[House Report 114-537]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 114-537
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4909
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 4, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 114-537
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4909
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
May 4, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-910 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
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......................................................... 9
Committee Position............................................... 9
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 9
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 9
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill.............. 9
Budget Authority Implication..................................... 10
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 10
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 10
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 10
Items of Special Interest.................................. 10
Brigade combat team utilization of unmanned aircraft
systems in training operations......................... 10
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 11
Items of Special Interest.................................. 11
Joint air-to-ground missile increment 2 acquisition
strategy............................................... 11
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 11
Items of Special Interest.................................. 11
Army National Guard M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle
upgrades............................................... 11
M240 medium machine gun modernization.................... 12
Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System....... 12
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 13
Items of Special Interest.................................. 13
Ammunition industrial base investment strategies......... 13
Small guided munitions acquisition strategy.............. 13
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 14
Items of Special Interest.................................. 14
Accelerate fielding of personal dosimeters............... 14
Army small-scale experimentation......................... 14
Army tactical communications waveforms................... 14
Bridge Erection Boat program............................. 15
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response
Enterprise Information Management System............... 15
Ground mobility vehicle.................................. 16
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle ambulance
recapitalization....................................... 16
Material handling equipment modernization strategy....... 17
Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio...................... 17
Tactical Communication and Protective System............. 17
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 18
Items of Special Interest.................................. 18
MQ-8 Fire Scout aircraft................................. 18
V-22 Osprey.............................................. 18
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 19
Items of Special Interest.................................. 19
Littoral Combat Ship Over-the-Horizon Missile............ 19
Tomahawk Block IV........................................ 19
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 20
Items of Special Interest.................................. 20
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer............................ 20
Cruiser replacement strategy............................. 20
CVN-81 advance procurement............................... 20
Expeditionary Mobile Base ship........................... 21
Frigate.................................................. 21
Landing Craft Air Cushion Service Life Extension Program. 21
Littoral Combat Ship..................................... 22
LX(R) Dock Landing Ship Replacement Program.............. 22
Modular ship design...................................... 22
Service Craft............................................ 23
Ship to Shore Connector.................................. 23
Strike capability assessment from surface amphibious
forces................................................. 23
TAO(X) oiler shipbuilding program........................ 24
Undersea Mobility for Special Operation Forces........... 24
Virginia Class Submarine................................. 25
Virginia class submarine industrial base capacity........ 25
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 26
Items of Special Interest.................................. 26
Destroyer modernization.................................. 26
Joint Strike Fighter integration on amphibious ships..... 26
Navy Communications...................................... 27
Navy expeditionary combat patrol boat requirements....... 27
Ship's Signal Exploitation Equipment Program............. 28
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 29
Items of Special Interest.................................. 29
Marine Corps fielding of Enhanced Combat Helmet.......... 29
Mobile User Objective System capability.................. 29
Non-lethal ocular interruption capabilities.............. 30
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 30
Items of Special Interest.................................. 30
A-10 aircraft............................................ 30
Aerial refueling recapitalization........................ 32
Air Force Command, Control, Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance (C2ISR) Fleet....................... 32
Air National Guard F-16 mission training centers......... 32
Aircraft urethane sealant upgrades....................... 33
B-21 bomber.............................................. 33
B-21 Development Progress Matrix......................... 34
Basing priorities for future Air National Guard Modular
Airborne Firefighting Systems missions................. 34
Battlefield Airborne Communications Node................. 35
C-130H Modernization..................................... 35
C-130J Hercules aircraft................................. 36
C-40A Clipper aircraft................................... 36
Demonstration of high performance unmanned jet aircraft.. 37
E-8C prime mission equipment diminishing manufacturing
sources kits........................................... 37
EC-130H Compass Call recapitalization.................... 37
F-22 production restart assessment....................... 38
F-35 Lightning II aircraft program....................... 39
MQ-9 production funding in Future Years Defense Program.. 40
Reporting requirement for C-130H recapitalization and
modernization.......................................... 40
UH-1N replacement program................................ 40
U.S. Air Force combat search and rescue.................. 41
U.S. Marine Corps C/KC-130 digital interoperability...... 42
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 43
Items of Special Interest.................................. 43
25 millimeter ammunition for the F-35 program............ 43
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 43
Items of Special Interest.................................. 43
Civil engineers construction, surveying, and mapping
equipment.............................................. 43
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 44
Items of Special Interest.................................. 44
Replacement of MH-60M for United States Special
Operations Command..................................... 44
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 44
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 44
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations............... 44
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 44
Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority for AH-64E
Apache Helicopters....................................... 44
Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for UH-60M and
HH-60M Black Hawk Helicopters............................ 44
Section 113--Assessment of Certain Capabilities of the
Department of the Army................................... 44
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 45
Section 121--Procurement Authority for Aircraft Carrier
Programs................................................. 45
Section 122--Sense of Congress on Aircraft Carrier
Procurement Schedules.................................... 45
Section 123--Design and Construction of LHA Replacement
Ship Designated LHA 8.................................... 45
Section 124--Design and Construction of Replacement Dock
Landing Ship Designated LX(R) or Amphibious Transport
Dock Designated LPD-29................................... 46
Section 125--Ship to Shore Connector Program............... 46
Section 126--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Littoral Combat Ship or Successor Frigate................ 46
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 46
Section 131--Elimination of Annual Report on Aircraft
Inventory................................................ 46
Section 132--Repeal of the Requirement to Preserve Certain
Retired C-5 Aircraft..................................... 46
Section 133--Repeal of Requirement to Preserve Certain
Retired F-117 Aircraft................................... 46
Section 134--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Retirement of A-10 Aircraft.............................. 46
Section 135--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Retirement of Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
System Aircraft.......................................... 47
Subtitle E--Defense-wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters.... 47
Section 141--Termination of Quarterly Reporting on Use of
Combat Mission Requirements Funds........................ 47
Section 142--Fire Suppressant and Fuel Containment
Standards for Certain Vehicles........................... 47
Section 143--Report on Department of Defense Munitions
Strategy for the Combatant Commands...................... 47
Section 144--Comptroller General Review of F-35 Lightning
II Aircraft Sustainment Support.......................... 48
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 48
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army............ 48
Items of Special Interest.................................. 48
Armored vehicle fuel tank and bladder safety............. 48
Army advanced body armor research and development........ 49
Army network integration evaluations and army warfighting
assessments............................................ 49
Blast mitigation technologies for combat and tactical
vehicles............................................... 50
Helicopter seating systems............................... 51
Improved refrigeration and cooling technology............ 51
Improved Turbine Engine Program.......................... 51
Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile program..................... 52
Lightweight metal matrix composite technology for combat
and tactical vehicles.................................. 52
Lithium ion super-capacitors............................. 53
Long Range Precision Fires............................... 53
Long-range Army surface-to-air missile capability........ 53
Modular Handgun System................................... 54
Next generation signature management technology.......... 54
Personal protective equipment development for female
soldiers............................................... 55
Review of ballistic testing policy for body armor........ 55
Small Unit Support Vehicle............................... 56
Telemedicine capabilities................................ 56
Vehicle active protection systems........................ 56
Warfighter Technology.................................... 57
Weight reduction for personal protective equipment....... 57
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy............ 58
Items of Special Interest.................................. 58
Advanced Low Cost Munitions Ordnance..................... 58
Aegis radar solid state improvements..................... 58
Aircraft carrier design.................................. 59
Alternative energy programs.............................. 59
Amphibious Ship Replacement Program...................... 59
Automated testing........................................ 59
Autonomous Undersea Vehicles............................. 60
Briefing on advanced flight control software for carrier
landings............................................... 60
Common mount for electromagnetic railgun................. 61
Deployable and interoperable communications.............. 61
F/A-18 fleet physiological event rate.................... 61
Five-inch precision guided projectile development for
naval surface fire support............................. 62
Integrated surveillance system........................... 63
Joint metallurgical technology for combat and tactical
vehicle hulls.......................................... 63
Marine Corps unmanned rotary utility aircraft............ 63
MH-60R/S multi-mission helicopter programs............... 64
Non-imaging millimeter wave radar technology............. 64
Ocean warfighting environment applied research........... 65
Service life extension program for Auxiliary General
Purpose Oceanographic Research......................... 65
Submarine acoustic warfare development................... 66
UCLASS, CBARS, RAQ-25, MQ-25, MQ-XX...................... 66
Warfighter sustainment applied research.................. 68
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force....... 68
Items of Special Interest.................................. 68
Adaptive engine transition program....................... 68
Air Force directed energy initiatives.................... 68
Air traffic control and landing systems.................. 69
Deployable air traffic control........................... 70
High efficiency heat exchangers.......................... 70
Human-machine teaming.................................... 71
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
recapitalization....................................... 71
KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program........... 72
MQ-9 automatic takeoff and landing capability............ 73
MQ-9 unmanned aircraft vehicle tactical datalink
integration............................................ 73
Open architecture Distributed Common Ground System....... 74
Precision metrology tools................................ 75
Reusable hypersonic vehicle structures development....... 75
Silicon carbide for aerospace power applications......... 75
T-X program.............................................. 76
Technology transfer...................................... 76
Wide-area motion imagery................................. 77
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.... 77
Items of Special Interest.................................. 77
Academia and university affiliated research center
support for chemical and biological defense............ 77
Additive manufacturing................................... 78
Alternative solutions to multidrug resistant bacteria.... 78
Better Gender Reporting in Grantmaking................... 78
Broad-spectrum antiviral drug modeling................... 79
Cellular and broadband signals exploitation.............. 79
Comptroller General review of commercial practices for
trust in microelectronics.............................. 80
Counter-unmanned aerial systems roadmap.................. 80
Department of Defense medical countermeasures Advanced
Development and Manufacturing facility roadmap......... 81
Desalination technology.................................. 82
Explosive Ordnance Disposal equipment technology upgrades 82
Foundational Intelligence Modernization.................. 82
Future Vertical Lift..................................... 83
Handheld explosive and chemical detectors................ 83
High-speed aerothermal effects........................... 83
Human systems integration activities..................... 84
Hydrocephalus research................................... 84
Hyperspectral imaging technology......................... 84
Immersive operator control stations...................... 85
Incentives for increasing private sector medical
countermeasures development............................ 85
Interagency unmanned aerial system research.............. 85
Intestinal mucosal barrier research to address chemical
and biological threats................................. 86
Laboratory Quality Enhancement........................... 86
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Briefing............. 87
Minority-serving institutions and minority-owned
businesses............................................. 87
Monoclonal antibody therapeutics......................... 88
MQ-9 anti-icing capability............................... 88
Nanomaterials in Combat Systems.......................... 88
Non-destructive counterfeit parts detection tools........ 89
Prioritization of joint test activities.................. 89
Program intermediary agreements.......................... 89
Ribonucleic acid technology research..................... 90
Rotorcraft degraded visual environment................... 90
Secure cellular communications for senior leaders........ 90
Small turbine engines for missile programs............... 91
Social media analysis cell............................... 91
Strategic Capabilities Office............................ 92
Technology enablers for directed energy weapon systems... 93
Third Offset Strategy.................................... 93
Transition of biosurveillance prototype.................. 94
Treatment of traumatic brain injury...................... 94
United States-Israel Anti-tunnel cooperation............. 95
Unmanned advanced capability combat aircraft and ground
combat vehicles........................................ 95
U.S. Special Operations Command rapid prototyping and
SOFWERX initiative..................................... 96
Utilization of electromagnetic spectrum.................. 97
V-22 defensive weapons integration analysis.............. 97
Vector geo-location technologies for Special Operations
Command................................................ 98
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 98
Items of Special Interest.................................. 98
Range capabilities for emerging advanced technologies.... 98
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 99
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 99
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 99
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 99
Section 211--Laboratory Quality Enhancement Program........ 99
Section 212--Mechanisms to Provide Funds for Defense
Laboratories for Research and Development of Technologies
for Military Missions.................................... 100
Section 213--Notification Requirement for Certain Rapid
Prototyping, Experimentation, and Demonstration
Activities............................................... 100
Section 214--Improved Biosafety for Handling of Select
Agents and Toxins........................................ 100
Section 215--Modernization of Security Clearance
Information Technology Architecture...................... 100
Section 216--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction System
Constellation............................................ 101
Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Defense Innovation Unit Experimental..................... 101
Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Tactical Combat Training System Increment II............. 102
Section 219--Restructuring of the Distributed Common Ground
System of the Army....................................... 102
Section 220--Designation of Department of Defense Senior
Official with Principal Responsibility for Directed
Energy Weapons........................................... 102
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 102
Section 231--Strategy for Assured Access to Trusted
Microelectronics......................................... 102
Section 232--Pilot Program on Evaluation of Commercial
Information Technology................................... 103
Section 233--Pilot Program for the Enhancement of the
Laboratories and Test and Evaluation Centers of the
Department of Defense.................................... 103
Section 234--Pilot Program on Modernization of
Electromagnetic Spectrum Warfare Systems and Electronic
Warfare Systems.......................................... 103
Section 235--Independent Review of F/A-18 Physiological
Episodes and Corrective Actions.......................... 103
Section 236--Study on Helicopter Crash Prevention and
Mitigation Technology.................................... 103
Section 237--Report on Electronic Warfare Capabilities..... 103
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 104
OVERVIEW....................................................... 104
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 104
Budget Request Adjustments................................... 104
Base Realignment and Closure Request for Fiscal Year 2019.. 104
Ship Repair Capability in the Western Pacific.............. 105
Energy Issues................................................ 105
Alternatively Financed Energy Projects..................... 105
Energy Assurance for Department of Defense................. 106
Expeditionary Power Management Systems..................... 107
Integration of Installation Energy Authorities............. 107
Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology......................... 107
Procurement of Alternative Fuels........................... 108
Small Modular Reactors..................................... 108
Logistics and Sustainment Issues............................. 109
Defective Spare Parts...................................... 109
Discrepancies in the Transportation of Hazardous Material.. 109
Enhanced Decision Analysis for Weapons System Sustainment.. 110
F-35 Sustainment........................................... 110
Funding for Corrosion Control and Prevention............... 111
Implementation of Product Support Managers................. 112
Integration of Operational Contract Support Matters in
Joint Training Programs.................................. 112
Item Unique Identification Policy Implementation........... 113
Sustainment of Major Weapon Systems........................ 114
Readiness Issues............................................. 114
Air Refueling Requirements................................. 114
Armed Forces Sports Program and Service Academy Athletic
Interns.................................................. 115
Army Aviation Multi-Component Pilot Program................ 116
Assessment of Navy and Marine Corps Training Requirements.. 116
C-130 Aircraft Maintenance and Modernization............... 117
Condition-Based Maintenance on Navy Surface Ships.......... 117
Corrective Actions in Response to the Temporary Detention
of United States Sailors by Iran......................... 117
Defense Language Institute Support to the Intelligence
Community................................................ 118
Defense Travel System...................................... 118
Force of the Future........................................ 118
Global Response Force Readiness............................ 119
Green Flag East............................................ 120
Impact of Mandatory Training Requirements on Achieving
Increased Readiness...................................... 120
Language Training.......................................... 121
Management Software for Navy Training...................... 122
Military Bands............................................. 123
Mobility Support for Operations on the Korean Peninsula.... 123
Output-Based Readiness Metrics............................. 124
Refinement of Joint Staff Input into the Quarterly
Readiness Report to Congress............................. 124
Regional Air Ranges and Exercise........................... 124
Regional Biosecurity Plan Implementation................... 125
Report on Small Boat Maintenance........................... 126
Review of the Readiness of Military Sealift Command Ships
and Employment Plans..................................... 126
Rotary-Wing Aviation Readiness and Safety.................. 127
Soldiers Medically Unavailable for Training................ 128
Support Capabilities for Operations in Europe.............. 128
Synthetic Training System and Small Arms Qualification..... 129
Other Matters................................................ 130
Acquisition of Highly Technical Contract Services.......... 130
Adoption of Tactical Explosive Detection Military Working
Dogs..................................................... 130
Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal........................... 131
Associated Unit Concept for Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense Security Force Manning........................... 132
Collaboration with U.S. Universities....................... 132
Combat Footwear Survey..................................... 133
Disabled Veterans Non-Profit Groups........................ 133
Disposal of Excess Agriculture-Related Equipment........... 133
End-of-Service Veterinary Care for Military Working Dogs... 134
Flame-Resistant Military Uniform Postures.................. 134
Military Free Fall Course as a Requirement of the U.S. Army
Special Forces Qualification Course...................... 135
Military Glove System...................................... 135
National Guard Cyber Protection Teams...................... 135
National Guard Unit for the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.......................................... 136
Procurement and Inspection of Armored Commercial Passenger-
Carrying Vehicles........................................ 136
Public-Private Partnerships for Cyber Education and
Training................................................. 137
Retaining Critical Skills and STEM Capabilities During
Headquarters Downsizing.................................. 138
The Role of the National Security Contractor............... 139
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 139
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 139
Section 301--Authorization of Appropriations............... 139
Subtitle B--Energy and Environment........................... 139
Section 311--Rule of Construction Regarding Alternative
Fuel Procurement Requirement............................. 139
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 139
Section 321--Pilot Program for Inclusion of Certain
Industrial Plants in the Armament Retooling and
Manufacturing Support Initiative......................... 139
Section 322--Private Sector Port Loading Assessment........ 140
Section 323--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Defense Contract Management Agency....................... 140
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 140
Section 331--Modification of Annual Department of Defense
Energy Management Reports................................ 140
Section 332--Report on Equipment Purchased from Foreign
Entities and Authority to Adjust Army Arsenal Labor Rates 141
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 141
Section 341--Explosive Ordnance Disposal Corps............. 141
Section 342--Explosive Ordnance Disposal Program........... 141
Section 343--Expansion of Definition of Structures
Interfering with Air Commerce and National Defense....... 141
Section 344--Development of Personal Protective Equipment
for Female Marines and Soldiers.......................... 141
Section 345--Study on Space-Available Travel System of the
Department of Defense.................................... 142
Section 346--Supply of Specialty Motors from Certain
Manufacturers............................................ 142
Section 347--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds Until
Establishment and Implementation of Required Process by
which Members of the Armed Forces May Carry Appropriate
Firearms on Military Installations....................... 142
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 142
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 142
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 142
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 142
Section 402--Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End
Strength Minimum Levels.................................. 143
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 143
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 143
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 143
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 144
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2017 Limitation on Number of Non-
Dual Status Technicians.................................. 144
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized
To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 144
Section 416--Sense of Congress on Full-Time Support for the
Army National Guard...................................... 145
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 145
Section 421--Military Personnel............................ 145
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 145
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 145
Army National Guard Preventive Intervention for Suicide and
Substance Abuse.......................................... 145
Briefing on Credentialing Programs for Service Members in
Combat Arms Specialties.................................. 146
Briefing on Stars and Stripes Funding...................... 146
Community and Military Education Partnerships.............. 146
Comptroller General Review of the Military Entrance
Processing Stations Medical Examinations................. 147
Cyber Science Education at the Service Academies........... 147
Database Tracking System for Valor Awards.................. 147
Dual Military Shared Parental Leave Feasibility Study...... 148
Enhanced Access and Consideration before Discharge Review
Boards and Correction of Military Records Boards......... 148
Implementation by the Services of the recommendations
listed in the ``Program to Assist Veterans to Acquire
Commercial Driver's Licenses Report to Congress''........ 149
Improved Oversight of Hazing Prevention Programs and
Reporting in the Military Services....................... 149
Information Regarding On-the-Job Training and
Apprenticeship Programs.................................. 150
Informing Service Members About the United Services
Military Apprenticeship Program.......................... 150
Integration of Women into Previously Closed Military
Occupations.............................................. 150
Military Reemployment Initiatives.......................... 151
National Guard Bureau Briefing Requirement................. 151
Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality Compliance with
Department of Defense Policy............................. 151
Report on Department of Defense Efforts to Provide Timely
Review of Separation Characterization of Former Members
of the Armed Forces who were Separated by Reason of
Sexual Orientation....................................... 152
Report on the Purpose and Utility of a Registration System
for Military Selective Service........................... 152
Review and Report on Port Chicago.......................... 153
Review of Qualified Joint Tours............................ 153
Suicide Prevention......................................... 154
Troops to Teachers Partnership............................. 154
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 154
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 154
Section 501--Number of Marine Corps General Officers....... 154
Section 502--Equal Consideration of Officers for Early
Retirement or Discharge.................................. 154
Section 503--Modification of Authority to Drop from Rolls a
Commissioned Officer..................................... 155
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 155
Section 511--Extension of Removal of Restrictions on the
Transfer of Officers Between the Active and Inactive
National Guard........................................... 155
Section 512--Extension of Temporary Authority to Use Air
Force Reserve Component Personnel to Provide Training and
Instruction Regarding Pilot Training..................... 155
Section 513--Limitations on Ordering Selected Reserve to
Active Duty for Preplanned Missions in Support of the
Combatant Commands....................................... 155
Section 514--Exemption of Military Technicians (Dual
Status) from Civilian Employee Furloughs................. 155
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 156
Section 521--Technical Correction to Annual Authorization
for Personnel Strengths.................................. 156
Section 522--Entitlement to Leave for Adoption or Birth of
Child by Dual Military Couples........................... 156
Section 523--Revision of Deployability Rating System and
Planning Reform.......................................... 156
Section 524--Expansion of Authority to Execute Certain
Military Instruments..................................... 156
Section 525--Technical Correction to Voluntary Separation
Pay and Benefits......................................... 156
Section 526--Annual Notice to Members of the Armed Forces
Regarding Child Custody Protections Guaranteed by the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.......................... 157
Section 527--Pilot Program on Consolidated Army Recruiting. 157
Section 528--Application of Military Selective Service
Registration and Conscription Requirements to Female
Citizens and Residents of the United States Between the
Ages of 18 and 26........................................ 157
Section 529--Parental Leave for Members of the Armed Forces 157
Subtitle D--Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and
Domestic Violence Prevention and Response................ 157
Section 541--Expedited Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect
to State Child Protective Services....................... 157
Section 542--Extension of the Requirement for Annual Report
Regarding Sexual Assaults and Coordination with Release
of Family Advocacy Report................................ 158
Section 543--Requirement for Annual Family Advocacy Program
Report Regarding Child Abuse and Domestic Violence....... 158
Section 544--Improved Department of Defense Prevention of
and Response to Hazing in the Armed Forces............... 158
Section 545--Burdens of Proof Applicable to Investigations
and Reviews Related to Protected Communications of
Members of the Armed Forces and Prohibited Retaliatory
Actions.................................................. 158
Section 546--Improved Investigation of Allegations of
Professional Retaliation................................. 158
Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, and Transition....... 159
Section 561--Revision to Quality Assurance of Certification
Programs and Standards................................... 159
Section 562--Establishment Of ROTC Cyber Institutes At
Senior Military Colleges................................. 159
Section 563--Military-to-Mariner Transition................ 159
Section 564--Employment Authority for Civilian Faculty at
Certain Military Department Schools...................... 159
Section 565--Revision of Name on Military Service Record to
Reflect Change in Name of a Member of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, or Marine Corps, after Separation from the Armed
Forces................................................... 159
Section 566--Direct Employment Pilot Program for Members of
the National Guard and Reserve........................... 160
Section 567--Prohibition on Establishment, Maintenance, or
Support of Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Units
at Educational Institutions That Display Confederate
Battle Flag.............................................. 160
Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters........................................ 160
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................................................ 160
Section 572--Support for Programs Providing Camp Experience
for Children of Military Families........................ 160
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards........................... 160
Section 581--Review Regarding Award of Medal of Honor to
Certain Asian American and Native American Pacific
Islander War Veterans.................................... 160
Section 582--Authorization for Award of Medals for Acts of
Valor.................................................... 161
Section 583--Authorization for Award of the Medal of Honor
to Gary M. Rose for Acts of Valor During the Vietnam War. 161
Section 584--Authorization for Award of the Medal of Honor
to Charles S. Kettles for Acts of Valor During the
Vietnam War.............................................. 161
Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters.......... 161
Section 591--Burial of Cremated Remains in Arlington
National Cemetery of Certain Persons Whose Service Is
Deemed To Be Active Service.............................. 161
Section 592--Representation from Members of the Armed
Forces on Boards, Councils, and Committees Making
Recommendations Relating to Military Personnel Issues.... 162
Section 593--Body Mass Index Test.......................... 162
Section 594--Preseparation Counseling Regarding Options for
Donating Brain Tissue at Time of Death for Research...... 162
Section 595--Recognition of the Expanded Service
Opportunities Available to Female Members of the Armed
Forces and the Long Service of Women in the Armed Forces. 162
Section 596--Sense of Congress Regarding Plight of Male
Victims of Military Sexual Trauma........................ 162
Section 597--Sense of Congress Regarding Section 504 of
Title 10, United States Code, on Existing Authority of
the Department of Defense to Enlist Individuals, Not
Otherwise Eligible for Enlistment, Whose Enlistment Is
Vital to the National Interest........................... 162
Section 598--Protection of Second Amendment Rights of
Military Families........................................ 162
Section 599--Pilot Program on Advanced Technology for
Alcohol Abuse Prevention................................. 163
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 163
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 163
Feasibility study to expanding Veterans Access to
Commissary............................................... 163
Inspector General Review of the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable
Contract for the Pacific................................. 163
Service Members Group Life Insurance Report................ 164
Student Loan Interest for Eligible Military Borrowers...... 165
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 165
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 165
Section 601--Annual Adjustment of Monthly Basic Pay........ 165
Section 602--Extension of Authority to Provide Temporary
Increase in Rates of Basic Allowance for Housing Under
Certain Circumstances.................................... 165
Section 603--Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reductions
Based on the Duration of Temporary Duty Assignment or
Civilian Travel.......................................... 166
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 166
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 166
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals.... 166
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus
Authorities for Nuclear Officers......................... 166
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and
Bonus Authorities........................................ 166
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays....... 167
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Amount of Aviation Special
Pays for Flying Duty..................................... 167
Section 617--Conforming Amendment to Consolidation of
Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities........ 167
Section 618--Technical and Clerical Amendments Relating to
2008 Consolidation of Certain Special Pay Authorities.... 167
Section 619--Combat-Related Special Compensation
Coordinating Amendment................................... 168
Subtitle C--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits... 168
Section 621--Separation Determinations for Members
Participating in Thrift Savings Plan..................... 168
Section 622--Continuation Pay for Full Thrift Savings Plan
Members Who Have Completed 8 to 12 Years of Service...... 168
Section 623--Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance.......... 168
Section 624--Equal Benefits Under Survivor Benefit Plan for
Survivors of Reserve Component Members who Die in the
Line of Duty during Inactive-Duty Training............... 168
Section 625--Use of Member's Current Pay Grade and Years of
Service, Rather Than Final Retirement Pay Grade and Years
of Service, in a Division of Property Involving
Disposable Retired Pay................................... 169
Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................. 169
Section 631--Protection and Enhancement of Access to and
Savings at Commissaries and Exchanges.................... 169
Subtitle E--Travel and Transportation Allowances and Other
Matters.................................................. 169
Section 641--Maximum Reimbursement Amount for Travel
Expenses of Members of the Reserves Attending Inactive
Duty Training Outside of Normal Commuting Distances...... 169
Section 642--Statute of Limitations on Department of
Defense Recovery of Amounts Owed to the United States by
Members of the Uniformed Services, Including Retired and
Former Members........................................... 169
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 169
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 169
Briefing on TRICARE Coverage for Emerging Health Care
Services................................................. 169
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Health
Care Partnerships........................................ 170
Designation of TRICARE Providers with Military Awareness
and Cultural Training.................................... 170
Diabetes Prevention Programs............................... 171
Expedited Treatment for Fetal Repair....................... 171
Full Spectrum Ultraviolet Technologies for Routine
Disinfection and Outbreak Mitigation..................... 171
Gluten-Free Meals Ready to Eat............................. 172
Improving Beneficiary Experience and Outcomes.............. 172
Improving Pediatric Health Care Under TRICARE.............. 172
Infertility Treatment and Services for Wounded Ill or
Injured Members of the Armed Forces...................... 172
Joint Medical Research Test Centers........................ 173
Military Medical Photonics................................. 173
Network of Support......................................... 173
Osteoarthritis............................................. 174
Prescription Opioid Abuse and Effects on Readiness......... 174
Private-Public Partnership in Military Treatment Facilities 175
Storage of DNA Samples of Members of the Armed Forces...... 175
TRICARE Coverage of Medically Necessary Foods.............. 175
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 176
Subtitle A--Reform of TRICARE and Military Health System..... 176
Section 701--TRICARE Preferred and Other TRICARE Reform.... 176
Section 702--Reform of Administration of the Defense Health
Agency and Military Medical Treatment Facilities......... 176
Section 703--Military Medical Treatment Facilities......... 177
Section 704--Access to Urgent Care Under TRICARE Program... 177
Section 705--Access to Primary Care Clinics at Military
Medical Treatment Facilities............................. 177
Section 706--Incentives for Value-Based Health Under
TRICARE Program.......................................... 177
Section 707--Improvements to Military-Civilian Partnerships
to Increase Access to Health Care and Readiness.......... 178
Section 708--Joint Trauma System........................... 178
Section 709--Joint Trauma Education and Training
Directorate.............................................. 178
Section 710--Improvements to Access to Health Care in
Military Medical Treatment Facilities.................... 178
Section 711--Adoption of Core Quality Performance Metrics.. 179
Section 712--Study on Improving Continuity of Health Care
Coverage for Reserve Components.......................... 179
Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits....................... 179
Section 721--Provision of Hearing Aids to Dependents of
Retired Members.......................................... 179
Section 722--Extended TRICARE Program Coverage for Certain
Members of the National Guard and Dependents During
Certain Disaster Response Duty........................... 179
Subtitle C--Health Care Administration....................... 179
Section 731--Prospective Payment of Funds Necessary to
Provide Medical Care for the Coast Guard................. 179
Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters........................ 180
Section 741--Mental Health Resources for Members of the
Military Services at High Risk of Suicide................ 180
Section 742--Research of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.. 180
Section 743--Active Oscillating Negative Pressure Treatment 180
Section 744--Long-Term Study on Health of Helicopter and
Tiltrotor Pilots......................................... 180
Section 745--Pilot Program for Prescription Drug
Acquisition Cost Parity in the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits
Program.................................................. 180
Section 746--Study on Display of Wait Times at Urgent Care
Clinics, Pharmacies, and Emergency Rooms of Military
Medical Treatment Facilities............................. 180
Section 747--Report on Feasibility of Including Acupuncture
and Chiropractic Services for Retirees Under TRICARE
Program.................................................. 180
Section 748--Clarification on Submission of Reports on
Longitudinal Study on Traumatic Brain Injury............. 181
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 181
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 181
Acquisition Auditing and Agility........................... 181
Acquisition Manager Career Paths........................... 182
Advanced Small Business.................................... 182
Appropriate Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable
Source Selection Processes and Contracts................. 183
Contracting Delays for the Small Business Innovative
Research Program......................................... 184
Defense Acquisition University Course Curriculum........... 184
Development Planning....................................... 184
Developmental and Operational Testing Agility.............. 185
Discussions Between Government and Industry After Receipt
of Proposals............................................. 185
Domestic Source of Traveling Wave Tubes.................... 186
Innovation Clusters........................................ 186
Large Lot Procurement...................................... 186
Operation and Support Cost Data............................ 187
Public-Private Competitions Conducted under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76...................... 188
Rare Earths................................................ 188
Requirement for Non-U.S. Contracts in Afghanistan.......... 189
Service Contracts Inventory and Accountability............. 189
Small Business Participation Across Industry Categories.... 190
Veterans in Piping program................................. 190
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 190
Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations.............................. 190
Section 801--Revision to Authorities Relating to Department
of Defense Test Resource Management Center............... 190
Section 802--Amendments to Restrictions on Undefinitized
Contractual Actions...................................... 191
Section 803--Revision to Requirements Relating to Inventory
Method for Department of Defense Contracts for Services.. 191
Section 804--Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment.. 191
Section 805--Revision to Effective Date of Senior Executive
Benchmark Compensation for Allowable Cost Limitations.... 191
Section 806--Amendments Related to Detection and Avoidance
of Counterfeit Electronic Parts.......................... 191
Section 807--Amendments to Special Emergency Procurement
Authority................................................ 192
Section 808--Compliance with Domestic Source Requirements
for Footwear Furnished to Enlisted Members of the Armed
Forces Upon Their Entry into the Armed Forces............ 192
Section 809--Requirement for Policies and Standard
Checklist in Procurement of Services..................... 192
Section 810--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual
Amount Available for Contract Services................... 192
Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................. 192
Section 811--Change in Date of Submission to Congress of
Selected Acquisition Reports............................. 192
Section 812--Amendments Relating to Independent Cost
Estimation and Cost Analysis............................. 192
Section 813--Revisions to Milestone B Determinations....... 193
Section 814--Review and Report on Sustainment Planning in
the Acquisition Process.................................. 193
Section 815--Revision to Distribution of Annual Report on
Operational Test and Evaluation.......................... 194
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Commercial Items.......... 194
Section 821--Revision to Definition of Commercial Item..... 194
Section 822--Market Research for Determination of Price
Reasonableness in Acquisition of Commercial Items........ 194
Section 823--Value Analysis for the Determination of Price
Reasonableness........................................... 194
Section 824--Clarification of Requirements Relating to
Commercial Item Determinations........................... 195
Section 825--Pilot Program for Authority to Acquire
Innovative Commercial Items Using General Solicitation
Competitive Procedures................................... 195
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 195
Section 831--Review and Report on the Bid Protest Process.. 195
Section 832--Review and Report on Indefinite Delivery
Contracts................................................ 195
Section 833--Review and Report on Contractual Flow-Down
Provisions............................................... 196
Section 834--Review of Anti-Competitive Specifications in
Information Technology Acquisitions...................... 196
Section 835--Coast Guard Major Acquisition Programs........ 196
Section 836--Waiver of Congressional Notification for
Acquisition of Tactical Missiles and Munitions Greater
than Quantity Specified in Law........................... 197
Section 837--Closeout of Old Department of the Navy
Contracts................................................ 198
Section 838--Requirement that Certain Ship Components be
Manufactured in the National Technology and Industrial
Base..................................................... 198
Section 839--Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund Determination Adjustment................ 198
Section 840--Amendment to Prohibition on Performance of
Non-Defense Audits by Defense Contract Audit Agency to
Exempt Audits for National Nuclear Security
Administration........................................... 198
Section 841--Selection of Service Providers for Auditing
Services and Audit Readiness Services.................... 198
Section 842--Modifications to the Justification and
Approval Process for Certain Sole-Source Contracts for
Small Business Concerns.................................. 198
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 199
OVERVIEW....................................................... 199
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 200
Conference Travel Policy................................... 200
Defense Logistics Agency Overhead Costs.................... 201
Human Capital Plan for Business Transformation............. 202
Oversight and Management of Defense-Wide Training.......... 202
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 203
Subtitle A--Goldwater-Nichols Reform......................... 203
Section 901--Sense of Congress on Goldwater-Nichols Reform. 203
Section 902--Repeal of Defense Strategy Review............. 203
Section 903--Commission on National Defense Strategy for
the United States........................................ 204
Section 904--Reform of Defense Strategic and Policy
Guidance................................................. 204
Section 905--Reform of the National Military Strategy...... 205
Section 906--Modification to Independent Study of National
Security Strategy Formulation Process.................... 206
Section 907--Term of Office for the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.......................................... 206
Section 908--Responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff relating to Operations................... 206
Section 909--Assigned Forces within the Continental United
States................................................... 207
Section 910--Reduction in General Officer and Flag Officer
Grades and Positions..................................... 207
Section 911--Establishment of Unified Combatant Command for
Cyber Operations......................................... 208
Section 912--Revision of Requirements Relating to Length of
Joint Duty Assignments................................... 208
Section 913--Revision of Definitions Used for Joint Officer
Management............................................... 208
Section 914--Independent Assessment of Combatant Command
Structure................................................ 208
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 208
Section 921--Modifications to Corrosion Report............. 208
Section 922--Authority to Employ Civilian Faculty Members
at Joint Special Operations University................... 208
Section 923--Guidelines for Conversion of Functions
Performed by Civilian or Contractor Personnel to
Performance by Military Personnel........................ 209
Section 924--Public Release by Inspectors General of
Reports of Misconduct.................................... 209
Section 925--Modifications to Requirements for Accounting
for Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees Listed as Missing..................... 209
Subtitle C--Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.......... 209
Section 931--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as
the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.............. 209
Section 932--Conforming Amendments to Title 10, United
States Code.............................................. 209
Section 933--Other Provisions of Law and Other References.. 209
Section 934--Effective Date................................ 209
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 210
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 210
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 210
Colombia Peace Process..................................... 210
United States Southern Command Operational Support......... 210
Other Matters................................................ 211
Accessibility of Translated Foreign Military and Technical
Writings................................................. 211
Air Force Combat Search and Rescue Associate Units......... 211
Airlift Safety and Readiness for Certain Aircraft.......... 212
Army and Joint Force Integration of Former Unmanned
Aircraft System Center of Excellence Responsibilities.... 212
Carrier Air Wing Force Structure........................... 213
Comprehensive Detention Strategy........................... 214
Comptroller General Assessment of Deployable Identity
Management Forensics Capability.......................... 214
Countering Violent Extremism............................... 215
Department of Defense Briefing on United States
Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea............................................... 215
Department of Defense Strategy for Countering
Unconventional Warfare................................... 215
Enterprise Resource Planning Financial Management
Implementation........................................... 216
Financial Management Systems for Army Non-Appropriated Fund
Activities............................................... 217
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account....................... 217
Maintaining Compliance with the Financial Improvement and
Audit Readiness Plan..................................... 218
Minerva Research Initiative................................ 218
Preventing Unfair Trade Practices in Military Equipment
Sales.................................................... 219
Recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of
the Army................................................. 219
Repeal of Report on Unmanned Aircraft Systems.............. 220
Special Operations Forces Education Briefing............... 220
Wassenaar Arrangement Impacts to the Department of Defense. 221
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 221
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 221
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority................... 221
Section 1002--Requirement to transfer Funds from Department
of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund to the
Treasury................................................. 221
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 222
Section 1011--Extension of Authority to Provide Additional
Support for Counter-Drug Activities of Foreign
Governments.............................................. 222
Section 1012--Secretary of Defense Review of Curricula and
Program Structures of National Guard Counterdrug Schools. 222
Section 1013--Extension of Authority to Support Unified
Counterdrug and Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia.... 222
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 222
Section 1021--Definition of Short-Term Work with Respect to
Overhaul, Repair, or Maintenance of Naval Vessels........ 222
Section 1022--Warranty Requirements for Shipbuilding
Contracts................................................ 222
Section 1023--National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund........... 223
Section 1024--Availability of Funds for Retirement or
Inactivation of Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers or Dock
Landing Ships............................................ 223
Section 1025--Restrictions on the Overhaul and Repair of
Vessels in Foreign Shipyards............................. 223
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 223
Section 1031--Frequency of Counterterrorism Operations
Briefings................................................ 223
Section 1032--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or
Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States....... 223
Section 1033--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................................................ 224
Section 1034--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or
Release to Certain Countries of Individuals Detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba........ 224
Section 1035--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Realignment
of Forces at or Closure of United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba..................................... 224
Section 1036--Modification of Congressional Notification of
Sensitive Military Operations............................ 224
Section 1037--Comprehensive Strategy for Detention of
Certain Individuals...................................... 224
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 225
Section 1041--Expanded Authority for Transportation by the
Department of Defense of Non-Department of Defense
Personnel and Cargo...................................... 225
Section 1042--Limitation on Retirement, Deactivation, or
Decommissioning of Mine Countermeasures Ships............ 225
Section 1043--Extension of Authority of Secretary of
Transportation to Issue Non-Premium Aviation Insurance... 225
Section 1044--Evaluation of Navy Alternate Combination
Cover and Unisex Combination Cover....................... 225
Section 1045--Department of Defense Protection of National
Security Spectrum........................................ 226
Section 1046--Transportation on Military Aircraft on a
Space-Available Basis for Members and Former Members of
the Armed Forces with Disabilities Rated as Total........ 226
Section 1047--National Guard Flyovers of Public Events..... 226
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports.............................. 226
Section 1061--Temporary Continuation of Certain Department
of Defense Reporting Requirements........................ 226
Section 1062--Matters for Inclusion in Report on
Designation of Countries for which Rewards May Be Paid
under Department of Defense Rewards Program.............. 227
Section 1063--Congressional Notification of Biological
Select Agent and Toxin Theft, Loss, or Release Involving
the Department of Defense................................ 227
Section 1064--Report on Service-Provided Support to United
States Special Operations Forces......................... 227
Section 1065--Report on Citizen Security Responsibilities
in the Northern Triangle of Central America.............. 227
Section 1066--Report on Counterproliferation Activities and
Programs................................................. 227
Section 1067--Inclusion of Ballistic Missile Defense
Information in Annual Report on Requirements of Combatant
Commands................................................. 228
Section 1068--Reviews by Department of Defense Concerning
National Security Use of Spectrum........................ 228
Section 1069--Annual Report on Personnel, Training, and
Equipment Requirements for the Non-Federalized National
Guard to Support Civilian Authorities in Prevention and
Response to Domestic Disasters........................... 229
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 229
Section 1081--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 229
Section 1082--Modification to Support for Non-Federal
Development and Testing of Material for Chemical Agent
Defense.................................................. 229
Section 1083--Increase in Maximum Amount Available for
Equipment, Services, and Supplies Provided for
Humanitarian Demining Assistance......................... 229
Section 1084--Liquidation of Unpaid Credits Accrued as a
Result of Transactions Under a Cross-Servicing Agreement. 230
Section 1085--Clarification of Contracts Covered by Airlift
Service Provision........................................ 230
Section 1086--National Biodefense Strategy................. 230
Section 1087--Global Cultural Knowledge Network............ 231
Section 1088--Modification of Requirements Relating to
Management of Military Technicians....................... 231
Section 1089--Sense of Congress Regarding Connecticut's
Submarine Century........................................ 232
Section 1090--LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency.... 232
Section 1091--Sense of Congress Regarding the Reporting of
the MV-22 Mishap in Marana, Arizona, on April 8, 2000.... 232
Section 1092--Transfer of Surplus Firearms to Corporation
for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety.. 232
Section 1093--Sense of Congress Regarding the Importance of
Panama City, Florida, to the History and Future of the
Armed Forces............................................. 232
Section 1094--Protections Relating to Civil Rights and
Disabilities............................................. 232
Section 1095--Nonapplicability of Certain Executive Order
to Department of Defense and National Nuclear Security
Administration........................................... 232
Section 1096--Determination and Disclosure of
Transportation Costs Incurred by Secretary of Defense for
Congressional Trips Outside the United States............ 233
Section 1097--Waiver of Certain Polygraph Examination
Requirements............................................. 233
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 233
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 233
Defense Intelligence Agency Housing Allowances............. 233
Five-Year Limitation on Civilian Personnel Working Overseas 233
Joint Base Wage Grade Parity............................... 234
Security Clearances........................................ 234
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 235
Section 1101--Temporary Direct Hire Authority for Domestic
Defense Industrial Base Facilities and the Major Range
and Test Facilities Base................................. 235
Section 1102--Temporary Personnel Flexibilities for
Domestic Defense Industrial Base Facilities and Major
Range and Test Facilities Base Civilian Personnel........ 235
Section 1103--One-Year Extension of Temporary Authority to
Grant Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Civilian
Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone.............. 235
Section 1104--Advance Payments for Employees Relocating
within the United States and Its Territories............. 235
Section 1105--Permanent Authority for Alternative Personnel
Program for Scientific and Technical Personnel........... 235
Section 1106--Modification to Information Technology
Personnel Exchange Program............................... 236
Section 1107--Treatment of Certain Localities for
Calculation of Per Diem Allowances....................... 236
Section 1108--Eligibility of Employees in a Time-Limited
Appointment to Compete for a Permanent Appointment at Any
Federal Agency........................................... 236
Section 1109--Limitation on Administrative Leave........... 236
Section 1110--Record of Investigation of Personnel Action
in Separated Employee's Official Personnel File.......... 236
Section 1111--Review of Official Personnel File of Former
Federal Employees before Rehiring........................ 236
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 237
OVERVIEW....................................................... 237
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 238
Assistance to Iraqi Forces for Mosul Operations............ 238
Assistance to the Afghan National Defense and Security
Forces................................................... 239
Chinese Participation in Rim of the Pacific Exercise....... 239
Comptroller General of the United States Assessment of
Foreign Military Sales................................... 240
Countering Adversarial Messaging........................... 241
Counterterrorism and Security Cooperation Efforts in
Somalia and the Horn of Africa........................... 241
Department of Defense Briefing on Foreign Military Sales... 242
Enduring Basing Requirements in the U.S. Central Command
Area of Responsibility................................... 242
Enduring High-Resolution Geospatial Data................... 243
Instability in Libya....................................... 243
Interpretation of gross violation of human rights.......... 244
Military Assistance to the Government of Ukraine........... 244
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Defense Spending
Commitments.............................................. 244
Report on U.S. Military Enabler Support within Operation
Inherent Resolve......................................... 245
Reporting Requirements of Authority for Support of Special
Operations to Combat Terrorism........................... 245
Review of Taiwan Midshipman Cruise Training Port Call...... 246
