
027 FIRST 14,695 14,695
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO).
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
029 PROVISION OF 221,703 221,703
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
030 CONVENTIONAL 113,250 113,250
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATI
ON.
031 ARMS INITIATIVE 3,575 3,575
TOTAL 1,233,378 -11,000 1,222,378
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, ARMY.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
001 TACTICAL 12,855 12,855
TRAILERS/DOLLY
SETS.
002 SEMITRAILERS, 53 53
FLATBED:.
004 JOINT LIGHT 450 308,336 450 308,336
TACTICAL
VEHICLE.
005 FAMILY OF 166 90,040 166 90,040
MEDIUM
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV).
006 FIRETRUCKS & 8,444 8,444
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING
EQUIP.
007 FAMILY OF HEAVY 273 27,549 273 27,549
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
(FHTV).
008 PLS ESP........ 127,102 127,102
010 TACTICAL 48,292 48,292
WHEELED
VEHICLE
PROTECTION
KITS.
011 MODIFICATION OF 130,993 130,993
IN SVC EQUIP.
012 MINE-RESISTANT 19,146 19,146
AMBUSH-
PROTECTED
(MRAP) MODS.
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
014 PASSENGER 1,248 1,248
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
015 NONTACTICAL 9,614 9,614
VEHICLES,
OTHER.
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
016 WIN-T--GROUND 783,116 -40,000 743,116
FORCES
TACTICAL
NETWORK.
Unobligated [-40,000]
balances.
017 SIGNAL 49,898 49,898
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
018 JOINT INCIDENT 4,062 4,062
SITE
COMMUNICATIONS
CAPABILITY.
019 JCSE EQUIPMENT 5,008 5,008
(USREDCOM).
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
020 DEFENSE 196,306 196,306
ENTERPRISE
WIDEBAND
SATCOM SYSTEMS.
021 TRANSPORTABLE 44,998 -10,000 34,998
TACTICAL
COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS.
Program [-10,000]
Reduction.
022 SHF TERM....... 7,629 7,629
023 NAVSTAR GLOBAL 14,027 14,027
POSITIONING
SYSTEM (SPACE).
024 SMART-T (SPACE) 13,453 13,453
025 GLOBAL BRDCST 6,265 6,265
SVC--GBS.
026 MOD OF IN-SVC 1,042 1,042
EQUIP (TAC
SAT).
027 ENROUTE MISSION 7,116 7,116
COMMAND (EMC).
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
028 ARMY GLOBAL CMD 10,137 10,137
& CONTROL SYS
(AGCCS).
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
029 JOINT TACTICAL 64,640 -10,000 54,640
RADIO SYSTEM.
Unobligated [-10,000]
balances.
030 MID-TIER 27,762 -5,000 22,762
NETWORKING
VEHICULAR
RADIO (MNVR).
Excess [-5,000]
Program
Management
Costs.
031 RADIO TERMINAL 9,422 9,422
SET, MIDS
LVT(2).
032 AMC CRITICAL 26,020 26,020
ITEMS--OPA2.
033 TRACTOR DESK... 4,073 4,073
034 SPIDER APLA 1,403 1,403
REMOTE CONTROL
UNIT.
035 SPIDER FAMILY 9,199 9,199
OF NETWORKED
MUNITIONS INCR.
036 SOLDIER 349 349
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM COMM/
ELECTRONICS.
037 TACTICAL 25,597 25,597
COMMUNICATIONS
AND PROTECTIVE
SYSTEM.
038 UNIFIED COMMAND 21,854 21,854
SUITE.
040 FAMILY OF MED 24,388 24,388
COMM FOR
COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.
COMM--INTELLIGE
NCE COMM
042 CI AUTOMATION 1,349 1,349
ARCHITECTURE.
043 ARMY CA/MISO 3,695 3,695
GPF EQUIPMENT.
INFORMATION
SECURITY
045 INFORMATION 19,920 19,920
SYSTEM
SECURITY
PROGRAM-ISSP.
046 COMMUNICATIONS 72,257 72,257
SECURITY
(COMSEC).
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
047 BASE SUPPORT 16,082 16,082
COMMUNICATIONS.
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
048 INFORMATION 86,037 86,037
SYSTEMS.
050 EMERGENCY 8,550 8,550
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
051 INSTALLATION 73,496 73,496
INFO
INFRASTRUCTURE
MOD PROGRAM.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACT INT REL
ACT (TIARA)
054 JTT/CIBS-M..... 881 881
055 PROPHET GROUND. 63,650 -15,000 48,650
Program [-15,000]
reduction.
057 DCGS-A (MIP)... 260,268 -10,000 250,268
Program [-10,000]
reduction.
058 JOINT TACTICAL 3,906 3,906
GROUND STATION
(JTAGS).
059 TROJAN (MIP)... 13,929 13,929
060 MOD OF IN-SVC 3,978 3,978
EQUIP (INTEL
SPT) (MIP).
061 CI HUMINT AUTO 7,542 7,542
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS).
062 CLOSE ACCESS 8,010 8,010
TARGET
RECONNAISSANCE
(CATR).
063 MACHINE FOREIGN 8,125 8,125
LANGUAGE
TRANSLATION
SYSTEM-M.
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW)
064 LIGHTWEIGHT 63,472 63,472
COUNTER MORTAR
RADAR.
065 EW PLANNING & 2,556 2,556
MANAGEMENT
TOOLS (EWPMT).
066 AIR VIGILANCE 8,224 8,224
(AV).
067 CREW........... 2,960 2,960
068 FAMILY OF 1,722 1,722
PERSISTENT
SURVEILLANCE
CAPABILITIE.
069 COUNTERINTELLIG 447 447
ENCE/SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
070 CI 228 228
MODERNIZATION.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
071 SENTINEL MODS.. 43,285 43,285
072 NIGHT VISION 124,216 124,216
DEVICES.
074 SMALL TACTICAL 23,216 23,216
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF.
076 INDIRECT FIRE 60,679 60,679
PROTECTION
FAMILY OF
SYSTEMS.
077 FAMILY OF 53,453 53,453
WEAPON SIGHTS
(FWS).
078 ARTILLERY 3,338 3,338
ACCURACY EQUIP.
079 PROFILER....... 4,057 4,057
081 JOINT BATTLE 133,339 133,339
COMMAND--PLATF
ORM (JBC-P).
082 JOINT EFFECTS 47,212 47,212
TARGETING
SYSTEM (JETS).
083 MOD OF IN-SVC 22,314 22,314
EQUIP (LLDR).
084 COMPUTER 12,131 12,131
BALLISTICS:
LHMBC XM32.
085 MORTAR FIRE 10,075 10,075
CONTROL SYSTEM.
086 COUNTERFIRE 217,379 -30,000 187,379
RADARS.
Unobligated [-30,000]
balances.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
087 FIRE SUPPORT C2 1,190 1,190
FAMILY.
090 AIR & MSL 28,176 28,176
DEFENSE
PLANNING &
CONTROL SYS.
091 IAMD BATTLE 20,917 -5,000 15,917
COMMAND SYSTEM.
Program [-5,000]
Reduction.
092 LIFE CYCLE 5,850 5,850
SOFTWARE
SUPPORT (LCSS).
093 NETWORK 12,738 12,738
MANAGEMENT
INITIALIZATION
AND SERVICE.
094 MANEUVER 145,405 145,405
CONTROL SYSTEM
(MCS).
095 GLOBAL COMBAT 162,654 162,654
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).
096 INTEGRATED 4,446 4,446
PERSONNEL AND
PAY SYSTEM-
ARMY (IPP.
098 RECONNAISSANCE 16,218 16,218
AND SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET.
099 MOD OF IN-SVC 1,138 1,138
EQUIPMENT
(ENFIRE).
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
100 ARMY TRAINING 12,089 12,089
MODERNIZATION.
101 AUTOMATED DATA 105,775 105,775
PROCESSING
EQUIP.
102 GENERAL FUND 18,995 18,995
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS
SYSTEMS FAM.
103 HIGH PERF 62,319 62,319
COMPUTING MOD
PGM (HPCMP).
104 RESERVE 17,894 17,894
COMPONENT
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS).
ELECT EQUIP--
AUDIO VISUAL
SYS (A/V)
106 ITEMS LESS THAN 4,242 4,242
$5M (SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT).
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
107 PRODUCTION BASE 425 425
SUPPORT (C-E).
108 BCT EMERGING 7,438 7,438
TECHNOLOGIES.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
108A CLASSIFIED 6,467 6,467
PROGRAMS.
CHEMICAL
DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
109 PROTECTIVE 248 248
SYSTEMS.
110 FAMILY OF NON- 1,487 1,487
LETHAL
EQUIPMENT
(FNLE).
112 CBRN DEFENSE... 26,302 26,302
BRIDGING
EQUIPMENT
113 TACTICAL 9,822 9,822
BRIDGING.
114 TACTICAL 21,516 21,516
BRIDGE, FLOAT-
RIBBON.
115 BRIDGE 4,959 4,959
SUPPLEMENTAL
SET.
116 COMMON BRIDGE 52,546 -10,000 42,546
TRANSPORTER
(CBT) RECAP.
Program [-10,000]
decrease.
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
117 GRND STANDOFF 58,682 58,682
MINE DETECTN
SYSM
(GSTAMIDS).
118 HUSKY MOUNTED 13,565 13,565
DETECTION
SYSTEM (HMDS).
119 ROBOTIC COMBAT 2,136 2,136
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS).
120 EOD ROBOTICS 6,960 6,960
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATI
ON.
121 EXPLOSIVE 17,424 17,424
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL EQPMT
(EOD EQPMT).
122 REMOTE 8,284 8,284
DEMOLITION
SYSTEMS.
123 < $5M, 5,459 5,459
COUNTERMINE
EQUIPMENT.
124 FAMILY OF BOATS 8,429 8,429
AND MOTORS.
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
125 HEATERS AND 18,876 18,876
ECU'S.
127 SOLDIER 2,287 2,287
ENHANCEMENT.
128 PERSONNEL 7,733 7,733
RECOVERY
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS).
129 GROUND SOLDIER 49,798 49,798
SYSTEM.
130 MOBILE SOLDIER 43,639 43,639
POWER.
132 FIELD FEEDING 13,118 13,118
EQUIPMENT.
133 CARGO AERIAL 28,278 28,278
DEL &
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE
SYSTEM.
135 FAMILY OF ENGR 34,544 34,544
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION
SETS.
136 ITEMS LESS THAN 595 595
$5M (ENG SPT).
PETROLEUM
EQUIPMENT
137 QUALITY 5,368 5,368
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT.
138 DISTRIBUTION 35,381 35,381
SYSTEMS,
PETROLEUM &
WATER.
MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
139 COMBAT SUPPORT 73,828 73,828
MEDICAL.
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
140 MOBILE 25,270 25,270
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
SYSTEMS.
141 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,760 2,760
$5.0M (MAINT
EQ).
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
142 GRADER, ROAD 5,903 5,903
MTZD, HVY, 6X4
(CCE).
143 SCRAPERS, 26,125 26,125
EARTHMOVING.
146 TRACTOR, FULL 27,156 27,156
TRACKED.
147 ALL TERRAIN 16,750 16,750
CRANES.
148 PLANT, ASPHALT 984 984
MIXING.
149 HIGH MOBILITY 2,656 2,656
ENGINEER
EXCAVATOR
(HMEE).
150 ENHANCED RAPID 2,531 2,531
AIRFIELD
CONSTRUCTION
CAPAP.
151 FAMILY OF DIVER 446 446
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
152 CONST EQUIP ESP 19,640 19,640
153 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,087 5,087
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP).
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATI
ON EQUIPMENT
154 ARMY WATERCRAFT 39,772 39,772
ESP.
155 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,835 89,000 94,835
$5.0M (FLOAT/
RAIL).
Strategic [89,000]
mobility
shortfall
mitigation -
railcar
acquisition.
GENERATORS
156 GENERATORS AND 166,356 -20,000 146,356
ASSOCIATED
EQUIP.
Program [-20,000]
decrease.
157 TACTICAL 11,505 11,505
ELECTRIC POWER
RECAPITALIZATI
ON.
MATERIAL
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
159 FAMILY OF 17,496 17,496
FORKLIFTS.
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
160 COMBAT TRAINING 74,916 74,916
CENTERS
SUPPORT.
161 TRAINING 303,236 -25,000 278,236
DEVICES,
NONSYSTEM.
Program [-25,000]
reduction.
162 CLOSE COMBAT 45,210 45,210
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
163 AVIATION 30,068 30,068
COMBINED ARMS
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
164 GAMING 9,793 9,793
TECHNOLOGY IN
SUPPORT OF
ARMY TRAINING.
TEST MEASURE
AND DIG
EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
165 CALIBRATION 4,650 4,650
SETS EQUIPMENT.
166 INTEGRATED 34,487 34,487
FAMILY OF TEST
EQUIPMENT
(IFTE).
167 TEST EQUIPMENT 11,083 11,083
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD).
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
169 RAPID EQUIPPING 17,937 17,937
SOLDIER
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
170 PHYSICAL 52,040 52,040
SECURITY
SYSTEMS (OPA3).
171 BASE LEVEL 1,568 1,568
COMMON
EQUIPMENT.
172 MODIFICATION OF 64,219 64,219
IN-SVC
EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3).
173 PRODUCTION BASE 1,525 1,525
SUPPORT (OTH).
174 SPECIAL 3,268 3,268
EQUIPMENT FOR
USER TESTING.
176 TRACTOR YARD... 7,191 7,191
OPA2
177 INITIAL SPARES-- 48,511 48,511
C&E.
TOTAL 889 5,899,028 -91,000 889 5,808,028
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
002 F/A-18E/F 12 1,150,000 12 1,150,000
(FIGHTER)
HORNET.
Additional [12] [1,150,000]
12
Aircraft--N
avy
Unfunded
Requirement.
003 JOINT STRIKE 4 897,542 -24,500 4 873,042
FIGHTER CV.
Anticipated [-7,700]
contract
savings.
Cost growth [-16,800]
for support
equipment.
004 ADVANCE 48,630 48,630
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
005 JSF STOVL...... 9 1,483,414 6 974,900 15 2,458,314
Additional [6] [1,000,000]
6 Aircraft--
Marine
Corps
Unfunded
Requirement.
Anticipated [-17,600]
contract
savings.
Cost growth [-7,500]
for support
equipment.
006 ADVANCE 203,060 203,060
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
007 ADVANCE 41,300 41,300
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 V-22 (MEDIUM 19 1,436,355 19 1,436,355
LIFT).
009 ADVANCE 43,853 43,853
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
010 H-1 UPGRADES 28 800,057 28 800,057
(UH-1Y/AH-1Z).
011 ADVANCE 56,168 56,168
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
012 MH-60S (MYP)... 28,232 28,232
014 MH-60R (MYP)... 29 969,991 29 969,991
016 P-8A POSEIDON.. 16 3,008,928 16 3,008,928
017 ADVANCE 269,568 269,568
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
018 E-2D ADV 5 857,654 5 857,654
HAWKEYE.
019 ADVANCE 195,336 195,336
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
TRAINER
AIRCRAFT
020 JPATS.......... 8,914 8,914
OTHER AIRCRAFT
021 KC-130J........ 2 192,214 2 192,214
022 ADVANCE 24,451 24,451
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
023 MQ-4 TRITON.... 3 494,259 1 65,000 4 559,259
Additional [1] [65,000]
Air Vehicle.
024 ADVANCE 54,577 18,000 72,577
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
Additional [18,000]
Advance
Procurement.
025 MQ-8 UAV....... 2 120,020 36,000 2 156,020
MQ-8 UAV- [36,000]
Additional
three air
vehicles.
026 STUASL0 UAV.... 3,450 3,450
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
028 EA-6 SERIES.... 9,799 9,799
029 AEA SYSTEMS.... 23,151 15,000 38,151
Additional [15,000]
Low Band
Transmitter
Modificatio
ns.
030 AV-8 SERIES.... 41,890 41,890
031 ADVERSARY...... 5,816 5,816
032 F-18 SERIES.... 978,756 -10,300 968,456
Unjustified [-10,300]
request.
034 H-53 SERIES.... 46,887 46,887
035 SH-60 SERIES... 107,728 107,728
036 H-1 SERIES..... 42,315 42,315
037 EP-3 SERIES.... 41,784 41,784
038 P-3 SERIES..... 3,067 3,067
039 E-2 SERIES..... 20,741 20,741
040 TRAINER A/C 27,980 27,980
SERIES.
041 C-2A........... 8,157 8,157
042 C-130 SERIES... 70,335 70,335
043 FEWSG.......... 633 633
044 CARGO/TRANSPORT 8,916 8,916
A/C SERIES.
045 E-6 SERIES..... 185,253 185,253
046 EXECUTIVE 76,138 76,138
HELICOPTERS
SERIES.
047 SPECIAL PROJECT 23,702 23,702
AIRCRAFT.
048 T-45 SERIES.... 105,439 105,439
049 POWER PLANT 9,917 9,917
CHANGES.
050 JPATS SERIES... 13,537 13,537
051 COMMON ECM 131,732 131,732
EQUIPMENT.
052 COMMON AVIONICS 202,745 202,745
CHANGES.
053 COMMON 3,062 3,062
DEFENSIVE
WEAPON SYSTEM.
054 ID SYSTEMS..... 48,206 48,206
055 P-8 SERIES..... 28,492 28,492
056 MAGTF EW FOR 7,680 7,680
AVIATION.
057 MQ-8 SERIES.... 22,464 22,464
058 RQ-7 SERIES.... 3,773 3,773
059 V-22 (TILT/ 121,208 121,208
ROTOR ACFT)
OSPREY.
060 F-35 STOVL 256,106 256,106
SERIES.
061 F-35 CV SERIES. 68,527 68,527
062 QRC............ 6,885 6,885
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
063 SPARES AND 1,563,515 -10,000 1,553,515
REPAIR PARTS.
Program [-10,000]
decrease.
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT EQUIP
& FACILITIES
064 COMMON GROUND 450,959 450,959
EQUIPMENT.
065 AIRCRAFT 24,010 24,010
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
066 WAR CONSUMABLES 42,012 42,012
067 OTHER 2,455 2,455
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
068 SPECIAL SUPPORT 50,859 50,859
EQUIPMENT.
069 FIRST 1,801 1,801
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
TOTAL 117 16,126,405 19 2,214,100 136 18,340,505
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
001 TRIDENT II MODS 1,099,064 1,099,064
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
002 MISSILE 7,748 7,748
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
STRATEGIC
MISSILES
003 TOMAHAWK....... 100 184,814 49 30,000 149 214,814
Minimum [49] [30,000]
Sustaining
Rate
Increase.
TACTICAL
MISSILES
004 AMRAAM......... 167 192,873 167 192,873
005 SIDEWINDER..... 227 96,427 227 96,427
006 JSOW........... 21,419 85 47,800 85 69,219
Industrial [85] [47,800]
Base
Sustainment.
007 STANDARD 113 435,352 113 435,352
MISSILE.
008 RAM............ 90 80,826 90 80,826
011 STAND OFF 27 4,265 27 4,265
PRECISION
GUIDED
MUNITIONS
(SOPGM).
012 AERIAL TARGETS. 40,792 40,792
013 OTHER MISSILE 3,335 3,335
SUPPORT.
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
014 ESSM........... 30 44,440 30 44,440
015 ADVANCE 54,462 54,462
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
016 HARM MODS...... 122,298 122,298
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
017 WEAPONS 2,397 2,397
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
018 FLEET SATELLITE 39,932 39,932
COMM FOLLOW-ON.
ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
019 ORDNANCE 57,641 57,641
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
020 SSTD........... 7,380 7,380
021 MK-48 TORPEDO.. 8 65,611 8 65,611
022 ASW TARGETS.... 6,912 6,912
MOD OF
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
023 MK-54 TORPEDO 113,219 113,219
MODS.
024 MK-48 TORPEDO 63,317 63,317
ADCAP MODS.
025 QUICKSTRIKE 13,254 13,254
MINE.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
026 TORPEDO SUPPORT 67,701 67,701
EQUIPMENT.
027 ASW RANGE 3,699 3,699
SUPPORT.
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
028 FIRST 3,342 3,342
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
029 SMALL ARMS AND 11,937 11,937
WEAPONS.
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
030 CIWS MODS...... 53,147 53,147
031 COAST GUARD 19,022 19,022
WEAPONS.
032 GUN MOUNT MODS. 67,980 67,980
033 AIRBORNE MINE 19,823 19,823
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
035 SPARES AND 149,725 149,725
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 762 3,154,154 134 77,800 896 3,231,954
WEAPONS
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY &
MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE 101,238 101,238
BOMBS.
002 AIRBORNE 67,289 67,289
ROCKETS, ALL
TYPES.
003 MACHINE GUN 20,340 20,340
AMMUNITION.
004 PRACTICE BOMBS. 40,365 40,365
005 CARTRIDGES & 49,377 49,377
CART ACTUATED
DEVICES.
006 AIR EXPENDABLE 59,651 59,651
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
007 JATOS.......... 2,806 2,806
008 LRLAP 6" LONG 11,596 11,596
RANGE ATTACK
PROJECTILE.
009 5 INCH/54 GUN 35,994 35,994
AMMUNITION.
010 INTERMEDIATE 36,715 36,715
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION.
011 OTHER SHIP GUN 45,483 45,483
AMMUNITION.
012 SMALL ARMS & 52,080 52,080
LANDING PARTY
AMMO.
013 PYROTECHNIC AND 10,809 10,809
DEMOLITION.
014 AMMUNITION LESS 4,469 4,469
THAN $5
MILLION.
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
015 SMALL ARMS 46,848 46,848
AMMUNITION.
016 LINEAR CHARGES, 350 350
ALL TYPES.
017 40 MM, ALL 500 500
TYPES.
018 60MM, ALL TYPES 1,849 1,849
019 81MM, ALL TYPES 1,000 1,000
020 120MM, ALL 13,867 13,867
TYPES.
022 GRENADES, ALL 1,390 1,390
TYPES.
023 ROCKETS, ALL 14,967 14,967
TYPES.
024 ARTILLERY, ALL 45,219 45,219
TYPES.
026 FUZE, ALL TYPES 29,335 29,335
027 NON LETHALS.... 3,868 3,868
028 AMMO 15,117 15,117
MODERNIZATION.
029 ITEMS LESS THAN 11,219 11,219
$5 MILLION.
TOTAL 723,741 723,741
PROCUREMEN
T OF AMMO,
NAVY & MC.
SHIPBUILDING &
CONVERSION,
NAVY
OTHER WARSHIPS
001 ADVANCE 1,634,701 1,634,701
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
002 ADVANCE 874,658 874,658
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
003 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 3,346,370 2 3,346,370
SUBMARINE.
004 ADVANCE 1,993,740 1,993,740
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
005 CVN REFUELING 1 678,274 1 678,274
OVERHAULS.
006 ADVANCE 14,951 14,951
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
007 DDG 1000....... 433,404 433,404
008 DDG-51......... 2 3,149,703 2 3,149,703
010 LITTORAL COMBAT 3 1,356,991 3 1,356,991
SHIP.
AMPHIBIOUS
SHIPS
012 LPD-17......... 1 550,000 1 550,000
013A AFLOAT FORWARD 97,000 97,000
STAGING BASE
ADVANCE
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
Procurement [97,000]
014A LX(R) ADVANCE 250,000 250,000
PROCURMENT
(CY).
LX(R) [250,000]
Acceleratio
n.
015 LHA REPLACEMENT 277,543 277,543
ADVANCE
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
AUXILIARIES,
CRAFT AND
PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
017 TAO FLEET OILER 1 674,190 -1 -674,190 0
Transfer to [-1] [-674,190]
NDSF--Title
XIV.
019 ADVANCE 138,200 138,200
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
020 OUTFITTING..... 697,207 697,207
021 SHIP TO SHORE 5 255,630 5 255,630
CONNECTOR.
022 SERVICE CRAFT.. 30,014 30,014
023 LCAC SLEP...... 4 80,738 4 80,738
024 YP CRAFT 21,838 21,838
MAINTENANCE/
ROH/SLEP.
025 COMPLETION OF 389,305 389,305
PY
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 19 16,597,457 -1 -327,190 18 16,270,267
SHIPBUILDI
NG &
CONVERSION
, NAVY.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
001 LM-2500 GAS 4,881 4,881
TURBINE.
002 ALLISON 501K 5,814 5,814
GAS TURBINE.
003 HYBRID ELECTRIC 32,906 32,906
DRIVE (HED).
GENERATORS
004 SURFACE 36,860 36,860
COMBATANT HM&E.
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
005 OTHER 87,481 87,481
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT.
PERISCOPES
006 SUB PERISCOPES 63,109 63,109
& IMAGING
EQUIP.
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
007 DDG MOD........ 364,157 1 60,000 1 424,157
Additional [1] [60,000]
DDG
Modificatio
n-Unfunded
Requirement.
008 FIREFIGHTING 16,089 16,089
EQUIPMENT.
009 COMMAND AND 2,255 2,255
CONTROL
SWITCHBOARD.