Social Media Analytics and Publically Available Information
Supporting Battlespace Awareness......................... 246
State Partnership Program Activities in Ukraine............ 247
Strategy for Regional Counter-Narrative Capabilities....... 247
Syria No Fly Zone.......................................... 248
The Military Campaign to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant........................................... 248
Transparency in Security Cooperation Activities............ 249
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 250
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 250
Section 1201--One-Year Extension of Logistical Support for
Coalition Forces Supporting Certain United States
Military Operations...................................... 250
Section 1202--Extension of Authority for Training of
General Purpose Forces of the United States Armed Forces
with Military and Other Security Forces of Friendly
Foreign Countries........................................ 250
Section 1203--Modification and Extension of Authority to
Conduct Activities to Enhance the Capability of Foreign
Countries to Respond to Incidents Involving Weapons of
Mass Destruction......................................... 250
Section 1204--Extension of Authority for Support of Special
Operations to Combat Terrorism........................... 250
Section 1205--Modification and Codification of Reporting
Requirements Relating to Security Cooperation Authorities 250
Section 1206--Independent Assessment of Department of
Defense Security Cooperation Programs.................... 251
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan..... 252
Section 1211--Extension and Modification of Commanders'
Emergency Response Program............................... 252
Section 1212--Extension and Modification of Authority for
Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support
Provided to United States Military Operations............ 252
Section 1213--Extension of Authority to Acquire Products
and Services Produced in Countries Along a Major Route of
Supply to Afghanistan.................................... 253
Section 1214--Extension of Authority to Transfer Defense
Articles and Provide Defense Services to the Military and
Security Forces of Afghanistan........................... 253
Section 1215--Sense of Congress on United States Policy and
Strategy in Afghanistan.................................. 253
Section 1216--Special Immigrant Status for Certain Afghans. 253
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria and Iraq............... 254
Section 1221--Modification and Extension of Authority to
Provide Assistance to the Vetted Syrian Opposition....... 254
Section 1222--Modification and Extension of Authority to
Provide Assistance to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant........................................... 254
Section 1223--Extension and Modification of Authority to
Support Operations and Activities of the Office of
Security Cooperation in Iraq............................. 255
Section 1224--Report on Prevention of Future Terrorist
Organizations in Iraq and Syria.......................... 255
Section 1225--Semiannual Report on Integration of Political
and Military Strategies Against ISIL..................... 256
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation....... 256
Section 1231--Limitation on Use of Funds to Approve or
Otherwise Permit Approval of Certain Requests by Russian
Federation Under Open Skies Treaty....................... 256
Section 1232--Military Response Options to Russian
Federation Violation of INF Treaty....................... 257
Section 1233--Limitation on Military Cooperation between
the United States and the Russian Federation............. 257
Section 1234--Statement of Policy on United States Efforts
in Europe to Reassure United States Partners and Allies
and Deter Aggression by the Government of the Russian
Federation............................................... 258
Section 1235--Modification of Ukraine Security Assistance
Initiative............................................... 258
Section 1236--Prohibition on Availability of Funds Relating
to Sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea..... 258
Section 1237--Modification and Extension of Report on
Military Assistance to Ukraine........................... 259
Section 1238--Additional Matters in Annual Report on
Military and Security Developments Involving the Russian
Federation............................................... 259
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 259
Section 1241--Sense of Congress on Malign Activities of the
Government of Iran....................................... 259
Section 1242--Modification of Annual Report on Military and
Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of
China.................................................... 259
Section 1243--Sense of Congress on Trilateral Cooperation
Between Japan, South Korea, and the United States........ 260
Section 1244--Sense of Congress on Cooperation Between
Singapore and the United States.......................... 260
Section 1245--Monitoring and Evaluation of Overseas
Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid Programs of the
Department of Defense.................................... 260
Section 1246--Enhancement of Interagency Support During
Contingency Operations and Transition Periods............ 260
Section 1247--Two-Year Extension and Modification of
Authorization of Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery
Capabilities............................................. 261
Section 1248--Authority to Destroy Certain Specified World
War II-Era United States-Origin Chemical Munitions
Located on San Jose Island, Republic of Panama........... 261
Section 1249--Strategy for United States Defense Interests
in Africa................................................ 262
Section 1250--United States-Israel Directed Energy
Cooperation.............................................. 262
Section 1251--Sense of Congress on Support for Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania.................................... 262
Section 1252--Sense of Congress on Support for Georgia..... 262
Section 1253--Modification of Annual Report on Military
Power of Iran............................................ 263
Section 1254--Sense of Congress on Senior Military
Exchanges Between the United States and Taiwan........... 263
Section 1255--Quarterly Report on Freedom of Navigation
Operations............................................... 263
Subtitle F--Codification and Consolidation of Department of
Defense Security Cooperation Authorities................. 263
Section 1261--Enactment of New Chapter for Department of
Defense Security Cooperation Authorities and Transfer of
Certain Authorities to New Chapter....................... 263
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 264
OVERVIEW....................................................... 264
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 264
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Funds.................................................... 264
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 264
Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Cooperative Threat Reduction in People's Republic of
China.................................................... 265
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 265
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 265
Beryllium Metal Supply..................................... 265
Clarification of Product Improvement Pilot Program
Authority................................................ 265
Defense Production Act Implications for Propeller Shafts... 266
Destruction of Chemical Weapons Stockpile.................. 266
Locality Pay at Department of Defense Working Capital Fund
Facilities............................................... 267
Rare Earth Stockpile Acquisitions by the Defense Logistics
Agency................................................... 267
Successful Changes to Working Capital Fund Cash Management
Policy................................................... 268
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 269
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 269
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................ 269
Section 1402--National Defense Sealift Fund................ 269
Section 1403--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense.................................................. 269
Section 1404--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 269
Section 1405--Defense Inspector General.................... 269
Section 1406--Defense Health Program....................... 269
Section 1407--National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund........... 269
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 269
Section 1411--Authority to Dispose of Certain Materials
from and to Acquire Additional Materials for the National
Defense Stockpile........................................ 269
Section 1412--Revisions to the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act............................... 270
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 270
Section 1421--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...................... 270
Section 1422--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed
Forces Retirement Home................................... 270
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS....................................... 270
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 270
Execution of Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund............ 270
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account..... 271
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 272
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 272
Section 1501--Purpose and Treatment of Certain
Authorizations of Appropriations......................... 272
Section 1502--Procurement.................................. 272
Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 272
Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance.................... 272
Section 1505--Military Personnel........................... 273
Section 1506--Working Capital Funds........................ 273
Section 1507--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 273
Section 1508--Defense Inspector General.................... 273
Section 1509--Defense Health Program....................... 273
Section 1510--Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund........... 273
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 274
Section 1521--Treatment as Additional Authorizations....... 274
Section 1522--Special Transfer Authority................... 274
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters.......... 274
Section 1531--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund............. 274
Section 1532--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 274
Section 1533--Extension of Authority to Use Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund for Training of
Foreign Security Forces to Defeat Improvised Explosive
Devices.................................................. 275
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS... 275
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 275
Accrediting Models for Missile Defense Testing............. 275
Air Force Global Strike Command............................ 275
Analytic Line Review of U.S. Central Command Intelligence
Assessments.............................................. 276
Army Small Satellite Technology Development................ 276
Assessment of Department of Defense Efforts to Secure
Internet of Things....................................... 277
Assessment of Hardening Technologies for Microgrids........ 277
Asset Tracking for Information Technology Security......... 278
Biennial Cyber Exercises................................... 279
Briefing on B61-12 Deployment Plans and Costs for Modifying
Dual-Capable Aircraft.................................... 279
Briefing on Security Standards Related to Forward-Deployed
U.S. Nuclear Weapons..................................... 279
Cloud Access Points........................................ 280
Command and Control of National Security Space Assets...... 281
Commercial Geospatial Intelligence......................... 281
Commercial Satellite Communications........................ 281
Commercial Space-Based Capabilities........................ 282
Comptroller General Assessment of the Management and
Measurement of Cyber Activities.......................... 283
Comptroller General Review of Software-Intensive Space
Acquisition Programs..................................... 284
Comptroller General Review of the Space Acquisition
Workforce................................................ 284
Confidence-Building Measures Related to Conventional Prompt
Global Strike Capabilities............................... 285
Contribution of AN/TPY-2 Radars............................ 286
Cyber Hardening Through Program Sustainment................ 286
Cyber Training Equivalency................................. 287
Department of Defense Equities on Approval of the Galileo
Positioning, Navigation, and Timing System............... 288
Department of Defense Requirements for National
Reconnaissance Office Programs........................... 288
Ensuring Robust Missile Defense for Hawaii................. 288
Ensuring Technical Expertise for Sustainment of the Nuclear
Command and Control System............................... 289
Evaluation of Department of Defense Use of Non-Allied
Global Navigation Satellite Systems...................... 289
Excess Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Motor
Certification............................................ 290
Expeditionary Large Data Object Repository for Analytics in
Deployed Operations...................................... 290
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent........................... 290
Host Based Security System Best Practices.................. 291
Hosted Payloads............................................ 291
Improving Intelligence Support to Acquisition.............. 292
Improving Sea-Based X Band radar........................... 292
Information Assurance of Joint Test and Evaluation
Activities............................................... 294
Insider Threat Capabilities for the Joint Information
Environment.............................................. 294
Integrated Department of Defense Intelligence Priorities... 295
Intelligence Analysis Processes of the Combatant Commands.. 295
Interagency Collaboration on Physical Security for Nuclear
Weapons.................................................. 296
Intermediate-Range Ground-Launched Missiles................ 297
JLENS Redeployment......................................... 298
Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center......... 299
Military Space Acquisition Improvements.................... 300
Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network......... 301
Modernizing the Ballistic Missile Defense System........... 301
Accelerating development of missile defense radars for
homeland defense....................................... 302
Booster upgrades for improved homeland defense
interceptor............................................ 302
Cyber protection improvements to the Ballistic Missile
Defense System......................................... 302
Ground system communications and fire control software
upgrades to enable full Redesigned Kill Vehicle
capabilities........................................... 303
Missile defense test ranges.............................. 303
Multi-Object Kill Vehicle technology maturation.......... 303
Post-Intercept Assessment acceleration................... 304
Redesigned Kill Vehicle risk reduction................... 304
Next Generation Operational Control Segment................ 304
Nuclear Weapons Security Forces Standards.................. 305
Operationally Responsive Space............................. 305
Plan for Strengthening Outer Space Cooperation with Japan.. 306
Propulsion Test Facilities................................. 306
Quarterly Briefings on Strategic Forces.................... 306
Report on Long-Range Standoff Weapon....................... 307
Report on Strategic Missile Commonality.................... 308
Report on Theater Missile Defense Training and Deployment
Requirements............................................. 308
Review of Dual-Hatting Relationship........................ 309
Satellite Ground Control Systems........................... 310
Space Defense and Protection............................... 310
Space Situational Awareness................................ 311
Spaceports................................................. 311
Strategic Plan for the Defense Insider Threat Management
and Analysis Center...................................... 311
Streamlining Missile Defense Oversight..................... 312
Supply Chain Security of Strategic Capabilities............ 313
Sustainment and Modernization of the Cobra Dane Radar...... 314
Trusted foundries for strategic-hardened microelectronics.. 315
Unified Platform........................................... 315
Use of Surplus ICBM Motors for Commercial Space Launches... 316
Weather Forecasting Model.................................. 316
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 317
Subtitle A--Space Activities................................. 317
Section 1601--Rocket Propulsion System to Replace RD-180... 317
Section 1602--Exception to the Prohibition on Contracting
with Russian Suppliers of Rocket Engines for the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle Program........................ 318
Section 1603--Analysis of Alternatives for Wide-Band
Communications........................................... 318
Section 1604--Modification to Pilot Program for Acquisition
of Commercial Satellite Communication Services........... 319
Section 1605--Space-Based Environmental Monitoring......... 319
Section 1606--Prohibition on Use of Certain Non-Allied
Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Systems.............. 319
Section 1607--Limitation of Availability of Funds for the
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System............. 320
Section 1608--Space-Based Infrared System and Advanced
Extremely High Frequency Program......................... 320
Section 1609--Plans on Transfer of Acquisition and Funding
Authority of Certain Weather Missions to National
Reconnaissance Office.................................... 321
Section 1610--Pilot Program on Commercial Weather Data..... 322
Section 1611--Organization and Management of National
Security Space Activities of the Department of Defense... 322
Section 1612--Review of Charter of Operationally Responsive
Space Program Office..................................... 322
Section 1613--Backup and Complementary Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing Capabilities of Global Positioning
System................................................... 323
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related
Activities............................................... 323
Section 1621--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Intelligence Management.................................. 323
Section 1622--Limitations on Availability of Funds for
United States Central Command Intelligence Fusion Center. 323
Section 1623--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Joint
Intelligence Analysis Complex............................ 324
Subtitle C--Cyberspace-related Matters....................... 324
Section 1631--Special Emergency Procurement Authority to
Facilitate the Defense Against or Recovery from a Cyber
Attack................................................... 324
Section 1632--Change in Name of National Defense
University's Information Resources Management College to
College of Information and Cyberspace.................... 324
Section 1633--Requirement to Enter into Agreements Relating
to Use of Cyber Opposition Forces........................ 324
Section 1634--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Cryptographic Systems and Key Management Infrastructure.. 325
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces................................... 325
Section 1641--Improvements to Council on Oversight of
National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications
System................................................... 325
Section 1642--Treatment of Certain Sensitive Information by
State and Local Governments.............................. 326
Section 1643--Procurement Authority for Certain Parts of
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Fuzes................. 326
Section 1644--Prohibition on the Availability of Funds for
Mobile Variant of Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent
Missile.................................................. 327
Section 1645--Limitation On Availability of Funds for
Extension of New START Treaty............................ 327
Section 1646--Consolidation of Nuclear Command, Control,
and Communications Functions of the Air Force............ 327
Section 1647--Report on Russian and Chinese Political and
Military Leadership Survivability, Command and Control,
and Continuity of Government Programs and Activities..... 328
Section 1648--Sense of Congress on Importance of
Independent Nuclear Deterrent of United Kingdom.......... 328
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs......................... 328
Section 1651--Extensions of Prohibitions Relating to
Missile Defense Information and Systems.................. 328
Section 1652--Review of the Missile Defeat Policy and
Strategy of the United States............................ 328
Section 1653--Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System
and Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Program
Codevelopment and Coproduction........................... 329
Section 1654--Maximizing Aegis Ashore Capability........... 330
Section 1655--Technical Authority for Integrated Air and
Missile Defense Activities and Programs.................. 331
Section 1656--Development and Research of Non-Terrestrial
Missile Defense Layer.................................... 331
Section 1657--Hypersonic Boost Glide Vehicle Defense....... 332
Section 1658--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Patriot Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Capability of
the Army................................................. 332
Section 1659--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Conventional Prompt Global Strike Weapons System......... 333
Section 1660--Pilot Program on Loss of Unclassified,
Controlled Technical Information......................... 333
Section 1661--Review of Missile Defense Agency Budget
Submissions for Ground-based Midcourse Defense and
Evaluation of Alternative Ground-based Interceptor
Deployments.............................................. 333
Section 1662--Declaratory Policy, Concept of Operations,
and Employment Guidelines for Left-of-Launch Capability.. 334
Section 1663--Procurement of Medium-Range Discrimination
Radar to Improve Homeland Missile Defense................ 334
Section 1664--Semiannual Notifications on Missile Defense
Tests and Costs.......................................... 335
Section 1665--National Missile Defense Policy.............. 335
Section 1666--Sense of the Congress on Initial Operating
Capability of Phase 2 of European Phased Adaptive
Approach to Missile Defense.............................. 335
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 335
Section 1671--Protection of Certain Facilities and Assets
from Unmanned Aircraft................................... 335
Section 1672--Improvement of Coordination by Department of
Defense of Electromagnetic Spectrum Usage................ 335
TITLE XVII--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION AGILITY............ 336
OVERVIEW....................................................... 336
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 337
Implementation of the Acquisition Agility Authorities...... 337
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 338
Section 1701--Modular Open System Approach in Development
of Major Weapon Systems.................................. 338
Section 1702--Development, Prototyping, and Deployment of
Weapon System Components or Technology................... 339
Section 1703--Cost, Schedule, and Performance of Major
Defense Acquisition Programs............................. 340
Section 1704--Transparency in Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................. 341
Section 1705--Amendments Relating to Technical Data Rights. 341
TITLE XVIII--MATTERS RELATING TO SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT...... 342
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 342
Nonapplicability to Defense Production Act................. 342
Review of Surety Bonds Required by Federal Contractors..... 343
Review of the Office of Government Contracting and Business
Development of the Small Business Administration......... 343
Small Business Subcontractor Transparency.................. 344
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 344
Subtitle A--Improving Transparency and Clarity for Small
Businesses............................................... 344
Section 1801--Plain Language Rewrite of Requirements for
Small Business Procurements.............................. 344
Section 1802--Improving Reporting on Small Business Goals.. 344
Section 1803--Transparency in Small Business Goals......... 345
Section 1804--Uniformity in Procurement Terminology........ 345
Subtitle B--Clarifying the Roles of Small Business Advocates. 345
Section 1811--Scope of Review by Procurement Center
Representatives.......................................... 345
Section 1812--Responsibilities of Commercial Market
Representatives.......................................... 345
Section 1813--Duties of the Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization....................... 346
Section 1814--Improving Contractor Compliance.............. 346
Section 1815--Responsibilities of Business Opportunity
Specialists.............................................. 346
Subtitle C--Strengthening Opportunities for Competition in
Subcontracting........................................... 346
Section 1821--Good Faith in Subcontracting................. 346
Section 1822--Pilot Program to Provide Opportunities for
Qualified Subcontractors to Obtain Past Performance
Ratings.................................................. 347
Subtitle D--Mentor-Protege Programs.......................... 347
Section 1831--Amendments to the Mentor-Protege Program of
the Department of Defense................................ 347
Section 1832--Improving Cooperation between the Mentor-
Protege Programs of the Small Business Administration and
the Department of Defense................................ 347
Subtitle E--Women's Business Programs........................ 347
Section 1841--Office of Women's Business Ownership......... 347
Section 1842--Women's Business Center Program.............. 347
Section 1843--Matching Requirements Under Women's Business
Center Program........................................... 348
Subtitle F--SCORE Program.................................... 348
Section 1851--SCORE Reauthorization........................ 348
Section 1852--SCORE Program................................ 348
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Provisions......................... 348
Section 1861--Improving Education on Small Business
Regulations.............................................. 348
Section 1862--Protecting Task Order Competition............ 348
Section 1863--Improvements to Size Standards for Small
Agricultural Producers................................... 349
Section 1864--Uniformity in Service-Disabled Veteran
Definitions.............................................. 349
Section 1865--Required Reports Pertaining to Capital
Planning and Investment Control.......................... 349
Section 1866--Office of Hearings and Appeals............... 349
Section 1867--Issuance of Guidance on Small Business
Matters.................................................. 349
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 350
PURPOSE........................................................ 350
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW.............. 350
Section 2001--Short Title.................................. 350
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required To Be Specified by Law.......................... 350
Section 2003--Effective Date............................... 350
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 350
SUMMARY........................................................ 350
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 351
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 351
Combat Aviation Hangar Sustainment......................... 352
Former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center...................... 352
Relocation of the Defense Non-Tactical Generator and Rail
Equipment Center......................................... 352
Statue of Ulysses S. Grant at United States Military
Academy.................................................. 353
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 353
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 353
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 353
Section 2103--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 354
Section 2104--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project......................... 354
Section 2105--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Projects....................................... 354
Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Projects....................................... 354
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 354
SUMMARY........................................................ 354
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 354
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 354
Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle.................................. 356
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military
Training................................................. 356
Implementation of Guam Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Clearance Policy......................................... 357
Infrastructure Requirements to Support Marine Rotational
Force-Darwin............................................. 357
Port of Virginia Channel................................... 358
Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility........................ 359
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 360
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 360
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 360
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 360
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 360
Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project......................... 360
Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Projects....................................... 360
Section 2207--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Projects....................................... 360
Section 2208--Status of ``Net Negative'' Policy Regarding
Navy Acreage on Guam..................................... 361
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 361
SUMMARY........................................................ 361
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 361
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 361
Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft Stationing, Basing, and
Laydown Selection Process................................ 362
Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization........................ 362
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 363
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 363
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 363
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 363
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 363
Section 2305--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2016 Project......................... 363
Section 2306--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Project........................................ 364
Section 2307--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Project........................................ 364
Section 2308--Restriction on Acquisition of Property in
Northern Mariana Islands................................. 364
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 364
SUMMARY........................................................ 364
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 364
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 364
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 366
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 366
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Conservation Projects...... 366
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 366
Section 2404--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project......................... 366
Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Projects....................................... 366
Section 2406--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Projects....................................... 366
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM...................................................... 367
SUMMARY........................................................ 367
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 367
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 367
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 367
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 367
SUMMARY........................................................ 367
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 367
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 367
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 369
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations........................................... 369
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 369
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 369
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps
Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects....... 369
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 369
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 370
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National
Guard and Reserve........................................ 370
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 370
Section 2611--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project......................... 370
Section 2612--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Project......................... 370
Section 2613--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2016 Project......................... 370
Section 2614--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2013 Project........................................ 370
Section 2615--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Projects....................................... 371
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 371
SUMMARY........................................................ 371
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 371
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account............... 371
Section 2702--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round..................... 371
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 371
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 371
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam.................................. 371
Concept of Operations for Military Environmental Control
Units.................................................... 372
Condition of Military Airfield Infrastructure.............. 372
Consultation with Federally-Recognized Indian Tribes....... 373
Contract Management of Problem Construction Projects....... 373
Facility Industrial Control Systems........................ 374
Improvement of Design-Build Selection Process.............. 374
Innovative Construction Materials and Design Process for
Military Engineering in Cold Regions..................... 375
Installation Access for Ride Sharing Services.............. 375
Live-Fire Small Arms Training Ranges....................... 376
Military Construction for Military Intelligence Facilities. 376
Military Housing Privatization Initiative.................. 377
Modification of Guidance on Use of Airfield Pavement
Markings................................................. 377
Okinawa Consolidation Plan................................. 378
Overseas Infrastructure Long-Range Planning................ 379
Report on Military Construction Project Cost Estimating and
Execution................................................ 379
Workforce Issues for Relocation of Marines to Guam......... 380
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 380
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing.................................................. 380
Section 2801--Modification of Criteria for Treatment of
Laboratory Revitalization Projects as Minor Military
Construction Projects.................................... 380
Section 2802--Classification of Facility Conversion
Projects as Repair Projects.............................. 381
Section 2803--Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to
Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction
Projects Outside the United States....................... 381
Section 2804--Extension of Temporary Authority for
Acceptance and Use of Contributions for Certain
Construction, Maintenance, and Repair Projects Mutually
Beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait
Military Forces.......................................... 381
Section 2805--Notice and Reporting Requirements for Energy
Conservation Construction Projects....................... 381
Section 2806--Additional Entities Eligible for
Participation in Defense Laboratory Modernization Pilot
Program.................................................. 381
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 381
Section 2811--Congressional Notification of In-Kind
Contributions for Overseas Military Construction Projects 381
Section 2812--Prohibition on Use of Military Installations
to House Unaccompanied Alien Children.................... 382
Section 2813--Allotment of Space and Provision of Services
to WIC Offices Operating on Military Installations....... 382
Section 2814--Sense of Congress Regarding Need to Consult
with State and Local Officials Prior to Acquisitions of
Real Property............................................ 382
Section 2815--Sense of Congress Regarding Inclusion of
Stormwater Systems and Components within the Meaning of
``Wastewater System'' Under the Department of Defense
Authority for Conveyance of Utility Systems.............. 382
Section 2816--Assessment of Public Schools on Department of
Defense Installations.................................... 382
Subtitle C--Provision Related to Asia-Pacific Military
Realignment.............................................. 382
Section 2821--Limited Exceptions to Restriction on
Development of Public Infrastructure in Connection with
Realignment of Marine Corps Forces in Asia-Pacific Region 382
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances................................. 383
Section 2831--Land Conveyances, High Frequency Active
Auroral Research Program Facility and Adjacent Property,
Gakona, Alaska........................................... 383
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Campion Air Force Radar
Station, Galena, Alaska.................................. 383
Section 2833--Exchange of Property Interests, San Diego
Unified Port District, California........................ 383
Section 2834--Release of Property Interests Retained in
Connection with Land Conveyance, Eglin Air Force Base,
Florida.................................................. 383
Section 2835--Land Exchange, Fort Hood, Texas.............. 383
Section 2836--Land Conveyance, P-36 Warehouse, Colbern
United States Army Reserve Center, Laredo, Texas......... 384
Section 2837--Land Conveyance, St. George National Guard
Armory, St. George, Utah................................. 384
Section 2838--Release of Restrictions, Richland Innovation
Center, Richland, Washington............................. 384
Subtitle E--Military Land Withdrawals........................ 384
Section 2841--Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military
Lands Under Military Land Withdrawal Act of 1999......... 384
Section 2842--Permanent Withdrawal or Transfer of
Administrative Jurisdiction of Public Land, Naval Air
Weapons Station China Lake, California................... 384
Subtitle F--Military Memorials, Monuments, and Museums....... 385
Section 2851--Cyber Center for Education and Innovation-
Home of the National Cryptologic Museum.................. 385
Section 2852--Renaming Site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage
National Historical Park, Ohio........................... 385
Section 2853--Support for Military Service Memorials and
Museums Highlighting Role of Women in the Military....... 385
Section 2854--Petersburg National Battlefield Boundary
Modification............................................. 385
Section 2855--Amendments to the National Historic
Preservation Act......................................... 385
Section 2856--Recognition of the National Museum of World
War II Aviation.......................................... 386
Subtitle G--Designations and Other Matters................... 386
Section 2861--Designation of Portion of Moffett Federal
Airfield, California, as Moffett Air National Guard Base. 386
Section 2862--Redesignation of Mike O'Callaghan Federal
Medical Center........................................... 386
Section 2863--Transfer of Certain Items of the Omar Bradley
Foundation to the Descendants of General Omar Bradley.... 386
Section 2864--Protection and Recovery of Greater Sage
Grouse................................................... 386
Section 2865--Implementation of Lesser Prairie-Chicken
Range-Wide Conservation Plan and Other Conservation
Measures................................................. 387
Section 2866--Removal of Endangered Species Status for
American Burying Beetle.................................. 387
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 387
SUMMARY........................................................ 387
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 387
Section 2901--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 387
Section 2902--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 387
Section 2903--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 387
TITLE XXX--UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE ENCROACHMENT PREVENTION
AND TEMPORARY CLOSURE AUTHORITIES............................ 388
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 388
Section 3001--Findings and Definitions..................... 388
Subtitle A--Utah Test and Training Range..................... 388
Section 3011--Management of BLM Land....................... 388
Section 3012--Temporary Closures........................... 388
Section 3013--Community Resource Group..................... 388
Section 3014--Liability.................................... 388
Section 3015--Effects of Subtitle.......................... 388
Subtitle B--Land Exchange.................................... 388
Section 3021--Findings and Purpose......................... 388
Section 3022--Definitions.................................. 389
Section 3023--Exchange of Federal Land and Non-Federal Land 389
Section 3024--Status and Management of Non-Federal Land
after Exchange........................................... 389
Section 3025--Hazardous Materials.......................... 389
Subtitle C--Highway Rights-of-way............................ 389
Section 3031--Recognition and Transfer of Certain Highway
Rights-of-Way............................................ 389
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 389
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 389
OVERVIEW....................................................... 389
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 390
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 390
Overview................................................... 390
Weapons Activities......................................... 390
Attraction and retention of personnel within the nuclear
security enterprise.................................... 390
Defense nuclear security and physical security
infrastructure recapitalization........................ 391
Deferred maintenance..................................... 392
Domestic uranium enrichment program...................... 393
Funding prioritization within Weapons Activities......... 393
Future Years Nuclear Security Program funding............ 394
Life extension programs.................................. 395
Plutonium strategy....................................... 396
Stockpile systems, surveillance and assessments, and
Integrated Surety Architecture......................... 396
Strategic commodities.................................... 397
Technology maturation programs, prototypes program, and
stockpile responsiveness program....................... 398
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... 399
Comptroller General assessment of project management
processes and systems for defense nuclear
nonproliferation programs.............................. 399
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program
and emergency preparedness............................. 400
Naval Reactors............................................. 401
Naval Reactors program................................... 401
Federal Salaries and Expenses.............................. 401
Briefing on contracting strategy and plan................ 401
Briefing on damage assessment of improper disposal of
sensitive information.................................. 402
Governance and management reform......................... 402
Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 403
Overview................................................... 403
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............................. 403
Hanford Site............................................. 403
Technology development................................... 403
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.............................. 404
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............................. 404
Defense nuclear waste repository......................... 404
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 405
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 405
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 405
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................ 405
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 405
Section 3104--Nuclear Energy............................... 405
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 405
Section 3111--Independent Acquisition Project Reviews of
Capital Assets Acquisition Projects...................... 405
Section 3112--Research and Development of Advanced Naval
Nuclear Fuel System Based on Low-Enriched Uranium........ 406
Section 3113--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium...... 406
Section 3114--Design Basis Threat.......................... 407
Section 3115--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Provision of Certain Assistance to Russian Federation.... 407
Section 3116--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Federal Salaries and Expenses............................ 408
Section 3117--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Defense Environmental Cleanup Program Direction.......... 408
Section 3118--Limitation on Availablity of Funds for
Acceleration of Nuclear Weapons Dismantlement............ 408
Section 3119--Annual Certification of Shipments to Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant.................................... 409
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports................................ 410
Section 3121--Clarification of Annual Report and
Certification on Status of Security of Atomic Energy
Defense Facilities....................................... 410
Section 3122--Annual Report on Service Support Contracts of
the National Nuclear Security Administration............. 410
Section 3123--Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements..... 410
Section 3124--Independent Assessment of Technology
Development under Defense Environmental Cleanup Program.. 410
Section 3125--Updated Plan for Verification and Monitoring
of Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material. 411
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 412
OVERVIEW....................................................... 412
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 412
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 412
TITLE XXXIII--NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION CAPABILITIES............. 412
Section 3301--Short Title.................................. 412
Section 3302--Nuclear Energy............................... 412
Section 3303--Nuclear Energy Research Programs............. 413
Section 3304--Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative............... 413
Section 3305--University Nuclear Science and Engineering
Support.................................................. 413
Section 3306--Department of Energy Civilian Nuclear
Infrastructure and Facilities............................ 413
Section 3307--Security of Nuclear Facilities............... 413
Section 3308--High-Performance Computation and Supportive
Research................................................. 413
Section 3309--Enabling Nuclear Energy Innovation........... 413
Section 3310--Budget Plan.................................. 413
Section 3311--Conforming Amendments........................ 414
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 414
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 414
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 414
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 414
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 414
Non-Availability of Vessels................................ 414
Recycling United States Vessels in the United States....... 414
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 415
Section 3501--Authorization of the Maritime Administration. 415
Section 3502--Authority to Make Pro Rata Annual Payments
Under Operating Agreements for Vessels Participating in
Maritime Security Fleet.................................. 415
Section 3503--Authority to Extend Certain Age Restrictions
Relating to Vessels in the Maritime Security Fleet....... 415
Section 3504--Corrections to Provisions Enacted by Coast
Guard Authorization Acts................................. 415
Section 3505--Status of National Defense Reserve Fleet
Vessels.................................................. 415
Section 3506--NDRF National Security Multi-Mission Vessel.. 415
Section 3507--United States Merchant Marine Academy........ 416
Section 3508--Use of National Defense Reserve Fleet
Scrapping Proceeds....................................... 416
Section 3509--Floating Dry Docks........................... 416
TITLE XXXVI--BALLAST WATER....................................... 416
Section 3601--Short Title.................................. 416
Section 3602--Definitions.................................. 416
Section 3603--Regulation and Enforcement................... 416
Section 3604--Uniform National Standards and Requirements
for the Regulation of Discharges Incidental to the Normal
Operation of a Vessel.................................... 416
Section 3605--Treatment Technology Certification........... 416
Section 3606--Exemptions................................... 416
Section 3607--Alternative Compliance Program............... 417
Section 3608--Judicial Review.............................. 417
Section 3609--Effect on State Authority.................... 417
Section 3610--Application with Other Statutes.............. 417
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 417
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables... 417
Summary of National Defense Authorizations for Fiscal Year
2017..................................................... 417
National Defense Budget Authority Implication.............. 424
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 426
Section 4101--Procurement.................................. 426
Section 4102--Procurement for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 466
Section 4103--Procurement for Overseas Contingency
Operations for Base Requirements......................... 479
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 489
Section 4201--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 489
Section 4202--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
for Overseas Contingency Operations...................... 523
Section 4203--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
for Overseas Contingency Operations for Base Requirements 525
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 527
Section 4301--Operation and Maintenance.................... 528
Section 4302--Operation and Maintenance for Overseas
Contingency Operations................................... 545
Section 4303--Operation and Maintenance for Overseas
Contingency Operations for Base Requirements............. 558
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 566
Section 4401--Military Personnel........................... 566
Section 4402--Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 567
Section 4403--Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency
Operations for Base Requirements......................... 567
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 568
Section 4501--Other Authorizations......................... 568
Section 4502--Other Authorizations for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 571
Section 4503--Other Authorizations for Overseas Contingency
Operations for Base Requirements......................... 573
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 573
Section 4601--Military Construction........................ 573
Section 4602--Military Construction for Overseas
Contingency Operations................................... 585
Section 4603--Military Construction for Overseas
Contingency Operations for Base Requirements............. 587
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 587
Section 4701--Department of Energy National Security
Programs................................................. 588
DIVISION E--MILITARY JUSTICE..................................... 600
OVERVIEW....................................................... 600
TITLE LX--GENERAL PROVISIONS..................................... 601
Section 6001--Definitions.................................. 601
Section 6002--Clarification of Persons Subject to UCMJ
while on Inactive-Duty Training.......................... 601
Section 6003--Staff Judge Advocate Disqualification Due to
Prior Involvement in Case................................ 601
Section 6004--Conforming Amendment Relating to Military
Magistrates.............................................. 601
Section 6005--Rights of Victim............................. 602
TITLE LXI--APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT............................ 602
Section 6101--Restraint of Persons Charged................. 602
Section 6102--Modification of Prohibition of Confinement of
Armed Forces Members with Enemy Prisoners and Certain
Others................................................... 602
TITLE LXII--NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT.............................. 602
Section 6201--Modification of Confinement as Non-Judicial
Punishment............................................... 602
TITLE LXIII--COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION.......................... 603
Section 6301--Courts-Martial Classified.................... 603
Section 6302--Jurisdiction of General Courts-Martial....... 603
Section 6303--Jurisdiction of Special Courts-Martial....... 603
Section 6304--Summary Court-Martial as Non-Criminal Forum.. 603
TITLE LXIV--COMPOSITION OF COURTS-MARTIAL........................ 603
Section 6401--Technical Amendment Relating to Persons
Authorized to Convene General Courts-Martial............. 603
Section 6402--Who May Serve on Courts-Martial; Detail of
Members.................................................. 604
Section 6403--Number of Court-Martial Members in Capital
Cases.................................................... 604
Section 6404--Detailing, Qualifications, etc. of Military
Judges................................................... 604
Section 6405--Qualifications of Trial Counsel and Defense
Counsel.................................................. 604
Section 6406--Assembly and Impaneling of Members; Detail of
New Members and Military Judges.......................... 604
Section 6407--Military Magistrates......................... 605
TITLE LXV--PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE................................... 605
Section 6501--Charges and Specifications................... 605
Section 6502--Preliminary Hearing Required before Referral
to General Court-Martial................................. 605
Section 6503--Disposition Guidance......................... 605
Section 6504--Advice to Convening Authority before Referral
for Trial................................................ 605
Section 6505--Service of Charges and Commencement of Trial. 606
TITLE LXVI--TRIAL PROCEDURE...................................... 606
Section 6601--Duties of Assistant Defense Counsel.......... 606
Section 6602--Sessions..................................... 606
Section 6603--Technical Amendments Relating to Continuances 606
Section 6604--Conforming Amendments Relating to Challenges. 606
Section 6605--Statute of Limitations....................... 606
Section 6606--Former Jeopardy.............................. 606
Section 6607--Pleas of the Accused......................... 607
Section 6608--Contempt..................................... 607
Section 6609--Depositions.................................. 607
Section 6610--Admissibility of Sworn Testimony by Audiotape
or Videotape from Records of Courts of Inquiry........... 607
Section 6611--Conforming Amendment Relating to Defense of
Lack of Mental Responsibility............................ 607
Section 6612--Voting and Rulings........................... 607
Section 6613--Votes Required for Conviction, Sentencing,
and Other Matters........................................ 607
Section 6614--Plea Agreements.............................. 608
Section 6615--Record of Trial.............................. 608
TITLE LXVII--SENTENCES........................................... 608
Section 6701--Sentencing................................... 608
Section 6701A--Minimum Confinement Period Required for
Conviction of Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 608
Section 6702--Effective Date of Sentences.................. 608
Section 6703--Sentence of Reduction in Enlisted Grade...... 609
TITLE LXVIII--POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL.. 609
Section 6801--Post-Trial Processing in General and Special
Courts-Martial........................................... 609
Section 6802--Limited Authority to Act on Sentence in
Specified Post-Trial Circumstances....................... 609
Section 6803--Post-Trial Actions in Summary Courts-Martial
and Certain General and Special Courts-Martial........... 609
Section 6804--Entry of Judgment............................ 610
Section 6805--Waiver of Right to Appeal and Withdrawal of
Appeal................................................... 610
Section 6806--Appeal by the United States.................. 610
Section 6807--Rehearings................................... 610
Section 6808--Judge Advocate Review of Finding of Guilty in
Summary Court-Martial.................................... 610
Section 6809--Transmittal and Review of Records............ 610
Section 6810--Courts of Criminal Appeals................... 610
Section 6811--Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces................................................... 611
Section 6812--Supreme Court Review......................... 611
Section 6813--Review by Judge Advocate General............. 611
Section 6814--Appellate Defense Counsel in Death Penalty
Cases.................................................... 611
Section 6815--Authority for Hearing on Vacation of
Suspension of Sentence to be Conducted by Qualified Judge
Advocate................................................. 611
Section 6816--Extension of Time for Petition for New Trial. 611
Section 6817--Restoration.................................. 612
Section 6818--Leave Requirements Pending Review of Certain
Court-Martial Convictions................................ 612
TITLE LXIX--PUNITIVE ARTICLES.................................... 612
Section 6901--Reorganization of Punitive Articles.......... 612
Section 6902--Conviction of Offense Charged, Lesser
Included Offenses, and Attempts.......................... 612
Section 6903--Soliciting Commission of Offenses............ 612
Section 6904--Malingering.................................. 612
Section 6905--Breach of Medical Quarantine................. 612
Section 6906--Missing Movement; Jumping from Vessel........ 613
Section 6907--Offenses Against Correctional Custody and
Restriction.............................................. 613
Section 6908--Disrespect Toward Superior Commissioned
Officer; Assault of Superior Commissioned Officer........ 613
Section 6909--Willfully Disobeying Superior Commissioned
Officer.................................................. 613
Section 6910--Prohibited Activities with Military Recruit
or Trainee by Person in Position of Special Trust........ 613
Section 6911--Offenses by Sentinel or Lookout.............. 613
Section 6912--Disrespect Toward Sentinel or Lookout........ 613
Section 6913--Release of Prisoner without Authority;
Drinking with Prisoner................................... 614
Section 6914--Penalty for Acting as a Spy.................. 614
Section 6915--Public Records Offenses...................... 614
Section 6916--False or Unauthorized Pass Offenses.......... 614
Section 6917--Impersonation Offenses....................... 614
Section 6918--Insignia Offenses............................ 614
Section 6919--False Official Statements; False Swearing.... 614
Section 6920--Parole Violation............................. 614
Section 6921--Wrongful Taking, Opening, Etc. of Mail Matter 615
Section 6922--Improper Hazarding of Vessel or Aircraft..... 615
Section 6923--Leaving Scene of Vehicle Accident............ 615
Section 6924--Drunkenness and Other Incapacitation Offenses 615
Section 6925--Lower Blood Alcohol Content Limits for
Conviction of Drunken or Reckless Operation of Vehicle,
Aircraft, or Vessel...................................... 615
Section 6926--Endangerment Offenses........................ 615
Section 6927--Communicating Threats........................ 615
Section 6928--Technical Amendment Relating to Murder....... 616
Section 6929--Child Endangerment........................... 616
Section 6930--Deposit of Obscene Matter in the Mail........ 616
Section 6931--Fraudulent Use of Credit Cards, Debit Cards,
and Other Access Devices................................. 616
Section 6932--False Pretenses to Obtain Services........... 616
Section 6933--Robbery...................................... 616
Section 6934--Receiving Stolen Property.................... 616
Section 6935--Offenses Concerning Government Computers..... 616
Section 6936--Bribery...................................... 617
Section 6937--Graft........................................ 617
Section 6938--Kidnapping................................... 617
Section 6939--Arson; Burning Property with Intent to
Defraud.................................................. 617
Section 6940--Assault...................................... 617
Section 6941--Burglary and Unlawful Entry.................. 617
Section 6942--Stalking..................................... 617
Section 6943--Subornation of Perjury....................... 618
Section 6944--Obstructing Justice.......................... 618
Section 6945--Misprision of Serious Offense................ 618
Section 6946--Wrongful Refusal to Testify.................. 618
Section 6947--Prevention of Authorized Seizure of Property. 618
Section 6948--Wrongful Interference with Adverse
Administrative Proceeding................................ 618
Section 6949--Retaliation.................................. 618
Section 6950--Extraterritorial Application of Certain
Offenses................................................. 618
Section 6951--Table of Sections............................ 619
TITLE LXX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.............................. 619
Section 7001--Technical Amendment Relating to Courts of
Inquiry.................................................. 619
Section 7002--Technical Amendment to Article 136........... 619
Section 7003--Articles of Uniform Code of Military Justice
to be Explained to Officers Upon Commissioning........... 619
Section 7004--Military Justice Case Management; Data
Collection and Accessibility............................. 619
TITLE LXXI--MILITARY JUSTICE REVIEW PANEL AND ANNUAL REPORTS..... 620
Section 7101--Military Justice Review Panel................ 620
Section 7102--Annual Reports............................... 620
TITLE LXXII--CONFORMING AMENDMENTS AND EFFECTIVE DATES........... 620
Section 7201--Amendments to UCMJ Subchapter Tables of
Sections................................................. 620
Section 7202--Effective Dates.............................. 620
Department of Defense Authorization Request...................... 620
Communications from Other Committees............................. 624
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 637
Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act............... 640
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 640
Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 640
Oversight Findings............................................... 640
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 640
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 642
Federal Advisory Committee Statement............................. 642
Applicability to the Legislative Branch.......................... 642
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 642
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 642
Committee Votes.................................................. 642
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 668
Additional Views................................................. 669
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 114-537
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
_______
May 4, 2016.--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
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4909]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 4909) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2017 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 2017 for procurement and for research, development, test,
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2017 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2017: (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 2017 for military
construction and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations
for Overseas Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for the Department of
Energy national security programs; and (8) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for the Maritime
Administration.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, 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.
The security environment framing the committee's
deliberations on H.R. 4909 is, as stated by the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency, a world that ``is far more
complicated, it's far more destabilized, it's far more complex
than at any time that I've seen it.'' The Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL) has carried out terror attacks in Paris,
Brussels, and Istanbul, while also continuing to expand
throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
Instability and the breakdown of nation-states across the
Middle East and Africa continue to grow. The Russian
Federation, the People's Republic of China, the Islamic
Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
all continue to take actions that threaten their neighbors and,
in some cases, directly threaten the United States.
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
across the land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace domains is no
longer assured.
These security trends demand agility and strength from the
Nation's Armed Forces to defend U.S. interests, deter would-be
aggressors, and reassure allies and partners. They also require
that the United States military be prepared for everything from
nuclear conflict to hybrid warfare to terrorism. However, the
committee is concerned that the U.S. Armed Forces continue to
be asked to do more with less. The U.S. military continues to
operate at a high tempo and, as stated in testimony by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the joint force will be
stressed to execute a major contingency operation. Furthermore,
the committee has received testimony from each of the military
services on the readiness shortfalls across the force.
H.R. 4909 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 prioritize
resources to address readiness shortfalls across the services.
The committee believes that it is fundamentally wrong to send
service members out on missions for which they are not fully
prepared or fully supported. The bill would also 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 enhance the quality of
life of military service members and their families; support
ongoing military operations and U.S. presence in the Republic
of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of 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
is insufficient to restore readiness, fully fund overseas
contingency operations, and invest in critical capabilities. It
further acknowledges that, at this funding level, the
Department of Defense is at risk of being unable to execute the
current defense strategy, much less address emerging threats.
The committee believes that 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. But more importantly, reform is necessary to
improve the military's agility and the speed at which it can
adapt and respond to an increasingly complex security
environment and unprecedented technological challenges. The
bill reflects five major reform initiatives undertaken by the
committee in H.R. 4909: (1) acquisition reform, (2) healthcare
reform; (3) commissary reform, (4) military justice reform, and
(5) Goldwater-Nichols reform. These reform proposals build upon
the committee's previous legislative activities and reflect its
further oversight in these areas through multiple hearings and
briefings, as well as consultation with Department of Defense
officials, outside experts, industry representatives, and other
stakeholders. 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 these proposals.
In the area of defense acquisition reform, H.R. 4909 seeks
to create an engine of experimentation and innovation within
the core acquisition system, while further strengthening
acquisition planning and accountability. Specifically, the bill
requires major defense acquisition programs, to the maximum
extent practicable after January 1, 2019, to be designed with
modular, open-system approaches that enable weapon system
components to be more easily upgraded as technology and threats
evolve. The bill authorizes the military services, rather than
specifying projects two years beforehand through the
traditional budget process, to budget flexible funds with which
to experiment with and rapidly field emerging technologies
during the year of execution. It aligns intellectual property
rights to an open-system approach and rebalances property
rights so the government continues to receive necessary
technical data while encouraging companies to do business with
the Department. Regarding program planning and oversight, the
bill requires the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary's
designee, to establish cost and fielding targets at program
inception against which the military services can be held
accountable for program management. Milestone decision
authority for joint programs would be delegated to the military
services after January 1, 2019, while independent assessments
of technical readiness and cost would inform a new
``acquisition scorecard'' to improve transparency in key
program decisions.
In the area of healthcare reform, the committee is
steadfast in maintaining a robust Military Health System with
the primary responsibility of readiness of the force. To
accomplish this goal, the committee undertook a comprehensive
review of the Military Health System to identify necessary
reforms to sustain the long term viability of the System. To
that end, the committee seeks to ensure the Military Health
System can sustain trained and ready healthcare providers to
support the readiness of the force and a quality healthcare
benefit that is valued by its beneficiaries. The committee's
efforts were focused in three areas: the Military Health System
structure, medical readiness, and the TRICARE benefit.
In the area of commissary reform, H.R. 4909 authorizes the
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive
strategy across the defense resale system and the Defense
Commissary Agency to optimize practices across the defense
commissary and exchange system. The objective of such strategy
would be to reduce the reliance of the system on appropriated
funds without reducing the benefits to the patrons of the
system or the revenue generated by non-appropriated fund
instrumentalities (NAFI) of the Department of Defense for the
morale, welfare, and recreation of members of the Armed Forces.
Under this authority, the commissaries would be able to use
flexible product pricing, while ensuring that the level of
savings to commissary patrons is consistent with the current
level of savings. The bill also authorizes the Secretary to
convert the commissary system to a NAFI if the benchmarks for
success (specifically including required savings levels for
beneficiaries) have been met. Congressional oversight would be
maintained as it requires quarterly briefings from the
Department, which would include: ongoing savings assessment,
NAFI implementation status, viability of variable pricing and
private label program, and other matters the committee deems
necessary. Lastly, the Secretary of Defense would not be able
to move forward with any action that would: establish a market
basket of goods, establish a private label/variable pricing
system, or convert to a NAFI until 30 days have elapsed
following a briefing on each action.
In the area of military justice, the bill includes the
first comprehensive reform of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice in decades. These provisions, which incorporate
recommendations from the Military Justice Review Group, reflect
the committee's sustained commitment to making the military
justice system just, efficient, and effective. The bill would
enhance the rights of victims, improve transparency, and
modernize the post-trial process. Given the scope of the
proposed reform, these provisions would not take effect until
two years after enactment, giving the President and the
Department of Defense sufficient time to draft implementing
rules and execute training.
Lastly, in the area of Goldwater-Nichols reform, the
committee believes that 30 years after the initial Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act (Public Law
99-433), the time is right to review and reevaluate that
legislation. The committee recognizes that security challenges
have become more transregional, multi-domain, and multi-
functional; that U.S. superiority in key warfighting areas is
at risk with other nations' technological advances; and that
the Department of Defense lacks the agility and adaptability
necessary to support timely decisionmaking and the rapid
fielding of new capabilities. The proposals contained in title
IX are focused on increasing accountability and oversight,
enhancing global synchronization and joint operations, and
strengthening strategic thinking and planning, while preserving
civilian control of the military and the role of the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the principal, independent
military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense.
Resources for Warfighters and Families
The committee believes that caring for the troops and their
families is the cornerstone of readiness. H.R. 4909 builds upon
the bipartisan work of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel
in providing the troops the benefits they need, deserve, and
have earned. As always, the guiding consideration for the
committee's work is the viability and readiness of the All-
Volunteer Force while ensuring that the Nation does not break
faith with U.S. service members, retirees, their family
members, and survivors.
H.R. 4909 authorizes a fully funded, by-law pay raise for
all U.S. service members at 2.1 percent. To lessen the stress
and strain on the force and their families, the bill also halts
and begins to reverse the drawdown of military end strength, by
preserving the active duty Army at 480,000, and adding 3,000
Marines, 1,715 sailors, and 4,000 airmen in fiscal year 2017.
As discussed elsewhere in this section, H.R. 4909 proposes
a series of reforms to improve benefits earned by service
members and their families. The committee approached these
reforms from the perspective of the beneficiary and the effects
that change could have on the value and sustainability of the
benefit. The committee also elicited perspectives from current
and retired service members, military families, the military
service organizations, the Department of Defense, the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, and many
others.
The healthcare reform package reflects the committee's
commitment to ensure that the Military Health System can
sustain the readiness of both Department of Defense military
healthcare providers and the overall force, while providing a
quality health benefit that is valued by its beneficiaries. The
commissary reform proposal is done in a way that preserves the
benefit while also improving the system so it remains a value
for shoppers. And, finally, the bill modernizes the Uniform
Code of Military Justice to address issues identified by the
Military Justice Review Group. This group of provisions would
improve the system's efficiency and transparency, while also
enhancing victims' rights.
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 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 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
decreased and readiness has suffered. The Chief of Staff of the
Army testified, ``Right now the readiness of the United States
Army . . . is not at a level that is appropriate for what the
American people would expect to defend them.'' The Assistant
Commandant of the Marine Corps testified, ``Our deployment-to-
dwell-time ratio continues to exceed the rate that we consider
sustainable . . . The strains on our personnel and our
equipment are showing in many areas.'' And, the Air Force
Secretary testified, ``Less than half of our combat forces are
ready for . . . a high-end fight.'' These readiness shortfalls
in the services ultimately lead to a joint force that is, as
stated in testimony by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, ``stressed to execute a major contingency operation''
and on a path towards being ``unable to execute the current
defense strategy.''
The committee believes that it is fundamentally wrong to
send service members out on missions for which they are not
fully prepared or fully supported. The committee shares the
responsibility of reducing the risk for the Nation's
warfighters by ensuring that they are well-trained and
supported, and that the equipment they use is properly
maintained and combat-ready. Therefore, H.R. 4909 would
prioritize resources to address readiness shortfalls across the
services and, as discussed elsewhere in this report, reverse
end strength cuts to the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
The bill would include more than $5.0 billion in additional
funds for ship and aircraft depot maintenance; aviation
training and readiness; and long-neglected facilities
sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts--all of
which were identified as unfunded requirements by the military
services. The bill would direct several assessments on the
military departments' plans to rebuild readiness, enhance
exercises, and modernize training requirements, and prohibit
the Department of Defense from implementing another round of
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) in the absence of an
accurate end-strength assessment.
H.R. 4909 also responds to numerous other unfunded, yet
critical, requirements identified by the services. The bill
funds 11 additional F-35s and 14 F-18s to address a critical
fighter shortfall; three C-130Js, four C-40s, and two V-22
aircraft; and 36 UH-60 Black Hawk and five Apache helicopters.
It restores a Carrier Air Wing, funds Navy cruiser
modernization, and invests nearly $600.0 million to address war
reserve shortfalls in critical munitions. The bill would also
authorize additional funding for the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) nuclear weapons activities, including
critical programs to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile,
and take action to address the $3.7 billion backlog of deferred
maintenance at NNSA that is threatening worker safety and
mission performance.
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 begin to restore
readiness and invest in needed capabilities for the warfighter.
However, should sequestration-level budget caps return after
fiscal year 2017, the committee recognizes that even harder
choices will have to be made. The committee agrees with the
conclusion reached by the 2014 independent, bipartisan National
Defense Panel, that ``significant cuts to our defense budgets
will not solve our fiscal woes, but will increasingly
jeopardize our international defense posture and ultimately
damage our 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. H.R.
4909 fully funds the budget request for cyber operations and
prioritizes the readiness of the cyber mission forces. The bill
provides special procurement authority to facilitate recovery
from a cyber attack, as well as increases resiliency for
Department of Defense networks, weapon systems, and
capabilities. As part of its reform proposals, H.R. 4909 would
elevate U.S. Cyber Command to a unified command to provide
greater military readiness and preparedness to carry out
assigned missions.
The committee also believes that robust military
intelligence collection and analysis 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 provides
resources for the Grey Eagle, MQ-9 Reaper, and Triton MQ-4
unmanned aerial vehicles. It would also require options to
accelerate the development of a new Joint Surveillance Target
Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) platform. Reflecting the
committee's investigation into allegations that senior
officials at U.S. Central Command improperly influenced
intelligence analysis, the bill also directs several actions to
improve the documentation of intelligence processes and
procedures.
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 RD-180
rocket engines. The bill would authorize funds for the
development of a new American engine to replace the RD-180 by
2019, and provide funds for launch system investments.
In the area of missile defense, the bill would require the
Department of Defense to develop a new missile defeat strategy,
including ballistic missile and cruise missile defense; provide
additional funds for Israeli missile defense; and require the
Army to develop an acquisition strategy for the replacement of
the Patriot radar system.
Lastly, the committee report reflects the committee's
general support for the Department's Third Offset Strategy
development effort. The committee believes that the Third
Offset is a useful vehicle for focusing the Department on how
to deter and counter the Russian Federation and the People's
Republic of China. The report notes that, while much of the
focus is on technology, the committee also believes that
further attention should be given to strategic thinking about
deterrence, including the relationship between conventional and
nuclear deterrence. Further, while greater innovation is a
necessary element of such a strategy, the committee expects the
Department to simultaneously address incentives and barriers to
entry for private sector partnerships and impediments to
transfer of innovative technologies to the military.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 results from posture and
budget-related hearings that began on February 9, 2016, and
that were completed on April 14, 2016. The full committee
conducted 6 hearings and the 6 subcommittees conducted a total
of 23 sessions during this time period. Additionally, over the
past year, the committee conducted numerous policy and program
oversight hearings, including hearings in support of its reform
initiatives, to inform its development of the legislative
proposals contained in this Act.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On April 27, 2016, the Committee on Armed Services, a
quorum being present, approved H.R. 4909, 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. 4909. 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
$602.2 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the
committee for fiscal year 2017. Of this amount, $524.0 billion
was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense programs,
$58.8 billion was requested for Overseas Contingency Operations
requirements covering the entire fiscal year, $19.2 billion was
requested for Department of Energy national security programs
and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and $0.2
billion was requested for defense-related activities associated
with Maritime Administration.
To comport with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law
112-25), the committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $602.2 billion in fiscal year 2017. The base
committee authorization of $543.4 billion is a $28.4 billion
increase above the levels provided for in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). The
authorization provided in title XV totals $58.8 billion for
Overseas Contingency Operations, of which $23.1 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 2017 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 2017 is $618.9 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 2017, 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
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Items of Special Interest
Brigade combat team utilization of unmanned aircraft systems in
training operations
The budget request contained $55.4 million for MQ-1C Gray
Eagle unmanned aircraft systems, but contained no funds for the
additional procurement of ground mounted airspace deconfliction
radars to directly support brigade combat teams during training
event operations with unit organic unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS).
The committee notes that multiple U.S. Army posts, which
have brigade combat teams (BCT) stationed to operate unit
organic medium or large UAS aircraft within continental United
States (CONUS) and outside CONUS airspace, lack adequate and
certified ground radar facilities and capabilities to provide
realistic training operations involving the employment of UAS
aircraft. Army posts affected by this training environment
limitation include: Ft. Hood, Texas; Ft. Stewart, Georgia; Ft.
Riley, Kansas; Ft. Campbell, Kentucky; Ft. Bragg, North
Carolina; Ft. Drum, New York; Ft. Huachuca, Arizona; Ft. Polk,
Louisiana; Ft. Carson, Colorado; Ft. Wainwright, Alaska; and
Kunsan Air Base, South Korea. The committee is concerned that
BCT units that must rely on maintaining visual sight of the
UAS, or that have to procure chase aircraft services to
maintain situational awareness of the UAS, are not able to
fully optimize training as a result of the inability to create
realistic combat environments to conduct employment of UAS
doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures in support of the
BCT. The committee believes that BCT training with unit organic
UAS aircraft could be made more efficient and effective with
the use of ground-based radar capabilities and facilities to
alleviate reliance upon visual sight or chase aircraft procured
services. The committee also notes that ground-based radar
facilities supporting Army UAS training operations for BCTs are
a high-priority and unfunded requirement of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends $85.0 million, an
increase of $29.6 million, for procurement of ground mounted
airspace deconfliction radars to support BCT unit organic UAS
training operations.
Missile Procurement, Army
Items of Special Interest
Joint air-to-ground missile increment 2 acquisition strategy
The committee understands the joint air-to-ground missile
(JAGM) program is a new generation of air-launched, ground-
attack tactical missiles that will complement and replace the
Army's legacy inventory of Hellfire missiles.
The committee is aware the Army is pursuing an incremental
approach to JAGM acquisition. The committee understands the
program consists of two increments, with Increment I beginning
low-rate production in fiscal year 2017 and consisting of a
dual-mode seeker tactical missile capable of attacking
stationary and moving targets. The committee is concerned over
the lack of clarity and funding in the Army's budget request
for the JAGM Increment II program.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives by February 1, 2017, on the status of the JAGM
Increment II program that shall include the program's
requirements, acquisition strategy, and funding profile.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Items of Special Interest
Army National Guard M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle upgrades
The committee notes that the Army intends to maintain two
versions of the M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) for
the foreseeable future, with the M2A3 equipping Active Duty
armored brigade combat teams (ABCT) and the M2A2 Operation
Desert Storm Situational Awareness variant in the Army National
Guard. While the committee understands the funding constraints
that have led to this mixed fleet approach, the committee
continues to be concerned about the potential divergence in
capability between Active Duty ABCTs and Army National Guard
ABCTs. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to continue
to work toward a pure fleet approach to M2 Bradley Infantry
Fighting Vehicles in the Army. However, if funding is not
available for that goal, the committee encourages the Army to
continue to modernize M2 Bradley IFVs in the Army National
Guard to the maximum extent possible.
M240 medium machine gun modernization
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee directed the Secretary of the Army to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services on the Army's long-term sustainment
strategy and life-cycle sustainment plans for the M240 medium
machine gun. The committee appreciates the briefing provided by
the Army regarding the sustainment of the industrial base for
the M240 medium machine gun, but has concerns that industry was
not consulted in the preparation of the sustainment plan.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to develop a
plan, with input from the M240 original equipment manufacturer,
that would consider the advisability and feasibility of
establishing an M240 recapitalization program, and provide the
House Committee on Armed Services with a briefing on this plan,
including its associated costs and timelines, not later than
September 30, 2016. The committee expects this briefing to also
detail the plans to ensure the sustainment of the domestic
small arms industrial base, including both original equipment
and spare parts manufacturers.
Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System
The committee understands the M3 Carl Gustaf Multi-Role
Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System (MAAWS) 84mm recoilless
rifle is a multipurpose, medium-range weapon system designed
specifically to engage structural targets at ranges up to 500
meters, lightly armored targets at ranges up to 700 meters, and
soft targets at ranges up to 1,000 meters. The committee is
also aware that the Army has finalized a program of record for
M3 MAAWS and is 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 also notes the Marine Corps
is procuring a similar system, which is the follow-on to the
Shoulder Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW).
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2017, on the MAAWS capabilities, including: whether size and
weight issues continue to be a factor in combat effectiveness;
capability to safely fire from enclosures; and the Army's
assessment of current Marine Corps SMAW programs, and whether
these systems could potentially meet Army operational
performance requirements.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Items of Special Interest
Ammunition industrial base investment strategies
The committee notes that the Army has reported that a
steady-state funding of approximately $250.0 million per year
is required to properly modernize and sustain the eight
government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) Army Ammunition
Plants (AAPs), as well as the government-owned, government-
operated (GOGO) AAPs, many of which were built during World War
II. The committee notes that the budget request actually
exceeded this annual baseline investment across the Future
Years Defense Program. The committee also notes, however, that
despite this commitment, significant safety, environmental, and
operational discrepancies exist among the four largest AAPs,
which could require investments exceeding what is currently in
the Army's long-term modernization plan for the ammunition
industrial base. The committee is concerned about this
discrepancy between documented need and planned investment.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army
to reevaluate its AAP funding investment model and the
underlying recapitalization assumptions in order to determine a
more accurate steady-state funding baseline for all GOCO AAPs
and GOGO AAPs.
Small guided munitions acquisition strategy
The committee commends the Army for rapidly fielding small
guided rockets for the AH-64D Apache Attack Helicopter in 2015.
Furthermore, the committee understands the Marine Corps
continues to qualify guided rockets on the AV-B Harrier, AH-1
Cobra attack helicopter, and UH-1 utility helicopter, while the
Air Force is rapidly moving forward to qualify small guided
rockets on the F-16 and A-10 platforms.
The committee notes that while not a replacement for
heavier guided missile munitions, small guided rockets could
provide an affordable precision guided weapon capability to
prosecute targets that have been routinely engaged in recent
years by heavier and more expensive guided munitions. The
committee also recognizes that precision delivery of the
munition does not always equate to lethality at the target, and
encourages the Department of Defense to consider fielding the
most capable and lethal warhead technology available to
maximize capability on small guided rockets.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives by August 31, 2016, on the joint
requirements for small guided rocket munitions, the long term
acquisition strategy for small guided rocket systems, the plans
for maximizing lethality of these systems, the potential for
integrating these systems on unmanned aerial systems, and to
provide options to streamline the procurement and fielding of
these critically needed systems across the military services.
Other Procurement, Army
Items of Special Interest
Accelerate fielding of personal dosimeters
The committee remains concerned about the increasing
chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats
to our soldiers. Maintaining adequate modern protective
equipment is of critical importance for the safety of U.S.
forces in CBRN environments. Modern dosimeters also establish a
legal dose of record for service members, which the services
can track for safety and liability purposes. The committee
remains concerned that shortfalls in fielding the most current
radiation detection devices, specifically personal dosimeters,
continue to exist, most notably within the Army National Guard
force structure. To ensure our troops and domestic homeland
first responders are provided with the best possible protection
to monitor against nuclear exposure, the committee strongly
encourages the Secretary of Defense to expedite and complete
the fielding of modern radiation detection equipment across the
force to meet existing, critical requirements for personal
dosimeters.
Army small-scale experimentation
The committee notes that senior Army leadership has
expressed a desire to increase the amount of innovation and
experimentation within the Department of the Army, and make
Army acquisition faster and more responsive. The committee also
notes that although large-scale Army experiments, such as the
Network Integration Evaluation and Army Warfighting Assessment
are beneficial, they take considerable time and resources to
organize, conduct, and assess. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider the creation
of smaller-scale, quicker-turn experimentation units and
exercises focused on addressing Army Warfighting Challenges and
near-term capability gaps with commercial and government off-
the-shelf technologies.
Army tactical communications waveforms
The committee supports the Army's Non-Developmental Item
(NDI) procurement strategy for software defined radios.
Furthermore, the committee recognizes the critical role radio
waveforms play in battlefield communications and network
capability, and how an NDI procurement approach can save money
and deliver communications technology rapidly to the
warfighter. The committee encourages the Army to expand its NDI
procurement policy to include new software technology for
innovative commercial waveforms. The committee is further aware
and interested in seeking more information about the Defense
Technology Security Administration's (DTSA) consideration of
polices that could lead to additional regulations regarding the
export of software defined radios. The committee believes that
both of these approaches have the potential to impact the
availability of radios to warfighters.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
and the Director of the Defense Technology Security
Administration to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives not later than
September 30, 2016, on the potential use of new radio waveforms
for tactical communications that may be available via an NDI
acquisition approach and the potential effects of U.S.
government policy changes on this industrial sector and on the
ability of warfighters and our international partners to access
innovative radio technologies.
Bridge Erection Boat program
The committee is aware that the new XM30 Bridge Erection
Boat (BEB), which will replace the 30-year-old legacy Mk II BEB
platform, represents an essential readiness capability and an
important part of the Army's incremental modernization efforts.
The XM30 BEB will be fielded to Active Army, Reserve, and
National Guard Multi-Role Bridging Companies (MRBCs) and used
to transport weapon systems, troops, and supplies over water
when permanent bridges are not available. The XM30 BEB will
also provide MRBCs significantly enhanced capabilities for
diving support, rafting transport, and patrols. The Army
Acquisition Objective for the XM30 BEB is 379 vessels. However,
the program currently remains in low-rate initial production
with a transition to full-rate production expected during
fiscal year 2017. Therefore, the committee continues to support
this program and encourages the Secretary of the Army to
program sufficient funds to support the Army Acquisition
Objective for the XM30 BEB and to provide a more efficient
funding profile that avoids large variations in quantity
ordering.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response Enterprise
Information Management System
The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (CST) currently
field a system, 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. The committee is also aware that the CIMS system is
being modified to establish an enterprise-capable tool,
referred to as the National Guard Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, and Nuclear Response Enterprise Information
Management System 2018+ (NG CIMS 2018+), that will expand the
capabilities of the CIMS to support the other National Guard
Bureau forces, such as the Chemical, Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear, and High-Explosive Enhanced Response Force Package and
Homeland Defense Response Force units.
The committee believes it is important that this enhanced
CIMS capability be fielded quickly and efficiently by utilizing
prior investments to expand and enhance communication
capability. The committee is aware of the plan to develop and
establish the NG CIMS 2018+ through a multi-phase approach,
including establishing initial operational capability in fiscal
year 2016 and proving full operational capability in fiscal
year 2018. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives by December 1, 2016,
detailing the status of the development of the NG CIMS 2018+
tool to date, as well as a description of the progress on
providing the initial operational capability and an update on
the future plans and milestones to establishment of full
operational capability.
Ground mobility vehicle
The budget request contained $4.9 million for 10 low-rate
production ground mobility vehicle (GMV) systems and associated
test and evaluation activities.
The GMV provides ``enhanced tactical mobility'' for a 9-
soldier infantry squad with their associated equipment to move
quickly around the battlefield, and was initiated as an urgent
operational need by the 82nd Airborne Division and endorsed by
the 18th Airborne Corps and U.S. Army Forces Command. The
current acquisition objective for GMV is 150 systems, broken
out as 3 battalion sets of 50 systems each for infantry brigade
combat team units in support of the global response force
mission.
The committee understands the Army is conducting an
analysis of alternatives that should be complete in June 2016.
The committee is aware that current market research has
identified several possible vendors, and the Army has
identified that the solution will most likely be a commercial/
non-developmental item with procurement based on best value,
full and open competition. According to the current acquisition
schedule, a low-rate production contract award is scheduled for
fourth quarter fiscal year 2017, with the first unit equipped
by third quarter fiscal year 2019.
The committee remains concerned about this timeline. The
committee encourages the Army to develop ways to accelerate and
streamline this acquisition in order to more rapidly address
the critically urgent operational need as stated by the 82nd
Airborne Division.
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle ambulance recapitalization
The committee recognizes the tactical importance of the
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) fleet and
the enduring requirement to maintain a capable HMMWV fleet
supporting multiple relevant mission roles for Active and
Reserve Component units. The committee notes that Congress has
provided an additional $520.0 million over the past 3 years to
address unfunded modernization requirements for the Army
Reserve (USAR) and Army National Guard (ARNG) HMMWV fleets.
The committee also recognizes the critical medical ground
evacuation mission role provided by the HMMWV ambulance
variant. The committee is concerned that the Army's current
fleet of Active Component HMMWV ambulances are now on average
27 years old, exceeding the expected useful life of the vehicle
by 12 years. The committee also understands the Army does not
have a fully funded reset, recapitalization, or replacement
plan in place for the entire HMMWV ambulance fleet. The
committee is aware of the successful effort already underway to
modernize the HMMWV ambulance fleet for the ARNG and USAR
through new production vehicles, the M997A3 variant. The
committee believes the Army should consider a similar effort
for the Active Component. The committee directs the Secretary
of the Army to develop an acquisition strategy to modernize the
current fleet of HMMWV ambulances for the Active Component and
to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives by March 1, 2017, on the details of
this acquisition strategy.
Material handling equipment modernization strategy
The committee is concerned that the budget request did not
include funding for the Rough Terrain Container Handler (RTCH),
a material handling equipment system considered vital and
critical to Department of Defense expeditionary logistics. The
committee understands the RTCH system, along with other
material handling equipment logistic systems, provides
strategic capability to set the theater, strategic agility to
the joint force, and maintains freedom of movement and action
during sustained and high tempo operations at the end of
extended lines of communication in austere environments. The
committee is concerned by the number of RTCH systems that are
combat worn, and notes there is neither a formal reset and
recapitalization program for these systems, nor a long-term
strategy to modernize a fleet that entered service in 2001.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army
to develop plans to recapitalize and modernize RTCH systems and
other material handling equipment systems in a timely manner,
as well as resource this effort across the Future Years Defense
Program.
Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio
The budget request contained $25.1 million in Other
Procurement, Army, for procurement of Mid-Tier Networking
Vehicular Radio (MNVR) systems.
The committee supports the goals of the MNVR program and
believes that modernizing battlefield communications is a
critical priority for the Army. The committee notes that the
MNVR is intended to provide the terrestrial backbone for the
Army's tactical network, connecting lower-echelon radios, like
Manpack and Rifleman radios, with the upper tier at the brigade
and battalion level. This terrestrial backbone is designed to
provide a critical capability to the Army, and reduces reliance
on satellite communications for command and control capability.
The committee is aware that the MNVR radio has completed
initial test activities and is expected to move to full-rate
production after testing in the summer of 2016. The committee
encourages the Army to maintain its testing schedule and, if
testing proves successful, its production schedule in order to
meet fielding requirements.
The committee recommends $25.1 million, the full amount
requested, in Other Procurement, Army for MNVR systems.
Tactical Communication and Protective System
The budget request contained $3.6 million for 983 tactical
communication and protective hearing systems (TCAPS) and 1,127
TCAPS-Lite systems.
The committee is aware that the Army has been updating
standards pertaining to the TCAPS program, and understands the
Army conducts annual assessments of technology to acquire the
best that is available to meet Army requirements for hearing
protection. The committee is aware that as a result of the
annual relook of technology in 2014, the Army identified a
TCAPS-Lite solution which would provide the same level of
active hearing protection at an 85 percent reduction in unit
cost for soldiers that do not have the need to connect to
radios. The committee notes that TCAPS-Lite enables soldiers to
communicate in combat environments while simultaneously
providing active hearing protection from harmful steady-state
and impulse noise. The committee supports the Army's current
strategy to begin procurement of TCAPS-Lite starting in fiscal
year 2016, and notes fielding is scheduled for the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2017. The committee encourages the Army
to accelerate fielding of TCAPS-Lite, and expects the Army to
resource TCAPS-Lite across the Future Years Defense Program.
The committee recommends $3.6 million, the full amount
requested, for TCAPS and TCAPS-Lite.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Items of Special Interest
MQ-8 Fire Scout aircraft
The budget request contained $72.4 million for the MQ-8
Fire Scout program.
The committee is concerned that the budget request does not
meet the minimum production rate of five aircraft per year. The
committee believes that procuring only one aircraft per year
significantly increases the aircraft cost per unit and will
lead to a break in the production line. Specifically, the
committee understands that the unit cost for procuring five
aircraft will result in a $24.0 million per aircraft unit cost
as compared to $72.4 million when buying one aircraft.
The committee recommends $119.9 million, an increase of
$47.5 million, to purchase five aircraft for the MQ-8 Fire
Scout program.
V-22 Osprey
The committee notes that in the 9 years since the
establishment of an initial operational capability, the V-22
Osprey has provided the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Air
Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) with a unique and
revolutionary vertical lift capability due to its superior
airspeed, range, and survivability. The operational tempo for
both Marine and Air Force Ospreys has grown over the years and
is expected to continue to increase as combatant commanders
more fully exploit the attributes of the tilt-rotor platform in
helping to meet national security challenges posed by
traditional nation-states and terrorist organizations.
Recently, the U.S. Navy selected the Osprey to perform the
carrier on-board delivery mission that will transform the
concept of logistic support at sea. The committee understands
that the Navy plans to begin their purchase of 44 aircraft
beginning in fiscal year 2018. The committee also understands
that U.S. Special Operations Command may have unmet
requirements for additional attrition reserve CV-22 platforms
that are not accounted for within current Department of the Air
Force multiyear procurements (MYPs).
The committee notes that the first and second V-22 MYPs
have generated approximately $1.25 billion in savings over
year-to-year procurements, and that a third, and last, MYP is
under consideration for fiscal year 2018. As this new
procurement window opens in 2018, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense, particularly the Department of the Air
Force, to take advantage of this opportunity to generate
further savings over year-to-year procurements. Should there be
a plan for additional Ospreys to meet the increased demand, the
committee encourages participation in the third MYP. The
committee believes that the third MYP CV-22 unit pricing will
be lower than independent year-to-year procurements in the
future. Air Force participation would also help drive down unit
pricing for the Department of Defense and partner nation
aircraft.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1,
2016, on the current operational tempo for V-22 aircraft,
forecasted demand for the aircraft in the future, and any V-22
procurement strategies under consideration.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Items of Special Interest
Littoral Combat Ship Over-the-Horizon Missile
The budget request contained no funds for the Littoral
Combat Ship Over-the-Horizon Missile.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy has
decided to accelerate backfitting of the Over-the-Horizon
missiles on Littoral Combat Ships to improve their lethality.
The committee further notes that this funding would procure
eight missiles and launcher installation, integration, and
testing to allow outfitting of the LCS 3 and LCS 5 in fiscal
year 2017 prior to their next deployment. Finally, the
committee notes that this element was included in the Chief of
Naval Operations' Unfunded Priorities List.