010 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE 28,571 28,571
011 LCC 19/20 12,313 12,313
EXTENDED
SERVICE LIFE
PROGRAM.
012 POLLUTION 16,609 16,609
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
013 SUBMARINE 10,498 10,498
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
014 VIRGINIA CLASS 35,747 35,747
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
015 LCS CLASS 48,399 48,399
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
016 SUBMARINE 23,072 23,072
BATTERIES.
017 LPD CLASS 55,283 55,283
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
018 STRATEGIC 18,563 18,563
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
019 DSSP EQUIPMENT. 7,376 7,376
021 LCAC........... 20,965 20,965
022 UNDERWATER EOD 51,652 51,652
PROGRAMS.
023 ITEMS LESS THAN 102,498 102,498
$5 MILLION.
024 CHEMICAL 3,027 3,027
WARFARE
DETECTORS.
025 SUBMARINE LIFE 7,399 7,399
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
027 REACTOR 296,095 296,095
COMPONENTS.
OCEAN
ENGINEERING
028 DIVING AND 15,982 15,982
SALVAGE
EQUIPMENT.
SMALL BOATS
029 STANDARD BOATS. 29,982 29,982
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
030 OTHER SHIPS 66,538 66,538
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
031 OPERATING 71,138 71,138
FORCES IPE.
OTHER SHIP
SUPPORT
032 NUCLEAR 132,625 132,625
ALTERATIONS.
033 LCS COMMON 23,500 23,500
MISSION
MODULES
EQUIPMENT.
034 LCS MCM MISSION 85,151 85,151
MODULES.
035 LCS SUW MISSION 35,228 35,228
MODULES.
036 REMOTE 87,627 87,627
MINEHUNTING
SYSTEM (RMS).
LOGISTIC
SUPPORT
037 LSD MIDLIFE.... 2,774 2,774
SHIP SONARS
038 SPQ-9B RADAR... 20,551 20,551
039 AN/SQQ-89 SURF 103,241 103,241
ASW COMBAT
SYSTEM.
040 SSN ACOUSTICS.. 214,835 4 20,000 4 234,835
Submarine [4] [20,000]
Towed Array-
Unfunded
Requirement.
041 UNDERSEA 7,331 7,331
WARFARE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
042 SONAR SWITCHES 11,781 11,781
AND
TRANSDUCERS.
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
044 SUBMARINE 21,119 21,119
ACOUSTIC
WARFARE SYSTEM.
045 SSTD........... 8,396 8,396
046 FIXED 146,968 146,968
SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM.
047 SURTASS........ 12,953 12,953
048 MARITIME PATROL 13,725 13,725
AND
RECONNSAISANCE
FORCE.
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
049 AN/SLQ-32...... 324,726 2 28,000 2 352,726
SEWIP Block [2] [28,000]
II-Unfunded
Requirement.
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
050 SHIPBOARD IW 148,221 148,221
EXPLOIT.
051 AUTOMATED 152 152
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS).
SUBMARINE
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT
052 SUBMARINE 79,954 79,954
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT PROG.
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
053 COOPERATIVE 25,695 25,695
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY.
054 TRUSTED 284 284
INFORMATION
SYSTEM (TIS).
055 NAVAL TACTICAL 14,416 14,416
COMMAND
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(NTCSS).
056 ATDLS.......... 23,069 23,069
057 NAVY COMMAND 4,054 4,054
AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NCCS).
058 MINESWEEPING 21,014 21,014
SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT.
059 SHALLOW WATER 18,077 18,077
MCM.
060 NAVSTAR GPS 12,359 12,359
RECEIVERS
(SPACE).
061 AMERICAN FORCES 4,240 4,240
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE.
062 STRATEGIC 17,440 17,440
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
063 OTHER TRAINING 41,314 41,314
EQUIPMENT.
AVIATION
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
064 MATCALS........ 10,011 10,011
065 SHIPBOARD AIR 9,346 9,346
TRAFFIC
CONTROL.
066 AUTOMATIC 21,281 21,281
CARRIER
LANDING SYSTEM.
067 NATIONAL AIR 25,621 25,621
SPACE SYSTEM.
068 FLEET AIR 8,249 8,249
TRAFFIC
CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
069 LANDING SYSTEMS 14,715 14,715
070 ID SYSTEMS..... 29,676 29,676
071 NAVAL MISSION 13,737 13,737
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
072 DEPLOYABLE 1,314 1,314
JOINT COMMAND
& CONTROL.
074 TACTICAL/MOBILE 13,600 13,600
C4I SYSTEMS.
075 DCGS-N......... 31,809 31,809
076 CANES.......... 278,991 278,991
077 RADIAC......... 8,294 8,294
078 CANES-INTELL... 28,695 28,695
079 GPETE.......... 6,962 6,962
080 MASF........... 290 290
081 INTEG COMBAT 14,419 14,419
SYSTEM TEST
FACILITY.
082 EMI CONTROL 4,175 4,175
INSTRUMENTATIO
N.
083 ITEMS LESS THAN 44,176 44,176
$5 MILLION.
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
084 SHIPBOARD 8,722 8,722
TACTICAL
COMMUNICATIONS.
085 SHIP 108,477 108,477
COMMUNICATIONS
AUTOMATION.
086 COMMUNICATIONS 16,613 16,613
ITEMS UNDER
$5M.
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
087 SUBMARINE 20,691 20,691
BROADCAST
SUPPORT.
088 SUBMARINE 60,945 60,945
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
089 SATELLITE 30,892 30,892
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS.
090 NAVY MULTIBAND 118,113 118,113
TERMINAL (NMT).
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
091 JCS 4,591 4,591
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT.
092 ELECTRICAL 1,403 1,403
POWER SYSTEMS.
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
093 INFO SYSTEMS 135,687 135,687
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
094 MIO INTEL 970 970
EXPLOITATION
TEAM.
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
095 CRYPTOLOGIC 11,433 11,433
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.
OTHER
ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
096 COAST GUARD 2,529 2,529
EQUIPMENT.
SONOBUOYS
097 SONOBUOYS--ALL 168,763 168,763
TYPES.
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
098 WEAPONS RANGE 46,979 46,979
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
100 AIRCRAFT 123,884 2 3,500 2 127,384
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
F-35 Visual/ [2] [3,500]
Optical
Landing
System
Training
Equipment
Unfunded
Requirement.
103 METEOROLOGICAL 15,090 15,090
EQUIPMENT.
104 DCRS/DPL....... 638 638
106 AIRBORNE MINE 14,098 14,098
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
111 AVIATION 49,773 49,773
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
112 SHIP GUN 5,300 5,300
SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT.
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT
115 SHIP MISSILE 298,738 298,738
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
120 TOMAHAWK 71,245 71,245
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
123 STRATEGIC 240,694 240,694
MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIP.
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
124 SSN COMBAT 96,040 96,040
CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
125 ASW SUPPORT 30,189 30,189
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
129 EXPLOSIVE 22,623 22,623
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL EQUIP.
130 ITEMS LESS THAN 9,906 9,906
$5 MILLION.
OTHER
EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
134 TRAINING DEVICE 99,707 99,707
MODS.
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
135 PASSENGER 2,252 2,252
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
136 GENERAL PURPOSE 2,191 2,191
TRUCKS.
137 CONSTRUCTION & 2,164 2,164
MAINTENANCE
EQUIP.
138 FIRE FIGHTING 14,705 14,705
EQUIPMENT.
139 TACTICAL 2,497 2,497
VEHICLES.
140 AMPHIBIOUS 12,517 12,517
EQUIPMENT.
141 POLLUTION 3,018 3,018
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
142 ITEMS UNDER $5 14,403 14,403
MILLION.
143 PHYSICAL 1,186 1,186
SECURITY
VEHICLES.
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
144 MATERIALS 18,805 18,805
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT.
145 OTHER SUPPLY 10,469 10,469
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
146 FIRST 5,720 5,720
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
147 SPECIAL PURPOSE 211,714 211,714
SUPPLY SYSTEMS.
TRAINING
DEVICES
148 TRAINING 7,468 7,468
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
149 COMMAND SUPPORT 36,433 36,433
EQUIPMENT.
150 EDUCATION 3,180 3,180
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
151 MEDICAL SUPPORT 4,790 4,790
EQUIPMENT.
153 NAVAL MIP 4,608 4,608
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
154 OPERATING 5,655 5,655
FORCES SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
155 C4ISR EQUIPMENT 9,929 9,929
156 ENVIRONMENTAL 26,795 26,795
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
157 PHYSICAL 88,453 88,453
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
159 ENTERPRISE 99,094 99,094
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
OTHER
160 NEXT GENERATION 99,014 99,014
ENTERPRISE
SERVICE.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
160A CLASSIFIED 21,439 21,439
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
161 SPARES AND 328,043 328,043
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 6,614,715 9 111,500 9 6,726,215
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT,
MARINE CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
001 AAV7A1 PIP..... 26,744 26,744
002 LAV PIP........ 54,879 54,879
ARTILLERY AND
OTHER WEAPONS
003 EXPEDITIONARY 2,652 2,652
FIRE SUPPORT
SYSTEM.
004 155MM 7,482 7,482
LIGHTWEIGHT
TOWED HOWITZER.
005 HIGH MOBILITY 17,181 17,181
ARTILLERY
ROCKET SYSTEM.
006 WEAPONS AND 8,224 8,224
COMBAT
VEHICLES UNDER
$5 MILLION.
OTHER SUPPORT
007 MODIFICATION 14,467 14,467
KITS.
008 WEAPONS 488 488
ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM.
GUIDED MISSILES
009 GROUND BASED 7,565 7,565
AIR DEFENSE.
010 JAVELIN........ 1,091 441 77,500 441 78,591
Program [441] [77,500]
increase to
support
Unfunded
Requirement
s.
011 FOLLOW ON TO 4,872 4,872
SMAW.
012 ANTI-ARMOR 668 668
WEAPONS SYSTEM-
HEAVY (AAWS-H).
OTHER SUPPORT
013 MODIFICATION 12,495 12,495
KITS.
COMMAND AND
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
014 UNIT OPERATIONS 13,109 13,109
CENTER.
015 COMMON AVIATION 35,147 35,147
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM
(C.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
016 REPAIR AND TEST 21,210 21,210
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER SUPPORT
(TEL)
017 COMBAT SUPPORT 792 792
SYSTEM.
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NON-TEL)
019 ITEMS UNDER $5 3,642 3,642
MILLION (COMM
& ELEC).
020 AIR OPERATIONS 3,520 3,520
C2 SYSTEMS.
RADAR +
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
021 RADAR SYSTEMS.. 35,118 35,118
022 GROUND/AIR TASK 3 130,661 -40,000 3 90,661
ORIENTED RADAR
(G/ATOR).
Delay in [-40,000]
IOTE.
023 RQ-21 UAS...... 4 84,916 4 84,916
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
024 FIRE SUPPORT 9,136 9,136
SYSTEM.
025 INTELLIGENCE 29,936 29,936
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
028 DCGS-MC........ 1,947 1,947
OTHER COMM/ELEC
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
031 NIGHT VISION 2,018 2,018
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER SUPPORT
(NON-TEL)
032 NEXT GENERATION 67,295 67,295
ENTERPRISE
NETWORK (NGEN).
033 COMMON COMPUTER 43,101 43,101
RESOURCES.
034 COMMAND POST 29,255 29,255
SYSTEMS.
035 RADIO SYSTEMS.. 80,584 80,584
036 COMM SWITCHING 66,123 66,123
& CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
037 COMM & ELEC 79,486 79,486
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
037A CLASSIFIED 2,803 2,803
PROGRAMS.
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
038 COMMERCIAL 3,538 3,538
PASSENGER
VEHICLES.
039 COMMERCIAL 22,806 22,806
CARGO VEHICLES.
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
041 MOTOR TRANSPORT 7,743 7,743
MODIFICATIONS.
043 JOINT LIGHT 109 79,429 109 79,429
TACTICAL
VEHICLE.
044 FAMILY OF 3,157 3,157
TACTICAL
TRAILERS.
OTHER SUPPORT
045 ITEMS LESS THAN 6,938 6,938
$5 MILLION.
ENGINEER AND
OTHER
EQUIPMENT
046 ENVIRONMENTAL 94 94
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT.
047 BULK LIQUID 896 896
EQUIPMENT.
048 TACTICAL FUEL 136 136
SYSTEMS.
049 POWER EQUIPMENT 10,792 10,792
ASSORTED.
050 AMPHIBIOUS 3,235 3,235
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
051 EOD SYSTEMS.... 7,666 7,666
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
052 PHYSICAL 33,145 33,145
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
053 GARRISON MOBILE 1,419 1,419
ENGINEER
EQUIPMENT
(GMEE).
GENERAL
PROPERTY
057 TRAINING 24,163 24,163
DEVICES.
058 CONTAINER 962 962
FAMILY.
059 FAMILY OF 6,545 6,545
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.
060 FAMILY OF 7,533 7,533
INTERNALLY
TRANSPORTABLE
VEH (ITV).
OTHER SUPPORT
062 ITEMS LESS THAN 4,322 4,322
$5 MILLION.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
063 SPARES AND 8,292 8,292
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 116 1,131,418 441 37,500 557 1,168,918
PROCUREMEN
T, MARINE
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
001 F-35........... 44 5,260,212 -99,100 44 5,161,112
Anticipated [-75,500]
contract
savings.
Cost growth [-23,600]
for support
equipment.
002 ADVANCE 460,260 460,260
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
TACTICAL
AIRLIFT
003 KC-46A TANKER.. 12 2,350,601 -24,000 12 2,326,601
Program [-24,000]
Decrease.
OTHER AIRLIFT
004 C-130J......... 14 889,154 1 73,000 15 962,154
Unfunded [1] [73,000]
Requirement
s.
005 ADVANCE 50,000 50,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
006 HC-130J........ 5 463,934 5 463,934
007 ADVANCE 30,000 30,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 MC-130J........ 8 828,472 8 828,472
009 ADVANCE 60,000 60,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
011 CIVIL AIR 6 2,617 6 2,617
PATROL A/C.
OTHER AIRCRAFT
012 TARGET DRONES.. 75 132,028 75 132,028
014 RQ-4........... 37,800 37,800
015 MQ-9........... 29 552,528 29 552,528
STRATEGIC
AIRCRAFT
017 B-2A........... 32,458 32,458
018 B-1B........... 114,119 114,119
019 B-52........... 148,987 148,987
020 LARGE AIRCRAFT 84,335 84,335
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
TACTICAL
AIRCRAFT
021 A-10........... 240,000 240,000
A-10 [240,000]
restoration
- wing
replacement
program.
022 F-15........... 464,367 464,367
023 F-16........... 17,134 17,134
024 F-22A.......... 126,152 126,152
025 F-35 70,167 70,167
MODIFICATIONS.
026 INCREMENT 3.2B. 69,325 69,325
AIRLIFT
AIRCRAFT
028 C-5............ 5,604 5,604
030 C-17A.......... 46,997 46,997
031 C-21........... 10,162 10,162
032 C-32A.......... 44,464 44,464
033 C-37A.......... 10,861 -10,000 861
Program [-10,000]
decrease.
TRAINER
AIRCRAFT
034 GLIDER MODS.... 134 134
035 T-6............ 17,968 17,968
036 T-1............ 23,706 23,706
037 T-38........... 30,604 30,604
OTHER AIRCRAFT
038 U-2 MODS....... 22,095 22,095
039 KC-10A (ATCA).. 5,611 5,611
040 C-12........... 1,980 1,980
042 VC-25A MOD..... 98,231 98,231
043 C-40........... 13,171 13,171
044 C-130.......... 7,048 73,200 80,248
C-130 AMP [10,000]
increase.
Eight- [30,000]
Bladed
Propeller.
T-56 3.5 [33,200]
Engine Mod.
045 C-130J MODS.... 29,713 29,713
046 C-135.......... 49,043 49,043
047 COMPASS CALL 68,415 28,700 97,115
MODS.
EC-130H [28,700]
Force
Structure
Restoration.
048 RC-135......... 156,165 156,165
049 E-3............ 13,178 13,178
050 E-4............ 23,937 23,937
051 E-8............ 18,001 18,001
052 AIRBORNE 183,308 183,308
WARNING AND
CONTROL SYSTEM.
053 FAMILY OF 44,163 -10,000 34,163
BEYOND LINE-OF-
SIGHT
TERMINALS.
Program [-10,000]
decrease.
054 H-1............ 6,291 6,291
055 UH-1N 2,456 2,456
REPLACEMENT.
056 H-60........... 45,731 45,731
057 RQ-4 MODS...... 50,022 50,022
058 HC/MC-130 21,660 21,660
MODIFICATIONS.
059 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 117,767 117,767
060 MQ-1 MODS...... 3,173 3,173
061 MQ-9 MODS...... 115,226 115,226
063 CV-22 MODS..... 58,828 58,828
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
064 INITIAL SPARES/ 656,242 656,242
REPAIR PARTS.
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
065 AIRCRAFT 33,716 33,716
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
067 B-2A........... 38,837 38,837
068 B-52........... 5,911 5,911
069 C-17A.......... 30,108 30,108
070 CV-22 POST 3,353 3,353
PRODUCTION
SUPPORT.
071 C-135.......... 4,490 4,490
072 F-15........... 3,225 3,225
073 F-16........... 14,969 18,700 33,669
Additional [24,700]
Mission
Trainers.
Unobligated [-6,000]
balances.
074 F-22A.......... 971 971
076 MQ-9........... 5,000 5,000
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
077 INDUSTRIAL 18,802 18,802
RESPONSIVENESS.
WAR CONSUMABLES
078 WAR CONSUMABLES 156,465 156,465
OTHER
PRODUCTION
CHARGES
079 OTHER 1,052,814 1,052,814
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
079A CLASSIFIED 42,503 42,503
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 193 15,657,769 1 290,500 194 15,948,269
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
MISSILE
REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BAL
LISTIC
001 MISSILE 94,040 94,040
REPLACEMENT EQ-
BALLISTIC.
TACTICAL
003 JOINT AIR- 360 440,578 360 440,578
SURFACE
STANDOFF
MISSILE.
004 SIDEWINDER (AIM- 506 200,777 506 200,777
9X).
005 AMRAAM......... 262 390,112 262 390,112
006 PREDATOR 3,756 423,016 3,756 423,016
HELLFIRE
MISSILE.
007 SMALL DIAMETER 1,942 133,697 1,942 133,697
BOMB.
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
008 INDUSTR'L 397 397
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION.
CLASS IV
009 MM III 50,517 50,517
MODIFICATIONS.
010 AGM-65D 9,639 9,639
MAVERICK.
011 AGM-88A HARM... 197 197
012 AIR LAUNCH 25,019 25,019
CRUISE MISSILE
(ALCM).
MISSILE SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
014 INITIAL SPARES/ 48,523 48,523
REPAIR PARTS.
SPECIAL
PROGRAMS
028 SPECIAL UPDATE 276,562 276,562
PROGRAMS.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
028A CLASSIFIED 893,971 893,971
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 6,826 2,987,045 6,826 2,987,045
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
SPACE
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
SPACE PROGRAMS
001 ADVANCED EHF... 333,366 333,366
002 WIDEBAND 53,476 26,000 79,476
GAPFILLER
SATELLITES(SPA
CE).
SATCOM [26,000]
Pathfinder.
003 GPS III SPACE 1 199,218 1 199,218
SEGMENT.
004 SPACEBORNE 18,362 18,362
EQUIP (COMSEC).
005 GLOBAL 66,135 66,135
POSITIONING
(SPACE).
006 DEF 89,351 89,351
METEOROLOGICAL
SAT
PROG(SPACE).
007 EVOLVED 571,276 571,276
EXPENDABLE
LAUNCH
CAPABILITY.
008 EVOLVED 5 800,201 5 800,201
EXPENDABLE
LAUNCH
VEH(SPACE).
009 SBIR HIGH 452,676 452,676
(SPACE).
TOTAL 6 2,584,061 26,000 6 2,610,061
SPACE
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
AIR FORCE
ROCKETS
001 ROCKETS........ 23,788 23,788
CARTRIDGES
002 CARTRIDGES..... 131,102 131,102
BOMBS
003 PRACTICE BOMBS. 89,759 89,759
004 GENERAL PURPOSE 637,181 637,181
BOMBS.
005 MASSIVE 39,690 39,690
ORDNANCE
PENETRATOR
(MOP).
006 JOINT DIRECT 6,341 374,688 -20,000 6,341 354,688
ATTACK
MUNITION.
Program [-20,000]
reduction.
OTHER ITEMS
007 CAD/PAD........ 58,266 58,266
008 EXPLOSIVE 5,612 5,612
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL (EOD).
009 SPARES AND 103 103
REPAIR PARTS.
010 MODIFICATIONS.. 1,102 1,102
011 ITEMS LESS THAN 3,044 3,044
$5 MILLION.
FLARES
012 FLARES......... 120,935 120,935
FUZES
013 FUZES.......... 213,476 213,476
SMALL ARMS
014 SMALL ARMS..... 60,097 60,097
TOTAL 6,341 1,758,843 -20,000 6,341 1,738,843
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, AIR
FORCE.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER
CARRYING
VEHICLES
001 PASSENGER 8,834 8,834
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
CARGO AND
UTILITY
VEHICLES
002 MEDIUM TACTICAL 58,160 58,160
VEHICLE.
003 CAP VEHICLES... 977 977
004 ITEMS LESS THAN 12,483 12,483
$5 MILLION.
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
005 SECURITY AND 4,728 4,728
TACTICAL
VEHICLES.
006 ITEMS LESS THAN 4,662 4,662
$5 MILLION.
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
007 FIRE FIGHTING/ 10,419 10,419
CRASH RESCUE
VEHICLES.
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
008 ITEMS LESS THAN 23,320 23,320
$5 MILLION.
BASE
MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
009 RUNWAY SNOW 6,215 6,215
REMOV &
CLEANING EQUIP.
010 ITEMS LESS THAN 87,781 87,781
$5 MILLION.
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMS
EC)
011 COMSEC 136,998 136,998
EQUIPMENT.
012 MODIFICATIONS 677 677
(COMSEC).
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
013 INTELLIGENCE 4,041 4,041
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
014 INTELLIGENCE 22,573 22,573
COMM EQUIPMENT.
015 MISSION 14,456 14,456
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
016 AIR TRAFFIC 31,823 31,823
CONTROL &
LANDING SYS.
017 NATIONAL 5,833 5,833
AIRSPACE
SYSTEM.
018 BATTLE CONTROL 1,687 1,687
SYSTEM--FIXED.
019 THEATER AIR 22,710 22,710
CONTROL SYS
IMPROVEMENTS.
020 WEATHER 21,561 21,561
OBSERVATION
FORECAST.
021 STRATEGIC 286,980 286,980
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
022 CHEYENNE 36,186 36,186
MOUNTAIN
COMPLEX.
024 INTEGRATED 9,597 9,597
STRAT PLAN &
ANALY NETWORK
(ISPAN).
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
025 GENERAL 27,403 27,403
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
026 AF GLOBAL 7,212 7,212
COMMAND &
CONTROL SYS.
027 MOBILITY 11,062 11,062
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
028 AIR FORCE 131,269 131,269
PHYSICAL
SECURITY
SYSTEM.
029 COMBAT TRAINING 33,606 33,606
RANGES.
030 MINIMUM 5,232 5,232
ESSENTIAL
EMERGENCY COMM
N.
031 C3 7,453 7,453
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
032 INTEGRATED 3,976 3,976
PERSONNEL AND
PAY SYSTEM.
033 GCSS-AF FOS.... 25,515 25,515
034 DEFENSE 9,255 9,255
ENTERPRISE
ACCOUNTING AND
MGMT SYSTEM.
035 THEATER BATTLE 7,523 7,523
MGT C2 SYSTEM.
036 AIR & SPACE 12,043 12,043
OPERATIONS CTR-
WPN SYS.
037 AIR OPERATIONS 24,246 24,246
CENTER (AOC)
10.2.
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
038 INFORMATION 74,621 74,621
TRANSPORT
SYSTEMS.
039 AFNET.......... 103,748 103,748
041 JOINT 5,199 5,199
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT
ELEMENT (JCSE).
042 USCENTCOM...... 15,780 15,780
SPACE PROGRAMS
043 FAMILY OF 79,592 -15,000 64,592
BEYOND LINE-OF-
SIGHT
TERMINALS.
Program [-15,000]
decrease.
044 SPACE BASED IR 90,190 90,190
SENSOR PGM
SPACE.
045 NAVSTAR GPS 2,029 2,029
SPACE.
046 NUDET DETECTION 5,095 5,095
SYS SPACE.
047 AF SATELLITE 76,673 76,673
CONTROL
NETWORK SPACE.
048 SPACELIFT RANGE 113,275 113,275
SYSTEM SPACE.
049 MILSATCOM SPACE 35,495 35,495
050 SPACE MODS 23,435 23,435
SPACE.
051 COUNTERSPACE 43,065 43,065
SYSTEM.
ORGANIZATION
AND BASE
052 TACTICAL C-E 77,538 33,900 111,438
EQUIPMENT.