The committee recommends $43.0 million, an increase of
$18.1 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy, for procurement of
8 missiles, and an increase of $24.9 million in Other
Procurement, Navy, for procurement, integration, and
installation of a launcher.
Tomahawk Block IV
The budget request contained $186.9 million in Weapons
Procurement, Navy for procurement of 100 Tomahawk missiles,
which are 98 missiles below the minimum sustaining rate. The
budget request would also terminate Tomahawk Block IV
procurement beginning in fiscal year 2018.
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 2018. The
committee is concerned that the Navy is well below necessary
categories of inventory requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends $262.9 million, an
increase of $76.0 million, in Weapons Procurement, Navy for
procurement of 198 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.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Items of Special Interest
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
The budget request included $3.21 billion for two Arleigh
Burke-class destroyers.
The committee notes that the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113) included $1.00 billion for a
third Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in fiscal year 2016 but
these funds are insufficient to procure the entire ship. The
committee also notes that the Chief of Naval Operations
included $433.0 million on his fiscal year 2017 unfunded
requirements list in order to fully fund the balance of this
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
Therefore, the committee recommends $3.64 billion, an
increase of $433.0 million, for procurement of an additional
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
Cruiser replacement strategy
The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy's
reluctance to implement congressional direction regarding
modernization of the guided missile Ticonderoga-class cruisers
is jeopardizing the long-term viability and recapitalization of
these ships. Specifically, the committee is concerned that the
Secretary's request to obviate the ``2-4-6'' cruiser
modernization plan is hindering efforts to develop a
replacement capability for these cruisers, which the Navy has
assessed will begin to retire in 2035. The committee supports
the Navy's Future Surface Combatant Capability Based Assessment
that has been proposed for funding in Cross Platform System
Development Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
PE 0603563N. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2017, regarding the overall timeline to
develop a replacement strategy for the Ticonderoga-class
cruisers in accordance with the retirement timelines included
in the ``2-4-6'' cruiser modernization strategy.
CVN-81 advance procurement
The budget request contained no funds for advance
procurement associated with the CVN-81 Carrier Replacement
Program.
The committee believes that the Ford-class carrier
replacement program is tracking to deliver more efficiently
with each proceeding aircraft carrier. For example, the
committee is anticipating a savings of over $1.40 billion
between CVN-78 and CVN-79. The committee notes the second year
of advance procurement for CVN-80 has been included in the
budget request. While the committee believes that a more
efficient learning curve will be obtained with CVN-80 that will
provide more savings, the committee also believes additional
savings could be obtained by procuring economic order quantity
material for CVN-80 and CVN-81.
Therefore, the committee recommends $263.0 million for
advance procurement associated with CVN-81 Carrier Replacement
Program in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, to procure CVN-81
economic order quantity material.
Expeditionary Mobile Base ship
The committee notes that the flexible capabilities of the
recently-renamed Expeditionary Mobile Base (ESB, formerly AFSB)
class of ships are increasingly important to Navy and Marine
Corps leaders and planners, as is the attractive affordability
of this platform. USNS Lewis B. Puller, the first ESB, was
delivered in 2015 and represents a flexible platform for a
wide-range of missions, including U.S. Marine Corps Special
Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force-Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-
CR) and special operations. Three AFSB-ESBs have been funded to
date, in addition to two Mobile Landing Platforms (MLPs),
formally renamed Expeditionary Transfer Docks. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2017, as to how the procurement of additional ships of this
class would provide multiple mission requirements around the
globe including SPMAGTF-CR and special operations. The
committee specifically requests additional analysis as to how
this capability is integrated into the overall Navy force
structure assessment.
Frigate
In December 2015, citing concerns with the Navy's balance
between capability and quantity of platforms, the Secretary of
Defense directed the Secretary of the Navy, among other
actions, to procure 40 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and
frigates, a reduction of 12 ships. In response to this
direction, the Navy modified the LCS procurement and initiated
acquisition of the frigate based on a modified LCS in 2018, a
year earlier than planned in the Navy's budget request for
fiscal year 2016. The committee notes that there is
considerable uncertainty in the frigate program, as reported by
the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The committee notes
that over $8.00 billion in investment remains to procure the
frigate. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2017, as to the
following items relating to the frigate production:(1) Plans to
develop and mature the frigate design prior to starting
production;(2) The strategy for acquiring the frigate;(3)
Realism of frigate cost estimates; and (4) Planned capability
of the frigate and the degree to which it will meet the Navy's
small surface combatant needs.
Landing Craft Air Cushion Service Life Extension Program
The budget request contained no funds for the Landing Craft
Air Cushion (LCAC) Service Life Extension Program.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy budget
request for fiscal year 2016 anticipated four craft from the
Landing Craft Air Cushion Service Life Extension Program would
be included in the budget request for fiscal year 2017, but due
to budgetary constraints the craft were removed during budget
deliberations. The committee is concerned about the Department
of the Navy's amphibious lift capacity and believes that
additional service life extension of existing LCAC assets is
warranted.
The committee recommends $80.3 million for the Landing
Craft Air Cushion Service Life Extension Program.
Littoral Combat Ship
The budget request included $1.13 billion for two Littoral
Combat Ships (LCS).
The committee notes that the Navy has entered into a block
procurement contract with two shipbuilders that maximizes
efficiency and minimizes costs for the LCS seaframe.
Unfortunately, the committee also notes that the administration
has not requested sufficient funding in fiscal year 2017 to
take advantage of the competitive pricing, which could lead to
a 20 percent increase in the unit cost.
Therefore, the committee recommends $1.51 billion, an
increase of $384.7 million, for procurement of a third Littoral
Combat Ship. The committee notes that the Navy completed a
Force Structure Assessment based on projected threats and
determined that 52 small surface combatants were necessary.
Senior Navy officials reaffirmed the 52 small surface combatant
requirement in testimony before the committee earlier this
year. Therefore, the committee is perplexed by the
administration's statements that sufficient forces are
available to support a reduction in the numbers of the small
surface combatants to 40 ships. The Department of Defense
briefed the committee as to options that they would pursue to
mitigate the lower number of small surface combatants. The
committee was unimpressed with the depth of this review. The
committee is not willing to take risks in warfighting
requirements and remains supportive of the Department of the
Navy's Force Structure Assessment.
LX(R) Dock Landing Ship Replacement Program
The budget request contained no funds for advance
procurement associated with LX(R) Dock Landing Ship Replacement
Program.
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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92) and the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113) both included $250.0 million to
begin detailed design and construction of the LX(R) amphibious
warship. The committee believes that it is imperative to
continue the construction of LPD-17 class derivative in line
with current construction efforts rather than the current Navy
program of record of fiscal year 2020.
Therefore, the committee recommends $856.0 million in
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, for construction of
amphibious vessels.
Modular ship design
The committee notes that in recent decades the Department
of the Navy has placed increased emphasis on commonality in
combat systems, open architecture and common object software
code, and derivative ship designs. The committee also notes
that recent Department of the Navy ship designs have
incorporated elements of flexibility and modularity, such as
the Littoral Combat Ship mission packages, CVN-78 flexible
infrastructure, and DDG-1000 Electronic Modular Enclosures,
although these remain specific to these ship classes. The
committee believes that ship design is changing to realize
life-cycle benefits in common and flexible fleet architectures.
The committee also believes that modular, adaptable, and
flexible ship designs can provide advantages in the domestic
and export marketplace, facilitate use of off-the-shelf
technology, incentivize innovation, and accelerate the fielding
of new capabilities.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Navy to increase commonality, modularity, scalability, and
flexibility in future ship construction, modernization, and
conversion plans across the fleet architecture. The committee
encourages the Secretary to solicit input from the commercial
and naval ship design communities to optimize best design
practices.
Service Craft
The committee notes that the budget request for fiscal year
2017 included $65.2 million for ``Service Craft,'' which
consists of $39.0 million for one Auxiliary Personnel Lighter
and $26.2 million for two Harbor Tugs. The committee is pleased
to note the Department of the Navy is addressing the need for
Auxiliary Personnel Lighter Berthing Barges and Harbor Tugs.
The committee encourages the Navy to consider appropriate small
business set-asides for these efforts to maintain the small
shipyard industrial base.
Ship to Shore Connector
The budget request included $128.1 million for two Ship to
Shore Connectors.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy budget
request for fiscal year 2016 anticipated five Ship to Shore
Connectors being requested to support an efficient construction
build strategy in fiscal year 2017. However, the committee
notes that this program was reduced in the fiscal year 2017
budget request because of budgetary constraints. The committee
is concerned about the Department of the Navy's amphibious lift
capacity and believes that additional Ship to Shore Connectors
are warranted. The committee notes that an additional three
Ship to Shore Connectors were also included in the Chief of
Naval Operations' unfunded requirements list.
Therefore, the committee recommends $293.1 million, an
increase of $165.0 million, for procurement of five Ship to
Shore Connectors.
Strike capability assessment from surface amphibious forces
The committee notes that the administration is assessing an
``arsenal plane'' as an option to expand the capabilities of
existing aircraft. The committee is supportive of these
inventive methods to better employ developing technologies with
existing capabilities. The committee also notes that similar
concepts could be employed on the surface Navy forces to
augment a loss of land attack strike capability that will
result with the retirement of the guided missile submarines.
While the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) that is being
incorporated into the Block V Virginia-class submarines will
partially offset the loss to the land attack strike capability,
the committee notes the Navy will still realize a net loss of
strike capacity with the retirement of these guided missile
submarines. The committee also notes that the lack of
flexibility within the Navy surface forces to reload at sea
also complicates salvo responses. Finally, the committee notes
that there is potential for some of our amphibious force assets
to accommodate additional capabilities in terms of space,
weight, and machinery capacity. The committee believes that the
Secretary of the Navy should review other alternatives to
manage the loss of naval strike capacity including an option
that could include the addition of the MK 41 Vertical Launch
System on the Landing Platform/Dock (LPD) hull form to support
other naval combatants with an ``engage on remote'' capability.
The committee also believes that additional strike capability
from surface amphibious forces appears to be consistent with
the Navy's pursuit of distributed lethality and complicates
potential enemy targeting solutions of our forces.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by October 1, 2016, that includes an assessment of options to
optimally provide strike and missile defense from naval
amphibious forces. Such an assessment should include options to
insert the MK 41 Vertical Launch System on an LPD hull form.
TAO(X) oiler shipbuilding program
The committee notes that the budget request seeks to
execute a block buy for TAO(X) ships and includes $73.0 million
in fiscal year 2017 Advance Procurement (AP) funding, as well
as similar amounts in subsequent years to leverage the cost
efficiency of a block buy for these required assets. The
program's first ship was authorized in fiscal year 2016, and
section 127 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) provided the Navy the
authority for use of a block buy for the program. The committee
further notes that the 1-ship-per-year TAO(X) procurement rate
planned beginning in fiscal year 2018 will result in a lengthy
period to fulfill the 17-ship requirement and will not
optimally utilize the industrial base, which has the capacity
to produce at least 2 ships per year. Accelerating this
procurement may serve to reduce overall program costs and
minimize the time that the Navy has to continue to operate
single-hulled fleet oilers.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
concurrent with the date on which the budget for fiscal year
2018 is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title
31, United States Code, on the potential benefits and program
savings that could be achieved by increasing the program
procurement rate to two ships per year as well as by taking
continued advantage of block-buy procurement. The Secretary is
further directed to report on the industrial base capacity to
construct two TAO(X) fleet oilers per year.
Undersea Mobility for Special Operation Forces
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy has
proposed the retirement of the guided missile submarines
starting in the 2020s. The committee further notes that U.S.
Special Operations Forces (SOF) significantly leverage the
capabilities resident in these assets, and that a loss of this
mobility capacity will significantly impact future clandestine
undersea mobility operations. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Commander,
U.S. Special Operations Command, to prepare a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2017. The report
shall address the Navy's plan to continue to support
clandestine SOF undersea mobility requirements. The Secretary's
plan shall specify Department of the Navy's efforts to address
the following elements: (1) sustaining the capability to deploy
twin dry deck shelters; (2) deployment of a dry combat
submersible from a low-or-no visibility transport; (3) enhanced
lockout capabilities to support an expanded array of dive
missions; and (4) maximizing berthing space for special
operators to train underway.
The Secretary is encouraged to present multiple means of
enhancing the Navy's support of SOF undersea mobility
requirements, including potential designs for a SOF-optimized
submarine based on the SSBN(X) class submarine to be built
after the Sea-based Strategic Deterrence program has met all
commitments to the nuclear triad. This report shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
Virginia Class Submarine
The budget request included $1.77 billion for the Virginia
Class Submarine Advance Procurement.
In fiscal year 2017, advance procurement is necessary to
support procurement of long lead time materials and advanced
manufacturing efforts for a total of four ships: the SSN800 and
SSN801 (from the existing Block IV multiyear procurement
contract) and the SSN802 and SSN803 (from the anticipated Block
V multiyear procurement contract). It is anticipated that the
Block V contract will include, for the first time, the Virginia
Payload Module, a new hull section which contains four large-
diameter payload tubes for increased Tomahawk missile capacity.
The committee believes that additional funding is necessary to
support advanced construction for the Virginia-class submarine
program in fiscal year 2017 to maintain cost, schedule, and
contractual requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends $1.85 billion, an
increase of $85.0 million, for the Virginia Class Submarine
Advance Procurement.
Virginia class submarine industrial base capacity
The committee notes that since the end of the Cold War, the
United States has produced an average of less than one attack
submarine (SSN) per year. Over the next 20 years, submarine
production is planned to average two submarines per year, and,
for most of those years, one of the two submarines will be an
Ohio Replacement ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), which is
roughly two and a half times larger than the attack submarines
currently under construction. The committee believes that this
sustained annual submarine production workload at the nation's
two nuclear shipbuilders and their vendor base will double from
what it has been in the recent past. Managing this increase in
production to be both affordable and executable in delivering
critically needed capabilities to the fleet will require
careful planning and attention, as well as continued
coordination with the carrier programs.
While SSBN requirements will be met under current
shipbuilding plans, attack submarine force levels will fall
below the Navy requirement of 48 SSNs in 2025, and reach a
nadir of 41 attack submarines in 2030. The committee is
concerned that this unprecedented shrinkage in undersea force
structure will come at a time of growing demand for naval
forces, particularly for the assured access and capabilities
provided by submarines. The committee has received testimony
from a wide range of military leaders and experts about the
strain that the submarine force is under today, and the need to
mitigate the projected reduction in the fleet. Given the
increasing demand on undersea capabilities, the committee
firmly supports the sustainment of the current two a year
production rate of new attack submarines to include during the
procurement years of Ohio Replacement submarines which begins
in 2021.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2017, as to the submarine industrial base and the
viability of producing additional attack submarines beyond the
fiscal year 2017 shipbuilding plan in the 2017-2030 timeframe.
This report should address the following specific elements:
(1) The capacity of the submarine shipyards and vendor base
and factors limiting submarine production;
(2) The viability of adding SSNs to Navy shipbuilding
plans;
(3) The impact of increasing attack submarine production
during the 2017-2030 timeframe on Navy undersea force levels;
(4) The impact of increasing attack submarine production on
overall Virginia and Ohio Replacement program costs and
workload profiles; and
(5) Potential efficiencies and economies that might be
achieved in increasing SSN production.
Other Procurement, Navy
Items of Special Interest
Destroyer modernization
The budget request contained $367.8 million in Other
Procurement, Navy for destroyer modernization.
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. The committee notes that one
destroyer combat system modernization, valued at $65.0 million,
was included in the Navy Unfunded Requirements list.
Therefore, the committee recommends $432.8 million, an
increase of $65.0 million, in Other Procurement, Navy for an
additional destroyer modernization.
Joint Strike Fighter integration on amphibious ships
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy will
begin deployments of the F-35B on amphibious ships in the near
future. However, the committee also notes that all the
accompanying communication system upgrades necessary to fully
utilize the F-35B capabilities have not been programmed to be
fielded for the entirety of the amphibious force structure. The
committee believes that limited amphibious ship communications
system capability may limit the capabilities provided to the
fleet by the F-35B. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2017, detailing F-35B
integration for amphibious ships. This briefing should
specifically include the F-35B deployment schedule, the
proposed amphibious ship modernization plan, and the proposed
integrated communications architecture that is being developed
to support F-35B.
Navy Communications
The committee believes that Navy activities associated with
underway replenishments, aircraft launch and recovery, fuel and
ordnance handling and small boat operations represent some of
the most hazardous operations conducted at sea and are
increasingly difficult during conflict. The committee also
believes that these activities are further complicated during
Emissions Control (EMCON) operations when the Navy is
responding to emerging threats. To address communications
requirements when performing these activities, the committee
notes that the Navy has initiated a phone distance line
replacement program that allows the Navy to securely
communicate using infrared light, enabling simultaneous data,
video and voice communications in environments where
communication would be impossible or undesirable. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a
brief to the House Committee on Armed Services by August 1,
2016, that details implementation of a Phone Distance Line
Replacement that could be used in EMCON environments.
Navy expeditionary combat patrol boat requirements
The budget request contained $43.7 million in Other
Procurement, Navy, for standard boats.
The committee is concerned that the Department of the Navy
has not fully defined its requirement for expeditionary combat
patrol boats, which has led to an inconsistent acquisition
strategy for the procurement of such boats. This inconsistent
strategy prevents the government from taking advantage of
stable procurement lines that provide the best pricing. It also
fails to provide industry with the ability to make long-term
planning decisions in order to provide the most competitive
pricing.
The committee recommends $63.7 million, an increase of
$20.0 million, for the acceleration of a request for proposals
for the procurement of additional patrol boats in fiscal year
2017.
The committee also directs the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees,
concurrent with the date on which the budget for fiscal year
2018 is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title
31, United States Code, as to expeditionary combat patrol boat
requirements to include the following elements:
(1) The number of expeditionary combat patrol boats
required to carry out the naval strategy, National Military
Strategy, and meet joint and combined warfighting requirements
relating to crisis response, overseas posture, and support to
contingency operations;
(2) The annual funding necessary to procure the
expeditionary combat patrol boats required by the naval
strategy and National Military Strategy;
(3) The quantity of expeditionary combat patrol boats that
are funded for procurement in the President's budget for fiscal
year 2018 and in the current Future Years Defense Program;
(4) A long-range expeditionary combat patrol boat building
plan for the Department of the Navy, through fiscal year 2022,
that includes annual quantities of each type of patrol boat to
be procured; and
(5) A detailed discussion of the risks associated with any
deviation from the long-range expeditionary combat patrol boat
building plan required in paragraph (4), to include the
implications of such a deviation for the following areas: (a)
warfighting requirements; (b) crisis response and overseas
posture missions; and (c) contingency operations.
Ship's Signal Exploitation Equipment Program
The committee recognizes the importance of continued
funding for the Ship's Signal Exploitation Equipment (SSEE)
modification program that will continue development of an
electronically steered multi-beam antenna array that can
operate over a very broad frequency and transmit high power for
multiple functions while maintaining a low radar cross-section.
The Navy's SSEE program represents the latest technology
advancement in Naval Information Operations. Threat evolution
mandates higher power, frequency agility, wide band, lower
weight, decreased maintenance and ease of shipboard
installation and integration. The current and future protection
of Navy sailors is dependent upon battlespace awareness and
assessing hostile threats. Navy ships require wideband, multi-
function antennas that can operationally support high power
signals anywhere in the hemisphere of the ships' field of view.
These ships are also required to have a low radar cross-
section, and utilize antennas for more than one function.
Current technology has provided those capabilities for the Navy
but requires critical, threat-driven improvements to ensure
ship and sailor safety. The currently deployed Naval
Information Operations system provides wideband, high-power
transmit capability using a dish antenna. However, this limited
system can only produce a single beam at any given time,
limiting operations in a multi-dimensional battlespace. SSEE
fulfills an urgent fleet requirement to provide frequency
extension and counter intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance enhanced capabilities. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue development
and funding of the Ship's Signal Exploitation Equipment
modification program.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Items of Special Interest
Marine Corps fielding of Enhanced Combat Helmet
The budget request contained no funding for procurement of
Enhanced Combat Helmets for the Marine Corps.
The committee notes that in 2009 the Marine Corps received
an urgent need statement for a helmet with enhanced ballistic
protection from selected small-arms ammunition and
fragmentation. Working in collaboration with the Army, the
Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) was ultimately developed and
deployed beginning in 2014. By utilizing the latest lightweight
material technology, the ECH provides increased small-arms
protection above what is currently provided by the Marine
Corps' Lightweight Helmet and the Army's Advanced Combat
Helmet. The committee understands that the Marine Corps has now
deployed approximately 80,000 ECHs, but requires further
funding to ensure the ECH is more broadly fielded to Marines.
The committee also notes the Commandant of the Marine Corps has
identified an unfunded requirement of $22.0 million for helmets
in fiscal year 2017.
In addition, the committee notes that in the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
the committee indicated there was a need to ensure at least two
vendors are capable of producing combat helmets, soft armor,
and hard armor components in order to maintain competition for
better body armor technology and retain surge capacity for a
large-scale conflict.
The committee remains concerned that the Marine Corps has
not more widely fielded the ECH due to funding limitations and
that there remains a risk to the domestic advanced combat
helmet industrial base. Therefore, the committee recommends
$22.0 million, an increase of $22.0 million, in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps, for the procurement of additional
Enhanced Combat Helmets for the Marine Corps and to address the
unfunded requirement identified by the Commandant of the Marine
Corps.
Mobile User Objective System capability
The committee notes that the Mobile User Objective System
(MUOS) program has established a satellite constellation on
orbit, but that only a limited number of communications
terminals or radios carry MUOS waveform software. The committee
is concerned about the delays in incorporating the MUOS
waveform into Marine Corps and Air Force communications
terminals. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and
the Secretary of the Air Force to provide briefings to the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by
September 1, 2016, on their current plans for integrating the
MUOS waveform upgrades and associated equipment for current
radios. To the maximum extent possible, these briefings should
include detailed projections for delivery schedules, and
fielding schedules for such equipment.
Non-lethal ocular interruption capabilities
The committee continues to support the Department's efforts
for accelerated development, fielding, and deployment of non-
lethal technologies for both force application and force
protection missions. The committee is encouraged by the Marine
Corps' efforts to modernize and procure hail and warning, laser
dazzlers, and other escalation of force systems. The committee
recognizes that these materiel solutions allow personnel
engaged in combat, stability and support, security, and force
protection operations to employ visual technologies to non-
lethally intercept and interdict personnel at safe standoff
distances. These solutions provide commanders with a non-lethal
hailing and warning capability applicable across the range of
military operations to support Marine Corps missions when the
minimization of civilian casualties and collateral damage is
essential to mission success. The committee is concerned that
the funding reductions over the past few years to both the
Department's Non-Lethal Weapons program, and the services'
procurements for non-lethal systems, will not be able to
support the readiness need for escalation of force capabilities
that may be needed for humanitarian relief efforts, non-
combatant evacuation operations, and peacekeeping. The
committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of the Navy to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
November 1, 2016, on actions being taken to ensure sufficient
procurement of such equipment to meet projected operational
needs. This briefing should include details on the programming,
planning, and budgeting for procurement of hail and warning,
and other escalation of force systems.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Items of Special Interest
A-10 aircraft
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force
plans for the F-35A aircraft, a fifth-generation multi-role
fighter, to replace A-10 and F-16 aircraft. The committee
further notes that mission sets for F-35A include, but are not
limited to, missions currently performed by the A-10, which are
primarily close air support (CAS), combat search and rescue
(CSAR), and forward air controller-airborne (FAC-A). The Air
Force has taken the equivalent of four A-10 squadrons out of
service over the last 4 years, and only nine operational A-10
squadrons remain across the Active Duty and Air Reserve
Components, while the A-10 is currently deployed to three
overseas locations including the Republic of Korea, Europe, and
for Operation Inherent Resolve against the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant.
The committee also notes that the Department of Defense has
made contradictory statements about the Future Years Defense
Program for activation of F-35A units and divestiture of A-10
units. These contradictory statements, including the current
plan to begin retiring more A-10s before there is a proven
replacement for its capabilities, create uncertainty over the
Department of the Air Force's ability to provide continuous
CAS, CSAR, and FAC-A capabilities to the joint force.
The committee believes that the Department of the Air Force
continues to suffer from capacity shortfalls in its fighter
aircraft fleets, and that these shortfalls are being
exacerbated by the near-term readiness challenges that are
systemic across all the military services. As such, the
committee believes that retiring any more A-10s without a
proven replacement to its unique capabilities, or proof that
the F-35A can replace the A-10's mission capabilities, is an
unacceptable risk.
The committee understands the F-35 is scheduled to complete
an initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) in fiscal
year 2018 or in early fiscal year 2019. Elsewhere in this Act,
the committee includes a provision that would prohibit the
retirement of A-10 aircraft until the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) provides a report to the
congressional defense committees on the results of the IOT&E.
The IOT&E would include, but would not be limited to, a
comparison test and evaluation that examines the capabilities
of the F-35A and A-10C in conducting CAS, CSAR, and FAC-A
missions. This provision would also require the Secretary of
the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees on the Secretary's views of the results of this
IOT&E, which should include any issues or concerns from the
DOT&E report, a path forward for addressing any deficiencies or
corrective actions identified by DOT&E, and the near- and long-
term strategy for preserving the Air Force's capabilities in
CAS, CSAR, and FAC-A.
The committee believes that to ensure combat realism, the
comparative testing should include, but not be limited to, both
pre-planned and emergency divert missions to address
effectiveness in realistic, complex ground firefight scenarios.
These scenarios should include those in which enemy forces are
in close proximity to friendly forces where the pilot is
required to visually identify the target and friendly forces in
day and night conditions; armored targets; scenarios requiring
continuous weapons delivery, command and control (C2), extended
time over target, and simulated collateral damage restrictions;
deception scenarios with degraded visual environments; low-
altitude employment, including ``shows of force'' and strafe;
survivability from simulated direct hits by small arms fire,
light anti-aircraft artillery, and man-portable air defense
systems; scenarios in which simulated aircraft systems are
damaged; scenarios conducted without joint tactical air
controller or higher headquarters control to test CAS aircraft
suitability for forward air controller-airborne deconfliction
of fires; and scenarios including joint fires coordination and
timing, including Joint Air Attack Team attacks with Department
of the Army aviation assets and artillery deconfliction. CSAR
missions should compare effectiveness in the rescue mission
commander role, coordinating all aspects of an extended CSAR
mission, including but not limited to: locating and protecting
the isolated personnel with continuous firepower; controlling
other fighters as FAC-A; coordinating electronic attack;
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; aerial
refueling; C2; and rescue vehicle escort. The committee notes
that previous aircraft programs such as the F-22 also conducted
comparison testing as part of IOT&E. The committee also notes
that at a hearing held by the House Committee on Armed
Services' Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on March
23, 2016, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
testified that the cost of the F-35 and A-10 comparative
testing would be between $3.5 million and $5.2 million, and
that he was working to ensure that the F-35 and A-10
comparative testing is accomplished within the established
budget for IOT&E.
Additionally, the committee expects that the Department of
Defense will provide the report required by section 142 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) on time, and based on that report, the committee
may take further action on options for an A-10 replacement
program.
Aerial refueling recapitalization
The committee notes that the nation's ability to meet its
air-refueling requirements must not be placed at increased risk
while the Department of Defense executes its strategic aerial
refueling recapitalization strategy.
Specifically, the committee notes that the Department is
currently executing its KC-46A Pegasus acquisition program to
replace a number of aging KC-135 Stratotankers and that KC-46As
will eventually replace the KC-10 Extender fleet.
The committee strongly reiterates the importance of
ensuring that the Department's execution of the phase-out and
replacement portion of its aerial refueling recapitalization
strategy does not compromise its ability to meet stated short-
or long-term air-refueling requirements.
Air Force Command, Control, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (C2ISR) Fleet
The committee is aware that the Department of the Air
Force's critical manned C2ISR aircraft are high-demand assets
facing low availability rates, end-of-life issues, and growing
sustainment costs. The committee is supportive of the Air
Force's plan to replace the JSTARS fleet with an affordable
commercially available platform under a full and open
competition. When recapitalizing the rest of the manned C2ISR
fleet, the committee believes the Department of the Air Force
should use a similar acquisition strategy as the one used with
JSTARS, and consider a full and open competition. The term
``C2ISR fleet'' is defined as predominantly 707/C-135 platforms
which are approaching end of service life. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing
not later than September 1, 2016, on the Air Force's current
plans for recapitalization of these aircraft.
Air National Guard F-16 mission training centers
The budget request contained $15.2 million for F-16
aircraft support equipment and facilities, but contained no
funding for the procurement of additional F-16 mission training
centers (MTC) for the Air National Guard.
The committee notes that an F-16 MTC allows pilots to train
in scenarios that are either impossible or too expensive to
conduct in home-station flying training, and believes that the
MTC environment significantly improves F-16 pilot skill and
readiness to perform actual combat missions with increased
effectiveness. Each MTC includes high-fidelity simulator
cockpits, instructor operator stations, a threat server, and
briefing and debriefing capabilities. The MTC is also capable
of linking and integrating into geographically distributed
high-fidelity combat and combat support training devices that
include command and control and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems. This capability allows F-16 pilots at
home stations to exercise and train at the operational and
tactical levels of war, as well as conduct networked unit-level
training, in large force employment scenarios with other Air
Force aircraft integrated into the distributed mission
operating architecture.
The committee understands that F-16 MTCs are currently
planned for Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah; Shaw AFB, South
Carolina; and Holloman AFB, New Mexico. The committee further
understands that other F-16 pilots based in the United States
would be required to travel to one of the three MTC locations
to take advantage of its capabilities, and believes an
additional MTC would avoid travel costs and make the F-16 block
MTC more accessible to Total Force F-16 pilots, enabling the
Air Force's current state of low readiness for full-spectrum
combat capability to more quickly recover.
Therefore, the committee recommends $40.0 million, an
increase of $24.8 million, in F-16 aircraft support equipment
and facilities for the procurement and installation of an
additional F-16 MTC for the Air National Guard and utilization
by all Total Force F-16 pilots.
Aircraft urethane sealant upgrades
The committee notes that the KC-135 and B-52 fleets
experience chronic leaks primarily in the wing cavities.
Current wet cavity sealing technology is specified for
polysulfide. The committee understands that polysulfide becomes
brittle over a short period of time and cracks, which results
in repeated removals and replacements of the material to try to
repair leaks, or more commonly maintainers add more polysulfide
sealant over the cracked material and significantly increase
the aircraft weight.
In order to better assess this issue, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a study into the
value of using the polyurethane Integral Fuel Tank sealant to
correct chronic leaks in KC-135 and B-52 military aircraft, and
brief the House Committee on Armed Services by September 30,
2016, on the results of the study. The study should include an
evaluation of the long-term savings in maintenance and
operating costs using dollars per pound per flight hour.
B-21 bomber
The committee received independent testimony stating that
the Air Force should procure between 174 and 205 B-21 bombers
to ensure that enough aircraft are available to meet combatant
commander, training, test, back-up inventory, and attrition
reserve requirements. Additionally, the Global Strike commander
indicated that the previously announced 100 B-21 bombers should
be treated as the lower limit of the total required number.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
February 1, 2017, that estimates the number of B-21 bomber
aircraft needed to meet the combatant commander requirements.
The report, which may include a classified annex, shall include
the following elements:
(1) A detailed explanation of the strategy and associated
force sizing and shaping constructs, associated scenarios and
assumptions used to conduct the analysis;
(2) A range of numbers to meet requirements for B-21
bombers given best case and worst case assumptions and the
associated risk based on Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
risk management classifications; and
(3) A detailed transition plan that integrates the B-21
into the current bomber fleet through 2040.
B-21 Development Progress Matrix
The committee notes that the Air Force, through the Rapid
Capabilities Office (RCO), entered into a contract for the
Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) phase
associated with the B-21 bomber. The committee is pleased to
see progress on this program and believes that this program has
stable requirements in place. However, the committee is
concerned that, given the length of time associated with the
EMD phase and the amount of resources planned for this phase,
the congressional defense committees need an improved ability
to track annual progress and cost throughout the development.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to submit an initial B-21 Development Progress Matrix to the
congressional defense committees, concurrent with the budget
request for fiscal year 2018 that includes. The matrix should
provide milestones and metrics for measuring progress made in
technology, design, software, manufacturing, testing, and
product reliability maturity in relationship to the resources
that are planned and expended. The committee may consider
requesting annual updates to the matrix in the future.
Basing priorities for future Air National Guard Modular Airborne
Firefighting Systems missions
The committee is concerned about the current positions of
Modular Airborne Firefighting Systems (MAFFS) that are operated
by Air National Guard (ANG) C-130s. As shown in the National
Guard Bureau's brief to the committee on MAFFS, there is a
current gap in northwest States based on the current allocation
of existing MAFFS unit locations. Additionally, the committee
understands that the year 2015 was one of the most devastating
fire seasons on record and, according to the National
Interagency Fire Center, the most destructive forest fires
occurred in the northwestern States of Montana, Oregon, Idaho,
and Washington. One of the most important factors for fire
suppression in high-density forested areas is the ability to
contain forest fire immediately before the fire grows to
catastrophic size. The committee believes that MAFFS units
should be located in areas that have the ability to rapidly
respond to areas with a high propensity for high-density forest
fires.
The committee concurs with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service recommendations that the
location of MAFFS units should be in close proximity to fire-
prone States, not located on the East Coast. The committee
believes that these recommendations would be able to prevent a
repeat of the 2015 fires season where over $1.70 billion was
spent by the USDA Forest Service alone for fire suppression.
The committee believes that when making future basing
decisions with regard to MAFFS units, the Air Mobility Command
should consider geographical gaps of MAFFS units, and give
preference to areas that are prone to high-density catastrophic
forest fires.
Battlefield Airborne Communications Node
The committee notes that since its fielding, the
Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) system has
provided critical communications and information-sharing
capability between different tactical data and voice networks
in support of operations in the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, Libya, and other areas. The BACN
program continues to act as a critical communications gateway
and data relay, flying on EQ-4B and E-11A aircraft in support
of Operation Freedom's Sentinel throughout the United States
Central Command's area of responsibility and elsewhere in
support of joint urgent operational requirements.
In addition, the committee recognizes the Department of the
Air Force's efforts to establish a program of record, and
continues to believe that doing so is important to preserve
previous investments and operational experience to meet ongoing
operational requirements. Therefore, the committee encourages
the Secretary of the Air Force to continue the planning and
establishment of a BACN Program of Record, while continuing to
meet ongoing warfighter requirements in theater. In addition,
the committee encourages including modernization planning in
support of anticipated future requirements across multiple
theaters. This would ensure that this capability is maintained
in the Department of the Air Force for the long term to support
joint operational communications, fifth-generation aircraft
communications, combat cloud, and data networking requirements.
C-130H Modernization
The budget request contained $9.2 million for C-130
modernization for the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)
Increment 1 program. This program will provide the mandated
radios, Automated Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Out
and enhanced Mode S capabilities necessary to operate in
international airspace by the year 2020. The committee fully
supports this request and is committed to ensuring the long-
term viability of the C-130H aircraft in the Air Force's
Regular, Guard, and Reserve Components until they reach their
expected service life or are recapitalized. By most estimates,
with proper avionics upgrades, the roughly 172-aircraft C-130H
fleet is viable until at least 2040.
However, AMP Increment 1 only addresses 4 of the 12
Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance/Air Traffic
Management compliance mandates and does not resolve the cockpit
avionics obsolescence that limits the long-term viability of
the aircraft. The planned follow-on AMP Increment 2 effort will
replace the current cockpit with a modern digital ``glass
cockpit.'' This will allow the Air Force's fleet to be
supported well into the future, resolve diminishing
manufacturing sources, and increase mission availability. It
will also provide upgraded Automatic Flight Control System
capabilities to take advantage of more efficient airspace
management capabilities, and eliminate some maintenance and
readiness issues.
The committee is aware of commercially available, non-
developmental Increment 1 and Increment 2 solutions for C-130-
derivative aircraft. The committee encourages the Secretary of
the Air Force to fully pursue full and open competitions for
both the Increment 1 and Increment 2 programs. The committee is
encouraged by the Air Force's renewed commitment to upgrading
C-130H aircraft and expects both AMP Increments 1 and 2 to
continue to be fully funded in future budget requests.
In addition to avionics upgrades, the committee continues
its strong support for C-130H propulsion and propeller system
upgrades. The committee believes that these upgrades will
provide cost savings through increased fuel efficiency and
reduced maintenance requirements.
The committee recommends $81.7 million, an increase of
$72.5 million, for C-130H propulsion and propeller system
upgrades.
C-130J Hercules aircraft
The budget request contained $146.0 million for the C-130J
program. The committee is concerned by the Air Force plans to
procure only two C-130Js in fiscal year 2017.
The committee is concerned that the Air Force reduced two
C-130J aircraft from the President's budget request due to
fiscal constraints. These reductions have also put the
initiation of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130H-
to-J fleet recapitalization at increased risk. The committee
notes that the Active Duty combat delivery fleet has
essentially completed its replacement of legacy C-130H aircraft
with the C-130J. Likewise, it is noted that the Air Force
Special Operations Command and U.S. Marine Corps, including the
U.S. Marine Corps Reserves, are also well on their way to C-
130J recapitalization completion.
The committee recommends $417.5 million, an increase of
$271.5 million, for the procurement of three additional C-130J
aircraft.
C-40A Clipper aircraft
The budget request contained no funds for the Navy and
Marine Corps C-40A program.
The committee notes that the Navy has stated that it has a
warfighting requirement of 23 C-40A aircraft with a fiscally
constrained inventory objective of 17 aircraft that will
provide adequate capacity at acceptable risk. The current fleet
inventory is 14 aircraft with 1 on order. The addition of two
aircraft will complete the minimum inventory objective. This
will allow the Navy to better execute the Navy Unique Fleet
Essential Aircraft mission and provide combatant and component
commanders with short-notice, quick response, intra-theater air
logistics support, as well as direct support of fleet
requirements. While the Navy has recapitalized its fleet of C-
9B aircraft, the Marine Corps is still operating two aging C-9B
aircraft that are the only two in the Department of the Navy
inventory, which greatly increases their maintenance and
sustainment costs. The procurement of two C-40A aircraft for
the Marine Corps would allow them to provide critical,
reliable, highly flexible airborne logistics capabilities to
deployed Marine Air-Ground Task Forces. Finally, the committee
notes that these four aircraft were included in the Chief of
Naval Operations' and the Commandant of the Marine Corps'
unfunded priorities list.
The committee recommends $415.0 million for the procurement
of four aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps C-40A program.
Demonstration of high performance unmanned jet aircraft
The committee is encouraged by the success of recent system
demonstration flights at the Navy test range at China Lake,
California, of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) capable of
tactical speeds and maneuverability, coupled with substantial
autonomy and multi-aircraft collaboration.
The committee notes that legacy UAS continue to rely
heavily on human operators, and it supports ongoing research to
develop a more seamless human-machine environment. The
committee also recognizes the potential force multiplier
effects provided by a UAS with fighter-like performance
operating collaboratively with manned aircraft, specifically in
support of the suppression of enemy air defenses.
Furthermore, the committee notes that the characteristics
of this advanced capability are consistent with those the Navy
has identified for acquisition through use of rapid prototype
development and experimentation in order to explore and
expedite innovative operational concepts to the fleet.
As such, the committee believes the Navy should pursue an
industry-developed low-cost, reusable, penetrating, unmanned
semiautonomous tactical combat aircraft capable of being
launched from multiple platforms and performing a broad range
of missions in a nonpermissive environment, to include
electronic attack, and encourages the Navy to demonstrate the
capability at an exercise no later than fiscal year 2017.
E-8C prime mission equipment diminishing manufacturing sources kits
The budget request contained $6.2 million for E-8C
modifications, but included no funds for prime mission
equipment diminishing manufacturing sources (PME-DMS) kits.
The committee understands that PME-DMS kit procurement and
installation is a top issue for E-8C fleet viability, and is
required to maintain the E-8C's net-centric warfighter
capabilities, including the ground moving target indicator and
battle management command and control, as specified in the
operational requirements document. Of the fleet of 16
operational E-8C aircraft, the committee notes that only 14
aircraft have been budgeted to receive PME-DMS kits, and the
committee believes that all 16 aircraft should be configured
with the PME-DMS kit so that all operational E-8C aircraft are
maintained in the most up-to-date configuration.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $23.7 million, an
increase of $17.5 million, for E-8C modifications, for
procurement of two PME-DMS kits.