Battlefield [19,900]
Airmen Kits
Unfunded
Requirement.
Joint [14,000]
Terminal
Control
Training
Simulation
Unfunded
Requirement.
054 RADIO EQUIPMENT 8,400 8,400
055 CCTV/ 6,144 6,144
AUDIOVISUAL
EQUIPMENT.
056 BASE COMM 77,010 77,010
INFRASTRUCTURE.
MODIFICATIONS
057 COMM ELECT MODS 71,800 71,800
PERSONAL SAFETY
& RESCUE EQUIP
058 NIGHT VISION 2,370 2,370
GOGGLES.
059 ITEMS LESS THAN 79,623 79,623
$5 MILLION.
DEPOT
PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
060 MECHANIZED 7,249 7,249
MATERIAL
HANDLING EQUIP.
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
061 BASE PROCURED 9,095 4,000 13,095
EQUIPMENT.
Additional [4,000]
Equipment.
062 ENGINEERING AND 17,866 17,866
EOD EQUIPMENT.
064 MOBILITY 61,850 61,850
EQUIPMENT.
065 ITEMS LESS THAN 30,477 30,477
$5 MILLION.
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
067 DARP RC135..... 25,072 25,072
068 DCGS-AF........ 183,021 183,021
070 SPECIAL UPDATE 629,371 629,371
PROGRAM.
071 DEFENSE SPACE 100,663 100,663
RECONNAISSANCE
PROG..
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
071A CLASSIFIED 15,038,333 15,038,333
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
073 SPARES AND 59,863 59,863
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 18,272,438 22,900 18,295,338
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
001 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,488 1,488
$5 MILLION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
002 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 2,494 2,494
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
003 PERSONNEL 9,341 9,341
ADMINISTRATION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DISA
007 INFORMATION 8,080 15,000 23,080
SYSTEMS
SECURITY.
SHARKSEER.. [15,000]
008 TELEPORT 62,789 62,789
PROGRAM.
009 ITEMS LESS THAN 9,399 9,399
$5 MILLION.
010 NET CENTRIC 1,819 1,819
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES
(NCES).
011 DEFENSE 141,298 141,298
INFORMATION
SYSTEM NETWORK.
012 CYBER SECURITY 12,732 12,732
INITIATIVE.
013 WHITE HOUSE 64,098 64,098
COMMUNICATION
AGENCY.
014 SENIOR 617,910 617,910
LEADERSHIP
ENTERPRISE.
015 JOINT 84,400 84,400
INFORMATION
ENVIRONMENT.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DLA
016 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 5,644 5,644
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
017 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 4 11,208 4 11,208
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
018 AUTOMATION/ 1,298 1,298
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE
SECURITY
COOPERATION
AGENCY
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DSS
020 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 1,048 1,048
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION
AGENCY
021 VEHICLES....... 100 100
022 OTHER MAJOR 5,474 5,474
EQUIPMENT.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE
DEFENSE AGENCY
023 THAAD.......... 30 464,067 30 464,067
024 AEGIS BMD...... 40 558,916 18 120,445 58 679,361
SM-3 Block [9] [117,880]
IB.
SM-3 Block [9] [2,565]
IB
(Canisters).
025 ADVANCE 147,765 -147,765 0
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
SM-3 Block [-147,765]
IB.
026 BMDS AN/TPY-2 78,634 78,634
RADARS.
027 AEGIS ASHORE 30,587 30,587
PHASE III.
028 IRON DOME...... 1 55,000 1 55,000
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, NSA
035 INFORMATION 37,177 37,177
SYSTEMS
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, OSD
036 MAJOR 17 46,939 17 46,939
EQUIPMENT, OSD.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, TJS
038 MAJOR 13,027 13,027
EQUIPMENT, TJS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, WHS
040 MAJOR 27,859 27,859
EQUIPMENT, WHS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE
DEFENSE AGENCY
028A DAVID SLING.... 1 150,000 1 150,000
David's [1] [150,000]
Sling
Weapon
System
Procurement
-Subject to
Title XVI.
028B ARROW 3........ 1 15,000 1 15,000
Arrow 3 [1] [15,000]
Upper Tier
Procurement
-Subject to
Title XVI.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
040A CLASSIFIED 617,757 617,757
PROGRAMS.
AVIATION
PROGRAMS
041 MC-12.......... 63,170 63,170
042 ROTARY WING 135,985 135,985
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.
044 NON-STANDARD 61,275 61,275
AVIATION.
047 RQ-11 UNMANNED 20,087 20,087
AERIAL VEHICLE.
048 CV-22 18,832 18,832
MODIFICATION.
049 MQ-1 UNMANNED 1,934 1,934
AERIAL VEHICLE.
050 MQ-9 UNMANNED 11,726 15,200 26,926
AERIAL VEHICLE.
Medium [15,200]
Altitude
Long
Endurance
Tactical
(MALET) MQ-
9 Unmanned
Aerial
Vehicle.
051 STUASL0........ 1,514 1,514
052 PRECISION 204,105 204,105
STRIKE PACKAGE.
053 AC/MC-130J..... 61,368 -35,400 25,968
MC-130 [-35,400]
Terrain
Following/
Terrain
Avoidance
Radar
Program.
054 C-130 66,861 66,861
MODIFICATIONS.
SHIPBUILDING
055 UNDERWATER 32,521 32,521
SYSTEMS.
AMMUNITION
PROGRAMS
056 ORDNANCE ITEMS 174,734 174,734
<$5M.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
057 INTELLIGENCE 93,009 93,009
SYSTEMS.
058 DISTRIBUTED 14,964 14,964
COMMON GROUND/
SURFACE
SYSTEMS.
059 OTHER ITEMS 79,149 79,149
<$5M.
060 COMBATANT CRAFT 33,362 33,362
SYSTEMS.
061 SPECIAL 143,533 143,533
PROGRAMS.
062 TACTICAL 73,520 73,520
VEHICLES.
063 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 186,009 186,009
<$5M.
064 COMBAT MISSION 19,693 19,693
REQUIREMENTS.
065 GLOBAL VIDEO 3,967 3,967
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES.
066 OPERATIONAL 19,225 19,225
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE.
068 OPERATIONAL 213,252 213,252
ENHANCEMENTS.
CBDP
074 CHEMICAL 141,223 141,223
BIOLOGICAL
SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS.
075 CB PROTECTION & 137,487 137,487
HAZARD
MITIGATION.
TOTAL 92 5,130,853 20 132,480 112 5,263,333
PROCUREMEN
T, DEFENSE-
WIDE.
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND
001 JOINT URGENT 99,701 -99,701 0
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND.
Program [-99,701]
reduction.
TOTAL 99,701 -99,701 0
JOINT
URGENT
OPERATIONA
L NEEDS
FUND.
TOTAL 22,785 106,967,393 1,158 2,768,306 23,943 109,735,699
PROCUREMEN
T.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
003 AERIAL COMMON SENSOR (ACS) (MIP).. 5 99,500 5 99,500
004 MQ-1 UAV.......................... 2 16,537 2 16,537
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
016 MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP)................ 8,700 8,700
023 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP)............... 32,000 32,000
031 RQ-7 UAV MODS..................... 8,250 8,250
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 7 164,987 7 164,987
ARMY.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM
003 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY.............. 270 37,260 270 37,260
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 270 37,260 270 37,260
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY
WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES
016 MORTAR SYSTEMS.................... 7,030 7,030
021 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS 19,000 19,000
STATION.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, 26,030 26,030
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION
004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES........... 4,000 4,000
MORTAR AMMUNITION
008 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 11,700 11,700
009 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 4,000 4,000
010 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES........... 7,000 7,000
ARTILLERY AMMUNITION
012 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 5,000 5,000
105MM, ALL TYPES.
013 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL 10,000 10,000
TYPES.
015 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND 2,000 2,000
PRIMERS, ALL.
ROCKETS
017 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES....... 136,340 136,340
OTHER AMMUNITION
019 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 4,000 4,000
021 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES................ 8,000 8,000
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 192,040 192,040
AMMUNITION, ARMY.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
005 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH 1,191 243,998 1,191 243,998
(FMTV).
009 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK 223,276 223,276
EXT SERV.
011 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP...... 130,000 130,000
012 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED 393,100 393,100
(MRAP) MODS.
COMM--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
021 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND 5,724 5,724
COMMUNICATIONS.
COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS
051 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 29,500 29,500
MOD PROGRAM.
ELECT EQUIP--TACT INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
057 DCGS-A (MIP)...................... 54,140 54,140
059 TROJAN (MIP)...................... 6,542 6,542
061 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND 3,860 3,860
COLL(CHARCS).
ELECT EQUIP--ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
068 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE 14,847 14,847
CAPABILITIE.
069 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY 19,535 19,535
COUNTERMEASURES.
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL SURV. (TAC
SURV)
084 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32... 2,601 2,601
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS
087 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY............ 48 48
094 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS)..... 252 252
ELECT EQUIP--AUTOMATION
101 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP... 652 652
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT
111 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS)........ 4,035 4,035
COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
131 FORCE PROVIDER.................... 12 53,800 12 53,800
133 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL 700 700
PARACHUTE SYSTEM.
MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT
159 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS............... 10,486 10,486
OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
169 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT 8,500 8,500
EQUIPMENT.
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 1,203 1,205,596 1,203 1,205,596
JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT
FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
001 ATTACK THE NETWORK................ 219,550 219,550
JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT
002 DEFEAT THE DEVICE................. 77,600 77,600
FORCE TRAINING
003 TRAIN THE FORCE................... 7,850 7,850
STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE
004 OPERATIONS........................ 188,271 -50,700 137,571
Program Reduction............. [-50,700]
TOTAL JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE 493,271 -50,700 442,571
DEV DEFEAT FUND.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER AIRCRAFT
026 STUASL0 UAV....................... 3 55,000 3 55,000
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
030 AV-8 SERIES....................... 41,365 41,365
032 F-18 SERIES....................... 8,000 8,000
037 EP-3 SERIES....................... 6,300 6,300
047 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT.......... 14,198 14,198
051 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT.............. 72,700 72,700
052 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES........... 13,988 13,988
059 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY..... 4,900 4,900
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP &
FACILITIES
065 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES.... 943 943
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 3 217,394 3 217,394
NAVY.
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
TACTICAL MISSILES
010 LASER MAVERICK.................... 3,344 3,344
TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, 3,344 3,344
NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 9,715 9,715
002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES....... 11,108 11,108
003 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION............ 3,603 3,603
006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES.... 11,982 11,982
011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION......... 4,674 4,674
012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO... 3,456 3,456
013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION........ 1,989 1,989
014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION... 4,674 4,674
MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION
020 120MM, ALL TYPES.................. 10,719 10,719
023 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES................ 3,993 3,993
024 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES.............. 67,200 67,200
025 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 518 518
026 FUZE, ALL TYPES................... 3,299 3,299
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, 136,930 136,930
NAVY & MC.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
135 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES....... 186 186
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
160A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 12,000 12,000
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY 12,186 12,186
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
GUIDED MISSILES
010 JAVELIN........................... 7,679 7,679
OTHER SUPPORT
013 MODIFICATION KITS................. 10,311 10,311
COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
014 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER............ 8,221 8,221
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
018 MODIFICATION KITS................. 3,600 3,600
COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-
TEL)
019 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & 8,693 8,693
ELEC).
INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
027 RQ-11 UAV......................... 3,430 3,430
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
052 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT....... 7,000 7,000
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE 48,934 48,934
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
OTHER AIRCRAFT
015 MQ-9.............................. 13,500 13,500
OTHER AIRCRAFT
044 C-130............................. 1,410 1,410
056 H-60.............................. 39,300 39,300
058 HC/MC-130 MODIFICATIONS........... 5,690 5,690
061 MQ-9 MODS......................... 69,000 69,000
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 128,900 128,900
AIR FORCE.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
TACTICAL
006 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE......... 1,811 280,902 1,811 280,902
007 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB............... 63 2,520 63 2,520
CLASS IV
010 AGM-65D MAVERICK.................. 5,720 5,720
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 1,874 289,142 1,874 289,142
AIR FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
CARTRIDGES
002 CARTRIDGES........................ 8,371 8,371
BOMBS
004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 17,031 17,031
006 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION...... 5,953 184,412 5,953 184,412
FLARES
012 FLARES............................ 11,064 11,064
FUZES
013 FUZES............................. 7,996 7,996
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 5,953 228,874 5,953 228,874
AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS
025 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.... 3,953 3,953
027 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL...... 2,000 2,000
AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS
042 USCENTCOM......................... 10,000 10,000
ORGANIZATION AND BASE
052 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT............ 4,065 4,065
056 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE.......... 15,400 15,400
PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP
058 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES.............. 3,580 3,580
059 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 3,407 3,407
BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
062 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT..... 46,790 46,790
064 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT................ 400 400
065 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 9,800 9,800
SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS
071 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. 28,070 28,070
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
071A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 3,732,499 3,732,499
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR 3,859,964 3,859,964
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA
008 TELEPORT PROGRAM.................. 1,940 1,940
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
040A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 35,482 35,482
AVIATION PROGRAMS
041 MC-12............................. 5,000 5,000
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
056 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M............... 746,066 35,299 746,066 35,299
OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS
061 SPECIAL PROGRAMS.................. 1 15,160 1 15,160
063 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M.............. 50 15,000 50 15,000
068 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.......... 3 104,537 3 104,537
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE- 746,120 212,418 746,120 212,418
WIDE.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE
EQUIPMENT
UNDISTRIBUTED
007 MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT........... 250,000 250,000
NGREA Program Increase........ [250,000]
TOTAL NATIONAL GUARD AND 250,000 250,000
RESERVE EQUIPMENT.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT............ 755,430 7,257,270 199,300 755,430 7,456,570
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND
EVALUATION
SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 House
Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, ARMY
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 13,018 13,018
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 239,118 239,118
003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 72,603 72,603
INITIATIVES.
004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 100,340 100,340
RESEARCH CENTERS.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 425,079 425,079
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY....... 28,314 28,314
006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 38,374 38,374
SURVIVABILITY.
007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP................ 6,879 6,879
008 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY........ 56,884 56,884
009 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 19,243 19,243
TECHNOLOGY.
010 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY......... 45,053 8,000 53,053
......................... A2/AD Anti-Ship Missile [8,000]
Study.
011 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 29,428 29,428
012 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 27,862 27,862
SIMULATION.
013 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 68,839 68,839
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
014 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY...... 92,801 92,801
015 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 3,866 3,866
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,487 5,487
PROGRAM.
017 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 48,340 48,340
TECHNOLOGY.
018 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC 55,301 55,301
DEVICES.
019 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.... 33,807 33,807
020 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS........ 25,068 25,068
021 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 23,681 23,681
TECHNOLOGY.
022 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 20,850 20,850
TECHNOLOGY.
023 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 36,160 36,160
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
024 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 12,656 12,656
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 63,409 63,409
TECHNOLOGY.
026 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING 24,735 -5,000 19,735
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Program decrease....... [-5,000]
027 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY...... 35,795 35,795
028 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY......... 76,853 76,853
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 879,685 3,000 882,685
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
029 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 46,973 46,973
TECHNOLOGY.
030 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 69,584 69,584
031 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 89,736 89,736
TECHNOLOGY.
032 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 57,663 57,663
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
033 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 113,071 113,071
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
034 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED 5,554 5,554
TECHNOLOGY.
035 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 12,636 12,636
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
037 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............... 7,502 7,502
038 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & 17,425 17,425
SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
039 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE............... 11,912 11,912
040 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 27,520 27,520
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
041 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............... 2,381 2,381
042 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............... 2,431 2,431
043 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 26,874 26,874
TECHNOLOGY.
044 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED 49,449 49,449
TECHNOLOGY.
045 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............... 10,999 10,999
046 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING 177,159 177,159
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
047 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 13,993 13,993
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
048 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,105 5,105
PROGRAM.
049 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 40,929 40,929
TECHNOLOGY.
050 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 10,727 10,727
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
051 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 20,145 20,145
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
052 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER 38,163 38,163
SCIENCE AND SENSOR
TECHNOLOGY.
053 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY..... 37,816 37,816
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 895,747 895,747
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
054 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS 10,347 10,347
INTEGRATION.
055 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 25,061 25,061
INTEGRATION.
056 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 49,636 49,636
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
057 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET 13,426 13,426
DEFEATING SYS-ADV DEV.
058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 46,749 46,749
AMMUNITION.
060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 6,258 6,258
SURVIVABILITY.
061 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 13,472 13,472
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
062 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 7,292 7,292
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
063 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 8,813 8,813
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
065 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 294 294
DEVELOPMENT.
067 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 21,233 21,233
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
068 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV... 31,962 31,962
069 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 22,194 22,194
DEVELOPMENT.
071 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES... 9,805 9,805
072 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 40,917 40,917
INITIATIVES.
073 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, 30,058 30,058
NAVIGATION AND TIMING
(PNT).
074 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 155,361 155,361
CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 492,878 492,878
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
076 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS.......... 12,939 12,939
078 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 18,843 18,843
DEVELOPMENT.
079 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO....... 9,861 9,861
080 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 8,763 8,763
VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
081 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM. 4,309 4,309
082 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............... 15,138 15,138
083 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS... 74,128 6,500 80,628
......................... Army requested [1,500]
realignment.
......................... Soldier Enhancement [5,000]
Program.
085 0604611A JAVELIN.................... 3,945 3,945
087 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL........ 10,076 10,076
088 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND 40,374 40,374
VEHICLE (TUGV).
089 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 67,582 67,582
DEV.
090 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 1,763 1,763
AND EQUIPMENT.
091 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 27,155 27,155
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
092 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 24,569 24,569
CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE--
ENG DEV.
093 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 23,364 23,364
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
094 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 8,960 8,960
DEVELOPMENT.
095 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 9,138 9,138
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG DEV.
096 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 21,622 21,622
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
097 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 99,242 99,242
INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION.
098 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ENG 21,379 21,379
DEV.
099 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 48,339 48,339
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
100 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 2,726 2,726
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
101 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 45,412 45,412
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
102 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 55,215 55,215
ENG DEV.
104 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 163,643 163,643
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
105 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT.......... 12,309 12,309
106 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 15,700 15,700
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
107 0604823A FIREFINDER................. 6,243 6,243
108 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 18,776 18,776
DEM/VAL.
109 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD..... 1,953 1,953
110 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 67,358 67,358
DEVELOPMENT.
111 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 136,011 136,011
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
112 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 230,210 230,210
VEHICLE (AMPV).
113 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 13,357 13,357
CENTER (JTNC).
114 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 18,055 18,055
(JTN).
115 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE............... 5,677 5,677
116 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 77,570 24,000 101,570
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
......................... Apache Survivability [24,000]
Enhancements--Army
Unfunded Requirement.
117 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 18,112 75,000 93,112
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Apache Survivability [60,000]
Enhancements--Army
Unfunded Requirement.
......................... Concept development by [15,000]
the Army of a CPGS
option.
118 0605350A WIN-T INCREMENT 3--FULL 39,700 39,700
NETWORKING.
119 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 12,987 12,987
SYSTEM (JTRS).
120 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 88,866 -20,000 68,866
(JAGM).
......................... EMD contract delays.... [-20,000]
121 0605456A PAC-3/MSE MISSILE.......... 2,272 2,272
122 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 214,099 214,099
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
123 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE...... 49,247 -10,000 39,247
......................... Funding ahead of need.. [-10,000]
124 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR....... 2 2
125 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 10,599 10,599
INTEGRATION (MIP).
126 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 32,486 32,486
VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING
AND MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
127 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT 8,880 8,880
EQUIPMENT.
128 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED 152,288 152,288
MANAGEMENT (PIM).
129 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............... 5,022 5,022
130 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 12,686 12,686
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 2,068,950 75,500 2,144,450
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
131 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 20,035 20,035
DEVELOPMENT.
132 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 16,684 16,684
133 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 62,580 62,580
134 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER......... 20,853 20,853
135 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL....... 205,145 205,145
136 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 19,430 19,430
PROGRAM.
138 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 277,646 277,646
FACILITIES.
139 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 51,550 51,550
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
140 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 33,246 33,246
ANALYSIS.
141 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION..... 4,760 4,760
142 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 8,303 8,303
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
143 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS.. 20,403 20,403
144 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 10,396 10,396
ITEMS.
145 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 49,337 49,337
TESTING.
146 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER..... 52,694 52,694
147 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 938 938
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
148 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES..... 60,319 60,319
149 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 28,478 28,478
ACTIVITIES.
150 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, 32,604 -8,000 24,604
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
......................... Program reduction...... [-8,000]
151 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 3,186 3,186
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
152 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 48,955 48,955
......................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 1,027,542 -8,000 1,019,542
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
154 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 18,397 18,397
PROGRAM.
155 0603813A TRACTOR PULL............... 9,461 9,461
156 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 4,945 4,945
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
157 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE.............. 7,569 7,569
158 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 69,862 69,862
PROGRAM.
159 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT 66,653 66,653
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
160 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 37,407 37,407
PROGRAM.
161 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT 1,151 1,151
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
162 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE 51,164 51,164
PROGRAM.
163 0607140A EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FROM 2,481 2,481
NIE.
164 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION....... 1,673 1,673
166 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS....... 13,237 13,237
167 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 105,816 105,816
169 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT-- 40,565 40,565
COCOM EXERCISE.
171 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP 35,719 35,719
OPERATION COORDINATION
SYSTEM (JADOCS).
172 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT 257,167 35,000 292,167
PROGRAMS.
......................... Stryker Lethality [35,000]
Upgrades.
173 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.... 15,445 15,445
175 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 364 364
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
176 0203758A DIGITIZATION............... 4,361 4,361
177 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT 3,154 3,154
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
178 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 35,951 35,951
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
179 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............... 34,686 34,686
180 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE-- 10,750 10,750
OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV.
181 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING 402 402
EQUIPMENT.
183 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE 64,159 64,159
DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM.
184 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH 17,527 17,527
ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
185 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 20,515 20,515
SYSTEM.
187 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 12,368 12,368
ACTIVITIES.
188 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 31,154 31,154
SECURITY PROGRAM.
189 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 12,274 12,274
SYSTEM.
190 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 9,355 9,355
(SPACE).
191 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 7,053 7,053
CONTROL SYSTEM.
193 0305179A INTEGRATED BROADCAST 750 750
SERVICE (IBS).
194 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 13,225 13,225
VEHICLES.
195 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 22,870 22,870
SYSTEMS.
196 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 25,592 25,592
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
199 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................... 7,297 7,297
201 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2--INITIAL 3,800 3,800
NETWORKING.
202 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 48,442 48,442
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
202A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 4,536 4,536
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 1,129,297 35,000 1,164,297
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 6,919,178 105,500 7,024,678
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, NAVY
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 116,196 18,000 134,196
INITIATIVES.
......................... Defense University [18,000]
Research Instumentation
Program increase.
002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 19,126 19,126
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 451,606 451,606
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 586,928 18,000 604,928
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 68,723 68,723
RESEARCH.
005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 154,963 154,963
RESEARCH.
006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE 49,001 49,001
TECHNOLOGY.
007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 42,551 42,551
RESEARCH.
008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 45,056 45,056
APPLIED RESEARCH.
009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 115,051 115,051
APPLIED RESEARCH.
010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 42,252 20,000 62,252
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
......................... Service Life Extension [20,000]
for the AGOR Ship.
011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,119 6,119
APPLIED RESEARCH.
012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 123,750 123,750
RESEARCH.
013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 179,686 179,686
APPLIED RESEARCH.
014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 37,418 37,418
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 864,570 20,000 884,570
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
015 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED 37,093 37,093
TECHNOLOGY.
016 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 38,044 38,044
TECHNOLOGY.
017 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 34,899 34,899
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
018 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 137,562 137,562
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
019 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 12,745 12,745
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
020 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 258,860 -10,000 248,860
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Program decrease....... [-10,000]
021 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 57,074 57,074
PROGRAM.
022 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,807 4,807
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
023 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED 13,748 13,748
TECHNOLOGY.
024 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 66,041 66,041
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
025 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 1,991 1,991
WARFARE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 662,864 -10,000 652,864
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
026 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 41,832 41,832
APPLICATIONS.
027 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY..... 5,404 5,404
028 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,086 3,086
AND CONTROL.
029 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS........... 11,643 11,643
030 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.... 5,555 5,555
031 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 3,087 3,087
RECONNAISSANCE.
032 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 1,636 1,636
TECHNOLOGY.
033 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 118,588 118,588
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
034 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 77,385 77,385
DEFENSE.
035 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 8,348 8,348
036 0603525N PILOT FISH................. 123,246 123,246
037 0603527N RETRACT LARCH.............. 28,819 28,819
038 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER............ 112,678 112,678
039 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL....... 710 710
040 0603553N SURFACE ASW................ 1,096 1,096
041 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 87,160 48,000 135,160
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Program increase....... [48,000]
042 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 10,371 10,371
SYSTEMS.