EC-130H Compass Call recapitalization
The budget change request contained $165.7 million across
multiple appropriations for the Air Force's Compass Call
program.
The committee received a letter from U.S. Air Force
requesting a technical adjustment to the fiscal year 2017
budget request and a new start authorization to re-host the EC-
130H Compass Call mission equipment onto a new platform. The
U.S. Air Force stated that the only option that does not
require development and/or certification work is a Gulfstream
G550 Conformal Airborne Early Warning airframe, which will be
designated the EC-37B.
While the committee supports the Air Force's need to
accelerate fielding a replacement aircraft that meets its
requirement, the committee is concerned about the U.S. Air
Force's 10-year acquisition strategy that acquires one EC-37B
per year and results in a 6-year period where the Air Force is
operating a mixed fleet of EC-130s and EC-37Bs. The committee
does not believe this is the most efficient or cost effective
way to cross-deck the capability. The committee encourages the
Air Force to optimize the divesture of the EC-130s and
accelerate the fielding of the EC-37B.
The committee recommends $165.7 million in PE 27253F for
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force; Research Development Test and
Evaluation; Operations and Maintenance; and Operations and
Maintenance, Overseas Contingency Operations, for the Compass
Call program.
F-22 production restart assessment
The committee notes that production of the F-22 fifth-
generation tactical aircraft concluded in 2009, and notes 187
aircraft were produced, far short of the initial program
objective of 749 aircraft, as well as the Air Combat Command's
stated requirement of 381 aircraft. The committee also
understands there has been interest within the Department of
the Air Force, Department of Defense, and Congress in
potentially restarting production of the F-22 aircraft. In
light of growing threats to U.S. air superiority as a result of
adversaries closing the technology gap and increasing demand
from allies and partners for high-performance, multi-role
aircraft to meet evolving and worsening global security
threats, the committee believes that such proposals are worthy
of further exploration.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to conduct a comprehensive assessment and study of the
costs associated with resuming production of F-22 aircraft and
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not
later than January 1, 2017, on the findings of this assessment.
The committee expects the report to be unclassified, but may
contain a classified annex. Further, the committee directs that
the assessment and report consider and address the following:
(1) Anticipated future air superiority capacity and
capability requirements, based on anticipated near-term and
mid-term threat projections, both air and ground; evolving F-22
missions and roles in anti-access/area-denial environments; F-
15C retirement plans and service-life extension programs;
estimated next-generation aircraft initial operating capability
dates; and estimated end-of-service timelines for existing F-
22As;
(2) Estimated costs to restart F-22 production, including
the estimated cost of reconstituting the F-22 production line,
and the time required to achieve low-rate production; the
estimated cost of procuring another 194 F-22 aircraft to meet
the requirement for 381 aircraft; and the estimated cost of
procuring sufficient F-22 aircraft to meet other requirements
or inventory levels that the Secretary may deem necessary to
support the National Security Strategy and address emerging
threats;
(3) Factors impacting F-22 restart costs, including the
availability and suitability of existing F-22A production
tooling; the estimated impact on unit and total costs of
altering the total buy size and procuring larger and smaller
quantities of aircraft; and opportunities for foreign export
and partner nation involvement if section 8118 of the Defense
Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-56) prohibiting export
of the F-22 were repealed;
(4) Historical lessons from past aircraft production
restarts; and
(5) Any others matters that the Secretary deems relevant.
F-35 Lightning II aircraft program
The F-35 Lightning II is the Department of Defense's
largest acquisition program, which will eventually deliver
2,443 F-35 aircraft to the Departments of the Navy and Air
Force. The committee believes that the F-35 will form the
backbone of U.S. air combat superiority for decades to come,
replacing or complementing the legacy tactical fighter fleets
of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with a dominant,
multi-role, fifth-generation aircraft capable of projecting
U.S. power and deterring potential adversaries. The committee
notes that for the F-35 program's international partners and
foreign military sales customers, who are participating in the
program, the F-35 will become a cornerstone for future
coalition operations. The committee believes that the F-35 will
help to close a crucial capability gap that will enhance the
strength of our security alliances. Therefore, the committee
continues its strong support of this crucial aircraft
development and procurement program.
The F-35 Lightning II program is approximately 80 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 Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces of the House Committee on Armed Services on March 23,
2016, the F-35 Program Executive Officer (PEO) testified that
the F-35 program is executing well across the spectrum of
acquisition. However, the committee notes that the F-35 PEO has
identified the software development for the final development
software block, known as block 3F, as an area with some risk
remaining that could result in a 4-month delay in delivery of
software block 3F. This delay will not affect the Department of
the Navy's initial operational capability for the F-35C in
2018. At that hearing on March 23, 2016, the F-35 PEO also
identified the next version of the autonomic logistics
information system (ALIS) as an area with some schedule risk.
The Government Accountability Office's Director of Acquisition
and Sourcing Management, who also testified at that hearing,
likewise identified both completion of software block 3F and
ALIS as risk areas. Accordingly, the committee continues to
closely monitor both software progress and ALIS development.
Looking toward the future, the committee is concerned about
plans for F-35 sustainment. Consequently, elsewhere in this Act
the committee includes a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees on the F-35 Lightning II
aircraft program's sustainment support structure.
MQ-9 production funding in Future Years Defense Program
The budget request contained $575.6 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force, for MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial systems
(UAS).
The committee supports the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2017. However, the committee is concerned that
there is no additional funding for procurement of additional
MQ-9 UAS in the Future Years Defense Program. The committee
notes that the Air Force recently announced a plan to increase
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capacity
through a $3.0 billion plan that includes basing expansions,
increased manning, and procurement of additional MQ-9s. The
committee understands that this plan may include establishment
of up to 9 additional squadrons and 3,500 more personnel. Given
this expansive new plan to increase ISR capacity, the committee
encourages the Air Force to reconsider its Future Years Defense
Program projections for the MQ-9 to ensure it includes the
appropriate amount of new systems to support planned growth in
ISR capacity.
The committee recommends $575.6 million, the full amount
requested, in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for MQ-9 Reaper
unmanned aerial systems.
Reporting requirement for C-130H recapitalization and modernization
The committee notes that the Air Force Reserve and Air
National Guard, as well as the Special Operations Command, U.S.
Marine Corps, and U.S. Coast Guard, are all well on their way
to recapitalize their legacy C-130Hs with the newer, more cost
effective, and more operationally capable, C-130Js. The Air
Force has stated that some C-130H units within the Guard and
Reserve will be modernized with upgraded avionics, while others
will be recapitalized with C-130Js. What remains unclear at
this point is which units will be modernized and which ones
will be recapitalized.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 28, 2017, on C-130H recapitalization and
modernization that shall include the following elements:
(1) C-130H to C-130J recapitalization timeline by unit for
the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve;
(2) C-130H Avionics Modernization Program Increment 1 and
Increment 2 fielding timeline by unit for the Air National
Guard and Air Force Reserve; and
(3) C-130H propulsion system upgrades: T56 3.5 engine
modification, NP 2000 8-bladed propeller, and electronic
propeller controller system, timeline by unit for the Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
UH-1N replacement program
The budget request contained $14.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, and $18.3 million
in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the UH-1N replacement
program. The UH-1N replacement program would replace the
Department of the Air Force UH-1N fleet by acquiring a non-
developmental commercial or U.S. Government vertical lift
aircraft.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee noted that the current UH-1N aircraft fleet fails to
meet speed, range, payload, and defensive system requirements.
The committee also noted that modifications to the existing
fleet will not enable the UH-1N to meet mission requirements,
and that the Department of the Air Force was assessing
requirements for the UH-1N replacement, conducting market
research, and developing UH-1N replacement acquisition
alternatives. Since last year, the committee learned that
nuclear weapons surety studies have highlighted a critical
requirement for the replacement of the current fleet of UH-1N
helicopters supporting the nuclear mission. However, while the
committee notes that there is no validated Joint Urgent
Operational Needs Statement (JUONS) associated with this
requirement, the committee understands that a JUONS only
applies to situations where U.S. military forces are actively
engaged with enemy forces. Nevertheless, the committee believes
that replacement of the helicopters performing the nuclear
mission is now an urgent need based, in part, on the warning of
the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command in an August 6, 2015,
Memorandum to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In recent hearing testimony, Air Force officials stated
that, in response to the concerns of operational commanders,
the Air Force was considering a range of options to more
quickly address the requirement for UH-1N replacement aircraft.
The committee understands that these options include deployment
of existing units to provide additional capability through a
formal Request for Forces to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, and a possible use of an Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535)
decision, based on an ``urgent and compelling need,'' to
procure UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters through the Department of
the Army. The committee notes that in this case, an Economy Act
decision to opt out of a competition would potentially allow
for a sole-source contract award exceeding $1.5 billion in
value. However, the committee recognizes that the Secretary of
the Air Force may proceed with such a non-competitive award if
the Secretary determines the statutory requirements for doing
so are met. The committee assumes that, if an Economy Act
decision is made, procurement of the UH-60M aircraft could
begin in fiscal year 2017, which would require more funding
than requested in the budget request.
Therefore, the committee recommends $14.1 million, the full
amount requested, in Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Air Force, and $98.3 million, an increase of $80.0
million, in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the UH-1N
replacement program. The committee expects these additional
funds to be used to accelerate the program's schedule if an
Economy Act decision is made to procure UH-60M Black Hawk
helicopters in lieu of conducting a competition.
U.S. Air Force combat search and rescue
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee encouraged the Department of Defense to adopt
concurrent and balanced fielding of new equipment between the
Active Component (AC) and Reserve Component (RC). The committee
believes that in many cases, concurrent and balanced fielding
can better integrate AC and RC units and help ensure the RC
remains an operational reserve. Furthermore, the committee
notes that many major defense acquisition programs have
followed concurrent and balanced fielding, including the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter.
The committee understands that the Air Force intends to
field refurbished and upgraded HH-60G operational loss
replacement (OLR) aircraft to RC combat search and rescue units
in fiscal year 2018, and that these same units will receive new
HH-60W combat rescue helicopter aircraft in the fiscal year
2027 to 2029 timeframe. The committee supports the plan to
provide these OLR aircraft to RC units as soon as possible.
However, the committee is concerned that there does not appear
to be a plan to concurrently field the HH-60W to both AC and RC
units, and that there is a potential 10-year gap between RC
units receiving HH-60G OLR aircraft and the new HH-60W
aircraft.
Additionally, the committee understands that the Department
of the Air Force is undertaking an ongoing review to determine
whether primary responsibility for combat search and rescue
(CSAR) will remain with Air Combat Command or be moved to Air
Force Special Operations Command. The committee notes the
importance of the CSAR mission as the primary personnel
recovery method for service men and women in extremis, as well
as the complex nature of these operations that often require
multi-service, dedicated, and fully trained forces. As the Air
Force reviews this mission, the committee encourages an
analysis of current and anticipated geographic combatant
commander requirements and whether current force structure is
capable of meeting those requirements with existing HH-60 and
V-22 platforms.
To address committee concerns, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force and relevant subordinate commands to
brief the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives not later than September 1, 2016, on Department
of the Air Force plans for fielding the HH-60W to the AC and
RC, and the status of the ongoing review for responsibility for
the CSAR mission.
U.S. Marine Corps C/KC-130 digital interoperability
The committee recognizes the importance of the Marine
Corps' efforts to achieve Digital Interoperability (DI) as
outlined in the 2016 U.S. Marine Corps Aviation Plan and is
supportive of those efforts. The committee also understands
that the integration costs to incorporate many new DI
technologies across all of the U.S. Marine Corps aviation
platforms is unaffordable given current and projected
resources. The committee believes the Marine Corps should
leverage as much government-owned technology as technically
feasible before making investments in costly systems or
developmental technology.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Navy to accelerate the integration and testing of existing
interoperability capabilities for the C/KC-130, such as TACPOD,
which is an existing government-owned, government-tested asset.
TACPOD is a mature technology that has been tested to a
Technology Readiness Level 8 and could potentially augment
existing C/KC-130 interoperability capabilities with minimal
integration efforts. Further, such capability could provide the
Marine Corps' C/KC-130 expanded mission capability,
specifically in support of the Special Purpose Marine Air-
Ground Task Force-Crisis Response mission.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Items of Special Interest
25 millimeter ammunition for the F-35 program
The committee recognizes the critical role that the F-35
will play in both air-to-air and air-to-ground combat
capability, and believes that the 25 millimeter gun will be a
critical part of the F-35's overall weapons lethality.
Consequently, the committee encourages the Department of
Defense to consider all ammunition solutions to meet the
lethality requirement for the F-35's 25 millimeter gun.
To further the committee's understanding of the
Department's F-35 25 millimeter ammunition plans, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
Committee on Armed Services of the U.S. House of
Representatives by August 1, 2016, on the requirements and
acquisition strategy for 25 millimeter ammunition.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Items of Special Interest
Civil engineers construction, surveying, and mapping equipment
The budget request contained $6.8 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. In the committee report (H.
Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee noted that
approximately 66 percent of existing engineering equipment is
known to be discontinued, with some individual components
ranging as high as 94 percent; therefore, maintenance
requirements for this legacy equipment could potentially be
cost prohibitive. The committee is concerned that the long-term
replacement and modernization strategy for legacy engineering
equipment remains under-resourced across the Future Years
Defense Program. The committee believes additional funds would
help to accelerate the modernization of legacy civil
engineering equipment, and 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 $11.8 million, an increase of $5.0
million, to competitively procure modernized engineer equipment
and address any unfunded requirements.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Items of Special Interest
Replacement of MH-60M for United States Special Operations Command
The budget request contained $6.4 million for MH-60M Block
Upgrades in PE 116048BB, Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment.
The committee understands that an MH-60M within U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM) sustained heavy damage, with main
rotor strike, after a hard deck landing off the coast of
Okinawa aboard United States Naval Ship Red Cloud. The Army
Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command determined
the aircraft to be a total loss, based on the estimated cost of
damage. The committee understands that an additional $18.6
million is needed for special operations-peculiar modifications
to a replacement MH-60M aircraft being provided by the U.S.
Army. This additional aircraft with modifications would restore
USSOCOM to a basis of issue of 72 MH-60M aircraft. Therefore,
the committee recommends $25.0 million, an increase of $18.6
million, for MH-60M Block Upgrades in PE 116048BB, Rotary Wing
Upgrades and Sustainment.
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--Multiyear Procurement Authority for AH-64E Apache
Helicopters
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
enter into one or more multiyear contracts for AH-64E Apache
helicopters beginning in fiscal year 2017, in accordance with
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code.
Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for UH-60M and HH-60M
Black Hawk Helicopters
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
enter into one or more multiyear contracts for UH-60M and HH-
60M Black Hawk helicopters beginning in fiscal year 2017, in
accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code.
Section 113--Assessment of Certain Capabilities of the Department of
the Army
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of
Staff of the Army, to provide an assessment to the
congressional defense committees by April 1, 2017, of the ways,
and associated costs, to reduce or eliminate shortfalls in
responsiveness and capacity of the following capabilities:
(1) AH-64-equipped Attack Reconnaissance Battalion capacity
to meet future needs;
(2) Air defense artillery (ADA) capacity, responsiveness,
and the capability of short range ADA to meet existing and
emerging threats (including unmanned aerial systems, cruise
missiles, and manned aircraft), including an assessment of the
potential for commercial-off-the-shelf solutions;
(3) Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear
capabilities and modernization;
(4) Field artillery capabilities and the changes in
doctrine and war plans resulting from the memorandum of the
Secretary of Defense dated June 19, 2008, regarding the
Department of Defense policy on cluster munitions and
unintended harm to civilians, as well as required modernization
or munition inventory shortfalls;
(5) Fuel distribution and water purification capacity and
responsiveness;
(6) Army watercraft and port opening capabilities and
responsiveness;
(7) Transportation (fuel, water, and cargo) capacity and
responsiveness;
(8) Military police capacity; and
(9) Tactical mobility and tactical wheeled vehicle capacity
and capability, to include adequacy of heavy equipment prime
movers.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--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.
Section 122--Sense of Congress on Aircraft Carrier Procurement
Schedules
This section would provide the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of the Navy's schedule to procure 1 aircraft carrier
every 5 years will reduce the overall aircraft carrier
inventory to 10 aircraft carriers, a level insufficient to meet
peacetime and war plan requirements. The section also
recommends that the Secretary begin construction for the Ford-
class aircraft carrier designated CVN-81 in fiscal year 2022
and align advance procurement activities with this accelerated
programming.
Section 123--Design and Construction of LHA Replacement Ship Designated
LHA 8
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into and incrementally fund a contract for design and
construction of the LHA Replacement ship designated LHA 8.
Section 124--Design and Construction of Replacement Dock Landing Ship
Designated LX(R) or Amphibious Transport Dock Designated LPD-29
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into and incrementally fund a contract for design and
construction of the replacement dock landing ship designated
LX(R) or the amphibious transport dock designated LPD-29.
Section 125--Ship to Shore Connector Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a contract for the procurement of up to 45 Ship to
Shore Connector vessels.
Section 126--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Littoral Combat
Ship or Successor Frigate
This section would prohibit the Department of the Navy from
selecting a single contractor for the Littoral Combat Ship or
frigate program until the Secretary of the Navy certifies to
the congressional defense committees that such a selection of a
single contractor is conducted using competitive procedures and
is performed for the purpose of constructing a frigate class
ship.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 131--Elimination of Annual Report on Aircraft Inventory
This section would strike the requirement from section 231a
of title 10, United States Code, for the Secretary of Defense
to deliver an annual report on the military services' aircraft
inventory to the congressional defense committees.
Section 132--Repeal of the Requirement To Preserve Certain Retired C-5
Aircraft
This section would amend section 141 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) to terminate the requirement for the Secretary of the Air
Force to continue to preserve certain C--5 aircraft in a
storage condition that would allow a recall of retired aircraft
to future service in the Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard,
or Active Force structure.
Section 133--Repeal of Requirement To Preserve Certain Retired F-117
Aircraft
This section would amend section 136 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) by striking subsection (b), which would remove the
requirement that certain F-117 aircraft be maintained in a
condition that would allow recall of those aircraft to future
service.
Section 134--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 2017, for the Department of the Air Force to
retire, prepare to retire, or place in storage any A-10
aircraft. This section would also maintain a minimum of 171 A-
10 aircraft designated as primary mission aircraft inventory,
and prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from making any
significant reductions to manning levels with respect to any A-
10 aircraft squadron or division until the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation, and the Secretary of the Air
Force, submit reports to the congressional defense committees
on the results and findings of the initial operational test and
evaluation of the F-35 aircraft program, as well as the
comparison test and evaluation that examines the capabilities
of the F-35A and A-10C.
Section 135--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Retirement of
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System Aircraft
This section would prohibit retirement of Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft in fiscal year
2018.
Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters
Section 141--Termination of Quarterly Reporting on Use of Combat
Mission Requirements Funds
This section would amend the quarterly report requirement
in section 123 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), to
sunset the requirement for such reports on September 30, 2018.
Section 142--Fire Suppressant and Fuel Containment Standards for
Certain Vehicles
This section would require the Secretary of the Army, or
his designee, and the Secretary of the Navy, or his designee,
to establish and maintain policy guidance regarding the
establishment of, and updates to, fire suppressant and fuel
containment standards that meet survivability requirements
across various classes of vehicles, including light tactical
vehicles, medium tactical vehicles, heavy tactical vehicles,
and ground combat vehicles for the Army and Marine Corps. This
section would also require the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees, not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, that contains policy guidance for
each class of vehicle including armor, fire suppression
systems, self-sealing material and containment technologies,
and any other information as determined by the Secretaries.
The committee believes that operational performance
requirements should be based on the vehicle type, mission, and
employment. The committee notes that inclusion of fire
suppression in performance specifications should be by vehicle
design and risk driven.
Section 143--Report on Department of Defense Munitions Strategy for the
Combatant Commands
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees by April 1,
2017, a report on the munitions strategy for each of the United
States combatant commands. It shall include an identification
of munitions requirements, an assessment of munitions gaps and
shortfalls, and necessary munitions investments. Such strategy
shall cover the 10-year period beginning with 2016.
The committee notes that section 1254 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) required the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the munitions strategy for the U.S.
Pacific Command (USPACOM). The committee has reviewed this
report and commends the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff in their detailed assessment. As the
Secretary completes the broader report on the munitions
strategy for the combatant commands required by this section,
the committee expects the Secretary only to provide updates
where necessary to the munitions strategy of USPACOM previously
submitted pursuant to Public Law 113-291.
Section 144--Comptroller General Review of F-35 Lightning II Aircraft
Sustainment Support
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct an analysis of status of and
approaches considered in the sustainment support strategy for
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. This section would also
require the Comptroller General to submit a report of the
analysis to the congressional defense committees by April 1,
2017. The committee encourages the Comptroller General to
consider best practices for contractor logistic support during
the conduct of this review.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army
Items of Special Interest
Armored vehicle fuel tank and bladder safety
The committee notes that armored vehicles carry a
significant amount of fuel, which can become a hazard to the
crew in combat. The committee commends the work that the Army
has done to improve crew safety, including the development of
technologies that reduce risk of fuel spills when a fuel tank
is punctured or ruptured, and efforts to render fuel inert
where possible. Such efforts may reduce catastrophic injuries
to soldiers.
However, the committee is aware of self-sealing polymers
and other materials with self-healing capabilities that,
combined with passive fire suppression blankets, may provide
additional safety to crews within armored vehicles. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a
briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives by March 1, 2017, on candidate technologies
that could be used to improve the fuel containment and safety
capability of legacy armored vehicle platforms and armored
vehicle platforms currently in development.
Army advanced body armor research and development
The committee has consistently supported the need to
provide soldiers with the most advanced body armor. The
committee believes that body armor, which provides desired
protection levels at the lightest possible weight, ensures
greater soldier survivability and reduces injuries, while
improving mission performance and effectiveness. The committee
is aware that the Army's Soldier Protection System (SPS)
program is seeking to reduce the weight of body armor by 10
percent, while maintaining or improving current ballistic
capabilities, and would use a more holistic and systems-based
approach to developing an integrated personal protective
equipment kit for soldiers. The committee supports the Army's
SPS effort. However, the committee believes that even as
manufacturers are developing hard body armor components that
achieve SPS requirements, it is also important that research
and development continue on hard body armor components with
even greater capabilities. The committee also believes this
effort should be resourced and programmed in order to ensure
that more dramatic improvements are readily available for
soldiers in the near future, given the emerging threats in the
global environment.
Specifically, the committee believes that a goal of
doubling the current SPS requirement (a 20 percent reduction in
weight while maintaining or improving current ballistic
capabilities) would ensure that soldiers have the most advanced
hard armor possible to better address emerging and future
threats. Such an improvement will require a holistic approach
to improving body armor; therefore, the committee believes that
a new research and development project should be established by
the Army that allows qualified manufacturers to compete to
study new materials, manufacturing technologies, assembly
processes, ballistic impacts, predictive modeling, and crack
sensor technologies. In addition, the committee believes that
such a program will also encourage body armor manufacturers to
investigate high-risk technologies and processes, which are
likely essential for ensuring that such a change in capability
is possible.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives not later than September 30, 2016, on
the advisability and feasibility to the Army of establishing
such a research and development project. The briefing should
also include an estimate for any additional funding needed in
fiscal year 2017 to establish such a research effort.
Army network integration evaluations and army warfighting assessments
The committee acknowledges the importance of the Department
of the Army's Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) exercises
conducted at Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range,
New Mexico. The committee notes that, through this program, the
Army has been able to test equipment in a realistic battlefield
environment in the hands of soldiers, and the Army has been
able to save billions of taxpayer dollars after the NIE proved
that several programs were not operationally effective. The
committee also acknowledges the importance of the new Army
Warfighting Assessments (AWA), also currently planned to occur
at Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range. The committee
believes that these exercises help the Army to shape
requirements for Army acquisitions, create new capabilities
from existing technology, and promote interoperability between
service branches and U.S. allies.
The committee acknowledges the investments already made in
the Brigade Modernization Command and Fort Bliss, Texas, for
the NIE and AWA missions. The committee also acknowledges that
both the NIE and AWA should be, if possible, brigade-level
exercises to ensure mission command requirements are met, and
that any systems tested will be fully capable of deployment at
the brigade level. The committee believes that the most
efficient method for conducting the NIE's and AWA's is to
assign a dedicated brigade to the NIE and AWA missions.
However, the committee understands that the Army must use all
available force structure to meet current demands for forces to
support combatant commanders. The committee encourages the Army
to continue to pursue both the NIE and the AWA, so that the
Army can continue to save money, fully utilize its previous
investments, adequately test and shape its acquisition
programs, and maintain technological superiority.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than September 1, 2016, on the Army's long-term plans
and budget figures for conducting NIE and AWA events. This
briefing should also include any data available on cost savings
the Army has accrued due to past NIE and AWA events. In
addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
determine the most cost effective means to execute the NIE and
AWA missions, and to provide this information as part of the
long-term plans in the aforementioned briefing.
Blast mitigation technologies for combat and tactical vehicles
The budget request contained $122.1 million in PE 63005A
for Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology, but
contained no funding for active blast mitigation technology
development and demonstration.
The committee understands that active blast mitigation
systems are designed to detect and react to underbody blast
events encountered by combat and tactical vehicles, and notes
that the Army performed tests on two prototype vehicles
equipped with active blast mitigation systems in 2015. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee
directed the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services on the results of testing on
blast mitigation technology that could detect and autonomously
respond to underbody explosive incidents. The briefing
indicated that ``based on limited testing, the incorporation of
active blast mitigation technology could reduce injuries,
reduce the forces and damage to other vehicle technologies, and
may avoid costly retrofits to the legacy vehicle fleet when
upgrading to meet increasing blast threats.'' The committee
believes that given these promising test results, the Army
should continue to evaluate this technology and that additional
testing and analysis of this technology using a variety of
vehicle platforms is justified.
The committee notes that while the Army is encouraged by
this technology, no funding for it is programmed in the Future
Years Defense Program. The committee encourages the Army to
continue its evaluation of this technology, and if funds are
not available, the committee expects the Army to reprogram the
necessary funds to continue these tests and demonstrations on
additional vehicle platforms.
The committee recommends $122.1 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 63005A for Combat Vehicle and Automotive
Advanced Technology.
Helicopter seating systems
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee expressed concern over outdated requirements and
standards for helicopter seating systems (HSS). Specifically,
the committee noted that there appeared to be a lack of
ergonomic design considerations, a detailed understanding of
long-duration seat vibration on the body, and a lack of
appropriate anthropomorphic data incorporated into helicopter
seating system requirements. In response, the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation, provided a report to the
committee on February 10, 2016, addressing these issues. The
report confirmed many of the concerns expressed by the
committee.
The committee understands that 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 that the Joint Aircraft Survivability Program Office and
the Army are now identifying and developing new technologies in
order to mitigate or eliminate deficiencies in current HSS
performance. The committee believes the Department should
accelerate development of new technologies that could provide
increases in force protection and survivability, as well as
reduce potential long-term disability issues for aviators. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a
briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives by January 15, 2017, on current HSS research
and development programs.
Improved refrigeration and cooling technology
The committee supports continued research and development
to improve efficiency and reduce costs of the equipment used to
store food for U.S. service members stationed overseas. In
locations not on a permanent installation, food is typically
stored in large refrigerated container systems. The
conventional technology powering these systems can be
incredibly maintenance-intensive and expensive due to fuel
costs. Reliance on fuel also increases personal safety risks to
U.S. forces that have to transport this fuel to remote and
austere locations. Therefore, the committee encourages
additional investment to improve efficiency, reduce cost, and
reduce risk associated with current systems.
Improved Turbine Engine Program
The budget request contained $126.1 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 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 notes that the fiscal year 2017 budget
request reflects an increase over last year's projection, which
is an indication of the Army's support for this capability.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 15, 2017, on potential options to accelerate the
development and fielding of the engine so that the benefits can
be realized sooner than currently planned.
The committee recommends $126.1 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 67139A for the ITEP program.
Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile program
The committee understands the U.S. Army Aviation and
Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center is
developing concepts and technologies to enable the U.S. Army to
conduct land-based offensive surface warfare. This includes
adapting existing Army and Marine Corps High Mobility Artillery
Rocket Systems and Multiple Launch Rocket System missile
systems for this land-based offensive surface warfare
capability. The committee supports the Army's Land-Based Anti-
Ship Missile (LBASM) effort and understands the Army has
programmed funding across the Future Years Defense Program in
order to continue to integrate and demonstrate this capability
through live-fire testing.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, or the
appropriate designee, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2017, on the LBASM
concept development effort, to include schedule and funding
requirements.
Lightweight metal matrix composite technology for combat and tactical
vehicles
The committee understands the U.S. Army Tank Automotive
Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) continues
to invest in applied research, development, and demonstration
programs for advanced materials technology to reduce the weight
of component parts for combat and tactical vehicles. The
committee supports this ``lightweighting'' technology
development effort and is particularly encouraged by the
versatility and broad application that metal matrix composite
(MMC) technology could provide in reducing the weight of
components and parts for military vehicles. The committee is
aware that MMC technology could potentially increase the
service life of drivetrains, braking systems, wheel ends,
motive components, and other parts and assemblies by three to
four times that of traditional steel components. The committee
notes that substitution of traditional steel with MMC material
technology is increasing due to greater demand for lower weight
and costs for parts and components. The committee expects
TARDEC to continue to resource, develop, and test advanced MMC
technology and MMC manufacturing processes for military ground
vehicles.
Lithium ion super-capacitors
The committee notes recent investments made by the
Department of the Army in the energy technology lithium ion
super-capacitors have resulted in notable achievements and
technological advances. The committee is aware that continued
research and development on lithium ion super-capacitors could
potentially produce a hybrid lithium ion battery (LIB)/lithium
ion capacitor (LIC) and is aware of the Army's interest in
utilizing this hybrid as a possible replacement for the current
12V lead acid battery due to its limited operational
temperatures and a high rate of failure in the field. The
committee notes results to-date with both lithium ion
capacitors (LIC) and with this promising new hybrid LIC/LIB
technology, and encourages the Department of the Army to
continue to pursue and to invest in these important
technologies.
Long Range Precision Fires
The committee understands the Long Range Precision Fires
(LRPF) program is being developed to field a new surface-to-
surface missile system that can attack a broad spectrum of
targets up to 499 kilometers in range. The LRPF program would
be a replacement for the legacy Army Tactical Missile System
that would be considered non-compliant with current Department
of Defense policy regarding cluster munitions and unintended
harm to civilians. The committee understands the current
notional schedule has the program entering the engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) phase in fiscal year 2020.
The committee supports the LRPF program and concurs with
the analysis of alternatives completed in 2015 that recommended
a new missile solution to meet LPRF requirements. The committee
encourages the Secretary of the Army to develop ways to
potentially accelerate the EMD phase of the program, and to
fully fund the overall program to support its planned
acquisition strategy.
Long-range Army surface-to-air missile capability
The committee notes that the Army's current surface-to-air
missile (SAM) systems have significantly less range against
aircraft targets than many foreign threat systems, including
the SA-20 Gargoyle, SA-21 Growler, and HQ-9. The committee also
notes that over time, these weapon systems may proliferate
around the world. The committee is concerned that this over-
match by potential adversaries may place U.S. forces at
significant risk in combat scenarios against near-peer military
forces equipped with advanced fifth generation aircraft armed
with precision-guided standoff weapons. The committee is also
concerned that this over-match may place an excessive burden on
U.S. tactical fighter aircraft operating in a defensive
counter-air role. The committee believes that longer-range U.S.
Army SAM capability may provide a significant upgrade to the
overall U.S. military's ability to defend friendly airspace
against advanced aircraft threats and deter potential
adversaries. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the U.S. House of Representatives not later than
September 1, 2016, on the potential requirement for longer-
range Army SAM systems in the future, including the potential
upgrade of current systems or an entirely new system.
Modular Handgun System
The committee understands the Modular Handgun System (MHS)
is projected to be a non-developmental item, commercial-off-
the-shelf replacement handgun for the current M9 pistol. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee
noted its continued support for the MHS program, as well as the
need to modernize small arms through new procurements and
incremental product improvement programs. The committee
continues to support the MHS program and understands the
program remains on cost, on schedule, and is under source
selection. The committee understands the Chief of Staff of the
Army is conducting a review of the program, consistent with new
authorities provided in section 802 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
The committee is aware of the Chief of Staff of the Army's
concerns regarding the extended length and cost of the required
test and evaluation program, and also the overly complex
performance requirements. For example, the committee
understands that the final request for proposals was an
extensive document, reaching 351 pages, but the technical
specifications required for the handgun system were only 39
pages. The committee encourages the Army to continue to work to
develop ways to streamline the existing test program in order
to accelerate fielding of this capability to the warfighter.
The committee is also aware that the Army has not
officially updated the small arms capability based assessment
(CBA) used since 2008 to identify requirements and capability
gaps for small arms. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Chief of Staff
of the Army, to update the small arms CBA from 2008, and to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 1, 2017, on the results of the update. The committee
does not believe this update would have any programmatic or
schedule impacts to the MHS program, and expects that if
impacts to the MHS program should occur, these would be a
product of any potential outcomes resulting from the Chief of
Staff of the Army's ongoing review of the program.
Next generation signature management technology
The budget request contained $75.0 million in PE 64804A for
Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engine Development, but
contained no funding for the continued development of next
generation signature management camouflage systems for military
vehicles and shelters.
The committee is encouraged by recent research and the
approval of the updated requirements document for next
generation signature management systems. In the committee
report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee noted the
importance of this low cost defensive capability against
current and emerging threats, particularly in Europe, and
encouraged the Department to accelerate development,
procurement, and fielding of this advanced camouflage net
system to meet warfighter requirements. The committee is aware
of the high demand for this capability by forward deployed
units, most notably by U.S. Army Europe, U.S. Army Alaska, 2nd
Cavalry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, 10th Mountain
Division, and U.S. Special Operations Command. The committee
believes the Army requires additional funding in fiscal year
2017 to continue accelerated development of its next generation
signature management camouflage net systems to ensure continued
overmatch against advanced sensor threats.
The committee recommends $86.1 million, an increase of
$11.1 million, in PE 64804A for Logistics and Engineer
Equipment-Engine Development for the continued accelerated
development and testing of next generation signature management
camouflage net systems to address the operational needs of the
warfighter.
Personal protective equipment development for female soldiers
The committee is aware that recent determinations by the
Secretary of Defense have opened all combat positions to female
warfighters. The committee is concerned that currently
available items of personal protective equipment (PPE) and
organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE) do not
meet the specific and unique requirements for female combat
troops. These items of equipment continue to overly burden all
combat troops with excessive weight.
The committee believes that the new Department of Defense
policy presents an opportunity for the military services to
focus on the ``warfighter as a system'' and properly address
the unique needs of female service members through a holistic
acquisition strategy. The committee notes that the Army is
currently developing a complete Soldier Protection System (SPS)
to provide soldiers with modular, scalable, and mission
tailorable protection to reduce weight and increase mobility,
while optimizing protection. The Army has set an overall weight
reduction goal of 10 percent for SPS. The committee supports
the SPS effort and expects the program to consider the unique
physical requirements of female service members.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2017, that outlines the plans to provide PPE and OCIE developed
specifically for female service members. The briefing should
include, but not be limited to: (1) plans for programming,
budgeting, requirements, and procurement of female specific
equipment including helmets, combat clothing, body armor,
footwear, and other critical safety item equipment categories,
and (2) detailed plans on integrating commercially available
materials and advanced product design to reduce the load for
all service members.
Review of ballistic testing policy for body armor
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to
reevaluate the February 2009 policy instructing the Army Test
and Evaluation Command to conduct all body armor first article
and lot acceptance tests. The committee notes this policy may
have resulted in significant program costs, and in turn
schedule delays from inadequate capacity at the Government test
centers. The committee encourages the Army to assess how it can
better use independent testing facilities to improve
efficiency, timing, and costs associated with ballistic test
and evaluation.
Small Unit Support Vehicle
The committee notes that the Army family of Small Unit
Support Vehicle (SUSV) fleet is used by Army units that train
and operate in extreme cold weather conditions, and that it
provides those units with unique capabilities not found
elsewhere in the Army. In addition, while the committee is
aware of the Army's effort to refurbish some of the fleet, the
committee notes that legacy SUSVs are beyond their economic
useful life, and have become increasingly difficult to
maintain. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services
of the U.S. House of Representatives not later than September
1, 2016, on the potential requirement for a replacement to the
SUSV fleet. The briefing should include potential options for
increasing the capability beyond the current vehicles, such as
additional carrying capacity, armament, and survivability.
Telemedicine capabilities
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
developing capabilities that would provide telemedicine and
remote physiological monitoring for casualty care of deployed
forces. The committee recognizes that such telemedicine
capabilities can provide useful reach-back support for complex
injuries, especially for sensitive organs where combat medics
and surgeons may not have in-depth specialty training, such as
ophthalmic injuries. However, the committee notes that the
military services lack an effective telemedicine system that
communicates patient information and condition across the
entire continuum of care beginning at the point of injury and
continuing until arrival at a medical care facility.
The committee encourages the Department to continue to
experiment with and examine ways to utilize emerging
telemedicine capabilities to allow for consultation with
outside experts or specialty institutions to provide soldiers
on the battlefield with access to high-quality care for complex
and difficult injuries, such as ophthalmic or cranial injuries.
Further, the committee believes the Department should examine
existing technology and requirements for in-transit
telemedicine capabilities to determine how best to leverage
best-of-breed existing capabilities to support current needs.
Additionally, the committee supports the idea of partnering
with subject matter experts in order to provide direct, real-
time consultation between geographically dispersed military and
civilian medical personnel; this would support complex
diagnostic and surgical problems, as well as allow conferencing
for complicated, but less urgent patient management decisions,
and virtualized training and continuing medical education.
Vehicle active protection systems
The committee is encouraged by the Army's current strategy
for vehicle active protection system (APS) tests and
integration. The committee believes this strategy will allow
the Army to better address the threats posed by the growing
proliferation of anti-tank guided missiles and rocket-propelled
grenades. The committee is aware of the importance of vehicle
APS capabilities for forward-deployed units, specifically those
units in the U.S. European Command area of operations. The
committee supports this effort and encourages the Army to
expedite deployment and fielding of vehicle APS technology on
ground combat vehicles that will form an essential element of
the European Reassurance Initiative.
The committee notes that the Army plans to conduct
demonstration testing of mature vehicle APS capabilities on the
Abrams main battle tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle, and
Stryker combat vehicle. The committee encourages the Army to
analyze options for incorporating vehicle APS solutions on
additional vehicles, including the Joint Light Tactical
Vehicle, and to identify the APS solutions that are best suited
for deployment on lighter-weight combat and tactical vehicles.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives by March 1, 2017, on the status of plans to
deploy and integrate mature vehicle APS technology on deployed
ground combat vehicles.
Warfighter Technology
The committee is aware of the work being done by the
Warfighter Technology directorate of the Natick Solider
Research, Development, and Engineering Center in improving the
protection, survivability, mobility, and combat effectiveness
of the U.S. Army. The committee supports the research and
development in areas of advanced ballistic polymers for body
armor, fibers to make uniforms more fire resistant, and
lightweight structures for advanced shelters benefiting all
ground troops. In order to ensure the Army remains at the
cutting edge of technology in these critical areas, the
committee urges continued consistent investment in improving
warfighter capabilities.
Weight reduction for personal protective equipment
The committee supports the efforts of the Army and the
Marine Corps to reduce the weight of personal protective
equipment (PPE) and organizational clothing and individual
equipment (OCIE). However, the committee remains concerned that
the military services are not capitalizing on the commercial
industry's investments in textile materials to reduce the load
carriage systems for ground combat forces.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to conduct a
market survey and analysis of the commercial sectors'
technology and products that could be applied to current weight
reduction initiatives for PPE and OCIE. The committee further
directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the
Secretary of the Navy, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2017, which summarizes
the findings of the market survey.
Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by April 1, 2017, that reviews the efforts
of the Army and the Marine Corps to reduce weight for PPE and
OCIE. The report should identify the services' current weight
reduction initiatives, establish a baseline for future
evaluations, and assess the effectiveness of current efforts.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
December 1, 2016, on the Comptroller General's preliminary
findings.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
Items of Special Interest
Advanced Low Cost Munitions Ordnance
The committee continues to support development of the
Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO). The ALaMO is a
guided 57mm projectile, with fire-and-forget capability that
requires no Littoral Combat Ship fire control system changes to
counter threats against small boat swarms, unmanned aerial
systems, and other emerging threats.
The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Research, Development, and Acquisition to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by August 30,
2016, on achieving the objective of an initial operational
capability decision in 2019. The briefing should also include,
but not be limited to, an evaluation of the current funding
profile of this program across the Future Years Defense
Program, as well as discuss potential courses of action to
accelerate or streamline the current program strategy.
Aegis radar solid state improvements
The budget request contained $85.9 million in PE 64501N for
Advanced Above Water Sensors.
The U.S. Navy has 90 destroyers and cruisers in the fleet
which are equipped with the Aegis Weapon System. The heart of
the system is the AN/SPY-1, automatic detect and track,
multifunction phased-array radar. The existing Aegis SPY-1
radar system is based on dated technology vacuum electronic
device components, such as cross field amplifiers and
travelling wave tube transmitters. Each Aegis destroyer has
over 70 microwave vacuum tubes in the transmitter. The current
technology in the Aegis SPY-1 radar has the highest failure
rate of components in the ship's radar system.
The committee believes that there are newer, more efficient
transmitters available that provide significant performance
advantages in terms of very low out of band emission, very low
phase noise, higher clutter improvement factor, increased range
and Electronic Counter-Countermeasures capability.
Specifically, additional funding could provide prototype
hardware to further research and field a replacement to
outdated transmitters currently in place. The U.S. Navy's DDG-
51 and CG-47 fleet face operational affordability, fleet
readiness, and sustainment cost challenges. Repair and
maintenance of this system requires shutdown for several hours
every 1 to 2 days, and on some occasions has required outside
contractor support to repair and maintain. It is estimated that
operational maintenance cost to maintain these radars to the
required operational readiness standards is up to $1.0 million
per year, per ship. An upgrade to a solid state transmitter
could achieve 10 times better reliability while reducing the
operations and maintenance cost by 90 percent.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $105.9 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 64501N for Advanced Above
Water Sensors.
Aircraft carrier design
The budget request contained $30.1 million in PE 64567N to
support improved affordability for new construction aircraft
carriers by providing additional design for affordability
support.
The committee supports continued efforts by the Department
of the Navy and the shipbuilder to better manage total
ownership costs and reduce manning requirements and believes
additional efforts will result in additional CVN 80/81 cost
savings.
The committee recommends $50.1 million, an increase of
$20.0 million, in PE 64567N for new construction aircraft
carrier affordability initiatives.
Alternative energy programs
The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation efforts on
operational energy programs. These investments include targeted
efforts aimed at reducing fuel consumption to extend the range
of aviation platforms, developing new propulsion systems for
unmanned underwater vehicles, testing and qualifying
alternative fuels, improving ship hull hydrodynamics, and
improving energy storage capabilities. The committee remains
supportive of cost-efficient alternative energy investments
aimed at enhancing combat capabilities, strengthening mission
assurance, and reducing operating costs for the Department.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of the Navy,
when prioritizing investments in alternative energy, to
continue focusing on technologies that achieve these
objectives.
Amphibious Ship Replacement Program
The budget request contained $6.3 million in PE 64454N for
the Amphibious Ship Replacement Program (LX(R)).
The committee is concerned about the ability of the Marine
Corps to project amphibious warfare power in a contested
environment because of limitations associated with the
amphibious ship force structure. The committee remains
committed to ensuring sufficient funds are available to
accelerate the programmed construction of the Amphibious Ship
Replacement Program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $25.3 million, an
increase of $19.0 million, in PE 64454N for LX(R).
Automated testing
The budget request contained no funding in PE 63597N for
the automated test and analysis program.
The committee is aware that the Navy's Automated Testing
and Analysis (ATA) program was established to expand the use of
automated test methods currently in use by the Navy, such as
Automated Test and Re-Test, and adds new methods of testing,
promotes the use of automated test technologies, and
standardizes automated test practices, methods, and tools. In
addition, funding supports the development of enterprise level
strategies to apply ATA technology to a broad range of
software-intensive acquisition programs. However, the committee
is concerned that this program was not funded in the fiscal
year 2017 budget request, and does not believe that the Navy
has an effective strategy for how to best utilize these
technologies. Without that, the committee fears that the Navy
will not have a manner to measure the effectiveness of these
efforts, or to understand the full requirement across the Navy
enterprise.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
on the status of this program by July 1, 2016. This update
should include the current schedule for development, projected
use of these tools and requirements across the Future Years
Defense Program, and efforts to extend the use of these tools
to other service, agency, and interagency partners. This
briefing should also identify a set of metrics for assessing
the programs efforts, including quantitative goals for the
reduction of time and improvements in the quality of tested
software across the Navy enterprise.
The committee recommends $8.0 million, an increase of $8.0
million, in PE 63597N to support and expand automated testing
practices and capabilities across the Navy, and where relevant,
with other service and interagency partners.
Autonomous Undersea Vehicles
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations
provided a comprehensive assessment of the desired capabilities
of Autonomous Undersea Vehicles projected to 2025 in the
February 2016 report to Congress entitled ``Autonomous Undersea
Vehicle Requirement for 2025.'' The committee also notes that
the Department of the Navy is performing a gap analysis of
autonomous undersea vehicle requirements ``to determine the
inventory requirements of 2025 and beyond.'' In addition, the
committee is aware that the Secretary of the Navy is developing
an Unmanned Systems roadmap strategy in 2016 to help inform
future inventory requirements and investment decisions.
The committee remains interested in maintaining a
significant peer advantage in the undersea domain and believes
autonomous undersea vehicles represent an asymmetric
opportunity to leverage atypical capabilities. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report
to the congressional defense committees, concurrent with the
date on which the budget for fiscal year 2018 is submitted to
Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code, that details the Unmanned Systems roadmap strategy and
the program objective memorandum 2018 investment strategy to
obtain such a capability.
Briefing on advanced flight control software for carrier landings
The committee is aware that the Department of the Navy has
performed flight tests with advanced flight control software
for the F-35, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler. This
software, Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls
for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Techniques
(MAGIC CARPET) will help aviators maintain constant guide slope
throughout approach. The committee is supportive of the Navy's
efforts to reduce the workload on pilots and landing signal
officers (LSO) associated with performing a carrier landing.
And by increasing the automation of these operations, MAGIC
CARPET could allow the Navy to achieve savings without harming
readiness by safely reducing the training associated with
certification for carrier operations. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief the House Committee
on Armed Services no later than September 30, 2016, on MAGIC
CARPET software development, flight testing, the impact on
pilot and LSO workloads, potential reduction in training
missions and associated savings, and a notional timeline for
delivery to the fleet.
Common mount for electromagnetic railgun
The budget request contained $96.4 million in PE 63114N for
power projection advanced technology. Of this amount, $15.4
million was included for the Navy's electromagnetic railgun
prototype.
The committee remains supportive of the Navy's program for
developing and deploying an electromagnetic railgun. The
committee recognizes the growing imperative for the Navy to
field this type of weapon, not only to increase capabilities
for naval surface fire support and ballistic missile defense,
but to also decrease the cost exchange model when comparing the
railgun to conventional missiles or guns. However, the
committee is increasingly concerned that the shift in emphasis
to the hypervelocity projectile by the Strategic Capabilities
Office has left the Navy with a funding gap in developing the
requirements and design for a common mount, which is a
necessary prerequisite to getting this capability into
operational use. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by February 15, 2017, on the plan and milestone
schedule for demonstrating and deploying a common railgun mount
for sea- and land-based applications.
The committee recommends $106.4 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 63114N to support the development of a
common mount for the sea-based and land-based electromagnetic
railgun.
Deployable and interoperable communications
The committee recognizes the critical and lifesaving role
of enhanced and reliable communications systems in the
battlespace. The committee commends the Marine Corps and Marine
Corps Systems Command for working to test and evaluate
deployable, man-portable Fourth Generation Long-Term Evolution
(4G LTE) and 4G LTE Advanced (LTE-A) capabilities with the
ability to integrate with other multimedia communications
systems that are based on commercially available technology,
and demonstrated interoperability in a multiservice and
multiagency context. The committee encourages the Marine Corps
Systems Command to find opportunities to further evaluate and
experiment with such technology to better understand the
performance characteristics in real-world and field exercise
situations.
F/A-18 fleet physiological event rate
The committee notes with concern the increasing rates of
physiological events (PE) experienced by F/A-18 pilots over the
past 5 years. In fiscal year 2015, PE events experienced by F/
A-18 pilots averaged no less than 28 incidents per 100,000
flight hours across 3 F/A-18 platforms. Of concern to the
committee is whether this rate is an indicator that the Navy's
efforts to address the problem are ineffective, or reflects an
increase in reporting by aircrew. While these PE events cover a
wide range of potential causal factors, the committee notes
that the potential for aircraft mishap caused by a lack of
oxygen or contamination of the on-board oxygen generation
system (OBOGs) is real and should be addressed. The committee
acknowledges and supports the Department of the Navy's
establishment of PE teams to work with industry partners to
collect, examine, and test potential solutions.
While the committee recognizes that there has not yet been
a confirmed loss of an aircraft or pilot due to these events,
and that physiological events experienced by F/A-18 pilots
appear to be occurring at a rate lower than those experienced
by the F-22 fleet from fiscal years 2010-14, the committee
remains concerned about the apparent increasing F/A-18
physiological event rate, which poses risk to pilots and fleet
operations. As a result, elsewhere in this Act, the committee
includes a provision that would establish an independent review
of the Navy's efforts to date to address this issue, with a
report date of December 1, 2017.
In addition, the committee notes that two critical elements
of the Air Force's effort to reduce the rate of similar events
in the F-22 fleet included changes to pilot flight equipment
and the installation of an automatic backup oxygen system
(ABOS). The ABOS could provide an increase in backup oxygen
supply as compared to the installed manual backup oxygen
carried in F/A-18 aircraft. The committee acknowledges that the
F-22 system was already an existing design, and that in
contrast the Navy would have to study and design an automatic
system, working with the F/A-18 contractor. The committee
believes that no one fix is likely to address all the issues
causing physiological events. Given the in-depth research and
mitigation efforts that the Navy is conducting, the committee
believes that examination of the feasibility of design and
installation of an ABOS of some kind in F/A-18 aircraft may be
an important element to reduce the rate of incidents and
preserve pilot confidence in the aircraft's overall life
support system. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to conduct a detailed engineering and cost analysis
on the potential installation of an automatic backup oxygen
system in the F/A-18 fleet, and to provide a report, not later
than March 15, 2017, to the congressional defense committees on
the findings and conclusions of this analysis.
Five-inch precision guided projectile development for naval surface
fire support
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee noted ``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 referenced the Advanced
Naval Surface Fires (ANSF) initiative and noted the ANSF was
assessing options for providing a near-term 5-inch guided
munition capability. The committee understands this capability
would provide for improved and extended-range naval surface
fire support. The committee continues to support the need for
this precision guided capability and is also aware of the
Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System (HGWS) program that is
currently under consideration by the Strategic Capabilities
Office (SCO). The committee notes the HGWS program would ``flip
the cost equation using conventional guns to defend forward
bases against raids of advanced cruise and ballistic
missiles''' and believes there could be applications for use in
5-inch gun systems for naval surface fires support. The
committee is encouraged by the development of both of these
initiatives and expects the Navy and SCO to coordinate on these
capabilities. The committee also expects the Navy to proceed
forward with an accelerated development and acquisition
strategy for this needed capability that is consistent with
acquisition reform principles.
Integrated surveillance system
The committee believes that the ability to obtain acoustic
intelligence on foreign submarines is a critical national
security need. The committee is aware of ongoing research and
development efforts within the Office of Naval Research to
develop and demonstrate the technology to enable autonomous
installation of passive acoustic arrays that would support the
Navy's littoral undersea surveillance needs in detecting and
reporting submarines. These technologies would provide the
capability to autonomously classify and report on a variety of
specific submarine targets of interest. The committee
encourages the Office of Naval Research to continue research
and development efforts to satisfy urgent requirements of the
combatant commanders for additional maritime intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
Joint metallurgical technology for combat and tactical vehicle hulls
The committee notes that in-service cracks are developing
in the armor hull structures of Marine Corps and Army heavy
tactical vehicles, to include mine resistant ambush protected
vehicles (MRAPs) that were constructed from MIL-A-46100 High
Hard Armor Steel. The committee believes the military services
should consider resourcing a joint metallurgical technology
program to develop solutions which provide reasonable, cost
effective solutions to help repair and mitigate these types of
cracks. The committee anticipates that this program would help
to identify, develop, and evaluate potential alternatives,
models, processes, and procedures to eliminate the cracking
issue in the current fleet of MRAPs and newly acquired tactical
vehicles, as well as to help to reclaim lost legacy vehicle
assets as a result of severe cracking in vehicle hulls.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Army, or their
appropriate designees, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2017, on the
advisability and feasibility of pursuing metallurgical
technology to address vehicle hull cracks and repair for combat
and tactical vehicles.
Marine Corps unmanned rotary utility aircraft
The committee recognizes the successful deployment in
Afghanistan of the K-MAX CQ-24A unmanned rotary utility
aircraft. The committee encourages the Marine Corps to continue
to explore this capability by implementing a program to provide
the CQ-24A with multi-mission upgrades, especially those that
provide improved intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities and greater range. If additional test activities
show promise, the committee also encourages the Marine Corps to
establish a program of record in fiscal year 2018 for CQ-24A.
MH-60R/S multi-mission helicopter programs
The budget request contained $49.3 million in PE 72207N for
depot maintenance systems development, and $11.0 million for
the MH-60 service-life assessment program, but contained no
funding to support defining a MH-60 mid-life upgrade.
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy's
fleet of MH-60 helicopters are rapidly approaching currently
approved service-life limits due to high fleet demand and
operations tempo. Based on the current MH-60 utilization tempo,
the MH-60 fleet could exceed its useful service-life prior to
the future vertical lift aircraft achieving initial operational
capability in 2034, creating a significant helicopter inventory
gap within the Department of the Navy.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy is
preparing to conduct a MH-60 service-life assessment program
(SLAP) that will evaluate the rotorcraft's aircraft structures
and sub-systems to identify the critical structures,
components, and sub-systems that can achieve extended service-
life limit goals. However, the committee is concerned that the
SLAP will not include an assessment to determine the
requirements for a mid-life upgrade that would keep the
rotorcraft relevant by mitigating obsolescence issues and
enhancing the rotorcraft maneuvering performance and mission
systems. Rotorcraft mid-life upgrades could include such items
as next-generation rotor blades and tail rotor, digital
automated flight control system, and mission systems hardware
and software improvements to increase lethality and combat
effectiveness.
Therefore, the committee recommends $54.3 million, an
increase of $5.0 million, in PE 72207N for MH-60S and MH-60R
fleet mid-life upgrades. The committee also directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2017, that assesses
and defines which MH-60S and MH-60R rotorcraft systems, sub-
systems, mission systems, and avionics should be included in a
mid-life upgrade to mitigate obsolescence issues and enhance
the MH-60 fleets from both maneuvering performance and combat
capability perspectives. The committee also expects the
Secretary of the Navy to integrate the mid-life upgrade plan
into the MH-60S and MH-60R service-life extension program that
is scheduled to commence in 2023.
Non-imaging millimeter wave radar technology
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
invested significant funding over the last 10 years for
development, testing, and deployment of low-power, non-imaging
millimeter wave radar technology for safely detecting concealed
threats under clothing, such as suicide vests, weapons, or
other contraband, at stand-off distances of up to 100 meters.
Most recently, the Department invested to reduce the size,
weight, and power of the system by 50 percent while also
enhancing its operational capabilities. The result of this
investment is a prototype system that exceeds desired
requirements, reducing the size, weight, and power by 80
percent, and decreasing acquisition costs by 25 percent.
However, the committee notes that no additional funding has
been identified by the Department to complete the prototype to
the point where it would be ready for testing in an operational
environment, or any form of military user assessment. The
committee believes that this technology has the potential to
not only enhance force protection at U.S. military bases and
embassy checkpoints in high threat regions around the world,
but it could also be used in public settings to protect against
terrorist attacks domestically. The committee encourages the
Department to continue to invest in the development of this
prototype to the point where it could be evaluated for military
utility in a suitable operational environment.
Ocean warfighting environment applied research
The committee believes that superiority in undersea and
maritime environments depends on rapid access and application
of the latest science and technology to ever-changing mission
sets. The committee understands the importance of basic
research on the natural sea environment that can be transformed
into technological developments that provide new or enhanced
warfare capabilities for the battlespace environment by
measuring, analyzing, modeling and simulating, and applying
environmental factors. The committee supports the use of
natural environmental applied research for all fleet operations
and for current or emerging systems. This information is also
used to provide timely information about the natural
environment for all fleet operations. The committee urges the
Secretary of the Navy to continue research efforts into the
natural sea environment to support technological developments
that contribute to meeting top joint warfare capabilities.
Service life extension program for Auxiliary General Purpose
Oceanographic Research
The budget request contained $42.6 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, and these vessels require a mid-life overhaul. 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.
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.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $74.6 million, an
increase of $32.0 million, in PE 62435N for Ocean Warfighting
Environment Applied Research, to procure the third major
overhaul in the class of three AGORs. 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.
Submarine acoustic warfare development
Considering the increasing and evolving undersea threats,
the committee believes the Department of the Navy must continue
to develop next generation countermeasures, including a mix of
internal and external expendable acoustic countermeasures, to
maintain and improve the survivability of all U.S. submarine
classes in response to torpedo attack. While the committee
acknowledges that the budget request for fiscal year 2017
included an increase of $3.4 million to stabilize the Next
Generation Countermeasure Program and associated Submarine
Acoustic Warfare System research and development efforts, the
committee supports the planned requirement for a fully capable,
reactive, and mobile device constrained in size to 3 inches in
diameter and 39 inches in length. However, the committee is
concerned that the current next generation countermeasure
requirement requires a single 3-inch device to be launched from
both internal and external launchers, despite the fact that the
latter currently deploys a 6-inch device. The committee urges
Navy officials to consider a more diversified approach that
allows for a next generation, 6-inch externally launched
countermeasure, as well as an enhanced Acoustic Device
Countermeasure (ADC) MK2 device for internal launch, which
could be fielded sooner and at a much more affordable cost than
the Navy's current plan.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than September 30, 2016, on the Navy's plan to
achieve the most cost effective and advanced torpedo defense
capability for its submarine fleet. The briefing shall include,
but not be limited to: the rationale underpinning the Navy's
plan to focus on smaller devices that require adaptation to
launch from external tubes, with specific attention paid to the
inherent limitations of internally launched countermeasures; a
detailed description of plans to incrementally enhance existing
internal countermeasures, such as ADC MK2; any plans to develop
a fully capable 6-inch next generation countermeasure, with
mobility and communications capabilities, to be launched from
external launchers; and an assessment of risk and unit
production costs of each of the three aforementioned program
sets.
UCLASS, CBARS, RAQ-25, MQ-25, MQ-XX
The committee is encouraged that the Department of Defense
has completed its review of the Unmanned Carrier Launched
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program and has decided to
move forward with a slight variation that will include airborne
tanking as an additional requirement. While this new capability
was not identified as a requirement in the UCLASS Initial
Capabilities Document (ICD) or the draft Capabilities
Development Document (CDD) that had been previously validated
by the Chief of Naval Operations, the committee recognizes the
need for the enhanced capability and the positive impact it
could have on the overall Carrier Air Wing (CVW). A requirement
that was included in both the UCLASS ICD and CDD was the need
for persistent, carrier-based intelligence, surveillance,
reconnaissance (ISR) and precision strike. Furthermore, as
stated in the Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS)
budget documents, ``The CBARS requirements are aligned with the
UCLASS which highlights the need for a persistent, carrier-
based ISR, and precision strike asset.'' The budget documents
go on to note in the Air Segment Product Development
description that the unmanned vehicle will be ``capable of
aerial refueling (give) and persistent Intelligence
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) operations with future
precision strike.''
The committee is concerned that while the follow on program
continues to leverage the UCLASS ICD as its requirements
justification and seems to have clear justification for the
need for this platform to possess a precision strike
capability, the final Request for Proposals that goes to
industry may not include this as a required capability. The
committee believes that, should this be the case, the Navy may
be excluding a critical capability and precluding future growth
in a platform that will likely be integrated into the carrier
air wing for the next 30 years. In order to stay consistent
with the requirements of the UCLASS ICD, the committee
encourages the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that precision
strike is a requirement of any follow-on platform that attempts
to leverage the UCLASS ICD.
Additionally, the committee notes that the Joint
Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 1356, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Committee Print
No. 2) indicated that the Navy should develop a penetrating,
air refuelable, unmanned carrier-launched aircraft capable of
performing in a non-permissive environment. The committee
continues to believe that the effectiveness of the carrier and
its air wing would be enhanced by the development of an
unmanned carrier-based aircraft capable of penetrating in non-
permissive environments and conducting strike. The committee
encourages the Secretary of the Navy to pursue the development
and fielding of this capability.
Finally, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 1, 2017, on the Navy's carrier
based unmanned aircraft acquisition program(s). The report
shall include the following:
(1) The Navy's requirements and acquisition strategy for
the program(s), including whether the strategies are consistent
with acquisition management best practices identified by the
Comptroller General;
(2) The extent to which the program(s) have established and
are meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals, including
test plans and progress;
(3) The extent to which critical technologies are mature;
system and subsystem designs are stable; and manufacturing
processes are understood and have demonstrated capability to
efficiently produce reliable, high quality systems; and
(4) Any additional matters that the Comptroller General
considers appropriate to fully inform the congressional defense
committees of the status of relevant naval carrier based
unmanned aircraft acquisition program(s).
Warfighter sustainment applied research
Warfighter exposure to extreme environments requires
critical research that is funded to study and mitigate the
effects of undersea stresses on human safety, resiliency, and
performance. The Navy's Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research
Medical Technologies Program is directed by the Office of Naval
Research, and conducts important research in this field.
Research in this area includes reducing decompression sickness,
arterial gas embolism, preventing hyperbaric oxygen toxicity,
and exploring other ways to optimize submariner health. The
committee believes the health and well-being of the force is
imperative and encourages the Department of the Navy to
continue investments in this field.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force
Items of Special Interest
Adaptive engine transition program
The budget request contained $285.0 million in PE 64858F
for the adaptive engine transition program (AETP).
The committee continues to support research and development
in the next generation of turbine engine technology. AETP will
mature fuel-efficient adaptive cycle engine technologies while
reducing associated technical and manufacturing risks in
preparation for next-generation propulsion system development
for multiple combat aircraft applications. The committee
understands that significant technical accomplishments have
been achieved by the Air Force Research Laboratory through a
previous program, known as the adaptive versatile engine
technology program, and the current AETP. The committee
encourages the Department of the Air Force to continue making
the necessary investments in these critical technologies and
engine architectures to maintain the Nation's technological
superiority over potential advanced adversaries.
The committee is encouraged that the Department of the Air
Force has requested funding to award multiple contracts in
fiscal year 2017, and to continue adaptive cycle engine
maturation and demonstration efforts as a precursor to entering
into future engineering and manufacturing development programs.
The committee recommends $285.0 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 64858F to continue the AETP program. The
committee encourages the Department of the Air Force to
initiate development planning efforts for transitioning these
technologies into current and future combat aircraft systems.
Air Force directed energy initiatives
The committee is aware that the Department of the Air Force
established a Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) Integrated Product
Team (IPT) in March 2016 to focus on operationalizing directed
energy (DE) technologies. In addition to addressing technology
development risks through science and technology efforts, the
IPT will focus on policy issues, establishment of kinetic
concepts of operation, opportunities for prototypes and
experimentation, limitations, constraints, transition
milestones, and critical decision points for Air Force
strategic investment from 2016 to 2036. In addition, the DEW
IPT will identify required test capabilities and acquisition
infrastructure to support operationalizing DE. This information
will be formalized in an Air Force DE Flight Plan.
The committee supports the effort to operationalize DE and
recognizes the challenges, specifically the integration of DE
on airborne platforms and resolution of policy issues, in
achieving this goal. The committee understands that in
producing the Air Force DE Flight Plan, initial concepts may
prove unfeasible or not conducive to the overall Air Force
Strategic Plan. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services by July 15, 2016, on the establishment of the
IPT and efforts and progress to date. The briefing should
include a discussion of any DE requirements as identified by
U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command, including any AC-130
gunship requirements, such as those included in the unfunded
priorities list submitted to the committee. Finally, the
committee expects to be provided a copy of the Air Force DE
Flight Plan upon its completion in October 2016.
Air traffic control and landing systems
The budget request contained $9.8 million in PE 35114F for
development of air traffic control and landing systems. Of this
amount, $5.0 million was requested for development of a next
generation air transportation system (NextGen ATS).
NextGen ATS is an interagency effort designed to enable the
transition from a ground-infrastructure dominated air traffic
management capability for the U.S. national airspace system to
a capability that leverages advances in performance-based
navigation, non-radar based surveillance services. NextGen ATS
would also transition from solid-state analogue voice
communications to networked digital voice and data exchange. As
part of this effort, the committee notes that the Air Force
Flight Standards Agency will continue efforts to examine new
civil air traffic control and landing system technologies that
may have military utility, such as a remote virtual air traffic
control tower capability. A remote virtual air traffic control
tower system would integrate high-definition cameras providing
360 degree field of view, surveillance and meteorological
sensors, microphones, signal light guns, and other devices for
deployment at an airport. Inputs from these sensors could be
transmitted via data network to a remote tower center to be
displayed in real time where a controller would have the tools,
in addition to live video, to operate the airport in a similar
manner as if located in a traditional air traffic control
tower. The committee believes that a remote virtual air traffic
control tower capability could provide a cost-effective
alternative to traditional fixed-base air traffic control
towers. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of
the Air Force to conduct an operational utility evaluation of
the virtual air traffic control tower capability in fiscal year
2017 to determine whether such a system could be an alternative
to current air traffic control facilities for fixed-base and
expeditionary operations.
The committee recommends $9.8 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 35114F, for development of air traffic control
and landing systems.
Deployable air traffic control
The committee recognizes the important research and
development work the Air Force conducts to support air traffic
control and landing systems that enable their ability to deploy
and operate worldwide. The committee notes that a portion of
that work has been focused on developing a Deployable Radar
Approach Control system. The committee believes such a system
will not only allow Air Force units to be rapidly deployable or
recoverable in austere and denied environments, but that it is
also a critical component in Department of Defense capabilities
for humanitarian assistance and disaster response scenarios.
Additionally, as noted elsewhere in this report, the committee
understands remote tower systems can provide a cost-effective
alternative to traditional fixed-based air traffic control
towers.
However, the committee is concerned that current efforts do
not adequately address future air traffic control tower
requirements, or how capabilities for fixed and deployable air
traffic systems might be rationalized. The Air Force operates
air traffic control towers at approximately 90 fixed
installations and deploys air traffic control services in
support of contingency operations and crisis response under the
Defense Support to Civil Authority mission. Aging
infrastructure and obsolete mobile systems will be a great
challenge to the Department. These challenges are compounded by
the growing need to be able to rapidly reconstitute airfields
that are held at risk by cruise and ballistic missile threats
in foreign theaters. Thus, the ability to provide deployable
air traffic control has the potential to contribute to
deterrence, and supports the ability to convincingly project
power.
Recognizing the cost and operational benefits from this
kind of research and development, the committee encourages the
Air Force to explore opportunities, including through
experimentation and concept development, to leverage this
technology in order to address the range of challenges facing
the Air Force. In addition to understanding the potential
savings in construction and manpower, the committee encourages
the Air Force to find experimentation or exercise venues to
better understand how such technology might contribute to new
and innovative warfighting concepts for the future.
High efficiency heat exchangers
High efficiency heat exchangers are becoming increasingly
necessary for engines and aircraft, such as the F-35, that
generate more heat as more advanced capabilities, and thus
increased weight, are added to the platform. The committee is
aware that current thermal management systems (TMS) may be
limited by traditional manufacturing processes, and that
additive manufacturing is crucial to next-generation TMS.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Air Force to make
investments in additive manufactured TMS.
Human-machine teaming
The budget request contained $111.6 million in PE 62202F
for human effectiveness applied research.
The committee notes that autonomy research is a significant
component of the Department of Defense's new third offset
strategy, and will likely provide a decisive future warfighting
advantage to U.S. forces. The integration of manned and
unmanned aerial systems appears prominently in future concepts
for next-generation air dominance, but will continue to rely
heavily on human operators and their abilities to take on
increasingly cognitive loads. The committee has supported
increased funding in the past for ongoing research to develop
more comprehensive methods to train and rehearse warfighters
for a more realistic and seamless human-machine autonomous
command and control environment. The committee encourages the
Air Force to continue to pursue improved continuous learning
strategies for airmen and mission performance by creating,
blending, and personalizing Live, Virtual, and Constructive
simulation environments.
The committee recommends $116.6 million, an increase of
$5.0 million, in PE 62202F to expand research in human-machine
teaming.
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System recapitalization
The budget request contained $128.1 million for the Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
recapitalization program.
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2017 budget
request projects a delay of at least 1 month in the engineering
and manufacturing development (EMD) contract award, from the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017 to the first quarter of
fiscal year 2018, and a 1-year delay in Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) from fiscal year 2023 to 2024 in the
recapitalization of the JSTARS fleet. The committee believes
JSTARS recapitalization offers significant advantages: it will
decrease the logistics footprint, reduce sustainment costs,
increase operational flexibility, and extend operations into
anti-access/area denial environments. The committee recognizes
that the overall delay is a consequence of: (1) a delay in the
milestone A decision; and (2) analysis conducted by both the
Department of the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense that indicates the EMD schedule will require 4 to 5.5
years.
The committee supports and understands the need for a
technology maturation and risk reduction (TMRR) phase as part
of the JSTARS recapitalization program, as a means to decrease
cost, schedule, and performance risk prior to entering the EMD
phase. The committee understands that the Air Force's
acquisition strategy includes considering two radar
alternatives as part of the TMRR phase. The committee believes
that the TMRR phase is the appropriate place to pursue such a
strategy. However, the committee also believes that pursuing
multiple radar technologies concurrently within the program of
record into the follow-on development phase would be
inconsistent with the committee's acquisition reform
initiatives. The committee expects the Air Force to down select
to one radar solution as part of the EMD phase in order to
ensure the program does not continue to be delayed. If the Air
Force believes that alternative radar capabilities should be
pursued for risk mitigation or capability enhancements in the
future, the Air Force should pursue such an approach outside of
the program of record with the ability to incrementally
integrate in the future if necessary.
The committee has continually expressed concern that a
protracted acquisition program will result in a multiyear
capabilities gap, which will leave combatant commanders without
an acceptable level of ground moving target indicators and
battle management command and control capability. The committee
also believes that the use of existing technology combined with
a commercially available jet aircraft can result in a
significantly faster acquisition program. The committee notes
this approach would be consistent with current acquisition
reform policies that direct a more streamlined and incremental
approach for major defense acquisition programs. While the
committee understands that the Department of the Air Force is
conducting a study to determine the E-8's widespread airframe
fatigue risk, which will be complete in March 2017, the
committee notes that under the most optimistic scenarios, the
Department can expect a shortfall of 10 JSTARS aircraft in its
fleet of 16 operational aircraft by late fiscal year 2025.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Air Force to develop a plan, including incentives in the JSTARS
recapitalization EMD and procurement contracts, to accelerate
the development, procurement, and fielding of JSTARS
recapitalization program. In addition, the committee believes
the Air Force should program necessary funds in its future
budget requests to accelerate the JSTARS recapitalization
program in the Future Years Defense Program, and to eliminate
the delay in delivering initial operational capability. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later
than December 1, 2016. The briefing should include one option
that would accelerate the IOC to fiscal year 2022, and a second
option that would accelerate the IOC to fiscal year 2023.
The committee recommends $128.1 million, the full amount
requested, for the JSTARS recapitalization program.
KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program
The budget request contained $261.7 million in PE 65221F
for KC-46 tanker development.
The committee continues its long-standing support of the
KC-46 tanker aircraft program. The committee notes that the
program has had no engineering change proposals and program
officials have stated that they do not expect any engineering
change proposals for the remainder of the fiscal year. The
committee also notes that the program has not incurred any
additional or unexpected test support costs. Because the
program continues to demonstrate stable requirements and has
had no requested engineering change proposals or test support
cost growth, the Government Accountability Office identified
$140.0 million of the remaining $170.0 million set aside in
fiscal year 2016 for unknown risks as excess funds that could
be used to offset fiscal year 2017 risk mitigation.
Therefore, the committee recommends $121.7 million, a
decrease of $140.0 million, in PE 65221F for KC-46 tanker
development.
MQ-9 automatic takeoff and landing capability
The budget request contained $151.4 million in PE 25219F
for development of MQ-9 capabilities, but contained no funding
for development of the MQ-9 automatic takeoff and landing
capability (ATLC).
MQ-9 ATLC is a software-based autopilot system for takeoff
and landing operations for MQ-9 aircraft. The committee
understands that the system will allow takeoffs and landings at
full operational limits, and provide auto-abort and divert
capabilities not currently resident in the MQ-9. The committee
further understands that initial MQ-9 ATLC development efforts
began in 2011 and ran through 2013 with a total of 146 test
landings, but that due to higher priorities, no additional
testing has occurred since then. The committee notes that the
Department of the Air Force currently plans to restart
development of the MQ-9 ATLC in fiscal year 2018, but
understands that acceleration of this effort will facilitate
the transition away from line-of-sight operations for takeoffs
and landings, improve operational flexibility by providing
ability to land at divert fields, prevent the loss of aircraft
due to loss of the command and control link, and increase
takeoff and landing operational capability in conditions of
poor visibility.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0
million in PE 25219F for development of the MQ-9 ATLC.
Additionally, the committee notes some Department of
Defense organizations use contractor support for unmanned
aerial system (UAS) takeoff and landing operations when forward
deployed, and believes that the Department of the Air Force
should consider contractor support for its MQ-9 takeoff and
landing operations to mitigate the demand on Department of the
Air Force personnel assigned to the UAS career field.
Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, not later than November 1, 2016, on contractor
support to UAS takeoff and landing operations.
MQ-9 unmanned aircraft vehicle tactical datalink integration
The budget request contained $151.4 million in PE 25219F
for the research and development of the MQ-9 unmanned aircraft
vehicle, but contained no funding to develop and integrate a
tactical datalink capability onto the platform.
The committee notes that the MQ-9 aircraft lacks the means
to establish and maintain direct tactical datalink (TDL)
communications with command and control, tactical agencies, and
other TDL users. The committee understands that TDLs are
critical capabilities used to share aircraft position,
targeting data, sensor points of interest, cursor-on-target
data, and target-track information derived from various
intelligence sources via an airborne network of manned and
unmanned aircraft. The lack of TDL single-point reception and
transmission capability on board an aircraft can delay
prosecution of the kill chain, impact supported commanders'
time-sensitive decision-making processes, and pose an
unnecessary safety issue with regard to aircraft position and
airspace deconfliction. Current MQ-9 TDL communication and
information transfers are not routed directly through the
existing airborne TDL network, but instead are routed through
multiple ground-based servers outside of the remotely piloted
aircraft architecture. This method of TDL data routing causes
significant delays of critical information, such as aircraft
position and targeting data. An aircraft TDL radio is needed by
MQ-9 operators that is compatible with all current datalink
architectures in both domestic and combat areas of
responsibility. The TDL radio and system should include
provisions for consistent, reliable, timely, and unrestricted
TDL communications, and have open architecture to allow for
growth and advances in the TDL technology.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $14.0
million in PE 25219F for the development, non-recurring
engineering, and integration of a tactical datalink capability
onto the MQ-9 platform. This funding increase directly supports
a capability requirement validated in the MQ-9 capability
development document, and directly supports a ``critical
requirement'' identified as an MQ-9 capability shortfall by the
Air National Guard.
Open architecture Distributed Common Ground System
The committee is aware that the Air Force has been pursuing
an effort to modernize its version of the Distributed Common
Ground System (DCGS) by implementing an open architecture
version. The committee is generally supportive of increasing
uses of open architecture approaches for system development, as
well as of this effort specifically. The committee believes
that open architecture has the potential to increase
flexibility and agility for both development and deployment of
DCGS capabilities, as well as potentially faster development
and integration of applications.
However, the committee is concerned that the current
program is not well organized to accept these open architecture
modifications. The 2015 Annual Report of the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) found that the current
version of the program lacks current requirements and
architecture documents, a rigorous and comprehensive software
problem tracking and reporting procedure, and an accurate
description of the architecture and interfaces for the Test and
Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). Without remediating these
problems, the committee is concerned that the program will be
unable to fully move to an open architecture baseline.
Additionally, for the open architecture development effort, the
committee believes that there is insufficient documentation in
specific program milestones, and that it remains unclear how
the Air Force will effectively leverage an open architecture
without additional changes in contracting strategy for
applications running on the new architecture.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence by January 9, 2017, on the roadmap for development
and fielding of the open architecture version of the
Distributed Common Ground System for the Air Force. The roadmap
should include:
(1) A plan for achieving an open architecture, including
identification of key milestones and decision points;
(2) A timeline for addressing the recommendations of the
2015 DOT&E Annual Report, including the updating of
requirements and architecture documents, a process for
documenting and redressing software and cybersecurity problems,
and an update of the TEMP; and
(3) Recommendations for updating the acquisition strategy
and contracting mechanisms for open architecture components of
the updated DCGS system.
Precision metrology tools
The budget request contained $126.2 million in PE 62102F
for materials research and development.
The committee recognizes that metrology, or the development
of precise measurement tools, is an important aspect of
materials research. As the ability to manipulate materials at
the subatomic scale, and to generate new and novel materials
from computational design, continues to advance, it will also
require further development of precision measuring tools. The
committee encourages the Air Force to explore new and novel
methods to develop and provision for these tools, including
through public-private partnerships to develop, field, and
maintain cutting-edge metrology systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends $131.2 million, an
increase of $5.0 million, in PE 62102F to support the
development of advanced, precision metrology tools to support
enhanced materials development work of the Air Force and its
partner organizations.
Reusable hypersonic vehicle structures development
The budget request contained $122.8 million in PE 62201F
for aerospace vehicle technologies.
The committee understands that hypersonic vehicles are a
significant area of investment for both the Air Force and the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and have the
potential to provide game-changing capabilities for the
Department of Defense. The committee is aware that the
Department's third offset strategy includes additional
investments that will support accelerating development,
testing, and fielding of hypersonic capabilities. The committee
believes that such investments are critical to posturing the
Department for the future warfighting environment. However, the
committee is concerned that the emphasis on strike technologies
has resulted in little investment to cover the research needs
for reusable hypersonic vehicles. The committee is aware that
past efforts, such as the Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2 flight
tests, illustrate the need to better characterize the
aerothermal effects on flight bodies. The committee believes
that if the Department intends to develop reusable hypersonic
platforms, there is a need to invest in the near term to do the
characterization and materials research needed to support those
future missions.
The committee recommends $127.8 million, an increase of
$5.0 million, in PE 62201F to support the development of
reusable hypersonic vehicle structures.
Silicon carbide for aerospace power applications
The budget request contained $94.6 million in PE 63216F for
aerospace propulsion and power.
The committee notes that recent research in aerospace power
electronics has concentrated on fundamental materials, devices,
and power-handling capability. The committee believes that the
Air Force should look for opportunities to accelerate the
development of actual components to go into aircraft electrical
systems, especially very high-current silicon carbide power
modules. The committee recognizes that the increasing
sophistication and energy requirements for new systems, like
avionics, computing, sensors, and even high-energy lasers, will
place increasing demands on the power architectures available
to the constrained size and weight of aircraft. The committee
also believes that such advances will have beneficial effects
when applied to legacy, as well as future generation, air
platforms.
The committee recommends $99.6 million, an increase of $5.0
million, in PE 63216F to support the development of
application-specific power circuit development using silicon
carbide modules.
T-X program
The budget request contained $12.4 million in PE 65223F for
advanced pilot training, also known as the T-X program.
The Department of the Air Force's current advanced jet
trainer aircraft, the T-38C, initially entered the Air Force
inventory in 1961. The average age of the fleet is 50 years
old, with an average of over 16,000 flight hours on each
aircraft. Although the T-38C fleet has undergone costly
structural life extensions and avionics upgrades, the committee
believes that the aircraft is unable to address the training
gaps that have grown with the introduction of fourth and fifth
generation fighter aircraft. The committee also believes that
the T-X aircraft and its associated ground-based training
system, collectively known as the advanced pilot training
family of systems (APT FoS), will affordably address training
gaps that have been identified by the Air Education and
Training Command, ensuring that student pilots have the
necessary skills to fly and employ current and future advanced
combat aircraft. The committee notes that initial operating
capability for the APT FoS is planned for 2024, and understands
that full operational capability is scheduled for 2029.
The committee also understands that the costs of sustaining
the T-38C fleet are growing even as aircraft availability is
decreasing, and that the T-38 was originally intended to
undergo replacement in the mid-1990s. Therefore, the committee
believes that any delay to the APT FoS program will place the
Department of the Air Force combat readiness at risk, and that
maintaining or accelerating the current APT FoS program
schedule is required to ensure safe and effective training of
Department of the Air Force combat pilots.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $12.4 million, the
full amount requested, in PE 64233F to continue the T-X
program. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than November 1, 2016, on plans to fairly
evaluate the Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems design
solutions that are based off of newly designed aircraft and
existing aircraft, and potential options to accelerate the T-X
program.
Technology transfer
The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts
to facilitate the transfer of laboratory-generated technology
to industry partners for military and commercial use. Increased
resourcing by Congress to transfer technology programs executed
by the Air Force Research Laboratory has progressed, resulting
in speeding up the flow of intellectual property from the
laboratory and the launch of new companies based on laboratory
technologies. This includes the formation of high growth
potential technology startups with the promise of making gains
for both the military and commercial sectors. The committee
encourages the Air Force to continue to facilitate the timely
transfer of intellectual property. Facilitating such transfers
allows for significant advances in critical mission areas and
provides the necessary resources in future budget requests for
a robust program.
Wide-area motion imagery
The budget request contained $3.8 million in PE 35206F for
development of airborne reconnaissance systems, but contained
no funding for development of wide-area motion imagery (WAMI)
beyond line-of sight (BLOS) capabilities. The committee notes
that persistent day and night WAMI capability is considered by
operational commanders to be a critical intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance program for combat units, and
has contributed to saving U.S. and allied soldiers' lives.
The committee understands that a recently validated joint
urgent operational need (JUON) requires the development of WAMI
BLOS capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $18.8 million in PE
35206F, an increase of $15.0 million, for development of WAMI
BLOS capabilities.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Items of Special Interest
Academia and university affiliated research center support for chemical
and biological defense
The committee understands the dynamic and ever-expanding
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats,
and is aware of the defensive capabilities that the Department
of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense program (CBDP)
develops to stay ahead of the evolving threat. The broad
portfolio of the CBDP includes support for early warning
through the development of biosurveillance and advanced
diagnostics, avoiding, preventing, and preparing for surprise
through technology development. These technologies address non-
traditional agents and synthetic biology, and integrated,
layered defense through investing in medical countermeasures,
protective equipment, detectors and sensors, and hazard
mitigation. The committee supports ongoing efforts of the
Department of Defense to ensure that currently available and
cutting edge technologies are harnessed to provide improved
capabilities in the future.
The committee also understands the critical role of the
Department of Defense in the larger U.S. Government efforts to
addressing CBRN threats, as shown by the Department of
Defense's role in the recent Ebola crisis. The committee
encourages prioritizing and aligning investments in CBRN
countermeasures, including medical ones, among all of the
Federal stakeholders to ensure that effective countermeasures
are developed to meet both military and civilian needs, and to
prevent potential duplication of efforts. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to leverage a broad set of
partners to meet these needs, including academia and university
affiliated research centers (UARCs). The committee supports
utilizing the engineering and technology capabilities provided
and established within academia and UARCs, and recommends that
the Department of Defense increase efforts to ensure that the
capabilities at these organizations are coordinated with the
broad CBRN priorities within the Department of Defense, and
with the larger civilian priorities through the Public Health
Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise. The committee
also recommends that the Department of Defense increase
coordination of the Advanced Development and Manufacturing
facility with the capabilities available in academia and at
UARCs to ensure efficient and rapid development of medical
countermeasures to the evolving CBRN threats.
Additive manufacturing
The committee recognizes the important developments
occurring in the area of additive manufacturing, also known as
3D printing. Like any new technology discipline, the Department
of Defense should stay actively involved in this community to
understand and develop a better appreciation for both the
opportunities it could provide, as well as the threats it could
pose in the hands of a resourceful adversary. As the technology
becomes more mature, and the cost for such equipment continues
to drop, the committee expects the Department to find new and
novel ways to utilize this technology for military uses. The
committee also encourages the Department to leverage existing
organizations, such as the National Additive Manufacturing
Innovation Institute, as well as expand that community to
include other universities, non-profit research institutes, and
other industry partners to expand the state of the art for the
use of additive manufacturing technology.
Alternative solutions to multidrug resistant bacteria
The rise in infections caused by multidrug resistant (MDR)
bacteria represents a serious threat to public health and poses
a great challenge to the care of wounded military personnel.
These infections prolong hospitalization, and in some, can lead
to increased limb loss, sepsis, and death. Since some MDR
bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics,
researchers are working to develop alternative solutions,
including engineered bacteriophage (phage) that can be
standardized, manufactured, and administered similar to
antibiotics.
The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's on-
going efforts to develop countermeasures to MDR bacteria that
leverage the whole-of-government anti-microbial resistant
investments. The committee encourages the Department to
continue its efforts to work with key stakeholders to develop
and deploy alternative treatments, particularly phage therapy,
against MDR bacteria.
Better Gender Reporting in Grantmaking
The committee is aware recent research illustrates women
continue to face challenges in educational and career
advancement in science, technology, mathematics and engineering
(STEM) fields. In a December 2015 report entitled ``Women in
STEM Research'' the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO) determined, through analysis of available but
limited data, there were discrepancies in the number of grants
awarded to women and men at the Department of Defense within
certain components. The committee notes this differentiation in
success rates does not mean the Department is using
discriminatory practices when awarding grants. The committee
further acknowledges GAO reported the lack of data available to
analyze limited their ability to gauge the success rates of men
and women.
The committee believes the lack of complete award data
containing demographic information at certain Department
agencies and components impacts the ability to fully evaluate
and understand if the most qualified individuals are being
funded, regardless of demographics. 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 not later than January 1, 2017, on
improving data collection efforts within the Department in
order to provide complete and analyzable records for grant
awards.
Broad-spectrum antiviral drug modeling
The committee understands the importance of developing
efficient and effective countermeasures against a growing list
of lethal pathogens, many of which have different variants. The
committee is supportive of efforts to develop broad-spectrum
antiviral drugs that can be used against many different
pathogen threats. The committee further believes that rapid
development of these drugs can be improved by using modeling
software of the drug/virus interaction to perform high
throughput screening of potential candidate drugs, leading to
decreased development time. After candidate drugs have been
identified, it is also important to establish partnerships with
biosafety level 4 facilities to allow testing of the efficacy
of these drugs. The committee understands that partnerships
with not-for-profit 501C3 applied research facilities can
provide unique capabilities and expertise throughout the drug
development process.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by September 30, 2016, on the current and planned use of drug/
virus interaction modeling software for high throughput
screening of potential small molecule drugs. The briefing
should also include a list of the current and potential
partnerships with not-for-profit 501C3 applied research
facilities, and the potential for partnerships between these
501C3 applied research facilities and the Department of Defense
Advanced Development and Manufacturing facility.
Cellular and broadband signals exploitation
The committee is aware of the United States Special
Operations Command's (SOCOM) ongoing efforts to utilize
commercial technology to conduct cellular and broadband survey,
active interrogation, and directional finding capabilities from
unmanned aerial systems. Such capabilities have been highly
successful in prosecuting operations to find, fix, and finish
enemy combatants and other high-value targets on the
battlefield. The committee believes there will be a continuing
need as such missions are prosecuted in the future. The
committee encourages SOCOM to expedite the integration,
testing, and limited fielding of such cellular and broadband
signature exploitation capabilities for future missions.
Comptroller General review of commercial practices for trust in
microelectronics
The committee remains concerned with the Department of
Defense's ability to ensure access to cutting-edge
microelectronics with the requisite level of verifiable trust
incorporated. The committee recognizes that the Department's
ability to provide superior capabilities to the warfighter is
dependent, in part, on its ability to incorporate rapidly
evolving, leading-edge microelectronic devices into its defense
systems, while also balancing national security concerns.
Currently, the Department processes for ensuring trust rely on
assessing the integrity of the people and processes used to
design, generate, manufacture, and distribute national security
critical microelectronics. For over a decade, the Department
has relied on a single domestic source for trusted leading edge
microelectronics.
However, due to market trends, supply chain globalization,
and manufacturing costs, the Department's future access to
U.S.-based microelectronics sources is uncertain. As such, the
Department is considering various potential approaches that
would allow it to access commercial non-trusted sources in the
global microelectronics marketplace, while still ensuring
trust. Given the Department's reliance on a single source for
trusted leading-edge microelectronics, and the dwindling number
of domestic microelectronics manufacturers on which the
Department can rely, the committee believes that there should
be a better understanding of what trust capabilities exist and
are in use by the commercial marketplace.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a report to the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 30, 2017, that evaluates how selected
commercial microelectronics businesses ensure trust. As part of
this evaluation, the Comptroller General should address the
following:
(1) How do selected commercial companies incorporate trust
into their leading-edge microelectronics, including techniques
to protect intellectual property and prevent malicious content
in devices?
(2) To what extent could the Department of Defense leverage
these practices, and what are the challenges associated with
implementing these practices for defense systems?
Counter-unmanned aerial systems roadmap
The committee believes that the proliferation of unmanned
aerial systems (UAS), particularly small hobby systems that can
be bought commercially, pose a significant challenge to the
Department of Defense's capabilities to detect, track, and
neutralize such threats. The committee is aware that the Army
has conducted a technology red team to understand how such
systems might be used against U.S. forces, focusing on
potential adversarial employment and methods for avoiding
detection. The committee is also aware that there has been some
preliminary development of counter-UAS capabilities, and that
organizations, from the Combating Terrorism Technology Support
Office and the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization, are
investigating technology solutions.
However, the committee is increasingly concerned that such
efforts are not adequately coordinated, and have focused on
near-term capabilities without taking a long-term, integrated
view to developing countermeasures. The committee is also
concerned that the current focus does not provide an adequate
variety of tools and technologies available at the tactical
unit level to detect, track, and neutralize small UAS threats.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
develop a technology roadmap for addressing gaps to counter the
potential threats from terrorist or state actor uses of small
UAS technology, with an emphasis on technology to support
tactical level units, and fixed, high-value defense assets. The
committee further directs the Secretary to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services by June 1, 2017, on
this roadmap.
Department of Defense medical countermeasures Advanced Development and
Manufacturing facility roadmap
The committee understands the importance of maintaining a
broad portfolio of medical countermeasures, including
therapeutic and pre-treatment efforts, to address high priority
threats to the warfighter. The committee also understands the
challenges faced by the Department of Defense medical
countermeasure development due to the low quantities procured
and other acquisition challenges. The committee is aware of and
has been monitoring the Department of Defense Advanced
Development and Manufacturing (ADM) capability, which includes
a dedicated facility to support the development, licensure, and
manufacturing of medical countermeasures. This facility is
planned to achieve full operational capability by the end of
fiscal year 2016. The committee is also aware of complementary
capabilities provided by the Department of Health and Human
Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority
(BARDA) Centers for Innovation in Advanced Development and
Manufacturing.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) required the Secretary of Defense to submit
a report on the Department of Defense ADM that included cost-
benefit analysis of the manufacturing and construction of the
facility. The committee continues to be concerned about the
potential for long-term operations and maintenance sustainment
costs of the Department of Defense ADM facility, and about the
possibility for duplication of efforts between the Department
of Defense ADM facility and the Department of Health and Human
Services ADM facilities. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to develop and submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by December 1, 2016, on the sustainment of
the Department of Defense ADM facility. The report should
include an estimate of sustainment costs and a roadmap for
planned work at the Department of Defense ADM facility over the
next 10 years, as well as details on the planned business model
for ensuring continued sustainment of the facility. The roadmap
should also address partnerships and use of complementary
capabilities between the Department of Defense ADM and the
Department of Health and Human Services BARDA Centers for
Innovation in Advanced Development and Manufacturing.
Desalination technology
The committee is aware the Department of Defense has made
advances in desalination technology over the last 15 years in
support of large numbers of deployed forces in the Middle East.
The committee recognizes that the inability to access clean
water is a factor in destabilization around the world. The
committee believes sharing desalination technologies with
appropriate agencies, like the Department of State, to ensure
advances are leveraged in development efforts is an important
tool for stability and conflict avoidance. Therefore, the
committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2017, on
recent advances in desalination technologies, and how those
advances have been shared with other U.S. Government agencies.
Explosive Ordnance Disposal equipment technology upgrades
The budget request contained $73.0 million in PE 63122D8Z
for Combating Terrorism Technology Support (CTTS). Of this
amount, $5.7 million was requested for Improvised Device Defeat
and Explosive Countermeasures.
The committee notes that conventional Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (EOD) units across the military services require
upgraded equipment and technology enhancements, particularly
for routine inspection and search activities. The committee
believes that conventional Joint Service EOD units would
benefit from rapid acquisition of EOD equipment, which have
high-definition resolution and encrypted signals, among other
upgraded capabilities. The committee understands that the
Department of Defense canceled the Explosive Ordnance Disposal/
Low Intensity Conflict program element which formerly developed
and delivered Joint Service EOD advanced capabilities. The
committee understands the CTTS program will absorb this mission
area within the Improvised Defeat Device and Explosive
Countermeasures subgroup activity.
The committee recommends $85.0 million, an increase of
$12.0 million, in PE 63122D8Z for EOD equipment upgrades.
Further, the committee encourages the Director of the CTTS
program to prioritize the increased funding toward delivering
advanced capabilities for conventional Joint-Service EOD units.
Foundational Intelligence Modernization
The foundational intelligence analytic mission is critical
to enabling combatant command situational awareness and mission
planning activities. The committee understands the Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) has initiated the Foundational
Intelligence Modernization Program (FIM) to revolutionize the
tools required for this mission. FIM consists of highly
automated capabilities and infrastructure including database
transformation, system analysis features, and other advanced
products. The committee supports the effort to achieve more
effective analytic capabilities required to process, exploit,
and disseminate intelligence information, and encourages DIA to
utilize commercial-off-the-shelf products, when appropriate, to
fulfill the requirement.
Future Vertical Lift
The committee recognizes that incremental improvements or
upgrades to current Department of Defense rotorcraft will not
fully meet future joint service operational requirements. With
the exception of the V-22 Osprey, all U.S. rotorcraft deployed
in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
were designed during or before the Vietnam War. The committee
continues to support the development of future vertical lift
aircraft and encourages the Department to expand the
prototyping program. Future Vertical Lift (FVL) is a joint
program, with support from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, Special Operations Command, and Coast Guard.
The committee understands that a key aspect of the FVL
program is the Army's Joint Multi-Role (JMR) Technology
Demonstrator. The JMR program includes related research on
next-generation rotors, drivetrains, engines, sensors, and
survivability that all feed into the FVL program. The committee
notes that fiscal year 2017 is a critical year for technology
development, with first flights of two demonstrator aircraft.
Furthermore, wind-tunnel testing and other key milestones will
reduce risk for the program of record and inform the FVL
analysis of alternatives, which is expected to occur in the
second half of 2017. However, the committee is concerned, due
to the current resource constrained environment, that current
funding levels are inadequate.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by January 31, 2017, on the status of both the prototype air
vehicle demonstrations and supporting initiatives. The briefing
should include potential options and required resources for
accelerating the FVL program.
Handheld explosive and chemical detectors
The committee understands the importance of U.S. military
personnel having sufficient handheld explosive and chemical
weapons capabilities available to detect both conventional and
homemade explosive and chemical threats. Traditional detection
methods are less effective for homemade explosives (HMEs) and
munitions grade chemical warfare agents (CWAs) containing
impurities. Providing detectors to the U.S. military that can
meet the growing threat of HMEs and CWAs is important to
reducing the risk of U.S. soldier and civilian casualties in
areas such as the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, as well as the risk of terrorist attacks on the
United States.
The committee is aware of new raman laser technologies that
may provide improved detection capabilities, which could be
used to detect both HMEs and CWAs. The committee supports
evaluation of this technology to meet critical detection
requirements.
High-speed aerothermal effects
The committee recognizes that the development of hypersonic
technologies will be a significant contributing factor to
future military technological superiority. The development of
hypersonic technologies by our adversaries continues at a rapid
pace and represents a significant emerging threat. As noted
elsewhere in this report, the committee believes that the
Department of Defense should be examining reusable hypersonic
flight structures, in addition to the strike systems that are
currently being pursued. The committee is aware that past
efforts, such as the Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2 flight tests,
illustrate the need to better characterize the aerothermal
effects on flight bodies, and fiscal constraints cannot support
learning such lessons through expensive trial and error. The
committee encourages the Department to examine opportunities to
better conduct aerothermal effects testing, and development for
supporting thermal protection systems. Any efforts that the
Department pursues should look to address manufacturability,
risk reduction and maturation, and coordination with
interagency partners and industry.
Human systems integration activities
The committee is concerned that military service personnel
are required to use systems that are inadequate to their
physical, behavioral, and cognitive needs. The committee
recognizes that senior service leadership encourages the use of
human systems integration research and development methods in
response to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). Despite this, human performance
research is not routinely transitioning to defense acquisition
programs. Also, with no specifications required for human
systems integration in acquisition programs, Requests for
Proposals seldom include evaluation criteria for it, and it is
ignored by program managers. Nevertheless, the committee notes
that individual and team performance is the foundation of an
effective military force. Ensuring that systems account for
human performance abilities can make acquisitions more cost-
effective, strengthen force protection, reduce potential for
re-engineering, and cut time and costs of training and re-
training, among many other benefits. Therefore, the committee
directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to examine Department of Defense
policies related to human systems integration within defense
acquisitions and to provide a briefing to the House Armed
Services Committee by February 15, 2017, on the findings and
recommendations necessary to improve inclusion of human system
integration research in acquisition programs.
Hydrocephalus research
The committee is concerned that some of the estimated
294,000 service members who have sustained a traumatic brain
injury in Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom are at
higher risk for developing hydrocephalus in the future. The
committee recognizes that hydrocephalus, an increased
accumulation of fluid in the brain, often has a delayed onset
and can easily be misdiagnosed as dementia or other aging
related diseases. Given that there is currently no cure for
hydrocephalus, and current treatment options are limited and
have high failure rates, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to increase its investments in
hydrocephalus research.
Hyperspectral imaging technology
The committee recognizes the importance of stand-off
hyperspectral imaging (HSI) technologies for the detection of
improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and explosive constituent
chemicals and other materials used in the manufacture of IEDs
such as nitrates, nitrites, phosphates, and ammonia. Therefore,
the committee encourages development of new and emerging HSI
technologies--these technologies include those that utilize
coherent spectral imaging technology to provide real-time
detection hardware and software for situational awareness, and
provide a complete automated target detection capability to
enable end users tasked with vital threat identification
capability for time-sensitive responses. The committee further
encourages development of these capabilities with manufacturers
that have demonstrated airborne sensor hardware and software
development.
Immersive operator control stations
The committee recognizes the importance and usefulness of
current and next-generation immersive operator control stations
(IOCS) technologies. These technologies significantly decrease
the burden on operators for unmanned systems and reduce
training time. IOCS technologies also allow for decreased
operation and maintenance costs while maximizing mission
effectiveness and safety. Therefore, the committee supports
advancement of next-generation IOCS that includes scalable
architecture and designs to better meet the current and future
needs of the Air Force, Navy, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and other agencies.
Incentives for increasing private sector medical countermeasures
development
The committee is aware of the importance of medical
countermeasures, including prophylactics, pre-treatments,
diagnostics, and therapeutics, to protect the warfighter from
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. The
committee is also aware of the difficulty in engaging industry
partners to develop medical countermeasures due to the low
profitability, lengthy process, and costs for doing this
contract work for the Government. The committee recognizes that
strategies and incentives should be developed to stimulate
private sector medical countermeasures development. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February
1, 2017, on potential incentives that would improve private
sector, academia, non-profit, and other organization
participation in medical countermeasures development. The
briefing should identify any incentives that would require
additional congressional authorities.
Interagency unmanned aerial system research
The committee notes that important progress has been made
toward integrating unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the
National Airspace System. Focus areas for the committee
continue to be the development of sense and avoid systems,
airworthiness certification, and safe integration of UAS into
the National Airspace System. The committee recognizes that
resolution of these issues continues to require a collaborative
effort between the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). Provisions in previous National Defense
Authorization Acts have encouraged collaboration among those
three organizations, including section 1052 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), and section 1087 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). Through this
collaboration, the committee believes that the Department of
Defense can benefit from sharing human performance data and
advanced sensor technology for applications in a civil
environment, including next-generation integration, development
of minimally manned large cargo aircraft systems, optionally
piloted systems, and highly integrated UAS sensor systems and
control stations. The committee understands that the Department
of Defense and NASA will develop airworthiness certification
processes for these advanced capabilities, which the committee
believes will facilitate FAA development of civil standards,
and increase the number of commercial products available to the
Department of Defense, all while improving the competitiveness
of the U.S. aviation industrial base.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of
Defense, the FAA, and NASA to continue collaborative efforts to
solve UAS research issues.
Intestinal mucosal barrier research to address chemical and biological
threats
The committee is aware of the breakdown complications of
the intestinal mucosal barrier associated with nuclear,
chemical, and biological threats. The intestinal mucosal
barrier is believed to play a key role in severe medical
conditions that occur following trauma, burns, and chemical and
biological exposures by containing digestive enzymes within the
intestine. The breakdown of the intestinal mucosal barrier may
influence a range of serious health conditions after a trauma
when the digestive enzymes leak through the intestinal mucosal
barrier, initiating shock and organ failure. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense Chemical and Biological
Defense program to evaluate establishing research activities
regarding the intestinal mucosal barrier to investigate
alternative therapeutic treatments to respond to a broad
spectrum of chemical and biological agent exposure.
Laboratory Quality Enhancement
The committee is aware that the Laboratory Quality
Improvement Program, later renamed the Laboratory Quality
Enhancement Program (LQEP), was chartered in 1994 to propose
initiatives for improving Department of Defense laboratories.
Over time, the primary focus on this effort has been on the
personnel panel, which has proposed many valuable ideas for
sustaining and improving the laboratory workforce.
However, the committee believes that the LQEP has not been
utilized to its full potential, in part because of the
organization mismatch in its reporting chain, as well as the
sole focus on personnel issues, and the lack of direct
participation from the laboratory directors. Elsewhere in this
Act, the committee includes a provision that would codify and
expand the roles and responsibilities of the LQEP to ensure its
sustained attention on these issues. The committee believes
codification of LQEP will provide an instrument to support both
Department needs for ideas to sustain and grow the technical
community in the Department of Defense, as well as provide a
vital link and demand signal within the congressional oversight
committees, which is necessary to carry out any recommendations
requiring statutory modification.
Furthermore, the committee believes that by including
representation from the laboratory directors and the
operational community in these panels, LQEP can be an even more
effective tool for recommending changes to Department processes
and regulations. For example, by including the installations
and facilities management community into the facilities panel,
participants can better navigate existing processes, while also
identifying areas or issues where existing processes are
insufficient to the needs of the laboratory community.
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Briefing
The committee is aware of recent positive developments in
developing low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which produce
ultra-clean, low-cost renewable energy that have strong
national security implications. For example, according to the
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), if LENR works it will be a
``disruptive technology that could revolutionize energy
production and storage.'' The committee is also aware of the
Defense Advanced Research Project Agency's (DARPA) findings
that other countries including China and India are moving
forward with LENR programs of their own and that Japan has
actually created its own investment fund to promote such
technology. DIA has also assessed that Japan and Italy are
leaders in the field and that Russia, China, Israel, and India
are now devoting significant resources to LENR development. To
better understand the national security implications of these
developments, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S.
industrial base LENR advancements to the House Committee on
Armed Services by September 22, 2016. This briefing should
examine the current state of research in the United States, how
that compares to work being done internationally, and an
assessment of the type of military applications where this
technology could potentially be useful.
Minority-serving institutions and minority-owned businesses
The committee recognizes the near-term, mid-term, and long-
term impact that science and technology collaboration has on
our warfighting capabilities and overall defense posture.
Industry, academia, other non-governmental organizations, and
Defense Department research, development, and prototyping
entities, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, all play a critical role in advancing national
security. The committee is aware of the Department's efforts to
harness the talent and innovation taking place in minority-
owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, small businesses,
and minority-serving institutions such as Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic-Serving Institutions.
The committee encourages the Department to continue to
collaborate with minority-serving institutions and minority-
owned businesses. Additionally, the committee urges the
Department to increase opportunities for partnerships in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education
programs, research and development efforts, and other areas
across the Department's science and technology enterprise.
Monoclonal antibody therapeutics
The committee is aware of the recent work by the Department
of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program in
developing monoclonal antibody therapeutic drugs to treat the
Zaire strain of the Ebola virus. The monoclonal antibody
development by the Department of Defense was incorporated into
the ZMapp therapeutic for Ebola that was used experimentally to
treat some people with Ebola virus disease during the 2014 West
African Ebola outbreak, and is currently undergoing further
development. The committee encourages the Department of Defense
to continue research into monoclonal antibody therapies for use
as medical countermeasure to other biological agents, including
diseases such as smallpox or the Sudan strain of Ebola.
MQ-9 anti-icing capability
The committee notes that an anti-icing capability for the
MQ-9 unmanned aerial system has been pursued by the Department
of Defense, and specifically U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command,
U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S. Air Force Special
Operations Command (AFSOC). However, the committee is concerned
that a lack of capability prioritization and technical issues
have delayed initial fielding times.
The committee notes that a recent Laboratory Innovation
Crowdsourcing (LINC) requirement solicited by the Department's
Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office (CTTSO) stated
that, ``The current MQ-9 was fielded without the exact
understanding of how it was affected by icing.'' The report
continued that, ``Due to the lack of data, the Air Force
imposed conservative flight restrictions in order to reduce the
risk to the weapons system . . . AFSOC is interested in the
development and testing of innovative de-ice technologies that
allow the MQ-9 to cruise in light icing and visible moisture.''
This LINC initiative solicited by CTTSO for outside approaches
reinforces the committee's belief that the Department's current
approach to satisfying this operational requirement is
disjointed and uncoordinated.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Air Force Air Combat
Command and the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to
brief the Committee on Armed Services of the U.S. House of
Representatives not later than October 1, 2016, on the
Department's efforts to field an anti-icing capability for the
MQ-9. This briefing shall be in classified form as required.
Nanomaterials in Combat Systems
The committee is aware that nanomaterials are being
incorporated with increasing frequency in many commercial
products and processes because of their ability to make
materials stronger, lighter, more durable, more reactive, more
porous, or more conductive, among other things. The committee
is also aware that the Department of Defense has been
leveraging that commercial research, as well as investing in
other areas with specific defense-related applications. The
committee believes that the Department should be pursuing
additional opportunities to transition that research into
military combat systems. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2017, on the potential military
applications of nanomaterials in combat systems. The briefing
should outline the use of emerging technology with
nanomaterials to identify areas where possible enhancements or
improvements to equipment used by each of the service branches
might be possible.
Non-destructive counterfeit parts detection tools
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
made significant progress since 2012 to reduce the risk of
counterfeit electronic parts entering into the Department's
weapon systems' supply chain. However, the committee recognizes
that much work remains to improve the Department's ability to
identify and mitigate such risks. Although responsibility for
eliminating risk of counterfeit parts belongs to industry
suppliers to the Department of Defense at all tiers, the
committee encourages the Department to be proactive about
identifying, developing, and validating independent tools that
defense suppliers could easily use to rapidly identify
counterfeit electronics in the supply chain accurately and at
low cost. The committee believes that the Department should
evaluate the need to identify or develop best-of-breed, non-
destructive counterfeit parts detection tools that it can use,
or that could be made available to defense industrial base
suppliers, to support the overall mission of ensuring the
integrity of electronic components of defense weapon systems.
Prioritization of joint test activities
The committee recognizes that developmental and operational
test and evaluation activities are critical steps in research
and development programs. Joint programs can be especially
complex, and thus substantially more difficult to manage, with
competing demands for resources, personnel, service priority,
and the need to coordinate over multiple bureaucracies. The
committee is concerned that the Department of Defense does not
adequately prioritize research and development projects;
unfortunately, there are instances when expensive projects from
one military department may receive a low priority for testing
time and resources at facilities operated by different military
departments.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Test
Resource Management Center to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2016, on the
policies and processes for coordinating test and evaluation
resources for joint and multi-service research and development
projects. The briefing should include recommendations for
improving the Department's ability to make cross-service
prioritization decisions related to test and evaluation
facilities for joint and multi-service programs.
Program intermediary agreements
The committee recognizes that Partnership Intermediary
Agreements (PIAs), as defined in section 3715 of title 15,
United States Code, have been useful tools for the Department
of Defense to engage with and leverage small and non-
traditional businesses. As the Department continues to expand
its efforts to seek out, assess, and engage non-traditional
small business vendors in the Department of Defense's
development and acquisition efforts, the committee believes
that PIAs could be more effectively used as a tool for engaging
this community. For example, the committee is aware that a PIA
was used by the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command to
establish its SOFWERX initiative, which the committee views as
a rapid, highly effective, and highly cost-effective way of
engaging with the vendor community to meet special operations
forces capability needs. The committee encourages the
Department to examine new and innovative ways to use PIAs, such
as providing technology assessments or design reviews to
understand manufacturability, fitness for use, material
availability, and other assessments that can reduce development
cycle times.
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. Effective prevention and rapid treatment are key
elements in controlling outbreaks of infectious disease. The
committee is encouraged by the progress the Department 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 that would be delivered directly to the body
to produce a desired antigen or specific antibody. The
committee encourages the Department to continue its research in
this area and to look for further applications of this
technology, which could lead to the ability to rapidly and
inexpensively produce antigens and antibodies via chemical
synthesis.
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 challenges that the military services face in
regards to operating rotary winged aircraft in austere
environmental conditions, including brown-out landings and
marginal weather, while operating in difficult terrain.
According to the Army, degraded visual environment conditions
contribute to approximately 25 percent of its rotary wing
mishaps. The committee notes that the Army's Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) has made DVE a top priority, and that the Army
is looking at leveraging the work that SOCOM has already
performed in order to accelerate this capability across Army
rotorcraft programs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by December 1, 2016, that includes an update on Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force plans to integrate DVE
capabilities into their respective rotorcraft and tilt-
rotorcraft programs.
Secure cellular communications for senior leaders
The budget request contained $14.0 million in PE 33126K for
long haul communications, including for the development and
fielding of senior leader communications and mobility systems.
The committee is aware that the Defense Information Systems
Agency (DISA) is responsible for developing, fielding and
sustaining senior leader communications systems for the
Department of Defense, the President and other senior leaders
throughout the executive branch. This includes the Department's
mobility program, which seeks to leverage commercial carrier
infrastructure to provide entry points for both classified and
unclassified wireless capabilities. The committee understands
that in fiscal year 2017, DISA plans to continue testing and
evaluation of mobile device management capabilities, and full
deployment of the Device Mobility Classified Capability. The
committee is concerned that the current fielding plan is not
being fully implemented with the priority such capabilities
require. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of DISA
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Service
and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the
status of this program by July 1, 2016. This update should
include the current schedule for development, identification of
the requirement for the needed number of devices, and the
fielding schedule to users for the next 24 months. This
briefing should also address any funding challenges, or policy
impediments to fielding that satisfies the full articulated
requirement.
The committee recommends $19.0 million, an increase of $5.0
million, in PE 33126K to support the development and
implementation of a top secret secure voice cellular solution
for senior government leaders.
Small turbine engines for missile programs
The committee understands the critical importance of small
turbine engines in missile programs, and believes that
continued innovation in this technology will help the United
States to better maintain its technological edge in the area of
precision guided missile systems. In order to encourage
innovation, the committee supports robust competition in this
area. While foreign competition does exist, the committee
believes that the United States needs to retain a technology
leadership role in this strategic technology sector. The
committee notes that small turbine engines are in many ways
more challenging than large turbine engines because of high
rotational speeds, limited volume for combustion, larger
leakage paths relative to the size of the turbomachinery,
storage requirements, and on-wing starting requirements.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
explore ways to create additional competition among domestic
suppliers in the area of small turbine engines, and in
particular small turbine engines for missile programs.
Social media analysis cell
The budget request contained $148.2 million in PE 63648D8Z
for joint concept technology demonstrations (JCTD).
The committee is aware that the mission of the Joint
Concept Technology Demonstration program is to support the
identification, development, and demonstration of forward
looking concepts to satisfy multiservice and combatant command
priorities through rapid prototyping and experimentation. The
JCTD program has a track record of exploring new concepts and
technologies at low risk, but with major payoff to testing
these concepts without the risks and cost associated with new
acquisition programs. In addition to providing some limited
residual capability for users, JCTDs can be useful in informing
requirements and reducing the risk for future, follow-on
acquisition efforts.
The committee further notes that an area of growing concern
is the monitoring and assessment of adversarial propaganda and
misinformation, which can be highly effective at masking the
intent and activities of adversarial actors. The committee is
concerned that there has been limited application of new
technologies or concepts in this space, especially in the use
of ever-increasing data from social media sources that can be
leveraged to amplify and inform other warning, force protection
and battlespace awareness activities of the Department of
Defense. The committee believes that the use of social media
analysis capabilities should be explored in a relevant
operational environment to experiment and determine the
possible value to military operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends $158.2 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63648D8Z to demonstrate
technologies and concepts for a social media analysis
capability to support the needs of the Commander of U.S.
European Command.
Strategic Capabilities Office
The budget request contained $844.9 million in PE 64250D8Z
for development activities of the Strategic Capabilities Office
(SCO).
Created in 2012 by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, SCO has
the mission to identify, analyze, demonstrate, and transition
game-changing applications of existing and near-term technology
to shape and counter emerging threats. SCO is comprised of a
relatively small number of personnel and relies on other
program office personnel and resources to execute its mission.
The committee appreciates the nature of SCO's mission and
sustained leanness of the organization; however, the committee
notes the budget for SCO has grown exponentially each fiscal
year. For example, the fiscal year 2017 budget request is
nearly double the request for fiscal year 2016.
The committee is concerned that such rapid budget growth
may bring with it some risks, including the demands on SCO's
small staff, demands on other Department of Defense personnel,
and impact of SCO decisions on existing programs. For example,
the committee is aware of SCO's inclusion on the
electromagnetic railgun development, and subsequent
reprioritizing of its planned investment in that program for
fiscal year 2017, resulting in a funding gap that could not be
covered by the program office.
Additionally, the committee remains concerned that the
transition of technologies from SCO has not been adequately
captured and conveyed to the oversight committees. The report
required by the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 has not been delivered and is now almost 6 months
late. In order to support prudent use of taxpayer resources,
and to ensure proper oversight of these activities, the
committee believes this report should be provided and concerns
addressed before supporting full funding of planned activities.
Therefore, the committee recommends $804.9 million, a
decrease of $40.0 million, in PE 64250D8Z for development
activities of the Strategic Capabilities Office.
Technology enablers for directed energy weapon systems
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
made significant advances in the development and operational
demonstration of directed energy weapons systems. Each military
department has demonstrated a marquee program in this area,
such as the Navy's Laser Weapon System deployed on the USS
Ponce, the Army High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator, and the
Marine Corps' Ground Based Air Defense System. Along with
technology demonstration activities like the Robust Electric
Laser Initiative and the High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense
System, each of these programs demonstrated the increased power
output and power on target necessary to develop a militarily
useful directed energy weapon.
However, as the Department has made progress in raising the
power levels of these systems, it has also demonstrated the
need for emphasis on development in other technology areas
necessary to realize the full potential of laser weapons. For
example, higher power output requires improved beam control to
engage targets at greater distances, as well as better thermal
management systems to dissipate the increased heat load. As the
Department has been overcoming foundational technical
challenges, new challenges have emerged that will impact the
operational uses for directed energy weapons.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the
research components of the military departments and the High
Energy Laser Joint Technology Office, to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services by January 20, 2017. This
briefing should provide a roadmap for enabling technologies,
including:
(1) Beam directors and adaptive optics, including
deformable mirrors;
(2) Thermal management needs and capabilities;
(3) Integration challenges with fire control systems,
including potential future needs for fire control for laser
systems;
(4) Power architectures and power electronics needs;
(5) Facilities and test range capabilities; and
(6) Other areas as deemed by the Secretary.
Third Offset Strategy
The committee supports the Department of Defense Third
Offset Strategy development efforts. As the Deputy Secretary of
Defense has described it, the Third Offset Strategy is focused
on strengthening conventional deterrence against great powers
through targeted technology investments and new operational and
organizational constructs.
The committee is encouraged by the Department's technology
investments, including those within the Strategic Capabilities
Office (SCO) that adapt existing weapon systems in new ways to
get game-changing capabilities into the field more quickly.
These efforts align well with the committee's acquisition
reform initiatives discussed elsewhere in this Act. The
committee is also encouraged by the Department's increased
emphasis on wargaming and on strategic initiatives to better
understand Russian and Chinese military thinking.
The committee believes that the Third Offset Strategy
effort is a useful vehicle for focusing the Department on how
to deter and counter the Russian Federation and the People's
Republic of China. Much of this focus has been on technology;
however, the committee also believes that further attention
must be given to strategic thinking about deterrence, including
the relationship between conventional and nuclear deterrence,
and the relationship between deterrence and assurance.
The committee encourages the Secretary to review the
Department's ability to support rapid decision making and agile
force employment, as the committee recognizes that future near-
peer conflicts are likely to unfold faster, across multiple
regions and warfighting domains. The committee also encourages
the Secretary to engage the military services as it recognizes
that, for the Third Offset effort to be successful, the
military services must embrace it.
Lastly, the committee is concerned about any Third Offset
efforts that distract from the primary focus on deterring
Russia and China. While the committee acknowledges the benefits
of Silicon Valley outreach for technology innovation,
particularly through the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental
(DIUx), it believes that such commercial technology will not
provide an enduring warfighting advantage over near-peer
adversaries.
Transition of biosurveillance prototype
The committee understands the importance of biosurveillance
tools at U.S. military installations throughout the world to
provide installation commanders with early, high-confidence
detection and increased situational awareness. The committee is
aware of the recent efforts by the Department of Defense to
develop a 3-year advanced technology demonstration of
biosurveillance technology for deployment on the Korean
Peninsula, known as the Joint U.S. Forces in Korea Portal and
Integrated Threat Recognition (JUPITR).
The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts
to rapidly integrate, test, and demonstrate cutting-edge
technologies to develop strengthened biosurveillance
capabilities to meet these critical force protection needs. The
committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to
use advanced technology demonstrations to rapidly integrate and
evaluate emerging technologies in biological and chemical
defense. The committee also encourages the Department of
Defense to leverage the advanced technology demonstration
efforts to quickly field JUPITR to the U.S. Forces Korea, and
to ensure that relevant technologies from JUPITR are
transitioned into programs of record. The committee recommends
that the Department of Defense collaborate with other U.S.
Government partners, including the Department of Homeland
Security, to share the results of the JUPITR demonstration with
relevant programs implementing biosurveillance to meet homeland
security requirements.