043 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 11,888 11,888
DESIGN.
044 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 4,332 4,332
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
045 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 482,040 -419,300 62,740
SYSTEMS.
......................... Transfer to National [-419,300]
Sea-Based Deterrance
Fund.
046 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY 25,904 25,904
SYSTEMS.
047 0603576N CHALK EAGLE................ 511,802 511,802
048 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS). 118,416 118,416
049 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION.. 35,901 35,901
050 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT........... 971,393 -971,393 0
......................... Transfer to National [-971,393]
Sea-Based Deterrance
Fund-OR Development.
051 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES........ 206,149 206,149
052 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND RE-TEST 8,000 8,000
(ATRT).
053 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 7,678 7,678
054 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 219,082 219,082
VEHICLES.
055 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 623 623
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
056 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 18,260 18,260
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
057 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT..... 76,247 76,247
058 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 4,520 4,520
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
059 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION... 20,711 20,711
060 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM........ 47,761 47,761
061 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT..... 5,226 5,226
062 0603734N CHALK CORAL................ 182,771 182,771
063 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY. 3,866 3,866
064 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE.............. 360,065 360,065
065 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA.............. 237,416 237,416
066 0603751N RETRACT ELM................ 37,944 37,944
067 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN............. 47,312 47,312
068 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES.......... 17,408 17,408
069 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 9,359 9,359
DEVELOPMENT.
070 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY..... 887 10,000 10,887
......................... 5-Inch Guided [10,000]
Projectile Technology.
071 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 29,448 29,448
TESTING.
072 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 91,479 91,479
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
073 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND 67,360 67,360
ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
074 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS 48,105 48,105
NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
(CVN 78--80).
075 0604122N REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM 20,089 20,089
(RMS).
076 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 18,969 18,969
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
077 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION 7,874 7,874
OPTIMIZATION.
078 0604292N MH-XX...................... 5,298 5,298
079 0604454N LX (R)..................... 46,486 29,000 75,486
......................... LX(R) Acceleration..... [29,000]
080 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO 3,817 3,817
CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (JCREW).
081 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 9,595 9,595
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
082 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 29,581 29,581
WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/
ENGINEERING SUPPORT.
083 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 285,849 285,849
WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT.
084 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 36,656 36,656
VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING
AND MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
085 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 9,835 9,835
MIP.
086 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 580 580
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 5,024,626 -1,303,693 3,720,933
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
087 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT... 21,708 21,708
088 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT..... 11,101 11,101
089 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.... 39,878 39,878
090 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT...... 53,059 53,059
091 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 21,358 21,358
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
092 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 4,515 4,515
ENGINEERING.
093 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.. 1,514 1,514
094 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM..... 5,875 5,875
095 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.... 81,553 81,553
096 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE........... 272,149 272,149
097 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............... 27,235 25,000 52,235
......................... UH-1Y/AH-1Z Readiness [25,000]
Improvement Unfunded
Requirement.
098 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.... 35,763 35,763
099 0604262N V-22A...................... 87,918 87,918
100 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 12,679 12,679
DEVELOPMENT.
101 0604269N EA-18...................... 56,921 56,921
102 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 23,685 23,685
DEVELOPMENT.
103 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT. 507,093 507,093
104 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 411,767 411,767
(NGJ).
105 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 25,071 25,071
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
106 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 443,433 443,433
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
107 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 747 747
INTEGRATION.
108 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB).. 97,002 97,002
109 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 129,649 129,649
IMPROVEMENTS.
110 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............... 11,647 11,647
111 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK 2,778 2,778
FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION.
112 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 23,695 23,695
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
113 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED 134,708 134,708
AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND
STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM.
114 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 43,914 43,914
SENSORS.
115 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 109,908 109,908
MODERNIZATION.
116 0604504N AIR CONTROL................ 57,928 57,928
117 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS. 120,217 15,000 135,217
......................... Concept development.... [15,000]
118 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 241,754 241,754
RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
119 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN............. 122,556 122,556
120 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 48,213 12,000 60,213
SYSTEM.
......................... Program increase....... [12,000]
121 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE 49,712 49,712
FIRE T&E.
122 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 4,096 4,096
RESOURCES.
123 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE 167,719 167,719
(VPM).
124 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT........... 15,122 15,122
125 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 33,738 33,738
DEVELOPMENT.
126 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 8,123 8,123
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
127 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 7,686 7,686
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
128 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 405 405
SYSTEMS.
129 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & 153,836 153,836
CONTROL).
130 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 99,619 99,619
HARD KILL).
131 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 116,798 116,798
SOFT KILL/EW).
132 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING... 4,353 4,353
133 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT........ 9,443 9,443
134 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM....... 32,469 32,469
135 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 537,901 537,901
EMD.
136 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 504,736 504,736
EMD.
137 0604810M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW 59,265 -12,500 46,765
ON DEVELOPMENT--MARINE
CORPS.
......................... Program delay.......... [-12,500]
138 0604810N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW 47,579 -12,500 35,079
ON DEVELOPMENT--NAVY.
......................... Program delay.......... [-12,500]
139 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5,914 5,914
DEVELOPMENT.
140 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 89,711 89,711
DEVELOPMENT.
141 0605212N CH-53K RDTE................ 632,092 632,092
142 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR 7,778 7,778
(SSC).
143 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 25,898 25,898
(JAGM).
144 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 247,929 247,929
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
145 0204202N DDG-1000................... 103,199 103,199
146 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM-- 998 998
MIP.
147 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 17,785 17,785
SYSTEMS.
148 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS 35,905 35,905
PROGRAM.
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 6,308,800 27,000 6,335,800
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
149 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 30,769 30,769
DEVELOPMENT.
150 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 112,606 112,606
151 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 61,234 61,234
152 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 6,995 6,995
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
153 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 4,011 4,011
SUPPORT--NAVY.
154 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES.. 48,563 48,563
155 0605285N NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER.... 5,000 5,000
157 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 925 925
SERVICES.
158 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 78,143 78,143
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
159 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT 3,258 3,258
160 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 76,948 76,948
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
161 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 132,122 132,122
SUPPORT.
162 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 351,912 351,912
163 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 17,985 17,985
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
164 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 5,316 5,316
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
165 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 6,519 6,519
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
166 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 13,649 13,649
SUPPORT.
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 955,955 955,955
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
174 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 107,039 107,039
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
175 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 46,506 46,506
PROGRAM.
176 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE 3,900 3,900
DEVELOPMENT.
177 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 16,569 16,569
COMMUNICATIONS.
178 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION 18,632 18,632
(RTT).
179 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS........... 133,265 133,265
181 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 62,867 62,867
(TACTICAL).
182 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT............ 36,045 36,045
183 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 25,228 25,228
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
184 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 54,218 54,218
SYSTEM.
185 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT 11,335 11,335
UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
186 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 80,129 80,129
RADAR (G/ATOR).
187 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 39,087 15,000 54,087
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Anti-Submarine Warfare [15,000]
Underwater Range
Instrumentation Upgrade.
188 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT. 1,915 1,915
189 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 46,609 46,609
READINESS SUPPORT.
190 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT........... 52,708 52,708
191 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS........ 149,997 149,997
192 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 24,460 24,460
INTEGRATION.
193 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP................ 42,206 42,206
194 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS...... 117,759 117,759
195 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 101,323 101,323
SYSTEMS.
196 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS 67,763 67,763
SYSTEMS.
197 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND 13,431 13,431
CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S).
198 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 56,769 56,769
SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS.
199 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 20,729 20,729
SERVICES SUPPORT.
200 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 13,152 13,152
ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS
(MIP).
201 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE. 48,535 48,535
202 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 76,016 76,016
203 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 32,172 32,172
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
208 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 53,239 53,239
(SPACE).
209 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK 21,677 21,677
ENTERPRISE SERVICES
(CANES).
210 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 28,102 28,102
SECURITY PROGRAM.
211 0303150M WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 294 294
CONTROL SYSTEM.
213 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND 599 599
OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE
(METOC).
214 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 6,207 6,207
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
215 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 8,550 8,550
VEHICLES.
216 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND 41,831 41,831
INTEROPERABILITY.
217 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 1,105 1,105
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
218 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 33,149 33,149
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
219 0305220N RQ-4 UAV................... 227,188 227,188
220 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................... 52,770 52,770
221 0305232M RQ-11 UAV.................. 635 635
222 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................... 688 688
223 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 4,647 4,647
UAS (STUASL0).
224 0305239M RQ-21A..................... 6,435 6,435
225 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 49,145 49,145
DEVELOPMENT.
226 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS 9,246 9,246
(UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
227 0305421N RQ-4 MODERNIZATION......... 150,854 150,854
228 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 4,757 4,757
SUPPORT.
229 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 24,185 24,185
231 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 4,321 4,321
(MARITECH).
231A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 1,252,185 1,252,185
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 3,482,173 15,000 3,497,173
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 17,885,916 -1,233,693 16,652,223
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, AF
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 329,721 329,721
002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 141,754 141,754
INITIATIVES.
003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH 13,778 13,778
INITIATIVES.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 485,253 485,253
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602102F MATERIALS.................. 125,234 125,234
005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 123,438 123,438
TECHNOLOGIES.
006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED 100,530 -10,000 90,530
RESEARCH.
......................... Program decrease....... [-10,000]
007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION....... 182,326 -5,000 177,326
......................... Program decrease....... [-5,000]
008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS.......... 147,291 147,291
009 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY........... 116,122 116,122
010 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 99,851 99,851
011 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY. 115,604 115,604
012 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 164,909 164,909
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
013 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH. 42,037 42,037
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,217,342 -15,000 1,202,342
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
014 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 37,665 10,000 47,665
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
......................... Metals Affordability [10,000]
Initiative.
015 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 18,378 18,378
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
016 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS. 42,183 42,183
017 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 100,733 100,733
DEMO.
018 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 168,821 168,821
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
019 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 47,032 47,032
TECHNOLOGY.
020 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 54,897 54,897
TECHNOLOGY.
021 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 12,853 12,853
SYSTEM (MSSS).
022 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 25,448 25,448
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
023 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 48,536 48,536
TECHNOLOGY.
024 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 30,195 30,195
025 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 42,630 10,000 52,630
PROGRAM.
......................... Maturation of advanced [10,000]
manufacturing for low-
cost sustainment.
026 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 46,414 46,414
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 675,785 20,000 695,785
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
027 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 5,032 5,032
DEVELOPMENT.
029 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY... 4,070 4,070
030 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 21,790 21,790
TECHNOLOGY.
031 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 4,736 4,736
DEVELOPMENT.
033 0603830F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE 30,771 30,771
PROGRAM.
034 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC 39,765 39,765
MISSILE--DEM/VAL.
036 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE.......... 1,246,228 -460,000 786,228
......................... Program decrease....... [-460,000]
037 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER........ 3,512 10,000 13,512
......................... Technology transfer [10,000]
program increase.
038 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 54,637 54,637
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
040 0604422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON... 76,108 -20,000 56,108
......................... Unjustified increase [-20,000]
and analysis of
alternatives.
044 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 6,457 14,000 20,457
SPACE.
......................... SSA, Weather, or Launch [14,000]
Activities.
045 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.... 246,514 246,514
046 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC 75,166 75,166
DETERRENT.
049 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR 8,830 -4,900 3,930
DOMINANCE.
......................... Program reduction...... [-4,900]
050 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 14,939 14,939
RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
051 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING 142,288 142,288
SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT)
(SPACE).
052 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 81,732 81,732
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 2,062,575 -460,900 1,601,675
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
055 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 929 929
DEVELOPMENT.
056 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 60,256 60,256
ENTERPRISE.
057 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT 5,973 5,973
058 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)-- 32,624 32,624
EMD.
059 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS....... 24,208 24,208
060 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 32,374 32,374
SYSTEMS.
061 0604426F SPACE FENCE................ 243,909 243,909
062 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK. 8,358 8,358
063 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM 292,235 10,000 302,235
(SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
......................... Exploitation of SBIRS.. [10,000]
064 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 40,154 40,154
DEVELOPMENT.
065 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............... 2,506 2,506
066 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT....... 57,678 57,678
067 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS....... 8,187 8,187
068 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES..... 15,795 15,795
069 0604800F F-35--EMD.................. 589,441 589,441
071 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 84,438 100,000 184,438
VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
EMD.
......................... EELV Program--Launch [-84,438]
Vehicle Development.
......................... EELV Program--Rocket [184,438]
Propulsion System
Development.
072 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON. 36,643 36,643
073 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.... 142,551 142,551
074 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 140,640 140,640
INCREMENT 3.2B.
075 0605214F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE 3,598 3,598
DEVELOPMENT.
076 0605221F KC-46...................... 602,364 -200,000 402,364
......................... Program decrease....... [-200,000]
077 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING.... 11,395 11,395
078 0605229F CSAR HH-60 RECAPITALIZATION 156,085 156,085
080 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 228,230 228,230
(SPACE).
081 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).... 72,084 72,084
082 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 56,343 -4,000 52,343
(SPACE).
......................... Excess to need......... [-4,000]
083 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2 47,629 47,629
RDT&E.
084 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 271,961 271,961
SYSTEM.
085 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 212,121 212,121
MODERNIZATION.
086 0207171F F-15 EPAWSS................ 186,481 186,481
087 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 18,082 18,082
TRAINING.
088 0305176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER 993 993
LOCATOR.
089 0307581F NEXTGEN JSTARS............. 44,343 44,343
091 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT 102,620 102,620
REPLACEMENT (PAR).
092 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS..... 14,563 14,563
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 3,847,791 -94,000 3,753,791
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
093 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 23,844 23,844
DEVELOPMENT.
094 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 68,302 5,000 73,302
......................... Airborne Sensor Data [5,000]
Correlation Project.
095 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE..... 34,918 34,918
097 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 10,476 10,476
EVALUATION.
098 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 673,908 673,908
099 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 21,858 21,858
PROGRAM (SPACE).
100 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP)... 28,228 28,228
101 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND 40,518 40,518
MODERNIZATION--TEST AND
EVALUATION SUPPORT.
102 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 27,895 27,895
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
103 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 16,507 16,507
MATURATION.
104 0606116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING 18,997 18,997
RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
106 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 185,305 185,305
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
107 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION 4,841 4,841
SERVICES (EIS).
108 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT 15,357 15,357
SUPPORT.
109 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING..... 1,315 1,315
111 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES... 2,315 2,315
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 1,174,584 5,000 1,179,584
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
112 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 350,232 350,232
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
113 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 10,465 10,465
FLIGHT TRAINING.
114 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE..... 24,577 24,577
117 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 69,694 69,694
PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
118 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 26,718 26,718
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
119 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E...... 10,807 10,807
121 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS............. 74,520 74,520
122 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE 451 451
(ALCM).
123 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS............. 2,245 2,245
124 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS.............. 108,183 108,183
125 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS........ 178,929 178,929
126 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM-- 28,481 28,481
USSTRATCOM.
127 0101314F NIGHT FIST--USSTRATCOM..... 87 87
128 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC 5,315 5,315
COMMUNICATIONS.
131 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 8,090 8,090
STRATCOM--SPACE ACTIVITIES.
132 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................... 123,439 123,439
134 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS............. 16,200 16,200
......................... A-10 restoration: [16,200]
operational flight
program development.
135 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS............. 148,297 40,000 188,297
......................... AESA Radar Integration. [50,000]
......................... Unobligated balances... [-10,000]
136 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS............ 179,283 -10,000 169,283
......................... Duplicative effort with [-10,000]
the Navy.
137 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 14,860 14,860
SUPPRESSION.
138 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS............ 262,552 262,552
139 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS............. 115,395 -25,000 90,395
......................... Program delay.......... [-25,000]
140 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 43,360 43,360
141 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 46,160 46,160
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
143 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY. 412 412
144 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE.. 657 657
145 0207247F AF TENCAP.................. 31,428 31,428
146 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,105 1,105
PROCUREMENT.
147 0207253F COMPASS CALL............... 14,249 14,249
148 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 103,942 103,942
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
149 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 12,793 12,793
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
150 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 21,193 21,193
CENTER (AOC).
151 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 559 559
CENTER (CRC).
152 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 161,812 161,812
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
153 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 6,001 6,001
SYSTEMS.
155 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 7,793 7,793
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
156 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY- 12,465 12,465
MOD.
157 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK... 1,681 1,681
159 0207452F DCAPES..................... 16,796 16,796
161 0207590F SEEK EAGLE................. 21,564 21,564
162 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 24,994 24,994
SIMULATION.
163 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 6,035 6,035
CENTERS.
164 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 4,358 4,358
EXERCISES.
165 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS... 55,835 55,835
167 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 12,874 12,874
OPERATIONS.
168 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 7,681 7,681
OPERATIONS.
171 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED ON 5,974 5,974
NETWORK (GSIN).
177 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 13,815 13,815
INTELLIGENCE.
178 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 80,360 80,360
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
179 0303001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS 3,907 3,907
TERMINALS (FAB-T).
180 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 75,062 75,062
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
181 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 46,599 46,599
SECURITY PROGRAM.
183 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT-- 2,470 2,470
DATA INITIATIVE.
186 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE. 112,775 112,775
189 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,235 4,235
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
192 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 7,879 -2,000 5,879
(SPACE).
......................... Unjustified increase in [-2,000]
systems engineering.
193 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE............ 29,955 29,955
194 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 21,485 21,485
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
195 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS............. 2,515 2,515
198 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE 472 472
ACTIVITIES.
199 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION 12,137 12,137
200 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 361 361
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
203 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND 3,162 3,162
EVALUATION CENTER.
204 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, 1,543 1,543
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
205 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 7,860 7,860
SERVICE (IBS).
206 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 6,902 6,902
(SPACE).
207 0305202F DRAGON U-2................. 34,471 34,471
209 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 50,154 10,000 60,154
SYSTEMS.
......................... Wide Area Surveillance [10,000]
Capability.
210 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 13,245 13,245
SYSTEMS.
211 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 22,784 22,784
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
212 0305219F MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV........ 716 716
213 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................... 208,053 208,053
214 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 21,587 21,587
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
215 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK EXECUTIVE 43,986 43,986
AGENT (CDL EA).
216 0305238F NATO AGS................... 197,486 197,486
217 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE. 28,434 28,434
218 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT...... 180,902 180,902
220 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM....... 81,911 81,911
221 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.... 3,149 3,149
222 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 14,447 14,447
(SPACE).
223 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 20,077 20,077
OPERATIONS.
225 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW). 853 853
226 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON..... 33,962 33,962
227 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF). 42,864 42,864
228 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)......... 54,807 54,807
229 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM............. 31,010 31,010
230 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 6,802 6,802
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
231 0401219F KC-10S..................... 1,799 1,799
232 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT 48,453 48,453
233 0401318F CV-22...................... 36,576 36,576
235 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 7,963 7,963
CONTROL.
236 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 1,525 1,525
237 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 112,676 112,676
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
238 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 12,657 12,657
239 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING...... 1,836 1,836
240 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES. 121 121
241 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 5,911 5,911
AGENCY.
242 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 3,604 3,604
PROGRAM.
243 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION... 4,598 4,598
244 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,103 1,103
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
246 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 101,840 101,840
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
246A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 12,780,142 12,780,142
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 17,010,339 29,200 17,039,539
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 26,473,669 -515,700 25,957,969
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, DW
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH 38,436 38,436
INITIATIVE.
002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 333,119 333,119
003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES. 42,022 42,022
004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 56,544 56,544
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION 49,453 10,000 59,453
PROGRAM.
......................... STEM program increase.. [10,000]
006 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES 25,834 10,000 35,834
AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
INSTITUTIONS.
......................... Program increase....... [10,000]
007 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 46,261 46,261
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 591,669 20,000 611,669
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
008 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY. 19,352 19,352
009 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 114,262 114,262
010 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH 51,026 51,026
PROGRAM.
011 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 48,226 48,226
ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
PRIORITIES.
012 0602303E INFORMATION & 356,358 356,358
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
014 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE. 29,265 29,265
015 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 208,111 208,111
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
016 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.... 13,727 13,727
018 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY........ 314,582 314,582
019 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 220,115 -25,000 195,115
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Program decrease....... [-25,000]
020 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY..... 174,798 174,798
021 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 155,415 155,415
DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES.
022 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 8,824 8,824
INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
023 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 37,517 37,517
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,751,578 -25,000 1,726,578
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
024 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 25,915 25,915
TECHNOLOGY.
026 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 71,171 65,000 136,171
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
......................... Anti-Tunneling Defense [40,000]
System.
......................... Increase for Combating [25,000]
Terrorism Technology
Activities.
027 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING 21,782 21,782
028 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION 290,654 290,654
INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATION
PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
030 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 12,139 12,139
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
031 0603177C DISCRIMINATION SENSOR 28,200 28,200
TECHNOLOGY.
032 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY......... 45,389 -42,258 3,131
......................... High Power Directed [-30,291]
Energy--Missile
Destruct.
......................... Move to support [-11,967]
Multiple Object Kill
Vehicle.
033 0603179C ADVANCED C4ISR............. 9,876 9,876
034 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH.......... 17,364 17,364
035 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 18,802 18,802
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
036 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR 2,679 2,679
THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)--
THEATER CAPABILITY.
037 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA 64,708 64,708
TECHNOLOGY.
038 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS. 185,043 185,043
039 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 126,692 126,692
TECHNOLOGY.
040 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS....... 14,645 14,645
041 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 59,830 -10,000 49,830
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
......................... Program decrease....... [-10,000]
042 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE 46,753 -44,558 2,195
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... MOKV Concept [-44,558]
Development.
043 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 140,094 140,094
DEFENSE PROGRAM--ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENT.
044 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH.............. 118,666 -10,000 108,666
......................... Program decrease....... [-10,000]
045 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 43,966 -13,500 30,466
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Program decrease....... [-13,500]
046 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY 141,540 -12,000 129,540
DEMONSTRATIONS.
......................... Program decrease....... [-12,000]
047 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 6,980 6,980
CAPABILITIES.
050 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING 157,056 -15,000 142,056
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM.
......................... Unjustified growth..... [-15,000]
051 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 33,515 10,000 43,515
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Efforts to counter-ISIL [10,000]
and Russian aggression.
052 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 16,543 16,543
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
053 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION 29,888 29,888
ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY.
054 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 65,836 65,836
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
055 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY 79,037 20,000 99,037
DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT.
......................... Trusted Source [20,000]
Implementation for
Field Programmable Gate
Arrays Study.
056 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM.. 9,626 9,626
057 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 79,021 79,021
TECHNOLOGIES.
058 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 201,335 201,335
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
059 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 452,861 -25,000 427,861
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Excessive program [-25,000]
growth.
060 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.......... 257,127 257,127
061 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 10,771 10,771
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
062 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 15,202 15,202
INSTITUTE.
063 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 90,500 -20,000 70,500
PROJECTS.
......................... Unjustified growth..... [-20,000]
066 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & 18,377 18,377
TECHNOLOGY.
067 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & 82,589 82,589
TECHNOLOGY.
068 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 37,420 37,420
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
069 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............... 42,488 42,488
070 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 57,741 57,741
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,229,821 -97,316 3,132,505
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES
071 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 31,710 31,710
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
073 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................... 90,567 90,567
074 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS 15,900 4,000 19,900
APPLICATION PROGRAM.
......................... Advanced Sensors [4,000]
Application Program.
075 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 52,758 52,758
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
076 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 228,021 228,021
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
077 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 1,284,891 1,284,891
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT.
077A 0603XXXX MULTIPLE-OBJECT KILL 86,525 86,525
VEHICLE.
......................... Adding from Weapons [11,967]
Technology Line.
......................... Establish MOKV Program [74,558]
of Record.
078 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 172,754 172,754
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
079 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 233,588 233,588
SENSORS.
080 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS...... 409,088 409,088
080A 0603XXXC WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY--HIGH 30,291 30,291
POWER DE.
......................... High Power Directed [30,291]
Energy--Missile
Destruct.
081 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA...... 400,387 400,387
082 0603892C AEGIS BMD.................. 843,355 27,320 870,675
......................... Undifferentiated Block [27,320]
IB costs.
083 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & 31,632 31,632
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
084 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 23,289 23,289
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
085 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 450,085 450,085
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATI.
086 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 49,570 49,570
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
087 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION 49,211 49,211
& OPERATIONS CENTER
(MDIOC).
088 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH........... 9,583 9,583
089 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 72,866 72,866
(SBX).
090 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 102,795 164,800 267,595
PROGRAMS.
......................... Arrow 3................ [19,500]
......................... Arrow System [45,500]
Improvement Program.
......................... David's Sling.......... [99,800]
091 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 274,323 274,323
TEST.
092 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 513,256 513,256
TARGETS.
092A 0603XXXC INF RESPONSE OPTION 25,000 25,000
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Program increase....... [25,000]
093 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING...... 10,129 10,129
094 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE.......... 10,350 10,350
095 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 1,518 5,000 6,518
CORROSION PROGRAM.
......................... Corrosion.............. [5,000]
096 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 96,300 96,300
INITIATIVES.
097 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 469,798 469,798
TECHNOLOGIES.
098 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) 3,129 3,129
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM
(UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT.
103 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY 25,200 25,200
DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION
AND INTEROPERABILITY
ASSESSMENTS.
105 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION 137,564 137,564
RADAR (LRDR).
106 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE 278,944 278,944
INTERCEPTORS.
107 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 26,225 26,225
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT
TEST.
108 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST............. 55,148 55,148
109 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 86,764 86,764
SENSOR TEST.
110 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).... 34,970 34,970
111 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 172,645 172,645
DEVELOPMENT.
112 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 64,618 64,618
MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST.
114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 2,660 2,660
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 963 963
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 6,816,554 342,936 7,159,490
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
116 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 8,800 8,800
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
117 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 78,817 78,817
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
118 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 303,647 303,647
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT 23,424 23,424
PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO).
120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION 14,285 14,285
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
(JTIDS).
121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 7,156 7,156
DEFEAT CAPABILITIES.
122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,542 12,542
DEVELOPMENT.
123 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY 191 191
INITIATIVE.
124 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 3,273 3,273
PROGRAM.
125 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 5,962 5,962
INITIATIVES.
126 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 13,412 13,412
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
127 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION 2,223 2,223
128 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES 31,660 31,660
(DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
129 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND 13,085 13,085
ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
(DRAS).
130 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 7,209 7,209
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
131 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 15,158 15,158
SYSTEM.
132 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 4,414 4,414
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 545,258 545,258
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
133 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING 5,581 5,581
SYSTEM (DRRS).
134 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE 3,081 3,081
DEVELOPMENT.
135 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION 229,125 229,125
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT
(CTEIP).
136 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 28,674 -7,000 21,674
......................... Program decrease....... [-7,000]
138 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 45,235 45,235
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
139 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT 24,936 24,936
AND ANALYSIS.
141 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 35,471 35,471
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
144 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING........ 37,655 37,655
145 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 3,015 3,015
SUPPORT--OSD.
146 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 5,287 5,287
SECURITY.
147 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 5,289 5,289
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
148 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 2,120 2,120
(INTELLIGENCE).
149 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 102,264 102,264
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
158 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 2,169 2,169
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER.
159 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS 13,960 13,960
160 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 51,775 51,775
INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC).
161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 9,533 9,533
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 17,371 4,000 21,371
EVALUATION.
......................... Program increase....... [4,000]
163 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 71,571 71,571
164 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 4,123 4,123
ASSESSMENTS.
165 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY 1,946 1,946
INITIATIVE (DOSI).
166 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 7,673 7,673
SUPPORT.
169 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 10,413 10,413
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
170 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION 971 971
PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO).
171 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE......... 6,579 6,579
173 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 43,811 43,811
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)--
MHA.
174 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA......... 35,871 35,871
176 0903230D8W WHS--MISSION OPERATIONS 1,072 1,072
SUPPORT - IT.
177A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 49,500 49,500
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 856,071 -3,000 853,071
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
178 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM 7,929 7,929
(ESS).
179 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 1,750 1,750
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MANA.
180 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 294 294
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
181 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 22,576 22,576
AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
182 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL 1,901 1,901
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
183 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 8,474 8,474
COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
TSCMIS).
184 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 33,561 33,561
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
186 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,061 3,061
SYSTEM (PDAS).
187 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY....... 64,921 64,921
189 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 3,645 3,645
INFORMATION SHARING.
193 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 963 963
SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
194 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 10,186 10,186
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
195 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 36,883 36,883
DCS.
196 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 13,735 13,735
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
197 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 6,101 6,101
(PKI).
198 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 43,867 43,867
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
199 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 8,957 8,957
SECURITY PROGRAM.
200 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 146,890 146,890
SECURITY PROGRAM.
201 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL 21,503 21,503
SYSTEM.
202 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 20,342 20,342
ORGANIZATION.
203 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE 444 444
SERVICES (NCES).
205 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM........... 1,736 1,736
206 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR 65,060 -45,600 19,460
CONTINGENCIES.
......................... Ahead of need.......... [-45,600]
210 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 2,976 2,976
215 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS........ 4,182 4,182
216 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY............. 18,130 18,130
218 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,302 5,302
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
221 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,239 3,239
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
225 0305327V INSIDER THREAT............. 11,733 11,733
226 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 2,119 2,119
TRANSFER PROGRAM.
234 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.... 24,605 4,000 28,605
......................... Casting Solutions for [4,000]
Readiness Program.
235 0708012S LOGISTICS SUPPORT 1,770 1,770
ACTIVITIES.
236 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ--OJCS........ 2,978 2,978
237 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................... 18,151 5,000 23,151
......................... Medium Altitude Long [5,000]
Endurance Tactical
(MALET) MQ-9 Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle.
238 1105232BB RQ-11 UAV.................. 758 758
240 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS........... 173,934 15,200 189,134
......................... MC-130 Terrain [15,200]
Following/Terrain
Avoidance Radar Program.
241 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 6,866 6,866
DEVELOPMENT.
242 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS... 63,008 63,008
243 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS............ 25,342 25,342
244 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS........... 3,401 3,401
245 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES...... 3,212 3,212
246 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS........... 63,597 1,000 64,597
......................... Combat Diver........... [1,000]
247 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 3,933 3,933
ACTIVITIES.
248 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 10,623 10,623
INTELLIGENCE.
248A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 3,564,272 3,564,272
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 4,538,910 -20,400 4,518,510
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 18,329,861 217,220 18,547,081
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 76,838 76,838
EVALUATION.
002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 46,882 46,882
EVALUATION.
003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES 46,838 46,838
AND ANALYSES.
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 170,558 170,558
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST 170,558 170,558
& EVAL, DEFENSE.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RDT&E........... 69,779,182 -1,426,673 68,352,509
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 House
Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 1,500 1,500
SURVIVABILITY.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 1,500 1,500
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 1,500 1,500
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
231A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 35,747 35,747
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 35,747 35,747
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 35,747 35,747
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
133 0205671F JOINT COUNTER RCIED 300 300
ELECTRONIC WARFARE.
246A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 16,800 16,800
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 17,100 17,100
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 17,100 17,100
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
........................
........................ ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
026 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 25,000 25,000
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
........................ Combating Terrorism and [25,000]
Technical Support Office.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 25,000 25,000
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
248A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 137,087 137,087
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 137,087 137,087
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 137,087 25,000 162,087
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
........................
........................ TOTAL RDT&E............ 191,434 25,000 216,434
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 1,094,429 500,000 1,594,429
Force Readiness Restoration--Operations [500,000]
Tempo.......................................
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 1,546,129 141,700 1,687,829
Flying Hour Program Restoration Unfunded [55,000]
Requirement.................................
H-60 A-L Conversion Acceleration............ [86,700]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 3,158,606 114,000 3,272,606
Army Reserve cyber education efforts........ [6,000]
Insider Threat Unfunded Requirements........ [80,000]
Open Source Intelligence/Human Terrain [28,000]
Systems Unfunded Requirements...............
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 1,214,116 1,730 1,215,846
Gun Tube Depot Maintenance Shortfall [1,730]
Recovery Acceleration.......................
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 7,616,008 -8,500 7,607,508
Public Affairs at Local Installations [-8,500]
Unjustified Growth..........................
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 2,617,169 192,700 2,809,869
MODERNIZATION..................................
GTMO Critical Building Maintenance.......... [20,500]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [172,200]
170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT....... 448,633 21,000 469,633
Afloat Forward Staging Base Unfunded [21,000]
Requirement.................................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 17,695,090 962,630 18,657,720
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 981,000 9,800 990,800
Cyber Defender (25D) Series Course.......... [9,800]
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 940,872 43,600 984,472
Cyber Basic Officer Leadership Course....... [3,100]
Initial Entry Rotary Wing Training Backlog [40,500]
Reduction...................................
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 230,324 17,300 247,624
Advanced Civil Schooling - Civilian Graduate [-3,000]
School 10 Percent Reduction.................
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Training.......... [20,300]
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 603,519 28,000 631,519
Intelligence Support for PACOM Unfunded [28,000]
Requirement.................................
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 491,922 491,922
330 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS........... 170,118 170,118
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 3,417,755 98,700 3,516,455
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..................... 714,781 360 715,141
TRADOC Mobile Training Team (MTT) Support [360]
Unfunded Requirement........................
390 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 384,813 -8,500 376,313
Unjustified Growth in Public Affairs........ [-8,500]
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 1,119,848 -4,500 1,115,348
Spirit of America program growth............ [-4,500]
530 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 490,368 490,368
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 2,709,810 -12,640 2,697,170
UNDISTRIBUTED
540 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -1,107,000 -1,107,000
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-83,400]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-431,000]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [3,300]
Unobligated balances........................ [-595,900]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -1,107,000 -1,107,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 23,822,655 -58,310 23,764,345
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 87,587 87,587
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 59,574 59,574
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 570,852 570,852
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 245,686 13,600 259,286
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [13,600]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 963,699 13,600 977,299
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
140 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 18,390 18,390
170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 52,928 52,928
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 71,318 71,318
UNDISTRIBUTED
190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -7,600 -7,600
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-7,600]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -7,600 -7,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 1,035,017 6,000 1,041,017
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 709,433 385,100 1,094,533
Increased Operations Tempo to Meet Readiness [385,100]
Objectives..................................
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 943,609 119,400 1,063,009
C3 High Frequency Radio System Unfunded [5,600]
Requirement.................................
Operational Support and Initial Entry Rotary [69,900]
Wing Training...............................
Restoration of Flying Hours Unfunded [43,900]
Requirement.................................
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 166,848 166,848
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 1,022,970 1,022,970
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 673,680 35,200 708,880
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [35,200]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,516,540 539,700 4,056,240
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
140 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 59,629 -410 59,219
National Guard State Partnership Program [1,000]
increase....................................
NGB Heritage Painting Program............... [-1,410]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 59,629 -410 59,219
UNDISTRIBUTED
200 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -25,300 -25,300
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-25,300]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -25,300 -25,300
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 3,576,169 513,990 4,090,159
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 4,940,365 3,300 4,943,665
Aviation Readiness Restoration--CH-53 [3,300]
Contract Maintenance........................
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.............................. 1,830,611 1,830,611
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 103,456 6,800 110,256
MV-22 Fleet Engineering Support Unfunded [6,800]
Requirement.................................
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 376,844 13,900 390,744
Aviation Readiness Restoration--AV-8B [4,000]
Program Related Logistics...................
Aviation Readiness Restoration--CH-53 [1,900]
Program Related Logisitics..................
Aviation Readiness Restoration--MV-22 [1,200]
Program Related Logisitics..................
MV-22 Fleet Engineering Support Unfunded [6,800]
Requirement.................................
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 897,536 17,000 914,536
Aviation Readiness Restoration--AV-8B Depot [11,200]
Maintenance.................................
Aviation Readiness Restoration--CH-53 Depot [1,000]
Maintenance.................................
Aviation Readiness Restoration--F-18 Depot [4,800]
Maintenance.................................
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 544,056 11,900 555,956
Aviation Readiness Restoration--MV-22 [5,300]
Aviation Logisitics.........................
KC-130J Aviation Logistics Unfunded [6,600]
Requirement.................................
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 4,287,658 4,287,658
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 5,960,951 5,960,951
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 1,554,863 1,554,863
200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT........................ 2,443 2,443
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 73,110 73,110
230 CRUISE MISSILE.................................. 110,734 110,734
240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE......................... 1,206,736 1,206,736
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 523,122 12,000 535,122
Ship Self-Defense Systems Maintenance [12,000]
Backlog Reduction...........................
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 2,220,423 25,300 2,245,723
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [25,300]
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 4,472,468 4,472,468
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 29,105,376 90,200 29,195,576
MOBILIZATION
320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.............. 6,464 500 6,964
Aviation Readiness Restoration--F-18 [500]
Aircraft Activations/Inactivations..........
330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 361,764 361,764
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 368,228 500 368,728
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
380 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 9,035 9,035
410 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 8,171 8,171
420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 168,471 -15,500 152,971
Civilian Institutions Graduate Education [-16,500]
Program.....................................
Naval Sea Cadets............................ [1,000]
440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 234,233 500 234,733
1-800 US Navy Call Center.................. [500]
470 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 47,653 47,653
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 467,563 -15,000 452,563
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 923,771 -9,000 914,771
Navy Fleet Band National Tours.............. [-5,000]
Unjustified Growth External Relations....... [-3,500]
Unjustified Growth Navy Call Center......... [-500]
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 13,967 -3,500 10,467
Navy External Relations..................... [-3,500]
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 265,948 -5,000 260,948
Navy Fleet Band National Tour............... [-5,000]
590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT......... 48,587 48,587
600 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS.......................... 25,599 25,599
610 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS............ 72,768 72,768
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 577,803 577,803
710 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 560,754 560,754
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 2,489,197 -17,500 2,471,697
UNDISTRIBUTED
720 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -887,100 -887,100
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-591,400]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-87,000]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [2,300]
Unobligated balances........................ [-211,000]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -887,100 -887,100
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 32,430,364 -828,900 31,601,464
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 931,079 931,079
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 227,583 227,583
050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........ 746,237 28,800 775,037
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [28,800]
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 2,057,362 2,057,362
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,962,261 28,800 3,991,061
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 40,786 40,786
120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 164,806 164,806
140 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 23,397 23,397
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 228,989 228,989
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 358,395 -15,800 342,595
Unjustified Growth Marine Corps Heritage [-15,800]
Center......................................
200 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 45,429 45,429
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 403,824 -15,800 388,024
UNDISTRIBUTED
210 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -338,200 -338,200
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-24,600]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-28,000]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [800]
Unobligated balances........................ [-286,400]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -338,200 -338,200
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 4,595,074 -325,200 4,269,874
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 563,722 43,500 607,222
Reversing the disestablishment of HSC-84 and [43,500]
HSC-85......................................
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 6,218 6,218
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 82,712 82,712
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 326 326
050 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 13,436 13,436
070 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 557 557
130 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 48,513 700 49,213
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [700]
140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 102,858 102,858
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 818,342 44,200 862,542
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 1,505 1,505
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 1,505 1,505
UNDISTRIBUTED
210 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -39,700 -39,700
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-39,700]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -39,700 -39,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 819,847 4,500 824,347
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 97,631 97,631
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 18,254 18,254
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 28,653 1,400 30,053
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [1,400]
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 111,923 111,923
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 256,461 1,400 257,861
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 10,866 10,866
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 8,785 8,785
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 19,651 19,651
UNDISTRIBUTED
080 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -1,000 -1,000
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-1,000]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -1,000 -1,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 276,112 400 276,512
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 3,336,868 275,600 3,612,468
A-10 restoration: Force Structure [249,700]
Restoration.................................
A-10 to F-15E Training Transition........... [-1,400]
EC-130H Force Structure Restoration......... [27,300]
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 1,897,315 37,700 1,935,015
Increase Range Use Support Unfunded [37,700]
Requirement.................................
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 1,797,549 -78,200 1,719,349
A-10 to F-15E Training Transition........... [-78,200]
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 6,537,127 6,537,127
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 1,997,712 135,100 2,132,812
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [135,100]
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 2,841,948 2,841,948
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 930,341 930,341
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 924,845 924,845
120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 900,965 900,965
135 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 907,496 907,496
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 22,072,166 370,200 22,442,366
MOBILIZATION
160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,617,571 1,617,571
170 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 259,956 259,956
MODERNIZATION..................................
180 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 708,799 708,799
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 2,586,326 2,586,326
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
220 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 228,500 228,500
MODERNIZATION..................................
230 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 772,870 772,870
240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 359,304 20,000 379,304
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Flight Training [20,000]
Acceleration................................
250 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 710,553 16,000 726,553
Unmanned Aerial Surveillance (UAS) Training. [16,000]
260 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 228,252 -930 227,322
Air Force Civilian Graduate Education [-930]
Program Unjustified Growth..................
280 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 375,513 375,513
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 79,690 79,690
330 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 59,263 59,263
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 2,813,945 35,070 2,849,015
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 1,141,491 1,141,491
360 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 61,745 61,745
370 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 298,759 298,759
MODERNIZATION..................................
380 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,108,220 1,108,220
390 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 689,797 -20,700 669,097
Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management [-20,700]
System......................................
420 CIVIL AIR PATROL................................ 25,411 2,500 27,911
Civil Air Patrol............................ [2,500]
460 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 519,626 519,626
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 3,845,049 -18,200 3,826,849
UNDISTRIBUTED
470 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -813,600 -813,600
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-562,100]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-217,000]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [2,900]
Unobligated balances........................ [-37,400]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -813,600 -813,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 31,317,486 -426,530 30,890,956
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,779,378 2,500 1,781,878
A-10 restoration: Force Structure [2,500]
Restoration.................................
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 487,036 487,036
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 109,342 300 109,642
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [300]
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 373,707 373,707
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,749,463 2,800 2,752,263
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 53,921 53,921
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 14,359 14,359
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 68,280 68,280
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
110 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -101,000 -101,000
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-101,000]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -101,000 -101,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 2,817,743 -98,200 2,719,543
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS............................. 3,526,471 82,200 3,608,671
A-10 restoration: Force Structure [42,200]
Restoration.................................
Aircraft Support Equipment Shortfall [40,000]
Restoration.................................
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 740,779 740,779
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,763,859 1,763,859
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 288,786 18,800 307,586
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [18,800]
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 582,037 582,037
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,901,932 101,000 7,002,932
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 23,626 1,000 24,626
National Guard State Partnership Program [1,000]
increase....................................
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 30,652 30,652
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE 54,278 1,000 55,278
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
080 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -162,600 -162,600
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-162,600]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -162,600 -162,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 6,956,210 -60,600 6,895,610
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
020 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 534,795 534,795
030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES..... 4,862,368 84,600 4,946,968
Global Inform and Influence Activities [15,000]
Increase....................................
Increased Support for Counterterrorism [25,000]
Operations..................................
USSOCOM Combat Development Activities....... [44,600]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,397,163 84,600 5,481,763
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
060 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND 354,372 354,372
RECRUITING.....................................
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 354,372 354,372
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
070 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS......................... 160,320 20,000 180,320
STARBASE.................................... [20,000]
100 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 1,374,536 1,374,536
110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................ 642,551 1,000 643,551
Critical Language Training.................. [1,000]
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 1,282,755 10,000 1,292,755
SHARKSEER................................... [10,000]
150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY........................ 366,429 366,429
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 192,625 192,625
190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 524,723 524,723
240 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY................. 415,696 415,696
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 2,753,771 2,753,771
270 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.......................... 432,068 432,068
290 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT................... 110,612 110,612
295 OFFICE OF NET ASSESSMENT........................ 9,092 9,092
Transfer from line 300...................... [9,092]
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 1,388,285 -26,592 1,361,693
Commission to Assess the Threat to the U.S. [2,000]
from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack...........
OUSD AT&L Congressional Mandate (BRAC [-10,500]
Support)....................................
Program decrease............................ [-24,000]
Readiness environmental protection [15,000]
initiative--program increase................
Transfer funding for Office of Net [-9,092]
Assessment to line 295......................
310 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE 83,263 83,263
ACTIVITIES.....................................
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................ 621,688 621,688
330 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 14,379,428 5,000 14,384,428
Program increase............................ [5,000]
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 24,728,750 18,500 24,747,250
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
340 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -494,700 -494,700
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-29,700]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-78,400]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [2,700]
Unobligated balances........................ [-389,300]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -494,700 -494,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 30,480,285 -391,600 30,088,685
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
020 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID... 100,266 100,266
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 100,266 100,266
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS......... 100,266 100,266
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 138,227,228 -1,664,450 136,562,778
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 257,900 257,900
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 1,110,836 1,110,836
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 261,943 261,943
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 22,160 22,160
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 1,119,201 1,119,201
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 117,881 117,881
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 50,000 50,000
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 4,500,666 25,800 4,526,466
Army expenses related to Syria Train and [25,800]
Equip program...............................
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM........... 10,000 -5,000 5,000
Program decrease............................ [-5,000]
160 RESET........................................... 1,834,777 1,834,777
170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT....... 100,000 100,000
AFRICOM Intelligence, Surveilance, and [100,000]
Reconnissance...............................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 9,285,364 120,800 9,406,164
MOBILIZATION
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS....................... 40,000 40,000
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 40,000 40,000
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 529,891 529,891
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 5,033 5,033
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 100,480 100,480
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 154,350 154,350
530 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,267,632 1,267,632
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 2,057,386 2,057,386
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 11,382,750 120,800 11,503,550
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 2,442 2,442
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 813 813
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 779 779
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 20,525 20,525
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 24,559 24,559
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 24,559 24,559
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 1,984 1,984
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 4,671 4,671
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 15,980 15,980
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 12,867 12,867
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 23,134 23,134
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 1,426 1,426
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 60,062 60,062
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 783 783
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 783 783
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 60,845 60,845
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
010 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 2,214,899 337,743 2,552,642
Support for ANSF end strength............... [337,743]
030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 182,751 182,751
040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 281,555 281,555
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE................ 2,679,205 337,743 3,016,948
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
060 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 901,137 901,137
080 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 116,573 116,573
090 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 65,342 65,342
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR............... 1,083,052 1,083,052
TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND..... 3,762,257 337,743 4,100,000
IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
010 IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND....................... 715,000 715,000
SUBTOTAL IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.......... 715,000 715,000
TOTAL IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND............ 715,000 715,000
SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
010 SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND...................... 600,000 -68,550 531,450
Realignment to Air Force.................... [-42,750]
Realignment to Army......................... [-25,800]
SUBTOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND......... 600,000 -68,550 531,450
TOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND........... 600,000 -68,550 531,450
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 358,417 358,417
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 110 110
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 4,513 4,513
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 126,501 126,501
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 75,897 75,897
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 2,770 2,770
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 34,101 34,101
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 1,184,878 1,184,878
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 16,663 16,663
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 1,922,829 1,922,829
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 33,577 33,577
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 26,454 26,454
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 22,305 22,305
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 513,969 513,969
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 10,007 10,007
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 60,865 60,865
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 275,231 275,231
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 7,819 7,819
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 61,422 61,422
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 4,738,328 4,738,328
MOBILIZATION
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 5,307 5,307
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 160,002 160,002
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 165,309 165,309
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 44,845 44,845
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 44,845 44,845
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 2,513 2,513
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 500 500
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 5,309 5,309
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 1,469 1,469
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 156,671 156,671
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 8,834 8,834
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 1,490 1,490
710 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 6,320 6,320
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 183,106 183,106
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 5,131,588 5,131,588
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 353,133 353,133
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 259,676 259,676
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 240,000 240,000
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 16,026 16,026
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 868,835 868,835
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 37,862 37,862
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 37,862 37,862
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 43,767 43,767
200 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 2,070 2,070
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 45,837 45,837
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 952,534 952,534
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 4,033 4,033
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 60 60
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 20,300 20,300
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 7,250 7,250
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 31,643 31,643
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 31,643 31,643
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 2,500 2,500
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 955 955
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,455 3,455
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 3,455 3,455
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,505,738 42,750 1,548,488
Air Force expenses related to Syria Train [42,750]
and Equip program...........................
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 914,973 914,973
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 31,978 31,978
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,192,765 1,192,765
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 85,625 85,625
MODERNIZATION..................................
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 917,269 917,269
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 30,219 30,219
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 174,734 174,734
100 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 869 869
110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 5,008 5,008
120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 100,190 616,500 716,690
Assistance for the border security of Jordan [300,000]
Jordanian Military Capability Enhancement... [300,000]
Support to Jordanian Training and Operations [16,500]
135 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 22,893 22,893
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 4,982,261 659,250 5,641,511
MOBILIZATION
140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 2,995,703 2,995,703
150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 108,163 108,163
160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 511,059 511,059
180 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 4,642 4,642
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 3,619,567 3,619,567
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
190 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 92 92
240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 11,986 11,986
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 12,078 12,078
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 86,716 86,716
380 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 3,836 3,836
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 165,348 165,348
410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 204,683 204,683
450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 61 61
460 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 15,463 15,463
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 476,107 476,107
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 9,090,013 659,250 9,749,263
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 51,086 51,086
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 7,020 7,020
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 58,106 58,106
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 58,106 58,106
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 19,900 19,900
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 19,900 19,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 19,900 19,900
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 9,900 9,900
030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES..... 2,345,835 79,000 2,424,835
Classified adjustment....................... [64,000]
Global Inform and Influence Activities [15,000]
Increase....................................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,355,735 79,000 2,434,735
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
090 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 18,474 18,474
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 29,579 29,579
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 110,000 110,000
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 5,960 5,960
190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 1,677,000 1,677,000
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 73,000 73,000
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 106,709 215,000 321,709
U.S. Special Operations Command inform and [15,000]
influence activities........................
Ukraine Train & Equip....................... [200,000]
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................ 2,102 2,102
330 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,427,074 1,427,074
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 3,449,898 215,000 3,664,898
ACTIVITIES..................................
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 5,805,633 294,000 6,099,633
COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
090 COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND.............. 2,100,000 -2,100,000 0
Program decrease............................ [-2,100,000]
SUBTOTAL COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND. 2,100,000 -2,100,000 0
TOTAL COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND... 2,100,000 -2,100,000 0
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 39,738,283 -756,757 38,981,526
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4303. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4303. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS (In Thousands
of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 68,873 68,873
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 508,008 508,008
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 763,300 763,300
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,054,322 1,054,322
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 438,909 438,909
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 421,269 421,269
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 164,743 164,743
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,419,424 3,419,424
MOBILIZATION
180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.............................. 401,638 401,638
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS....................... 261,683 261,683
200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS......................... 6,532 6,532
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 669,853 669,853
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
210 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 131,536 131,536
220 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 47,843 47,843
230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING....................... 42,565 42,565
240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.......... 490,378 490,378
300 EXAMINING....................................... 194,079 194,079
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 227,951 227,951
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 161,048 161,048
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 1,295,400 1,295,400
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 485,778 485,778
360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 813,881 813,881
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 322,127 322,127
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,781,350 1,781,350
410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 292,532 292,532
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 375,122 375,122
440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.......................... 225,358 225,358
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 239,755 239,755
460 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS........ 223,319 223,319
470 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS............. 469,865 469,865
480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS.................. 40,521 40,521
530 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 630,606 630,606
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 5,900,214 5,900,214
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 11,284,891 11,284,891
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 16,612 16,612
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 486,531 486,531
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 105,446 105,446
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 516,791 516,791
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 348,601 348,601
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 81,350 81,350
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 40,962 40,962
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 1,596,293 1,596,293
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 10,665 10,665
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 14,976 14,976
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 8,841 8,841
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 34,482 34,482
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 1,630,775 1,630,775
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 167,324 167,324
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 741,327 741,327
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 88,775 88,775
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 32,130 32,130
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 703,137 703,137
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 84,066 84,066
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 954,574 954,574
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,771,333 2,771,333
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 6,570 6,570
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 68,452 68,452
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 8,841 8,841
170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 283,670 283,670
180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 2,942 2,942
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 370,475 370,475
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 3,141,808 3,141,808
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 37,225 37,225
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 33,201 33,201
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 787,446 787,446
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 704,415 704,415
140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE.............................. 96,916 96,916
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE.................. 192,198 192,198
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 453,942 453,942
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 351,871 351,871
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 1,186,847 1,186,847
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 123,948 123,948
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 98,914 98,914
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 141,664 141,664
270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................... 371,872 371,872
280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 896,061 896,061
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,476,520 5,476,520
MOBILIZATION
310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE................... 422,846 422,846
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 69,530 69,530
350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS............................ 2,237 2,237
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 21,823 21,823
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 516,436 516,436
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
370 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 149,375 149,375
390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS................. 156,290 156,290
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 653,728 653,728
430 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 196,048 196,048
450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 137,855 137,855
460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 77,257 77,257
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 1,370,553 1,370,553
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 120,812 120,812
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 350,983 350,983
530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 335,482 335,482
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 197,724 197,724
570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN................ 274,936 274,936
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 1,122,178 1,122,178
680 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES......... 4,768 4,768
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 2,406,883 2,406,883
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 9,770,392 9,770,392
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 931,757 931,757
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING......................... 86,259 86,259
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 1,018,016 1,018,016
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
070 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 16,460 16,460
080 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 977 977
090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 97,325 97,325
110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 347,476 347,476
130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 39,963 39,963
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 502,201 502,201
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 37,386 37,386
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 76,105 76,105
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 113,491 113,491
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 1,633,708 1,633,708
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
090 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 14,499 14,499
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 117,601 117,601
120 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 29,382 29,382
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 161,482 161,482
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 13,782 13,782
170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 3,437 3,437
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 3,210 3,210
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 20,429 20,429
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 181,911 181,911
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 924 924
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 924 924
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 924 924
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
100 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 271,177 271,177
110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 382,824 382,824
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 205,078 205,078
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 859,079 859,079
MOBILIZATION
140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 2,229,196 2,229,196
150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 148,318 148,318
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 2,377,514 2,377,514
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
190 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 92,191 92,191
200 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 21,871 21,871
210 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).......... 77,527 77,527
270 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 76,464 76,464
300 EXAMINING....................................... 3,803 3,803
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 180,807 180,807
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 167,478 167,478
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 620,141 620,141
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
350 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................... 862,022 862,022
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 498,053 498,053
410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 900,253 900,253
450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 89,148 89,148
460 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 668,233 668,233
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 3,017,709 3,017,709
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 6,874,443 6,874,443
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 226,243 226,243
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 226,243 226,243
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).......... 13,665 13,665
090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)............ 6,606 6,606
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 20,271 20,271
ACTIVITIES..................................
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 246,514 246,514
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 485,888 485,888
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 485,888 485,888
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY.................. 142,659 142,659
050 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY..................... 78,416 78,416
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 221,075 221,075
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
090 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 570,177 570,177
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 26,073 26,073
180 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY............. 115,372 115,372
200 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE........................ 508,396 508,396
230 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...... 33,577 33,577
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 1,253,595 1,253,595
ACTIVITIES..................................
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 1,960,558 1,960,558
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 14,078 14,078
DEFENSE........................................
030 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.................... 358,496 358,496
040 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD............................ 84,140 84,140
050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY................. 234,829 234,829
060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY................. 292,453 292,453
070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE............ 368,131 368,131
080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.............. 8,232 8,232
090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES... 203,717 203,717
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 1,564,076 1,564,076
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS......... 1,564,076 1,564,076
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 38,290,000 38,290,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2016 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations................... 130,491,227 -291,492 130,199,735
A-10 restoration: Military Personnel........... [132,069]
Basic Housing Allowance........................ [400,000]
EC-130H Force Structure Restoration............ [19,639]
Financial Literacy Training.................... [85,000]
Foreign Currency adjustments................... [-480,500]
National Guard State Partnership Program [5,000]
increase.......................................
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction.... [12,000]
Reversing the disestablishment of HSC-84 and [30,700]
HSC-85.........................................
Unobligated balances........................... [-495,400]
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions. 6,243,449 6,243,449
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2016 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations................... 3,204,758 3,204,758
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2016 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY............................. 50,432 5,000 55,432
Pilot program for Continuous Technology [5,000]
Refreshment....................................
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 50,432 5,000 55,432
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, NAVY
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS.............................. 5,000 5,000
Pilot program for Continuous Technology [5,000]
Refreshment....................................
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, NAVY............. 5,000 5,000
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS.............................. 62,898 5,000 67,898
Pilot program for Continuous Technology [5,000]
Refreshment....................................
TRANSPORTATION OF FALLEN HEROES
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 62,898 5,000 67,898
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
ENERGY MANAGEMENT--DEF
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT--DEF
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)...................... 45,084 45,084
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 45,084 45,084
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
COMMISSARY RESALE STOCKS
COMMISSARY OPERATIONS............................... 1,154,154 322,000 1,476,154
Restoration of Proposed Efficiencies........... [183,000]
Restoration of Savings from Legislative [139,000]
Proposals......................................
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............. 1,154,154 322,000 1,476,154
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
LMSR
T-AKE
MPF MLP
POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING........................ 15,456 674,190 689,646
Transfer from SCN--TAO(X)...................... [674,190]
NATIONAL DEF SEALIFT VESSEL
LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE........................ 124,493 124,493
DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS........................ 8,243 8,243
TAH MAINTENANCE..................................... 27,784 27,784
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................ 25,197 25,197
READY RESERVE FORCE................................. 272,991 272,991
TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND.......... 474,164 674,190 1,148,354
NATIONAL SEA-BASED DETERRENCE FUND
DEVELOPMENT......................................... 971,393 971,393
Transfer from RDTE, Navy, line 050............. [971,393]
PROPULSION.......................................... 419,300 419,300
Transfer from RDTE, Navy, line 045............. [419,300]
TOTAL NATIONAL SEA-BASED DETERRENCE FUND..... 1,390,693 1,390,693
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............................. 139,098 139,098
RDT&E............................................... 579,342 579,342
PROCUREMENT......................................... 2,281 2,281
TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.... 720,721 720,721
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 739,009 50,000 789,009
DEFENSE............................................
Plan Central America........................... [50,000]
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM....................... 111,589 111,589
NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 850,598 50,000 900,598
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 310,459 310,459
RDT&E............................................... 4,700 4,700
PROCUREMENT......................................... 1,000 -1,000 0
Program decrease............................... [-1,000]
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 316,159 -1,000 315,159
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 9,082,298 9,082,298
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 14,892,683 14,892,683
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 2,415,658 2,415,658
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.............................. 1,677,827 1,677,827
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................... 327,967 327,967
EDUCATION AND TRAINING.............................. 750,614 750,614
BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,742,893 1,742,893
RESEARCH............................................ 10,996 10,996
EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT.............................. 59,473 59,473
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT................................ 231,356 231,356
DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION............................ 103,443 103,443
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT............................. 515,910 515,910
MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT.............................. 41,567 41,567
CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT............................ 17,356 17,356
INITIAL OUTFITTING.................................. 33,392 33,392
REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION......................... 330,504 330,504
THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM................. 1,494 1,494
IEHR................................................ 7,897 7,897
UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... -508,000 -508,000
Foreign Currency adjustments................... [-54,700]
Unobligated balances........................... [-453,300]
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 32,243,328 -508,000 31,735,328
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 35,917,538 1,942,883 37,860,421
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2016 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS
TRANSPORTATION OF FALLEN HEROES..................... 2,500 2,500
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 2,500 2,500
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT--DEF
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)...................... 86,350 86,350
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 86,350 86,350
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 186,000 186,000
DEFENSE............................................
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 186,000 186,000
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 10,262 10,262
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 10,262 10,262
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 65,149 65,149
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 192,210 192,210
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 9,460 9,460
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
EDUCATION AND TRAINING.............................. 5,885 5,885
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 272,704 272,704
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 557,816 557,816
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army ALASKA Fort Greely PHYSICAL READINESS 7,800 7,800
TRAINING FACILITY.
Army CALIFORNIA Concord PIER................... 98,000 98,000
Army COLORADO Fort Carson ROTARY WING TAXIWAY.... 5,800 5,800
Army GEORGIA Fort Gordon COMMAND AND CONTROL 90,000 90,000
FACILITY.
Army GERMANY Grafenwoehr VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 51,000 51,000
SHOP.
Army NEW YORK Fort Drum NCO ACADEMY COMPLEX.... 19,000 19,000
Army NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy WASTE WATER TREATMENT 70,000 70,000
PLANT.
Army OKLAHOMA Fort Sill RECEPTION BARRACKS 56,000 56,000
COMPLEX PH2.
Army OKLAHOMA Fort Sill TRAINING SUPPORT 13,400 13,400
FACILITY.
Army TEXAS Corpus Christi POWERTRAIN FACILITY 85,000 85,000
(INFRASTRUCTURE/METAL).
Army TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio HOMELAND DEFENSE 43,000 -43,000 0
OPERATIONS CENTER.
Army VIRGINIA Fort Lee TRAINING SUPPORT 33,000 33,000
FACILITY.
Army VIRGINIA Joint Base Myer- INSTRUCTION BUILDING... 37,000 -37,000 0
Henderson
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide HOST NATION SUPPORT.... 36,000 36,000
Locations
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MINOR CONSTRUCTION..... 25,000 25,000
Locations
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 73,245 73,245
Locations
Military Construction, Army Total 743,245 -80,000 663,245
.................................. ........................
Navy ARIZONA Yuma AIRCRAFT MAINT. 50,635 50,635
FACILITIES & APRON
(SO. CALA).
Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia MINA SALMAN PIER 37,700 -37,700 0
REPLACEMENT.
Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia SHIP MAINTENANCE 52,091 -52,091 0
SUPPORT FACILITY.
Navy CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton RAW WATER PIPELINE 44,540 44,540
PENDLETON TO FALLBROOK.
Navy CALIFORNIA Coronado COASTAL CAMPUS 4,856 4,856
UTILITIES.
Navy CALIFORNIA Lemoore F-35C HANGAR 56,497 56,497
MODERNIZATION AND
ADDITION.
Navy CALIFORNIA Lemoore F-35C TRAINING 8,187 8,187
FACILITIES.
Navy CALIFORNIA Lemoore RTO AND MISSION DEBRIEF 7,146 7,146
FACILITY.
Navy CALIFORNIA Point Mugu E-2C/D HANGAR ADDITIONS 19,453 19,453
AND RENOVATIONS.
Navy CALIFORNIA Point Mugu TRITON AVIONICS AND 2,974 2,974
FUEL SYSTEMS TRAINER.
Navy CALIFORNIA San Diego LCS SUPPORT FACILITY... 37,366 37,366
Navy CALIFORNIA Twentynine Palms MICROGRID EXPANSION.... 9,160 9,160
Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville FLEET SUPPORT FACILITY 8,455 8,455
ADDITION.
Navy FLORIDA Jacksonville TRITON MISSION CONTROL 8,296 8,296
FACILITY.
Navy FLORIDA Mayport LCS MISSION MODULE 16,159 16,159
READINESS CENTER.
Navy FLORIDA Pensacola A-SCHOOL UNACCOPANIED 18,347 18,347
HOUSING (CORRY
STATION).
Navy FLORIDA Whiting Field T-6B JPATS TRAINING 10,421 10,421
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
Navy GEORGIA Albany GROUND SOURCE HEAT 7,851 7,851
PUMPS.
Navy GEORGIA Kings Bay INDUSTRIAL CONTROL 8,099 8,099
SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE.
Navy GEORGIA Townsend TOWNSEND BOMBING RANGE 48,279 48,279
EXPANSION PHASE 2.
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas LIVE-FIRE TRAINING 125,677 125,677
RANGE COMPLEX (NW
FIELD).
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 10,777 10,777
LANDFILL CLOSURE.
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM 45,314 45,314
RECAPITALIZATION.
Navy HAWAII Barking Sands PMRF POWER GRID 30,623 30,623
CONSOLIDATION.
Navy HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- UEM INTERCONNECT STA C 6,335 6,335
Hickam TO HICKAM.
Navy HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- WELDING SCHOOL SHOP 8,546 8,546
Hickam CONSOLIDATION.
Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay AIRFIELD LIGHTING 26,097 26,097
MODERNIZATION.
Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay BACHELOR ENLISTED 68,092 68,092
QUARTERS.
Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay P-8A DETACHMENT SUPPORT 12,429 12,429
FACILITIES.
Navy ITALY Sigonella P-8A HANGAR AND FLEET 62,302 -62,302 0
SUPPORT FACILITY.
Navy ITALY Sigonella TRITON HANGAR AND 40,641 -40,641 0
OPERATION FACILITY.
Navy JAPAN Camp Butler MILITARY WORKING DOG 11,697 11,697
FACILITIES (CAMP
HANSEN).
Navy JAPAN Iwakuni E-2D OPERATIONAL 8,716 8,716
TRAINER COMPLEX.
Navy JAPAN Iwakuni SECURITY MODIFICATIONS-- 9,207 9,207
CVW5/MAG12 HQ.
Navy JAPAN Kadena AB AIRCRAFT MAINT. 23,310 23,310
SHELTERS & APRON.
Navy JAPAN Yokosuka CHILD DEVELOPMENT 13,846 13,846
CENTER.
Navy MARYLAND Patuxent River UNACCOMPANIED HOUSING.. 40,935 40,935
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune 2ND RADIO BN COMPLEX 0 0
OPERATIONS
CONSOLIDATION.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune SIMULATOR INTEGRATION/ 54,849 54,849
RANGE CONTROL FACILITY.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine KC130J ENLSITED AIR 4,769 4,769
Corps Air Station CREW TRAINER FACILITY.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine UNMANNED AIRCRAFT 29,657 29,657
Corps Air Station SYSTEM FACILITIES.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA New River OPERATIONAL TRAINER 3,312 3,312
FACILITY.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA New River RADAR AIR TRAFFIC 4,918 4,918
CONTROL FACILITY
ADDITION.
Navy POLAND RedziKowo Base AEGIS ASHORE MISSILE 51,270 -51,270 0
DEFENSE COMPLEX.
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA Parris Island RANGE SAFETY 27,075 27,075
IMPROVEMENTS &
MODERNIZATION.
Navy VIRGINIA Dam Neck MARITIME SURVEILLANCE 23,066 23,066
SYSTEM FACILITY.
Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk COMMUNICATIONS CENTER.. 75,289 75,289
Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk ELECTRICAL REPAIRS TO 44,254 44,254
PIERS 2,6,7, AND 11.
Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk MH60 HELICOPTER 7,134 7,134
TRAINING FACILITY.
Navy VIRGINIA Portsmouth WATERFRONT UTILITIES... 45,513 45,513
Navy VIRGINIA Quantico ATFP GATE.............. 5,840 5,840
Navy VIRGINIA Quantico ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION 8,418 8,418
UPGRADE.
Navy VIRGINIA Quantico EMBASSY SECURITY GUARD 43,941 43,941
BEQ & OPS FACILITY.
Navy WASHINGTON Bangor REGIONAL SHIP 0 0
MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
FACILITY.
Navy WASHINGTON Bangor WRA LAND/WATER 34,177 34,177
INTERFACE.
Navy WASHINGTON Bremerton DRY DOCK 6 22,680 22,680
MODERNIZATION &
UTILITY IMPROVE..
Navy WASHINGTON Indian Island SHORE POWER TO 4,472 4,472
AMMUNITION PIER.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCON DESIGN FUNDS...... 91,649 91,649
Locations
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 22,590 22,590
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Navy Total 1,605,929 -244,004 1,361,925
.................................. ........................
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A FLIGHT SIM/ALTER 37,000 37,000
SQUAD OPS/AMU FACILITY.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB RPR CENTRAL HEAT & 34,400 34,400
POWER PLANT BOILER PH3.
AF ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB HC-130J AGE COVERED 4,700 4,700
STORAGE.
AF ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB HC-130J WASH RACK...... 12,200 12,200
AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A ADAL FUEL OFFLOAD 5,000 5,000
FACILITY.
AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A AIRCRAFT 13,200 13,200
MAINTENANCE HANGAR/SQ
3.
AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A BOMB BUILD-UP 5,500 5,500
FACILITY.
AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A SQ OPS/AMU/HANGAR/ 33,000 33,000
SQ 4.
AF COLORADO U.S. Air Force Academy FRONT GATES FORCE 10,000 10,000
PROTECTION
ENHANCEMENTS.
AF FLORIDA Cape Canaveral Afs RANGE COMMUNICATIONS 21,000 21,000
FACILITY.
AF FLORIDA Eglin AFB F-35A CONSOLIDATED HQ 8,700 8,700
FACILITY.
AF FLORIDA Hurlburt Field ADAL 39 INFORMATION 14,200 14,200
OPERATIONS SQUAD
FACILITY.
AF GREENLAND Thule AB THULE CONSOLIDATION PH 41,965 41,965
1.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR--DISPERSED MAINT 19,000 19,000
SPARES & SE STORAGE
FAC.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR--INSTALLATION 22,200 22,200
CONTROL CENTER.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR--SOUTH RAMP 7,100 7,100
UTILITIES PHASE 2.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PAR--LO/CORROSION CNTRL/ 0 0
COMPOSITE REPAIR.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC ROADS............. 2,500 2,500
AF HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- F-22 FIGHTER ALERT 46,000 46,000
Hickam FACILITY.
AF JAPAN Yokota AB C-130J FLIGHT SIMULATOR 8,461 8,461
FACILITY.
AF KANSAS Mcconnell AFB KC-46A ADAL DEICING 4,300 4,300
PADS.
AF MARYLAND Fort Meade CYBERCOM JOINT 86,000 86,000
OPERATIONS CENTER,
INCREMENT 3.
AF MISSOURI Whiteman AFB CONSOLIDATED STEALTH 29,500 29,500
OPS & NUCLEAR ALERT
FAC.
AF MONTANA Malmstrom AFB TACTICAL RESPONSE FORCE 19,700 19,700
ALERT FACILITY.
AF NEBRASKA Offutt AFB DORMITORY (144 RM)..... 21,000 21,000
AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35A AIRFIELD 31,000 31,000
PAVEMENTS.
AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35A LIVE ORDNANCE 34,500 34,500
LOADING AREA.
AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35A MUNITIONS 3,450 3,450
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES.
AF NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB CONSTRUCT AT/FP GATE-- 7,800 7,800
PORTALES.
AF NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB MARSHALLING AREA ARM/DE- 3,000 3,000
ARM PAD D.
AF NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB SPACE VEHICLES 12,800 12,800
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
LAB.
AF NIGER Agadez CONSTRUCT AIRFIELD AND 50,000 -50,000 0
BASE CAMP.
AF NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 17,100 17,100
TOWER/BASE OPS
FACILITY.
AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB DORMITORY (120 RM)..... 18,000 18,000
AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU ADAL FUEL 10,400 10,400
CELL MAINT HANGAR.
AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 12,900 12,900
TOWER.
AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC-46A DEPOT 37,000 37,000
MAINTENANCE DOCK.
AF OMAN Al Musannah AB AIRLIFT APRON.......... 25,000 -25,000 0
AF SOUTH DAKOTA Ellsworth AFB DORMITORY (168 RM)..... 23,000 23,000
AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT CLASSROOMS/DINING 35,000 35,000
FACILITY 3.
AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT RECRUIT DORMITORY 5 71,000 71,000
AF UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF CONSOLIDATED SATCOM/ 36,424 36,424
TECH CONTROL FACILITY.
AF UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF JIAC CONSOLIDATION--PH 94,191 94,191
2.
AF UTAH Hill AFB F-35A FLIGHT SIMULATOR 5,900 5,900
ADDITION PHASE 2.
AF UTAH Hill AFB F-35A HANGAR 40/42 21,000 21,000
ADDITIONS AND AMU.
AF UTAH Hill AFB HAYMAN IGLOOS.......... 11,500 11,500
AF WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location LONG RANGE STRIKE 77,130 0 77,130
BOMBER.
AF WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location MUNITIONS STORAGE...... 3,000 3,000
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 89,164 89,164
Locations
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 22,900 22,900
Locations MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
AF WYOMING F. E. Warren AFB WEAPON STORAGE FACILITY 95,000 95,000
Military Construction, Air Force Total 1,354,785 -75,000 1,279,785
.................................. ........................
Def-Wide ALABAMA Fort Rucker FORT RUCKER ES/PS 46,787 46,787
CONSOLIDATION/
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide ALABAMA Maxwell AFB MAXWELL ES/MS 32,968 32,968
REPLACEMENT/RENOVATION.
Def-Wide ARIZONA Fort Huachuca JITC BUILDINGS 52101/ 3,884 3,884
52111 RENOVATIONS.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton SOF COMBAT SERVICE 10,181 10,181
SUPPORT FACILITY.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton SOF PERFORMANCE 10,371 -10,371 0
RESILIENCY CENTER-WEST.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF LOGISTICS SUPPORT 47,218 -47,218 0
UNIT ONE OPS FAC. #2.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Fresno Yosemite IAP ANG REPLACE FUEL STORAGE 10,700 10,700
AND DISTRIB.
FACILITIES.
Def-Wide COLORADO Fort Carson SOF LANGUAGE TRAINING 8,243 8,243
FACILITY.
Def-Wide CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location OPERATIONS SUPPORT 20,065 -20,065 0
FACILITY.
Def-Wide DELAWARE Dover AFB CONSTRUCT HYDRANT FUEL 21,600 21,600
SYSTEM.
Def-Wide DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier CONSTRUCT FUEL STORAGE 43,700 -43,700 0
& DISTRIB. FACILITIES.
Def-Wide FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF FUEL CELL 17,989 17,989
MAINTENANCE HANGAR.
Def-Wide FLORIDA Macdill AFB SOF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 39,142 39,142
FACILITY.
Def-Wide GEORGIA Moody AFB REPLACE PUMPHOUSE AND 10,900 10,900
TRUCK FILLSTANDS.
Def-Wide GERMANY Garmisch GARMISCH E/MS-ADDITION/ 14,676 14,676
MODERNIZATION.
Def-Wide GERMANY Grafenwoehr GRAFENWOEHR ELEMENTARY 38,138 38,138
SCHOOL REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks MEDICAL CENTER 85,034 85,034
REPLACEMENT INCR 5.
Def-Wide GERMANY Spangdahlem AB CONSTRUCT FUEL PIPELINE 5,500 5,500
Def-Wide GERMANY Spangdahlem AB MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC 34,071 34,071
ADDITION.
Def-Wide GERMANY Stuttgart-Patch Barracks PATCH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 49,413 49,413
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide HAWAII Kaneohe Bay MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC 122,071 -31,814 90,257
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide HAWAII Schofield Barracks BEHAVIORAL HEALTH/ 123,838 -36,038 87,800
DENTAL CLINIC ADDITION.
Def-Wide JAPAN Kadena AB AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS..... 37,485 37,485
Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Campbell SOF COMPANY HQ/ 12,553 12,553
CLASSROOMS.
Def-Wide KENTUCKY Fort Knox FORT KNOX HS RENOVATION/ 23,279 23,279
MS ADDITION.
Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW CAMPUS FEEDERS 33,745 33,745
PHASE 2.
Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW RECAPITALIZE 34,897 34,897
BUILDING #2 INCR 1.
Def-Wide NEVADA Nellis AFB REPLACE HYDRANT FUEL 39,900 39,900
SYSTEM.
Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB CONSTRUCT PUMPHOUSE AND 20,400 20,400
FUEL STORAGE.
Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF SQUADRON OPERATIONS 11,565 11,565
FACILITY.
Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF ST OPERATIONAL 13,146 13,146
TRAINING FACILITIES.
Def-Wide NEW YORK West Point WEST POINT ELEMENTARY 55,778 55,778
SCHOOL REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune SOF COMBAT SERVICE 14,036 14,036
SUPPORT FACILITY.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune SOF MARINE BATTALION 54,970 54,970
COMPANY/TEAM
FACILITIES.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg BUTNER ELEMENTARY 32,944 32,944
SCHOOL REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF 21 STS OPERATIONS 16,863 -2,529 14,334
FACILITY.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF BATTALION 38,549 38,549
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF INDOOR RANGE....... 8,303 8,303
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF INTELLIGENCE 28,265 28,265
TRAINING CENTER.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF SPECIAL TACTICS 43,887 43,887
FACILITY (PH 2).
Def-Wide OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB SATELLITE PHARMACY 6,623 6,623
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide OREGON Klamath Falls IAP REPLACE FUEL FACILITIES 2,500 2,500
Def-Wide PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia REPLACE HEADQUARTERS... 49,700 49,700
Def-Wide POLAND RedziKowo Base AEGIS ASHORE MISSILE 169,153 -169,153 0
DEFENSE SYSTEM COMPLEX.
Def-Wide SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson PIERCE TERRACE 26,157 26,157
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide SPAIN Rota ROTA ES AND HS 13,737 13,737
ADDITIONS.
Def-Wide TEXAS Fort Bliss HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT 239,884 -50,000 189,884
INCR 7.
Def-Wide TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio AMBULATORY CARE CENTER 61,776 61,776
PHASE 4.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Arlington National ARLINGTON CEMETERY 0 30,000 30,000
Cemetery SOUTHERN EXPANSION
(DAR).
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir CONSTRUCT VISITOR 5,000 5,000
CONTROL CENTER.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir REPLACE GROUND VEHICLE 4,500 4,500
FUELING FACILITY.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- REPLACE FUEL PIER AND 28,000 28,000
Eustis DISTRIBUTION FACILITY.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base SOF APPLIED INSTRUCTION 23,916 23,916
Little Creek--Story FACILITY.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide CONTINGENCY 10,000 -10,000 0
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ECIP DESIGN............ 10,000 10,000
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ENERGY CONSERVATION 150,000 150,000
Locations INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide EXERCISE RELATED MINOR 8,687 8,687
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 3,041 3,041
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 31,628 31,628
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 1,078 1,078
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 27,202 27,202
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 42,183 42,183
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 13,500 13,500
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 5,000 5,000
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 3,000 3,000
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 15,676 15,676
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide EAST COAST MISSLE SITE 0 30,000 30,000
Locations PLANNING AND DESIGN.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide PLANNING & DESIGN...... 31,772 31,772
Locations
Military Construction, Defense-Wide Total 2,300,767 -360,888 1,939,879
.................................. ........................
NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Nato Security Investment NATO SECURITY 120,000 30,000 150,000
Program INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
NATO Security Investment Program Total 120,000 30,000 150,000
.................................. ........................
Army NG CONNECTICUT Camp Hartell READY BUILDING (CST- 11,000 11,000
WMD).
Army NG DELAWARE Dagsboro NATIONAL GUARD VEHICLE 10,800 -10,800 0
MAINTENANCE SHOP.
Army NG FLORIDA Palm Coast NATIONAL GUARD 18,000 18,000
READINESS CENTER.
Army NG ILLINOIS Sparta BASIC 10M-25M FIRING 1,900 1,900
RANGE (ZERO).
Army NG KANSAS Salina AUTOMATED COMBAT PISTOL/ 2,400 2,400
MP FIREARMS QUAL COUR.
Army NG KANSAS Salina MODIFIED RECORD FIRE 4,300 4,300
RANGE.
Army NG MARYLAND Easton NATIONAL GUARD 13,800 13,800
READINESS CENTER.
Army NG NEVADA Reno NATIONAL GUARD VEHICLE 8,000 8,000
MAINTENANCE SHOP ADD/A.
Army NG OHIO Camp Ravenna MODIFIED RECORD FIRE 3,300 3,300
RANGE.
Army NG OREGON Salem NATIONAL GUARD/RESERVE 16,500 16,500
CENTER BLDG ADD/ALT (J.
Army NG PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap TRAINING AIDS CENTER... 16,000 16,000
Army NG VERMONT North Hyde Park NATIONAL GUARD VEHICLE 7,900 7,900
MAINTENANCE SHOP ADDIT.
Army NG VIRGINIA Richmond NATIONAL GUARD/RESERVE 29,000 29,000
CENTER BUILDING (JFHQ).
Army NG WASHINGTON Yakima ENLISTED BARRACKS, 19,000 -19,000 0
TRANSIENT TRAINING.
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 20,337 20,337
Locations
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 15,000 15,000
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Army National Guard Total 197,237 -29,800 167,437
.................................. ........................
Army Res CALIFORNIA Miramar ARMY RESERVE CENTER.... 24,000 24,000
Army Res FLORIDA Macdill AFB AR CENTER/ AS FACILITY. 55,000 55,000
Army Res MISSISSIPPI Starkville ARMY RESERVE CENTER.... 9,300 -9,300 0
Army Res NEW YORK Orangeburg ORGANIZATIONAL 4,200 4,200
MAINTENANCE SHOP.
Army Res PENNSYLVANIA Conneaut Lake DAR HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT 5,000 5,000
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 9,318 9,318
Locations
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 6,777 6,777
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Army Reserve Total 113,595 -9,300 104,295
.................................. ........................
N/MC Res NEVADA Fallon NAVOPSPTCEN FALLON..... 11,480 11,480
N/MC Res NEW YORK Brooklyn RESERVE CENTER STORAGE 2,479 2,479
FACILITY.
N/MC Res VIRGINIA Dam Neck RESERVE TRAINING CENTER 18,443 18,443
COMPLEX.
N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR PLANNING & DESIGN. 2,208 2,208
Locations
N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR UNSPECIFIED MINOR 1,468 1,468
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Naval Reserve Total 36,078 0 36,078
.................................. ........................
Air NG ALABAMA Dannelly Field TFI--REPLACE SQUADRON 7,600 7,600
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
Air NG ARKANSAS Fort Smith Map CONSOLIDATED SCIF...... 0 0
Air NG CALIFORNIA Moffett Field REPLACE VEHICLE 6,500 6,500
MAINTENANCE FACILITY.
Air NG COLORADO Buckley Air Force Base ASE MAINTENANCE AND 5,100 5,100
STORAGE FACILITY.
Air NG GEORGIA Savannah/Hilton Head IAP C-130 SQUADRON 9,000 9,000
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
Air NG IOWA Des Moines MAP AIR OPERATIONS GRP/ 6,700 6,700
CYBER BEDDOWN-RENO BLG
430.
Air NG KANSAS Smokey Hill ANG Range RANGE TRAINING SUPPORT 2,900 2,900
FACILITIES.
Air NG LOUISIANA New Orleans REPLACE SQUADRON 10,000 10,000
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
Air NG MAINE Bangor IAP ADD TO AND ALTER FIRE 7,200 7,200
CRASH/RESCUE STATION.
Air NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International KC-46A ADAL FLIGHT 2,800 2,800
Trade Port SIMULATOR BLDG 156.
Air NG NEW JERSEY Atlantic City IAP FUEL CELL AND CORROSION 10,200 10,200
CONTROL HANGAR.
Air NG NEW YORK Niagara Falls IAP REMOTELY PILOTED 7,700 7,700
AIRCRAFT BEDDOWN BLDG
912.
Air NG NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte/Douglas IAP REPLACE C-130 SQUADRON 9,000 9,000
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
Air NG NORTH DAKOTA Hector IAP INTEL TARGETING 7,300 7,300
FACILITIES.
Air NG OKLAHOMA Will Rogers World MEDIUM ALTITUDE MANNED 7,600 7,600
Airport ISR BEDDOWN.
Air NG OREGON Klamath Falls IAP REPLACE FIRE CRASH/ 7,200 7,200
RESCUE STATION.
Air NG WEST VIRGINIA Yeager Airport FORCE PROTECTION- 3,900 3,900
RELOCATE COONSKIN ROAD.
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 5,104 5,104
Locations
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 7,734 7,734
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Air National Guard Total 123,538 0 123,538
.................................. ........................
AF Res ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB GUARDIAN ANGEL 0 0
OPERATIONS.
AF Res CALIFORNIA March AFB SATELLITE FIRE STATION. 4,600 4,600
AF Res FLORIDA Patrick AFB AIRCREW LIFE SUPPORT 3,400 3,400
FACILITY.
AF Res OHIO Youngstown INDOOR FIRING RANGE.... 9,400 9,400
AF Res TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio CONSOLIDATE 433 MEDICAL 9,900 9,900
FACILITY.
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 13,400 13,400
Locations
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 6,121 6,121
Locations MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve Total 46,821 0 46,821
.................................. ........................
FH Con Army FLORIDA Camp Rudder FAMILY HOUSING 8,000 8,000
REPLACEMENT
CONSTRUCTION.
FH Con Army GERMANY Wiesbaden Army Airfield FAMILY HOUSING 3,500 3,500
IMPROVEMENTS.
FH Con Army ILLINOIS Rock Island FAMILY HOUSING 20,000 20,000
REPLACEMENT
CONSTRUCTION.
FH Con Army KOREA Camp Walker FAMILY HOUSING NEW 61,000 61,000
CONSTRUCTION.
FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FAMILY HOUSING P & D... 7,195 7,195
Locations
Family Housing Construction, Army Total 99,695 0 99,695
.................................. ........................
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS............ 25,552 25,552
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASED HOUSING......... 144,879 144,879
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE OF REAL 75,197 75,197
Locations PROPERTY FACILITIES.
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT..... 3,047 3,047
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT..... 45,468 45,468
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MILITARY HOUSING 22,000 22,000
Locations PRIVITIZATION
INITIATIVE.
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MISCELLANEOUS.......... 840 840
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide SERVICES............... 10,928 10,928
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES.............. 65,600 65,600
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Army Total 393,511 0 393,511
.................................. ........................
FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide IMPROVEMENTS........... 150,649 150,649
Locations
FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 9,849 9,849
Locations
Family Housing Construction, Air Force Total 160,498 0 160,498
.................................. ........................
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT.... 38,746 38,746
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide HOUSING PRIVATIZATION.. 41,554 41,554
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASING................ 28,867 28,867
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE............ 114,129 114,129
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT..... 52,153 52,153
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT.. 2,032 2,032
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide SERVICES ACCOUNT....... 12,940 12,940
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES ACCOUNT...... 40,811 40,811
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Air Force Total 331,232 0 331,232
.................................. ........................
FH Con Navy VIRGINIA Wallops Island CONSTRUCT HOUSING 438 438
WELCOME CENTER.
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DESIGN................. 4,588 4,588
Locations
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide IMPROVEMENTS........... 11,515 11,515
Locations
Family Housing Construction, Navy And Marine Corps Total 16,541 0 16,541
.................................. ........................
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT.... 17,534 17,534
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASING................ 64,108 64,108
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE OF REAL 99,323 99,323
Locations PROPERTY.
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT..... 56,189 56,189
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MISCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT.. 373 373
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PRIVATIZATION SUPPORT 28,668 28,668
Locations COSTS.
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide SERVICES ACCOUNT....... 19,149 19,149
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES ACCOUNT...... 67,692 67,692
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Navy And Marine Corps Total 353,036 0 353,036
.................................. ........................
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT.... 3,402 3,402
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT.... 20 20
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS ACCOUNT.... 781 781
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASING................ 10,679 10,679
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASING................ 41,273 41,273
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE OF REAL 1,104 1,104
Locations PROPERTY.
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE OF REAL 344 344
Locations PROPERTY.
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT..... 388 388
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide SERVICES ACCOUNT....... 31 31
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES ACCOUNT...... 474 474
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES ACCOUNT...... 172 172
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Defense-Wide Total 58,668 0 58,668
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & BASE REALIGNMENT AND 29,691 29,691
Closure, Army CLOSURE.
Base Realignment and Closure--Army Total 29,691 0 29,691
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & BASE REALIGNMENT & 118,906 118,906
Closure, Navy CLOSURE.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-100: PLANING, 7,787 7,787
Locations DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-101: VARIOUS 20,871 20,871
Locations LOCATIONS.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-138: NAS BRUNSWICK, 803 803
Locations ME.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-157: MCSA KANSAS 41 41
Locations CITY, MO.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-172: NWS SEAL 4,872 4,872
Locations BEACH, CONCORD, CA.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-84: JRB WILLOW 3,808 3,808
Locations GROVE & CAMBRIA REG AP.
Base Realignment and Closure--Navy Total 157,088 0 157,088
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DOD BRAC ACTIVITIES-- 64,555 64,555
Locations AIR FORCE.
Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force Total 64,555 0 64,555
.................................. ........................
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide AIR FORCE.............. 0 -52,600 -52,600
Locations
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ARMY................... 0 -96,000 -96,000
Locations
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DEFENSE-WIDE........... 0 -134,000 -134,000
Locations
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide HOUSING ASSISTANCE 0 -103,918 -103,918
Locations PROGRAM.
Prior Year Savings Total 0 -386,518 -386,518
.................................. ........................
Total, Military Construction 8,306,510 -1,155,510 7,151,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Cuba Guantanamo Bay UNACCOMPANIED PERSONNEL 0 76,000 76,000
HOUSING.
Military Construction, Army Total 0 76,000 76,000
........................... ...........................
Navy Bahrain Bahrain Island MINA SALMAN PIER 0 37,700 37,700
REPLACEMENT.
Navy Bahrain Bahrain Island SHIP MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 0 52,091 52,091
FACILITY.
Navy Italy Sigonella P-8A HANGAR AND FLEET 0 62,302 62,302
SUPPORT FACILITY.
Navy Italy Sigonella TRITON HANGAR AND OPERATION 0 40,641 40,641
FACILITY.
Navy Poland Redzikowo AEGIS SHORE MISSILE DEFENSE 0 51,270 51,270
COMPLEX.
Military Construction, Navy Total 0 244,004 244,004
........................... ...........................
AF Niger Agadez CONSTRUCT AIR FIELD AND 0 50,000 50,000
BASE CAMP.
AF Oman Al Mussanah AB AIRLIFT APRON.............. 0 25,000 25,000
Military Construction, Air Force Total 0 75,000 75,000
........................... ...........................
Def-Wide Djibouti Camp Lemonier CONSTRUCT FUEL STORAGE AND 0 43,700 43,700
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.
Def-Wide Poland Redzikowo AEGIS SHORE MISSILE DEFENSE 0 93,296 93,296
COMPLEX.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide Total 0 136,996 136,996
........................... ...........................
Total, Military Construction 0 532,000 532,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY PROGRAMS
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House
Program FY 2016 Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Nuclear Energy...................................... 135,161 0 135,161
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Weapons activities................................ 8,846,948 237,700 9,084,648
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 1,940,302 -39,000 1,901,302
Naval reactors.................................... 1,375,496 12,000 1,387,496
Federal salaries and expenses..................... 402,654 -6,000 396,654
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 12,565,400 204,700 12,770,100
Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,527,347 -384,197 5,143,150
Other defense activities.......................... 774,425 4,200 778,625
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,301,772 -379,997 5,921,775
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 18,867,172 -175,297 18,691,875
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 19,002,333 -175,297 18,827,036
Nuclear Energy
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................. 126,161 126,161
Used nuclear fuel disposition........................... 9,000 9,000
Total, Nuclear Energy..................................... 135,161 0 135,161
Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs
B61 Life extension program.......................... 643,300 643,300
W76 Life extension program.......................... 244,019 244,019
W88 Alt 370......................................... 220,176 220,176
W80-4 Life extension program........................ 195,037 195,037
Total, Life extension programs........................ 1,302,532 0 1,302,532
Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 52,247 21,000 73,247
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 50,921 50,921
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 64,092 64,092
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 68,005 68,005
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 42,177 9,000 51,177
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 89,299 89,299
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 115,685 115,685
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 482,426 30,000 512,426
Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 48,049 48,049
Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 447,527 447,527
Research and development support.................... 34,159 34,159
R&D certification and safety........................ 192,613 11,200 203,813
Management, technology, and production.............. 264,994 264,994
Total, Stockpile services............................. 939,293 11,200 950,493
Nuclear material commodities
Uranium sustainment................................. 32,916 32,916
Plutonium sustainment............................... 174,698 8,400 183,098
Tritium sustainment................................. 107,345 107,345
Domestic uranium enrichment......................... 100,000 100,000
Total, Nuclear material commodities................... 414,959 8,400 423,359
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 3,187,259 49,600 3,236,859
Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
Science
Advanced certification.............................. 50,714 50,714
Primary assessment technologies..................... 98,500 21,600 120,100
Dynamic materials properties........................ 109,000 109,000
Advanced radiography................................ 47,000 47,000
Secondary assessment technologies................... 84,400 84,400
Total, Science........................................ 389,614 21,600 411,214
Engineering
Enhanced surety..................................... 50,821 1,100 51,921
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 17,371 17,371
Nuclear survivability............................... 24,461 2,400 26,861
Enhanced surveillance............................... 38,724 38,724
Total, Engineering ................................... 131,377 3,500 134,877
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
Ignition............................................ 73,334 -6,000 67,334
Support of other stockpile programs................. 22,843 22,843
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 58,587 58,587
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 4,963 4,963
Joint program in high energy density laboratory 8,900 8,900
plasmas............................................
Facility operations and target production........... 333,823 -11,000 322,823
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield..... 502,450 -17,000 485,450
Advanced simulation and computing..................... 623,006 -6,000 617,006
Advanced manufacturing
Component manufacturing development................. 112,256 112,256
Processing technology development................... 17,800 17,800
Total, Advanced manufacturing......................... 130,056 0 130,056
Total, RDT&E............................................ 1,776,503 2,100 1,778,603
Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
Operating
Program readiness................................... 75,185 75,185
Material recycle and recovery....................... 173,859 173,859
Storage............................................. 40,920 40,920
Recapitalization.................................... 104,327 104,327
Total, Operating...................................... 394,291 0 394,291
Construction:
15-D-302, TA-55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL. 18,195 18,195
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL... 3,903 3,903
07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility 11,533 11,533
upgrade project, LANL..............................
07-D-220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL. 40,949 40,949
06-D-141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities 430,000 430,000
Replacement Project Y-12...........................
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement 155,610 155,610
project, LANL......................................
Total, Construction................................... 660,190 0 660,190
Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities....... 1,054,481 0 1,054,481
Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 146,272 146,272
Program direction..................................... 105,338 105,338
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 251,610 0 251,610
Infrastructure and safety
Operations of facilities
Kansas City Plant................................... 100,250 100,250
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.............. 70,671 70,671
Los Alamos National Laboratory...................... 196,460 196,460
Nevada National Security Site....................... 89,000 89,000
Pantex.............................................. 58,021 58,021
Sandia National Laboratory.......................... 115,300 115,300
Savannah River Site................................. 80,463 80,463
Y-12 National security complex...................... 120,625 120,625
Total, Operations of facilities....................... 830,790 0 830,790
Safety operations..................................... 107,701 107,701
Maintenance........................................... 227,000 24,000 251,000
Recapitalization...................................... 257,724 150,000 407,724
Construction:
16-D-621 Substation replacement at TA-3, LANL....... 25,000 25,000
15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12.......... 17,919 17,919
Total, Construction................................... 42,919 0 42,919
Total, Infrastructure and safety........................ 1,466,134 174,000 1,640,134
Site stewardship
Nuclear materials integration......................... 17,510 17,510
Minority serving institution partnerships program..... 19,085 19,085
Total, Site stewardship................................. 36,595 0 36,595
Defense nuclear security
Operations and maintenance............................ 619,891 12,000 631,891
Construction:
14-D-710 Device assembly facility argus installation 13,000 13,000
project, NV........................................
Total, Defense nuclear security......................... 632,891 12,000 644,891
Information technology and cybersecurity................ 157,588 157,588
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 283,887 283,887
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 8,846,948 237,700 9,084,648
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
Global material security............................ 426,751 -90,000 336,751
Material management and minimization................ 311,584 20,000 331,584
Nonproliferation and arms control................... 126,703 126,703
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D................ 419,333 20,000 439,333
Nonproliferation Construction:
99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 345,000 345,000
Facility, SRS....................................
Total, Nonproliferation construction................ 345,000 0 345,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs...... 1,629,371 -50,000 1,579,371
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 94,617 94,617
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program.. 234,390 11,000 245,390
Use of prior-year balances.............................. -18,076 -18,076
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,940,302 -39,000 1,901,302
Naval Reactors
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 445,196 445,196
Naval reactors development.............................. 444,400 444,400
Ohio replacement reactor systems development............ 186,800 186,800
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 133,000 133,000
Program direction....................................... 45,000 45,000
Construction:
15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3............. 900 900
15-D-903 KL Fire System Upgrade....................... 600 600
15-D-902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility.......... 3,100 3,100
14-D-902 KL Materials characterization laboratory 30,000 30,000
expansion, KAPL......................................
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, 86,000 12,000 98,000
NRF..................................................
10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL..................... 500 500
Total, Construction..................................... 121,100 12,000 133,100
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,375,496 12,000 1,387,496
Federal Salaries And Expenses
Program direction....................................... 402,654 -6,000 396,654
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................ 402,654 -6,000 396,654
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure sites:
Closure sites administration.......................... 4,889 4,889
Hanford site:
River corridor and other cleanup operations:
River corridor and other cleanup operations......... 196,957 72,000 268,957
Central plateau remediation:
Central plateau remediation......................... 555,163 555,163
Richland community and regulatory support............. 14,701 14,701
Construction:
15-D-401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL..... 77,016 77,016
Total, Hanford site..................................... 843,837 72,000 915,837
Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition................... 357,783 357,783
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 3,000 3,000
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 360,783 0 360,783
NNSA sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,366 1,366
Nevada................................................ 62,385 62,385
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 2,500 2,500
Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 188,625 188,625
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 254,876 0 254,876
Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D & D
OR Nuclear facility D & D........................... 75,958 75,958
Construction:
14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility... 6,800 6,800
Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D...................... 82,758 0 82,758
U233 Disposition Program.............................. 26,895 26,895
OR cleanup and disposition:
OR cleanup and disposition.......................... 60,500 60,500
Total, OR cleanup and disposition..................... 60,500 0 60,500
OR reservation community and regulatory support......... 4,400 4,400
Solid waste stabilization and disposition
Oak Ridge technology development................. 2,800 2,800
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 177,353 0 177,353
Office of River Protection:
Waste treatment and immobilization plant
01-D-416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction.......... 595,000 595,000
01-D-16E Pretreatment facility...................... 95,000 95,000
Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant....... 690,000 0 690,000
Tank farm activities
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. 649,000 649,000
Construction:
15-D-409 Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System, 75,000 75,000
Hanford..........................................
Total, Tank farm activities........................... 724,000 0 724,000
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,414,000 0 1,414,000
Savannah River sites:
Savannah River risk management operations............. 386,652 11,600 398,252
SR community and regulatory support................... 11,249 11,249
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 581,878 581,878
disposition........................................
Construction:
15-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #6.............. 34,642 34,642
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 194,000 194,000
River............................................
Total, Construction................................. 228,642 0 228,642
Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 810,520 0 810,520
Total, Savannah River site.............................. 1,208,421 11,600 1,220,021
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Waste isolation pilot plant........................... 212,600 212,600
Construction:
15-D-411 Safety significant confinement 23,218 23,218
ventilation system, WIPP.......................
15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP.................... 7,500 7,500
Total, Construction............................... 30,718 0 30,718
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.................. 243,318 0 243,318
Program direction....................................... 281,951 281,951
Program support......................................... 14,979 14,979
Safeguards and Security:
Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 17,228 17,228
Paducah............................................... 8,216 8,216
Portsmouth............................................ 8,492 8,492
Richland/Hanford Site................................. 67,601 67,601
Savannah River Site................................... 128,345 128,345
Waste Isolation Pilot Project......................... 4,860 4,860
West Valley........................................... 1,891 1,891
Technology development.................................. 14,510 4,000 18,510
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup................... 5,055,550 87,600 5,143,150
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution................ 471,797 -471,797 0
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,527,347 -384,197 5,143,150
Other Defense Activities
Specialized security activities......................... 221,855 4,200 226,055
Environment, health, safety and security
Environment, health, safety and security.............. 120,693 120,693
Program direction..................................... 63,105 63,105
Total, Environment, Health, safety and security......... 183,798 0 183,798
Enterprise assessments
Enterprise assessments................................ 24,068 24,068
Program direction..................................... 49,466 49,466
Total, Enterprise assessments........................... 73,534 0 73,534
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 154,080 154,080
Program direction..................................... 13,100 13,100
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 167,180 0 167,180
Defense-related activities
Defense related administrative support
Chief financial officer............................... 35,758 35,758
Chief information officer............................. 83,800 83,800
Management............................................ 3,000 3,000
Total, Defense related administrative support........... 122,558 0 122,558
Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 5,500 5,500
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 774,425 4,200 778,625
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 774,425 4,200 778,625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
March 2, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find a draft of proposed
legislation titled the ``National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016'', that the Department of Defense requests be
enacted during the first session of the 114th Congress.
The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is
stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Stella.
Enclosure: As Stated.
------
March 17, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the first session of the 114th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.''
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Stella.
Enclosure: As Stated.
------
March 23, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the first session of the 114th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.''
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Stella.
Enclosure: As Stated.
------
April 3, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the first session of the 114th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Stella.
Enclosure: As Stated.
------
April 10, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the first session of the 114th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Stella.
Enclosure: As Stated.
------
April 15, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the first session of the 114th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Stella.
Enclosure: As Stated.
------
April 23, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the first session of the 114th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016''.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Stella.
Enclosure: As Stated.
------
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Algriculture,
Washington, DC, April 28, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing concerning H.R. 1735, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
This legislation contains provisions within the Committee
on Agriculture's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result of your
having consulted with the Committee and in order to expedite
this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on Agriculture
will forego action on the bill. This is being done on the basis
of our mutual understanding that doing so will in no way
diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Agriculture with respect to the appointment of conferees, or to
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding, and would request that you include a copy
of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and in
the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this
bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Agriculture has a valid
jurisdictional claim to a provision in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Agriculture is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 1735, the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.'' While the legislation
does contain provisions within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee will not
request a sequential referral so that it can proceed
expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
The Committee takes this action with the understanding that
its jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation
are in no way diminished or altered, and that the Committee
will be appropriately consulted and involved as such
legislation moves forward. The Committee also reserves the
right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on
such legislation and requests your support when such a request
is made.
Finally, I would appreciate a response to this letter
confirming this understanding and ask that a copy of our
exchange of letters be included in the Congressional Record
during consideration of H.R. 1735 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is
not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual
understanding with respect to H.R. 1735, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. Thank you for
consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce
with regard to H.R. 1735 on those matters within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of
H.R. 1735, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will
forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only
with the understanding this procedural route will not be
construed to prejudice my Committee's jurisdictional interest
and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation
and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of
matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the
future.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the
Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a
conference with the Senate. I also request you include our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on
H.R. 1735 and in the Congressional Record during consideration
of this bill on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention
to these matters.
Sincerely,
John Kline,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce
has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this
exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on
the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 1735, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, which contains
substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative
jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate the
cooperation that allowed us to work out mutually agreeable text
on numerous matters prior to your markup.
Based on that cooperation and our associated
understandings, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a
sequential referral or object to floor consideration of the
bill text approved at your Committee markup. This decision in
no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional interests of the
Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any subsequent
amendments, or similar legislation. I request your support for
the appointment of House Foreign Affairs conferees during any
House-Senate conference on this legislation.
Finally, I respectfully request that you include this
letter and your response in your committee report on the bill
and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R.
1735 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Royce,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Edward R. Royce,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Foreign Affairs is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of
expediting the passage of H.R. 1735, the ``Fiscal Year 2016
National Defense Authorization Act'', the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence hereby waives further
consideration of the bill. The Committee has jurisdictional
interests in H.R. 1735, including intelligence and
intelligence-related authorizations and provisions in the
amendment.
The Committee takes this action only with the understanding
that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's
jurisdictional interest over this bill or any similar bill and
will not be considered precedent for consideration of matters
of jurisdictional interest to the Committee in the future,
including in connection with any subsequent consideration of
the bill by the House. In addition, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence will seek conferees on any provisions
in the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation.
Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record
during the House debate on H.R. 1735. I appreciate the
constructive work between our committees on this matter and
thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Devin Nunes,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Devin Nunes,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, April 30, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 1735, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Judiciary. However, in order to expedite floor
consideration of this important legislation, the committee
waives consideration of the bill.
The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action only with
the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests
over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or
altered. The committee also reserves the right to seek
appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation
and requests your support if such a request is made.
Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in
the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1735 on
the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 1735, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. That
bill, as ordered reported, contains provisions within the Rule
X jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, including
those noted in addendum A.
In the interest of permitting you to proceed expeditiously
to floor consideration of this very important bill, I am
willing to waive this committee's right to a sequential
referral. I do so with the understanding that the Natural
Resources Committee does not waive any future jurisdictional
claim over the subject matter contained in the bill which fall
within its Rule X jurisdiction. I also request that you urge
the Speaker to name members of the Natural Resources committee
to any conference committee to consider such provisions.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
1735 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you and your staff have worked regarding this
matter and others between our respective committees, and
congratulations on this significant achievement.
Sincerely,
Rob Bishop,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Natural Resources is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform in matters being considered in H.R. 1735, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1735 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do
not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course,
is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this
legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and that a copy
of this letter and your response acknowledging our
jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee
Report and as part of the Congressional Record during
consideration of this bill by the House.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also asks
that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions
over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in
this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further,
this exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thornberry: I am writing to you concerning
the bill H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016. There are certain provisions in the
legislation which fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Small Business pursuant to Rule X(q) of the House of
Representatives.
In the interest of permitting the Committee on Armed
Services to proceed expeditiously to floor consideration of
this important bill, I am willing to waive the right of the
Committee on Small Business to sequential referral. I do so
with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the
bill, the Committee on Small Business does not waive any future
jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the
bill which fall within its Rule X(q) jurisdiction, including
future bills that the Committee on Armed Services will
consider. I request that you urge the Speaker to appoint
members of this Committee to any conference committee which is
named to consider such provisions.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
1735 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this issue and others
between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Steve Chabot,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Steve Chabot,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Small Business has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Small Business is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 1735, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. However, in order
to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation,
the Committee waives consideration of the bill.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology takes this
action only with the understanding that the Committee's
jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are
in no way diminished or altered.
The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 1735 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further,
this exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write concerning H.R. 1735, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, as
amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that
fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor
consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.
This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding
that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the
Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within
the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the
Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference
committee named to consider such provisions.
Please place a copy of this letter and your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee
report on H.R. 1735 and into the Congressional Record during
consideration of the measure on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Bill Shuster,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, April 30, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding several provisions contained in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This
legislation contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. However, in order to
expedite floor consideration of this important legislation, the
committee waives consideration of the bill on the following
provisions.
Title 5, Section 562--Availability of Additional Training
Opportunities under Transition Assistance Program
Title 5, Section 565--Recognition of Additional Involuntary
Mobilization Duty Authorities Exempt from Five-Year Limit on
Reemployment Rights of Persons who Serve in the Uniformed
Services
Title 5, Section 566--Job Training and Post-Service
Placement Executive Committee
Title 5, Section 592--Honoring Certain Members of the
Reserve Components as Veterans
Title 5, Section 701--Joint Uniform Formulary for
Transition of Care
Title 7, Section 721--Extension of Authority for DOD-VA
Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund
Title 7, Section 722--Extension of Authority for Joint
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Facility Demonstration Fund
Title 12, Section 1251--Sense of Congress Recognizing the
70th Anniversary of the End of Allied Military Engagement in
the Pacific Theater
Title 14, Section 1431--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
The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs takes this action
only with the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional
interests over this and similar legislation are in no way
diminished or altered.
The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 1735 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Jeff Miller,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Jeff Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 1735, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite
floor consideration of this important legislation, the
committee waives consideration of the bill.
The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action only with
the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests
over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or
altered.
The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 1735 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Paul Ryan,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2015.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has a valid
jurisdictional claim to a provision in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Ways and Means is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain
annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2016
and each of the following 5 fiscal years. The results of such
efforts are reflected in the committee cost estimate, which is
included in this report pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
May 4, 2015.
Hon. Mac Thornberry
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending effects
of H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Armed
Services on April 30, 2015. This preliminary estimate is based
on legislative language for H.R. 1735 that was provided to CBO
on May 1, 2015. CBO's complete cost estimate for H.R. 1735,
including discretionary costs, will be provided shortly.
H.R. 1735 would make several major changes to the military
retirement system beginning in 2018. One such change, requiring
the Department of Defense to make matching contributions to the
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) on behalf of military personnel,
would encourage service members to increase their contributions
to the TSP, thereby reducing their taxable income. CBO and the
staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting
this bill would reduce revenues by about $1.3 billion over the
2018-2025 period (see attached table). Several other provisions
would change direct spending by less than $500,000 over the
2016-2025 period. Because the bill would affect revenues and
direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
In the decade after 2025 and in subsequent decades, CBO
expects that other changes to the military retirement system in
the bill would reduce mandatory spending from the Military
Retirement Trust Fund by more than the revenue losses from
expanded participation in the TSP in those years.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is David Newman,
who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT OF H.R. 1735 ON REVENUES AND DIRECT SPENDING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016-2020 2016-2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thrift Savings Plan Changes in 0 0 -51 -125 -154 -168 -183 -198 -214 -230 -330 -1,323
Revenuesa............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:CBO and the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).
Notes:Sections 631-634 would make several major changes to the military retirement system beginning in 2018. One such change, requiring the Department
of Defense to make matching contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) on behalf of military personnel, would encourage service members to
increase their contributions to the TSP, thereby reducing their taxable income. As a result, CBO and JCT expect that revenues would decline relative
to current law. In the decade after 2025 and in subsequent decades, CBO expects that other changes to the military retirement system in sections 631-
634 would reduce mandatory spending from the Military Retirement Trust Fund by more than the revenue losses from expanded participation in the TSP in
those years.
Other provisions of H.R. 1735 would change direct spending by less than $500,000 over the 2016-2025 period.
aNegative numbers signify a reduction in revenues.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344):
(1) This legislation does not provide budget authority
subject to an allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of
Public Law 93-344;
(2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate included
in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives contains CBO's projection
of how this legislation will affect the levels of budget
authority, budget outlays, revenues, and tax expenditures for
fiscal year 2016 and for the ensuring 5 fiscal years; and
(3) The CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget
authority for assistance to state and local governments by this
measure at the time that this report was filed.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget
Office Estimate included in this report satisfies the
requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the
committee of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill.
ADVISORY OF EARMARKS
The committee finds that H.R. 1735, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, as reported, does not
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and are
reflected in the body of this report.
GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the general goal and objective of
H.R. 1735 is to meet the national security needs of a nation at
war, while preparing our warfighters for the threats of
tomorrow, wherever and whenever they might emerge. This
legislation would meet that goal while taking initial steps to
reform the Department of Defense and balance the
responsibilities of fiscal stewardship incumbent upon Congress
in a time of economic stress. Only by providing for the common
defense in an efficient, fiscally responsible manner can the
Nation address our national security challenges.
The bill would sustain equipment and weapon systems vital
to the success of our service men and women, while taking steps
to provide them more efficiently. The committee took steps to
initiate reforms within the acquisition system, military
compensation and benefits, and the organizational overhead of
the Department of Defense. The committee's intent is not only
to procure services and equipment more cost-effectively, but
also to increase the flexibility of the institution to address
emerging threats and to put the military on a sustainable
fiscal footing while ensuring the military services can recruit
and retain a highly qualified, all-volunteer force.
The reforms to the defense acquisition system were
previewed earlier this year as H.R. 1597, the Agile Acquisition
to Retain Technological Edge Act, sponsored by Chairman
Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith. The measures would
streamline the acquisition process, advancing critical
decisions to the initial stages of the acquisition process,
reducing the number of required legal certifications while
maintaining needed accountability, and empowering program
managers and other Department of Defense decision makers to
make judgments in the best interests of our troops and the
taxpayer. The bill would make changes to the acquisition
strategy required for major defense programs, including the
consolidation of at least six separate reporting requirements
into a single, living document. Furthermore, these reforms
would empower the workforce by removing obstacles that make it
difficult for military personnel to serve in acquisition roles;
make the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
permanent; require training on the commercial market, including
on commercial market research, to expand access to this
valuable sector; and expand ethics training for the acquisition
workforce. The bill would also simplify the chain of command
for acquisition decisions, reforming a process currently mired
in layers of bureaucracy.
The committee recognizes that an agile military depends on
recruiting and retaining the best talent. This means the
military must compete with the private sector, high-tech firms,
and industry, to bring in or to hold onto top talent. To
compete effectively, the Department of Defense must offer
benefits on par with or better than the private marketplace.
The committee is grateful to the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission for its work in
recommending needed reforms. The committee believes that after
years of study, it is appropriate to take the initial steps to
modernize the military's retirement system. However, the
committee is acutely aware of the potential for unintended
consequences and the need to give the Department time to do its
own assessment of these important recommendations.
An agile military also efficiently manages the workforce
and keeps the size of headquarters in balance with the force in
the field. The committee supports efforts by the Department to
reduce headquarters budgets and personnel, if those reductions
are taken in a strategic manner, preserving critical
competencies, such as organic maintenance and the acquisition
workforce. However, it is not clear if these efforts are
resulting in efficiencies, since the Department lacks a
baseline from which to measure reductions against, as noted by
the Government Accountability Office. Therefore, the committee
would mandate the implementation of certain reductions to
headquarters budgets and personnel and require a baseline from
which to hold the Department accountable.
The committee also shares the concerns expressed by the
Secretary of Defense and other current and former senior
defense officials that they need additional tools and
flexibility to shape the workforce and to retain the best and
brightest, particularly under the current budgetary
environment. The legislation would express a sense of Congress
on the need for a performance management system to assist
managers in managing the workforce. Elsewhere in this report,
the committee requires the Secretary to brief the committee on
additional authorities required to shape and manage the total
workforce.
The committee is aware that Congress can often be the
source of inefficiency in the Department of Defense. To free up
vital manpower, the legislation would take a number of actions
that eliminate over 460 congressionally mandated reports over
the next 6 years that provide little value to the military or
Congress.
Finally, while the committee supports national defense
funding consistent with the President's request, it also cuts
excessive or wasteful expenditures and dedicates those
resources to more urgent needs. For example, the committee
freed resources from within the Foreign Currency Fluctuation,
Defense (FCF,D) Account and the reserve account for fuel. In
the committee report accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (H.
Rept. 113-446), the committee encouraged the Department to
consider the current foreign currency balance when determining
future currency levels. The fund has been at its statutory
limit of $970.0 million since 2012. The current budget request
failed to change how foreign currency rates are calculated.
Moreover, the Department continues to rely on rates calculated
in 2009 for fuel, rather than estimated market prices for the
upcoming fiscal year. The committee would re-direct these and
other funds to higher priority programs.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no Federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no Federal
intergovernmental mandates.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
Consistent with the requirements of section 5(b) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the committee finds that the
functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized in the
bill are not currently being nor could they be performed by one
or more agencies, an advisory committee already in existence or
by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee.
APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The committee finds that this legislation does not relate
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
No provision of H.R. 1735 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS
The committee estimates that H.R. 1735 requires no directed
rule makings.
COMMITTEE VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, record votes were taken with
respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 1735. The
record of these votes is contained in the following pages.
The committee ordered H.R. 1735 to be reported to the House
with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60-2, a quorum
being present.
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 1
h.r. 1735
On Courtney Log 042
Description: Strikes section 1023, a provision that reduces
the term of a cruiser maintenance availability, that was
included in the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee
mark.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 24 38 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 2
h.r. 1735
On Bishop Log 089
Description: Provision would permanently extend the land
withdrawals for certain military reservations.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Takai....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Graham...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 36 27 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 3
h.r. 1735
On Wilson Log 092
Description: Amend existing law to allow an agency to
object to the inclusion of certain property on the National
Register or its designation as a National Historic Landmark for
reasons of national security.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Takai....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Graham...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 35 27 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 4
h.r. 1735
On Tsongas Log 006
Description: Strikes the provision regarding the greater
sage grouse in Section 2862.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 26 36 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 5
h.r. 1735
On Rogers 061
Description: Would allow the Army to transfer excess .45
caliber M1911A1 pistols to the Corporation for the Promotion of
Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, also known as the Civilian
Marksmanship Program (CMP).
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Takai....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 42 21 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 6
h.r. 1735
On Conaway Log 293
Description: Only allows the Secretary of Defense to enter
into a contract to plan, design, refurbish, or construct a
biofuels facility if authorized by law to do so.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Takai....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Graham...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 32 31 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 7
h.r. 1735
On Gibson Log 257
Description: Add a sense of congress thanking the
commission for their work and requesting time for members to
engage servicemembers and families about retirement and
healthcare reform. Require an assessment and report from the
DoD on retirement and healthcare reform.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 8 55 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 8
h.r. 1735
On Gallego Log 280
Description: Sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Defense should consider allowing Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA)-eligible individuals to serve in the military.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 30 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 9
h.r. 1735
On Veasey Log 021r1
Description: Evaluation of whether allowing those who are
considered Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals could
expanded pool of potential recruits, and estimation of how
making eligible for enlistment of DACA applicants would impact
military readiness.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 34 29 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 10
h.r. 1735
On Speier Log 157r1
Description: Requires prosecution of military training
instructors accused of sexual contact with trainees during
basic training.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 14 49 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 11
h.r. 1735
On Speier Log 201
Description: Directs that all prosecutorial decisions for
sexual assault cases be made by the Office of the Chief
Prosecutor, independent of the defendant's or victim's chain of
command.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 23 40 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 12
h.r. 1735
On Franks Log 207r1
Description: This amendment would task MDA to commence
initial concept development for a space-based missile defense
intercept and defeat layer.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Takai....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 35 27 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 13
h.r. 1735
On Cooper Log 51r1
Description: Strikes section 3117, the prohibition on
funding fixed portal monitors.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 35 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 14
h.r. 1735
On Sanchez Log 164
Description: Requires an independent study on extended
nuclear deterrence and assurance.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 26 36 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 15
h.r. 1735
On Sanchez Log 241r1
Description: Authorize DoD funding transfer for non-
proliferation.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 26 35 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 16
h.r. 1735
On Sanchez Log 311r3
Description: Increases funding for Army O&M, Base
Operations Support by $237.7 million and increases funding for
several computing and ignition efforts at NNSA by $23.0
million; with offset from NNSA Weapons Activities.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 22 40 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 17
h.r. 1735
On Sanchez 168r1
Description: Cost-sharing arrangements with NATO for the
deployment of forward-based nuclear weapons in states of NATO.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 36 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 18
h.r. 1735
On Cooper Log 289
Description: Cuts $125M from MOX and adds $125M to
Infrastructure and Safety related to Recapitalization.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 23 40 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 19
h.r. 1735
On Moulton Log 211r1
Description: Substitute Amendment to Log 274 - Would allow
the Air Force to partially retire the A-10 aircraft in FY16
(164 out of 283 a/c). As a result, this amendment makes
available $682.7 million for unfunded requirements of the
military services for counter-IED technology, MQ-9 Reapers, F-
16 upgrades, etc.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 26 37 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 20
h.r. 1735
On Speier Log 246r1
Description: Prohibits tax inverted companies from
operating on military installations.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Takai....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 13 48 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 21
h.r. 1735
On Takai Log 180r1
Description: Amends section 904 of the FY14 NDAA, as
further amended by section 905 of the Full Committee Mark, to
require the DOD to implement its own goal of reducing DOD
management headquarters budgets and personnel by 20 percent for
certain organizations in the National Capital Region.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ ........ .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 45 16 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 22
h.r. 1735
On Bordallo Log 183r2
Description: Amendment would strike section 906 and replace
with Sense of Congress language highlighting existing federal
law that requires the DOD to develop and implement a workforce
performance management system.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 43 19 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 23
h.r. 1735
On Duckworth Log 143
Description: Strike section 594, which requires Department
of Defense report on rulemaking under the Military Lending Act
and delays implementing new lending rules under the Act pending
submission of such report.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 32 30 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 24
h.r. 1735
On Fleming Log 269r1
Description: Prevents further reductions in Army end
strength until 180 days after SecDef certification report
provided to Congress.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 12 50 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 25
h.r. 1735
On Johnson Log 230
Description: This amendment prohibits the transfer, through
the 1033 program, of MRAP's and M16's.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 20 42 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 26
h.r. 1735
On Johnson Log 229
Description: This amendment repeals a requirement that law
enforcement use militarized equipment within one year of
receipt.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 24 38 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 27
h.r. 1735
On Johnson Log 228
Description: This amendment requires a report to Congress
certifying that all militarized equipment transferred through
the 1033 program can be accounted for.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 35 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 28
h.r. 1735
On Final Passage
Description: On motion by Mr. Forbes to report the bill
H.R. 1735 as amended, favorably to the House, with a
recommendation that it do pass.
Apr 29, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Forbes.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Miller.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Kline..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Mr. Johnson..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Mr. Castro...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Duckworth... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Peters...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Fleming................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Gibson.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Dr. Heck...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Takai....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Nugent.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Graham...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Mr. Ashford..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Aguilar..... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Walorski................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Zinke..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 60 2 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The committee has taken steps to make available the
analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as
required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, and will make the analysis available as
soon as possible.
CONGRESSMAN JOHN GARAMENDI'S DISSENTING VIEWS FOR H.R. 1735, THE FISCAL
YEAR 2016 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
The committee has worked long and hard on the passage of
the 54th National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. The NDAA is usually a time when my colleagues on the
House Armed Services Committee work together to prepare a
committee mark that provides for a smart and strong defense.
Instead, the committee refused to make many of the hard choices
necessary to keep our military ready and responsive. The
committee's reckless refusal to accept my amendments, which
would have provided the basic information we need to make smart
decisions about our nuclear enterprise, prevented me from
supporting this bill.
I would like to note that there are some areas of the bill
that I support. I commend the committee's continued recognition
of the important role that both the RQ-4 Global Hawk and the U-
2 Dragon Lady play in our fulfilling our nation's intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements. In addition, I
appreciate the committee's acknowledgement that the Air Force's
long-range air refueling recapitalization plans must not cause
any gaps in our nation's robust air refueling capabilities.
Finally, I'm pleased that the committee supports efforts to
create a terrestrial-based backup to the Global Positioning
System. GPS is a critical national asset, but it is potentially
vulnerable to attack and efforts to create backup systems
should receive the strongest backing.
Unfortunately, the committee refused to agree to even the
most basic requests for information like the justification for
expanding our plutonium pit capacity or maintaining a nuclear
triad. Nor did the committee agree to a modest cut to the MOX
Fuel Fabrication Facility, which is significantly over budget
and far behind schedule. Maintaining and modernizing our
nuclear arsenal is expected to cost over $1 trillion over the
next 25-30 years. It's becoming increasingly clear that we may
not be able to afford this. We will have to make hard choices,
but we run the risk of making the wrong choices if we do not
have a clear picture of what the future looks like. Yet the
committee has decided to continue spending billions of dollars
on nuclear weapons programs that are fueling a new nuclear arms
race with a willful ignorance.
Some may point out that we cannot be in a nuclear arms race
because treaties like New START have reduced the number of
warheads in our inventory. The number of warheads may be going
down, but the weapons that remain are becoming more lethal,
more precise, and harder to detect. We may not have as many
active warheads as we used to, but the net effect is the same.
We are spending increasingly large sums of money to upgrade our
nuclear arsenal. China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom
are doing the same in response. We on the committee are the
ones that must make decisions about our trillion dollar nuclear
enterprise. Shouldn't we want to get as much useful information
as we can? Or are we going to just stick our heads in the sand
and hope that everything works out?
Beyond the nuclear issues, I am also deeply concerned about
the committee's use of the Overseas Contingency Operations
account to get around the Budget Control Act's discretionary
spending caps. While we all agree that sequestration harms the
readiness of our military and should be repealed, we should not
be using the emergency war spending account to fund long-term
national security priorities that are not war-related. Using
OCO in this manner does not give our military the certainty it
needs, making multi-year planning difficult and hampering its
ability to effectively carry out critical missions and
programs. It is irresponsible and does not help us improve our
national security.
I hope we can find ways to address these concerns through
the floor amendment and conference processes so that we can
shape the current draft legislation into a bill that is
consistent with American values and that does not embroil us in
yet another costly nuclear arms race. At the same time, this
legislation provides the strongest support to all of our
defense personnel--both civilian and military. As the
representative for servicemembers at Travis Air Force Base, in
Fairfield, California, which carries out a critical Air
Mobility mission, and Beale Air Force Base near Marysville,
which conducts a vital Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance mission, I will continue to advocate for
investing in the technologies and military capabilities that
are effective against 21st century threats.
John Garamendi.
[all]