Treatment of traumatic brain injury
The committee is aware of the magnitude of traumatic brain
injuries (TBI) sustained by service members, both in deployed
and non-deployed environments. TBI accounts for approximately
20 to 25 percent of documented combat casualties in the wars in
the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The committee continues to support the Department of Defense's
many efforts to investigate the mechanisms of traumatic brain
injuries and develop mitigation/prevention strategies. The
committee is aware that pre-clinical research has recently
demonstrated that induced therapeutic hypothermia is a
promising neuroprotective strategy for treating TBI by
effectively reducing increases in intracranial pressure and
cellular damage caused by injury/trauma. The committee
encourages the Department to continue their diverse TBI
research programs, and supports the development and deployment
of technologies that can be used to provide additional TBI
treatments, including induced therapeutic hypothermia, to our
service members. Further, the committee remains concerned about
the long-term effects of TBI, particularly multiple occurrences
of TBI, on members of the Armed Forces. Peer-reviewed research
has demonstrated a link between multiple traumatic brain
injuries and the onset of dementia, and has suggested a link to
Alzheimer's disease later in life. The committee understands
that the Department of Defense has undertaken research to
investigate the relationship between traumatic brain injury and
Alzheimer's disease. The committee commends this effort and
encourages the Department to continue funding such projects.
United States-Israel Anti-tunnel cooperation
The committee notes that section 1606 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) authorized a new, joint United States-Israel anti-tunneling
program to protect United States and Israel forces from
terrorist attacks.
The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict stated during a March
1, 2016, House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities hearing that the U.S. and
Israel plan to execute 17 counter-tunnel projects for tunnel
detection, tunnel mapping, and intelligence collection. At the
same hearing, the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command
stated that the subterranean threat is used by terrorists, but
also affects other mission areas. The committee continues to
support this program; however, the committee is aware that none
of the funds authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2016
have been executed as of April 27, 2016.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than June 30, 2016, as to the status of United
States-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation, including:
(1) The status of the Memorandum of Agreement;
(2) The full plan for project development;
(3) The current plan for expenditure of funds, including an
identification of entities that will be receiving or have
received funds; and
(4) A clarification of future requirements.
Unmanned advanced capability combat aircraft and ground combat vehicles
Section 220 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398)
mandated a goal, regarding unmanned advanced capability combat
aircraft and ground combat vehicles, that by the year 2010,
one-third of the aircraft in the operational deep strike force
fleet would be unmanned, and that by year 2005, one-third of
the operational ground combat vehicles would be unmanned.
Congress subsequently requested reports outlining the
Department's progress towards achieving these goals in 2006 and
2008. The committee notes that there has been no update
provided by the Department since 2008.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
no later than September 15, 2016, on the Department's progress
in meeting the congressionally mandated goal. The briefing
shall include an assessment of progress towards meeting the
goals identified for the subset of unmanned air and ground
systems established in section 220 of Public Law 106-398, as
well as an assessment of existing, viable unmanned ground
vehicle technologies that can be economically used for making
significant progress toward the achievement of the 2001 goal
within the next 5 years.
U.S. Special Operations Command rapid prototyping and SOFWERX
initiative
The committee notes that the SOFWERX initiative and
facility within U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
creates a forum for accelerating the delivery of innovative
capabilities to U.S. Special Operations Forces (USSOF) by
engaging industry, academia, and Government laboratories, as
well as hosting innovation and rapid prototyping sessions
designed to overcome seemingly intractable problems. The
committee notes that these sessions have started to refine and
inform current and future USSOF requirements, as well as
acquisition and engineering decisions, while increasing the
potential to field capabilities faster. The committee applauds
this revolutionary approach, which was established by USSOCOM
in September 2015 using a Partnership Intermediary Agreement,
as defined within section 3715 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee understands that each project within the
SOFWERX facility is funded via related research, development,
test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs, including $0.5 million
funded by the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit effort, and
an additional $2.0 million for fiscal year 2016 within PE
1160402BB, Advanced Technology Demonstrations. For fiscal year
2017, the committee notes that USSOCOM expects to spend $2.5
million from the Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
account for SOFWERX facility and support, although RDT&E
efforts are not defined. While these initial investments for
SOFWERX appear to be low-dollar thresholds, the committee
encourages USSOCOM to seek cost-sharing agreements and cost-
saving measures with other Department of Defense entities, such
as those within each military service, the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, or other non-traditional funding
sources when appropriate. The committee encourages USSOCOM to
limit growth and overhead of this initiative to ensure
affordability across the Future Years Defense Program, and
expects to be kept fully and currently informed of the many
initiatives expected to spiral from SOFWERX. The committee also
expects to be informed of how USSOCOM is sharing technological
advances and lessons learned about incentivizing innovation
across the Department. Therefore, the committee directs the
Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September
1, 2016, on SOFWERX and associated RDT&E efforts.
Utilization of electromagnetic spectrum
The committee is aware of and encouraged by Department of
Defense efforts to better utilize the electromagnetic spectrum
(EMS) to meet both current and future requirements. The 2014
Department of Defense EMS Strategy and efforts by the Defense
Information Systems Agency recognize that appropriate spectrum
utilization is critical to efficient operations across all
warfighting domains. To meet these challenges, the Department
has appropriately set objectives that expedite the development
of technologies that allow spectrum sharing, increase spectrum
efficiency gains, and access wider frequency ranges. The
committee is also aware that pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-72), $500.0 million in spectrum
relocation fund proceeds were made available to all Federal
agencies for activities intended to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of spectrum use. The committee encourages the
Department to utilize this and other funding to develop and
deploy EMS mitigating technology, such as solid state
transmitters, which have the potential to address known
spectrum sharing and spillage issues with Navy radar systems.
V-22 defensive weapons integration analysis
The budget request contained $174.4 million in PE 64262N
for V-22 research and development, but contained no funds for
development and integration of defensive weapon systems.
The committee notes that various models of the V-22 support
tactical airlift requirements for special operations and
general purpose forces of the Department of Defense. However,
the committee is concerned that given the emerging flexibility
the V-22 has exhibited in multiple contingency and training
operations, the aircraft may be unintentionally limited by its
lack of defensive weapons and having to rely upon other
airborne armed assets to provide escort during tactical airlift
infiltration and exfiltration operations. The committee
understands that options may exist to develop and integrate
defensive weapons capability onto V-22 platforms, but the
Department has not coalesced in deriving mutual requirements
that could satisfy each of the services within the Department
that utilize the capabilities of the V-22.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy and the
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December
1, 2016, that specifies all requirements for V-22 defensive
weapon capabilities within the Department of Defense, and
provides an analysis of viable alternatives that could be
implemented to fulfill those requirements. The analysis should
examine alternatives that could ensure a full, fair, and open
competition among qualified vendors that utilizes an expedited
timeline, encouraging innovation, affordability, and enhancing
the versatility of the V-22.
Vector geo-location technologies for Special Operations Command
The committee recognizes that the Joint Threat Warning
System (JTWS) provides credible threat warning and intelligence
information to special operations forces (SOF) that is key to
providing enhanced situational awareness, force protection, and
time-sensitive intelligence for targeting to supported SOF
elements. The committee is concerned that the current JTWS-Air
Variant System provides Precision Geo-location (PGL) coverage
only in the very high frequency (VHF)/ultra high frequency
(UHF) bands, and does not provide PGL coverage in the high
frequency (HF) band, a band being increasingly utilized
globally to target and compromise SOF missions. The committee
is concerned that traditional geo-location techniques do not
provide time-critical, instantaneous, and accurate results, and
often require the use of two or more SOF aircraft.
The committee understands that a new technology, called
Vector Geo-location (VGL), has been successfully demonstrated
in the HF band in a single airborne platform. Although one of
the prototypes was capable of operating in a tri-band mode, it
has not been demonstrated in the VHF or UHF band due to
insufficient development of calibration techniques in those
bands. The committee is encouraged by these results and
believes that the U.S. Special Operations Command should
continue to develop VGL technologies for use in all three
bands, including completing development of calibration
techniques in the VHF/UHF bands, ruggedizing the system, and
completing final flight testing.
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Items of Special Interest
Range capabilities for emerging advanced technologies
The committee recognizes that the Major Range and Test
Facility Base (MRTFB) is a critical component to military
technological superiority, and key to ensuring U.S. warfighting
capability. This designated core set of Department of Defense
Test and Evaluation (T&E) infrastructure, and its 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 committee recognizes that the MRTFB
must remain sized, operated, and maintained to preserve core,
governmental T&E capabilities, but should also be developed
over time to meet future technology needs of the Department.
The committee is concerned that due to the increased need
for protected airspace, as well as increasingly outmoded range
technology, many test facilities are difficult to maintain. For
example, the open-air test ranges of the MRTFB are not capable
of supporting the full spectrum of development testing required
for fifth and sixth generation weapon systems, including
testing of hypersonic systems, which have been identified as
critically important to the third offset strategy. These
systems require significant increases in size of contiguous
airspace availability, test tracking and data acquisition
capabilities, and threat capabilities that exceed current
ranges capabilities.
Across the military services, the gaps in range
capabilities to meet evolving requirements are growing rapidly.
The military services are under pressure to manage
modernization of range capabilities to budgets that do not
always account for changing technology needs to meet future
requirements. Additionally, it is anticipated that the need for
increased use of the MRTFB's ranges with large airspace
footprints will continue to increase, to support realistic
training environments critical to readiness of operational
forces. This presents the ranges with growing scheduling
capacity challenges, pitting priorities for operational
readiness of today's forces against priorities of fielding new
system capabilities required to sustain air dominance into the
future.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Test
Resource Management Center (TMRC) to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2017, on the
results of a comprehensive assessment of MRTFB needs and
investments to meet testing required for fifth and sixth
generation aircraft and air armament, including hypersonic
strike weapons. This assessment should include the projected
requirements of operational forces and other users dependent
upon these ranges. The briefing should also include the
estimated costs to implement capabilities required to support
current and projected future operations, and a plan for
ensuring sufficient capacity through a MRTFB range investment
plan. Additionally, the committee encourages the TRMC to use
the results of this assessment to inform future budget
certifications from the military departments and Department of
Defense agencies.
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--Laboratory Quality Enhancement Program
This section would require the establishment of a
Laboratory Quality Enhancement Program (LQEP) to support the
analysis and implementation of current policies, as well as
make recommendations for new initiatives to support the
improvement and enhancement of the Department of Defense's
Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories. This section
would also place responsibility for LQEP under the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)),
and would modify section 1114(a)(2)(C) in the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public
Law 106-398) to align management of the laboratory
demonstration program with the ASD(R&E).
Section 212--Mechanisms to Provide Funds for Defense Laboratories for
Research and Development of Technologies for Military Missions
This section would modify the authorities set forth by
section 219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as amended by
section 262 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), to set the level of
funding at 3 percent of funds available; eliminate the
termination date for this authority; and allow certain
federally funded research and development centers to utilize
this authority.
Section 213--Notification Requirement for Certain Rapid Prototyping,
Experimentation, and Demonstration Activities
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
provide written notification to the congressional defense
committees within 10 days before initiating a rapid
prototyping, experimentation, or demonstration activity using
funds from PE 63382N.
Section 214--Improved Biosafety for Handling of Select Agents and
Toxins
This section would direct the Department of Defense to
implement several improvements for handling of select agents
and toxins, as recommended from an Army 15-6 investigative
report on the individual and institutional accountability for
the shipment of viable Bacillus Anthracis from Dugway Proving
Ground. This section would require the Department to implement
a quality assurance and quality control program for any
facility producing biological select agents and toxins, and for
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2017, on the
potential consolidation of facilities that work with biological
select agents and toxins. This section would also require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by September 1, 2017, on
the effectiveness and completeness of the Department of
Defense's actions taken to address the findings and
recommendations of the Army 15-6 investigation.
Section 215--Modernization of Security Clearance Information Technology
Architecture
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and sustain a new security clearance information
technology architecture to replace the legacy system of the
Office of Personnel Management. Further, this section would
require the Secretary of Defense, Director of National
Intelligence, and Director of the Office of Personnel
Management to issue a governance charter to delineate
responsibilities between organizations, as well as to review
and revise as necessary the executive orders, statutes, and
other authorities related to personnel security. This section
would also require quarterly notifications to designated
congressional committees until September 30, 2019.
Section 216--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction System Constellation
This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from
obligating or expending any funds in fiscal year 2017 for
research, development, and prototyping of the countering
weapons of mass destruction situational awareness information
system, known as ``Constellation.'' This section would also
require the Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Defense, in consultation with the Director of the Defense
Information Systems Agency, to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2017, on the
requirements and program plan for the Constellation system.
Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defense Innovation
Unit Experimental
This section would limit the amount of authorized funds
available to be obligated or expended for the Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) until the Secretary of
Defense provides a report to the congressional defense
committees on the charter for and the use of funds to establish
and expand DIUx.
The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's
efforts to increase outreach to and collaboration with sources
of commercial innovation throughout the United States. The
committee recognizes that commercial innovation is not only a
significant driver for the economy, but also provides
significant contributions to national security. The committee
has been supportive of mechanisms for tapping into the
nontraditional defense contractor community, which includes
commercial start-ups and other companies that have not
typically focused on the defense market. The committee notes
that the administrative and regulatory barriers that are in
place within the acquisition system often act as moats to keep
these innovation players out, rather than a bridge into the
national security sector.
The committee believes DIUx to be a helpful step in
bridging those communities, but is concerned by the pinpoint
focus on one geographic region, as well as the dedication of
significant funding at such a nascent period in the development
of this organization and the concept on which it was founded.
The committee is concerned that outreach is proceeding without
sufficient attention being paid to breaking down the barriers
that have traditionally prevented nontraditional contractors
from supporting defense needs, like lengthy contracting
processes and the inability to transition technologies.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the focus on this
initiative is occurring without sufficient guidance, oversight,
and coordination with and into the various laboratories,
engineering centers, and existing state and local innovation
centers that by necessity must also bridge into this community.
The committee believes that focusing on laying a solid
foundation for DIUx and its interaction with communities and
the Department of Defense enterprise is critical to ensuring
effectiveness, especially if such initiatives will be expanded
to include other locations.
Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Tactical Combat
Training System Increment II
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
20 percent of the funds for the Tactical Combat Training System
(TCTS) Increment II program until the Secretary of the Navy and
Secretary of the Air Force comply with section 235 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92).
Public Law 114-92 required the Secretary of the Navy and
the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a detailed report to
the congressional defense committees by January 29, 2016, on
the baseline and alternatives to the TCTS Increment II program
of the Navy. The report was to include cost estimates and
schedule comparisons, as well as a review of joint Department
of the Air Force and Department of the Navy investment in live,
virtual, constructive, advanced air combat training. The
committee notes that failure to comply with this reporting
requirement in a timely manner has impacted the committee's
ability to conduct needed oversight on this program's
acquisition strategy. The committee is aware the Navy expects
to award an engineering and manufacturing development contract
for TCTS Increment II in fiscal year 2016. The committee
expects this award will be executed through full and open
competition in order to allow for the maximum number of
proposals.
Section 219--Restructuring of the Distributed Common Ground System of
the Army
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
discontinue development efforts for any component of the
Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) of the Army after
Increment 1 where commercial software exists that is capable of
fulfilling at least 80 percent of the system requirements. This
section would also require a review of the acquisition strategy
to ensure commercial software procurement is the preferred
method to meet program requirements. This section would also
prohibit the development of any capability for DCGS if such
capability is available for purchase in the commercial market.
Section 220--Designation of Department of Defense Senior Official with
Principal Responsibility for Directed Energy Weapons
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
designate a senior official already serving within the
Department of Defense as the official with principal
responsibility for the development and demonstration of
directed energy weapons for the Department, as well as any
other responsibilities set forth by the Secretary.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Section 231--Strategy for Assured Access to Trusted Microelectronics
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and implement a strategy for developing and acquiring
trusted microelectronics from various sources by 2020. This
section would further require the Secretary to submit such a
strategy to the congressional defense committees not later than
1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. The
Secretary of Defense would also be required to certify by
September 30, 2020, that the Department has implemented the
recommendations of the strategy, and has created an assured
means of accessing sufficient supply of trusted
microelectronics.
Section 232--Pilot Program on Evaluation of Commercial Information
Technology
This section would require the Defense Information Systems
Agency to establish a pilot program to evaluate commercially
available information technology tools to better understand and
characterize their potential impact on Department of Defense
networks and computing environments through prototyping,
experimentation, operational demonstration, military user
assessment, or other means to get quantitative and qualitative
feedback on the commercial item.
Section 233--Pilot Program for the Enhancement of the Laboratories and
Test and Evaluation Centers of the Department of Defense
This section would allow the Assistant Secretaries of the
Army, Navy, and Air Force to jointly carry out a pilot program
to demonstrate methods for the more effective development of
research, development, test, and evaluation functions.
Section 234--Pilot Program on Modernization of Electromagnetic Spectrum
Warfare Systems and Electronic Warfare Systems
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to carry
out a pilot program on the modernization of spectrum warfare
systems and electronic warfare systems.
Section 235--Independent Review of F/A-18 Physiological Episodes and
Corrective Actions
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
establish an independent review team to review the Navy's data
on, and mitigation efforts related to, the increase in F/A-18
physiological events since January 1, 2009. This section would
also require the Secretary to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by December 1, 2017, on the
findings of the review team.
Section 236--Study on Helicopter Crash Prevention and Mitigation
Technology
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into a contract with a federally funded research and
development center to conduct a study on technologies with the
potential to prevent and mitigate helicopter crashes.
Section 237--Report on Electronic Warfare Capabilities
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, acting through the
Electronic Warfare Executive Committee, to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report by April 1, 2017, on
future electronic warfare concepts and technologies.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
Due to the consistently high pace of operations, coupled
with significant downsizing of some of the military services,
the committee over the past several years has witnessed a
disturbing decline in readiness of U.S. forces to meet their
core missions. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated that
rebuilding readiness is an overarching priority, and last year
submitted to Congress plans for readiness recovery.
The committee is concerned that the relentless high
operational tempo continues to challenge the military services'
readiness recovery plans. The committee was alarmed to hear, in
testimony before the committee this year, increasingly blunt
warnings from Department of Defense officials about the impact
this tempo is having on a smaller force with limited resources.
While the military service chiefs claim they can adequately
respond to the current requirement for forces, they warn that
the risks in meeting the time-phased requirements of some
critical operational plans have increased and will continue to
increase over time as their forces shrink.
In order to address the Department's readiness concerns and
mitigate at least some of this risk, this Act would provide
additional budget authority for multiple unfunded priorities of
the military departments, to include additions to all of the
military services' training and maintenance accounts,
particularly aviation readiness. Facilities sustainment,
restoration, and modernization accounts, an area the Department
has underfunded for years, also would receive sizeable
increases in funding.
This Act also would make several policy changes to enhance
readiness and improve oversight. For example, it would provide
shipyards, depots, and arsenals temporary direct and other
hiring authorities to allow these facilities to quickly fill
critical civilian manpower shortages. It also directs several
assessments of the military departments' plans to build
readiness, enhance exercises, and modernize training
requirements.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Adjustments
Base Realignment and Closure Request for Fiscal Year 2019
The budget request included $3.53 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.
Ship Repair Capability in the Western Pacific
The Asia-Pacific rebalance strategy has increased forward
deployment of U.S. Navy forces in the Western Pacific region,
including the homeporting of additional Los Angeles and
Virginia class fast-attack submarines and a second submarine
tender, as well as the deployment of additional ballistic
missile destroyers and a near-permanent rotation of Littoral
Combat Ship vessels in the region. However, the committee notes
that dry-docking capabilities have not followed ship
deployments. Dry-docking capabilities currently exist only in
Hawaii and on the West Coast of the United States, requiring
surface and subsurface vessels to be removed from the Western
Pacific theater for at least an additional 2 to 3 weeks. The
commander of U.S. Pacific Command testified in February 2016
that dry-docking capabilities in the Western Pacific are a
matter of strategic importance and an operational necessity for
Pacific Fleet. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase
of $9.5 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, Ship Depot
Maintenance, to be applied to chartering a dry dock to meet
maintenance requirements for the Western Pacific fleet.
Energy Issues
Alternatively Financed Energy Projects
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is the
largest energy consumer in the Federal Government. According to
the Department's 2015 Annual Energy Management Report, the
Department spent $4.20 billion on facilities energy in fiscal
year 2014. The Department has reported that its dependence on
the commercial power grid leaves the Department vulnerable to
service disruptions that can impact core military and national
defense missions involving power projection. To mitigate the
potential impacts to critical mission functions, the Department
has leveraged a variety of authorities to diversify the supply
of energy through renewable and alternative sources and improve
energy security by addressing the threat of commercial grid
disruption with on-site generating capacity and the development
of microgrids.
The Department has increasingly used alternative financing
arrangements to fund infrastructure related to renewable and
alternative energy generation, energy efficiency, and energy
security of military installations. These alternative financing
arrangements rely on private capital of energy service
companies to fund the upfront investment of such projects in
lieu of using appropriated funds. Generally, the installation
repays the cost of the project using appropriated funds based
on the cost savings attributable to the energy project or on
the utility rates paid by the Department. For example, in 2012
the Government Accountability Office reported in ``Renewable
Energy Project Financing: Improved Guidance and Information
Sharing Needed for DOD Project-Level Officials''' (GAO-12-401)
that a naval air station relied on an energy services company
to use an energy savings performance contract to obtain private
capital to fund installation of ground source heat pumps, and
an Army base financed a wind turbine project using a utility
energy services contract. The Government Accountability Office
more recently reported, in ``Energy Savings Performance
Contracts: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Federal
Oversight'' (GAO-15-432), that in more than half of the cases
reviewed, contractors overstated the savings attributable to
energy savings performance contracts.
The Government Accountability Office findings raise
concerns about the financial performance of these projects and
the extent of fiscal exposure the Department is experiencing by
using appropriated funds in their budgets to repay contractors
on these alternative financing arrangements. In order to better
understand the extent of this exposure and any benefits
obtained, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the extent to which the Department of
Defense is effectively leveraging appropriations to repay
developers for alternatively financed energy savings,
efficiency, or generating capacity projects, and at a minimum
answer the following questions:
(1) What energy savings, efficiency, or generating capacity
projects have been financed with alternative financing
arrangements since 2012 and what is known about the estimated
value of the projects?
(2) What is known about the extent to which estimated
savings or other efficiencies have materialized for these
alternatively financed projects since 2012?
(3) How does the Department protect its financial interests
by ensuring that the savings reported by the contractors in
alternatively financed energy projects accurately reflect
project financial and efficiency performance?
(4) Since 2012, what proportion of the installations'
utilities budgets have been encumbered to repay contractors in
energy savings performance contracts, utilities energy services
contracts, or other alternative project financing and for how
many years, and what has the trend been since that time?
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
submit the study results to the congressional defense
committees by April 17, 2017.
Energy Assurance for Department of Defense
The committee notes the importance for the Department of
Defense to have the ability to recover from utility disruptions
that impact mission assurance on its installations. In a
globally linked battlespace, the committee recognizes that a
disruption to the electrical supply at an installation in the
United States can impact core military and national defense
missions involving power projection, defense of the homeland,
or operations that are forward deployed. Therefore, the
committee is supportive of efforts by the Department of Defense
and encourages the Department to leverage and integrate
existing authorities to ensure installations have resilient,
available, reliable, and continuous power during disruptions to
the electrical supply. Such actions and investments should
prioritize facilities supporting mission critical functions and
be done through an enterprise approach and in a manner that is
cost-effective and based on assessed vulnerabilities.
Expeditionary Power Management Systems
The committee recognizes the unique requirements that the
Department of Defense has for powering equipment and weapon
systems operating in a deployed environment. Many of these
systems rely on batteries as their sole source of power, which
may require a deployed unit to carry numerous replacement
batteries while out on mission, or rely on more frequent
resupply to support an operation. The committee is aware that
the services, particularly the Army and the Marine Corps, have
been focused on the development and fielding of energy-related
technologies aimed at extending range and endurance, increasing
flexibility, resilience, and force protection, while enhancing
mobility and freedom of action in a deployed environment. The
committee is supportive of these efforts and believes the
Department should continue to focus on cost-effective
investments that enhance combat capabilities and strengthen
energy resiliency.
Integration of Installation Energy Authorities
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has
a variety of statutory authorities that can be used to fulfill
the Department's installation energy needs, including
authorities ranging from third-party financing to capital
investment using appropriated dollars. The committee notes that
the Department of Defense's Annual Energy Management Report,
issued in May 2015, states that the Department's first priority
for its energy program is supporting the ability of the
Department to carry out the mission, focusing its efforts
through three pillars: expanding supply, reducing demand, and
adapting future forces and technology. While the committee
supports the mission assurance priority, the committee is
concerned that the initiatives being pursued by the Department
have not fully integrated these three pillars into a unified
line of effort. The committee encourages the Department to
interpret and integrate its existing authorities to support a
holistic approach, focusing on projects and initiatives that
integrate efficiencies, generation, storage, and infrastructure
modernization at military installations.
Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology
The committee commends the U.S. Navy's exploration of ocean
renewable energy, including marine and hydrokinetic energy
systems, and notes the value of investing in alternative energy
research with potential operational and fiscal benefits. The
Navy is encouraged to continue its support for development of
marine and hydrokinetic technologies, including research,
testing, and demonstration of maritime security systems, at-sea
persistent surveillance and communications systems, and
exploring opportunities to reduce the cost of energy and
increase tactical energy security at coastal Department of
Defense facilities and forward deployed assets. Further, the
Navy is encouraged to support research, testing, and
demonstration activities of marine and hydrokinetic energy
systems at existing U.S. open ocean test facilities and
Department of Energy designated National Marine Renewable
Energy Centers, which are capable of scale and full-scale
device testing.
Procurement of Alternative Fuels
The committee continues to believe that the procurement of
alternative fuels for operational purposes by the Department of
Defense should be pursued only when the fully burdened cost of
such fuels is cost-competitive with conventional fuels. Most
recently, section 311 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) codified this
requirement, which was previously a non-binding policy of the
Department. The committee is aware that prior to the enactment
of Public Law 114-92, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
awarded bulk fuel contracts for the Rocky Mountain/West Coast
2015 purchase program that included alternative fuel. While DLA
has stated that procurement of this alternative fuel was cost-
competitive with conventional fuels, the committee believes
additional information is needed to understand how DLA
determines how the price of a fuel is cost-competitive in
compliance with the requirements of section 311 of Public Law
114-92.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Defense Logistics Agency to provide a briefing to the House
Armed Services Committee not later than March 1, 2017, that
addresses, at a minimum, how DLA evaluates and determines
whether an alternative fuel is cost-competitive with
conventional fuels, what criteria are used to calculate the
fully burdened cost of fuel, and how funds provided by the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture factor into DLA's analysis of whether an
alternative fuel is cost-competitive. The briefing should also
include the total amount of CCC funds that have been used by
the Department of Defense to adjust the final laid down price
of bulk fuel procurement.
Small Modular Reactors
The committee recognizes that nuclear power is a reliable
alternative power source and understands that small modular
reactors (SMRs) under development may also provide safe and
reliable nuclear power sources for the Department of Defense.
The committee believes that the use of SMRs could be useful in
meeting the Department's energy assurance goals by helping
ensure installations have resilient, available, reliable, and
continuous power. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct an evaluation of and provide a
report to the House Committee on Armed Services by September
30, 2017, on the life-cycle cost effectiveness of using SMRs to
power military installations through a commercial power supply
arrangement. At minimum, the evaluation and report should
address the economic feasibility of siting SMRs on the
commercial electric grid and supplying power to military
installations with peak power demands of 40 megawatts or
greater and review the use of power purchase agreements needed
to facilitate utility ownership of SMRs that supply power to
those military installations. The Secretary should scope the
evaluation as necessary to include the most practical and
feasible military installations in question, and focus on those
SMR technologies that are likely to become commercially
available before 2025.
Logistics and Sustainment Issues
Defective Spare Parts
The Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) found,
in a report dated February 23, 2016, that Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) Aviation did not pursue and obtain appropriate
restitution for a projected 269 stock numbers and at least
$12.3 million in costs for which contractors supplied defective
parts. The DODIG reported this occurred because DLA Aviation
lacked sufficient controls and oversight. In addition, the
DODIG found that defective parts were left unaccounted for in
the Department of Defense supply system, negatively affecting
warfighter readiness and safety.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to evaluate the implementation and
effectiveness of the DLA plan to address problems identified in
the February 2016 DODIG report and submit the report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2017.
Specifically, the report should assess whether the plan
includes sufficient controls and oversight to ensure DLA
Aviation logistics and acquisition personnel:
(1) Coordinate to pursue restitution from contractors that
provide defective parts, to the extent that such efforts are
cost effective;
(2) Adequately search the Department of Defense inventory
to identify and remove defective parts;
(3) Return defective parts to responsible contractors for
replacement; and
(4) Track the status of defective parts shipped back to
contractors and ensure that appropriate restitution is provided
in the form of replacement parts.
Additionally, the committee directs the DLA Director to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than October 1, 2016, on a plan of action, with
milestones, to improve DLA Aviation's process to identify
defective spare parts and for requesting repair and replacement
of the defective parts. The briefing also should include the
results of DLA's review of all stock numbers with associated
product-quality deficiency reports closed between January 2014
and November 2015 where DLA's investigation concluded that the
contractor provided defective parts. The briefing should
include how DLA focused on high-value items as well as mission-
critical items and what actions are being taken to pursue
appropriate restitution and remove all defective parts from the
Department of Defense supply system.
Discrepancies in the Transportation of Hazardous Material
The committee remains concerned about documentation and
packaging discrepancies in the Department of Defense's system
for transportation of hazardous material. In the Department's
response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report 14-
375 (``DOD Needs to Take Actions to Improve the Transportation
of Hazardous Material''), the Department reported that some
Department of Defense personnel and commercial shippers lack
experience and training on hazardous material documentation and
packaging. For example, contracts do not specify when vendors
must prepare hazardous material for air shipment or how to
prepare required documentation and packaging, and they are not
instructed to use a standardized virtual shipping module
website. GAO noted human error is the principal cause for
inaccurate, incorrect, or incomplete hazardous material
shipment documentation.
Therefore, the committee urges the Department to implement
a uniform, commercially available automated solution that will
enable hazardous material shippers to manage, document, and
ship material to and from Department of Defense facilities in
full compliance with regulations while minimizing delays, lost
time, confusion, and paperwork. The automated solution system
should be one that can be continuously updated with the latest
regulations and allow shippers to store data including
classification information, safety data sheets, and the
emergency response guidebook. The committee notes that a
commercially available automated solution could help shippers
save time by storing contracts, auto-filling templates for
shipped materials, and validating shipping forms for error-free
transport and reception.
Enhanced Decision Analysis for Weapons System Sustainment
The committee supports the Navy's commitment to measure
proficiency as a critical gauge of readiness through the use of
enhanced decision analysis capabilities for weapons system
sustainment such as the Readiness Cost Analysis Tool (RCAT)
initiative. The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition) to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by August 30,
2016, on the benefits gleaned from RCAT analysis. The briefing
should include, but not be limited to, a statement of the
current funding profile of this initiative as well as potential
courses of action to accelerate or streamline the current
strategy for further implementation of this initiative.
F-35 Sustainment
The committee recognizes the importance of the F-35
Lightning II Program as the future of tactical air for the
Department of Defense. With total life-cycle costs estimated to
be more than $1.2 trillion, just under $900.00 billion of those
costs are estimated to come from the operation and support of
the aircraft. In July 2015, the Marine Corps declared its F-35B
aircraft both operational and deployable. However, the
committee notes this declaration was made without meeting
certain operational criteria required by the Marine Corps and
without comprehensive deployability testing of the aircraft.
The Marine Corps' deployment of its first squadron of aircraft
to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, in 2017, will be
the first opportunity to prove operational concepts not only
for the Marine Corps, but also global sustainment concepts for
the Air Force and Navy, who will deploy the F-35 after the
Marine Corps.
Given the significance of the F-35 program to the future of
tactical air for the military, and the Department's need to
operate and deploy the F-35 on a widespread basis in the coming
years, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to provide a preliminary briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services on the following factors, not later
than January 17, 2017, with a report to follow. The briefing
and report should review the Department's ongoing F-35
deployment planning efforts and include:
(1) To what extent has the Department developed plans to
support its initial F-35 deployment to Marine Corps Air Station
Iwakuni, including those related to personnel, aircraft support
equipment, infrastructure, and spare parts;
(2) To what extent will the Marine Corps' initial
deployment to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni enable U.S.
Pacific Command to meet its operational requirements;
(3) What challenges does the F-35 program face with its
initial deployment to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni and to
what extent does the Department have plans to measure success,
challenges, and share lessons learned with the Air Force and
Navy; and
(4) To what extent is F-35 support equipment, including the
Autonomic Logistics Information System, prepared to deploy to
overseas and austere locations.
Funding for Corrosion Control and Prevention
The committee has long supported the activities of the
Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight and the military
departments' corrosion control and prevention executives in
preventing and mitigating corrosion of the military equipment
and infrastructure of the Department of Defense. One of the
duties set forth in section 2228 of title 10, United States
Code, for the director of the Office of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight is to review the programs and funding levels proposed
by the Secretary of each military department during the annual
internal Department of Defense budget review process, as those
programs and funding proposals relate to programs and funding
for the prevention and mitigation of corrosion, and submit
recommendations regarding those programs and proposed funding
levels.
The committee is concerned that beginning with the fiscal
year 2013 report to Congress, the Department no longer reported
the number and costs of anti-corrosion projects submitted by
the military departments to the Office of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight that remained unfunded in the annual budget
submission. Therefore, to ensure that Congress has the accurate
and comprehensive information it needs to exercise its
oversight responsibilities, the committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
to provide in the annual corrosion budget report to Congress a
more detailed explanation of the development of the Department
of Defense's corrosion-related funding requirements.
Additionally, to enhance the Department's ability to make
consistent and informed decisions in its management of the
Technical Corrosion Collaboration (TCC) program in accordance
with internal control standards, the committee directs the
director of the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight to
track and maintain accurate records that include funds used for
the TCC program and retain such records in a format that can be
easily examined to ensure that funding data will be accurately
accounted for and reported in future reports, such as the
annual budget report to Congress.
Implementation of Product Support Managers
Section 805 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) requires that product
support managers (PSMs) be assigned to all major weapon systems
and identifies key responsibilities for these individuals. PSMs
are assigned to each major weapon system to help the Department
of Defense ensure that it has effective sustainment strategies
and processes to support the goals of maintaining its weapon
systems' readiness and controlling costs throughout the life
cycle of a system.
In April 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported that the Department of Defense and the military
services had taken steps to implement PSMs for major weapon
systems, but certain aspects of the implementation process
remain incomplete. For example, the Department does not fully
know how, or to what extent, PSMs are affecting life-cycle
sustainment decisions because it has not systematically
collected and evaluated information on the effects PSMs are
having on their assigned weapon systems. Also, the committee is
aware of specific challenges the Army has faced in implementing
PSMs, and GAO recommended that the Army needed to clarify the
roles and responsibilities of certain personnel who support
PSMs. This includes the reporting relationships of Army
Materiel Command product support personnel assigned to Army
weapon system program offices.
Given that operating and support costs historically account
for about 70 percent of a weapon system's total life-cycle cost
and the critical nature of the PSM in affecting life-cycle
sustainment decisions, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to assess the following and
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than February 1, 2017, on preliminary findings of the
Comptroller General's evaluation and to submit a final report
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives on a date agreed to at the time of the
briefing:
(1) How early and how often the Army and the other services
are integrating PSMs into the development and acquisition of
weapon systems;
(2) How the Army and the other services are integrating
PSMs into the life-cycle management of weapon systems; and
(3) To what extent the Department of Defense and the Army
have addressed GAO's prior recommendations concerning the
implementation of PSMs, including measuring their impact on
life-cycle sustainment decisions and clarifying PSM roles,
responsibilities, and reporting relationships.
Integration of Operational Contract Support Matters in Joint Training
Programs
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
recently conducted its third Joint Staff-sponsored Operational
Contract Support (OCS) exercise. The committee applauds efforts
by the Joint Staff Director of Logistics to advance senior-
leader awareness of OCS and the need to integrate consideration
of OCS into doctrine, policy, and strategic guidance. However,
the committee is concerned that while the joint force commander
is undeniably reliant on contract support to accomplish
strategic and operational ends, consideration of OCS, and its
associated risks and benefits, has yet to be integrated into
the organizational structure of the geographic and functional
combatant commands. As a result, the commanders and their
staffs lack the ability to integrate OCS requirements into
operational plans, assess OCS readiness, and identify
operational and strategic risks associated with reliance on
contract support. Furthermore, exercise and training activities
related to OCS have been focused on the acquisition and
logistics communities, with little warfighter awareness,
interest, or involvement.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to incorporate OCS matters (such as planning,
requirements determination, risk analysis, contract support
integration, readiness assessments, and contractor management)
into all joint training programs designed to establish
foundational competence in the conduct of campaigns and major
operations. The committee believes that this directed focus on
OCS in joint training programs will enable the joint force to
leverage contract support to achieve operational and strategic
effects and may reduce risks associated with reliance on
contracting in contingency operations.
Item Unique Identification Policy Implementation
The committee is closely monitoring the Department of
Defense's strategy for improving asset tracking and in-transit
visibility and supports the Department's goal of enhancing
asset visibility through item unique identification (IUID) and
automatic identification technology (AIT)/automatic
identification and data capture (AIDC) processes. The committee
remains concerned, however, about the level of the Department's
compliance with its own IUID policy as outlined in Department
of Defense Instruction (DODI) 8320.04 issued September 3, 2015.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to present a
consolidated briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than December 1, 2016, regarding efforts to address
the following responsibilities, as outlined in DODI 8320.04:
(1) The efforts of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to ensure IUID is
integrated into acquisition programs;
(2) The efforts of the director of the Defense Logistics
Agency to ensure their managed items identified as requiring
IUID are appropriately marked and recorded in the Department of
Defense IUID Registry;
(3) The efforts of the Deputy Chief Management Officer and
the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer to
integrate IUID policy and the Department of Defense IUID
Registry into the Department of Defense Business Enterprise
Architecture; and
(4) The efforts of the Secretaries of the military
departments to identify focal points for IUID planning and
implementation and efforts to ensure that service or agency
managed items identified as requiring IUID are appropriately
marked and recorded in the Department of Defense IUID Registry.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a legislative
provision that would limit funding to the Defense Contract
Management Agency (DCMA) until the DMCA director provides a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on the
agency's plan to foster the adoption, implementation, and
verification of the Department's revised IUID policy across the
Department and the defense industrial base.
Sustainment of Major Weapon Systems
The Department of Defense spends billions of dollars
annually to sustain its major weapon systems in an effort to
simultaneously support today's military operations and maintain
the capability to meet future defense requirements. However,
the committee recognizes that many of the Department's major
weapon systems are aging and present sustainment challenges,
including depot maintenance and supply support. For example,
the Air Force is already operating many of its fighter and
bomber aircraft well beyond their original designed service
lives. Over the past several years, the Navy also has been
confronted by serious sustainment challenges with the aging F/
A-18 Hornet. The Army and the Marine Corps also have weapon
systems, such as helicopters and amphibious assault vehicles
that present similar sustainment challenges.
The Government Accountability Office currently conducts
annual assessments of the Department's major defense
acquisition programs, including information on the costs and
schedule performance of selected major weapon systems. The
committee finds these assessments invaluable in evaluating the
Department's procurement of major weapon systems. The committee
believes an examination of key aspects of the sustainment of
selected major weapon systems would further complement this
existing body of work.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the House Committee on
Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services that
evaluates:
(1) The condition of and sustainment strategies for
selected major weapon systems;
(2) Major sustainment challenges affecting the condition of
the selected major weapon systems;
(3) The Department's current and planned actions to address
any identified challenges (for example, depot maintenance
enhancements and efficiencies, supply support improvements,
funding strategies); and
(4) Other related matters the Comptroller General deems
appropriate.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
brief the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
February 1, 2017, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller
General's evaluation, with the report to follow at a date to be
determined at the time of the briefing.
Readiness Issues
Air Refueling Requirements
The committee notes that section 1054 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) required the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide a business case analysis
on converting the 168th Air Refueling Wing at Eielson Air Force
Base, Alaska, to an Active Associate Wing. Congress has not
received this report, which was to be delivered 60 days after
the date of the enactment of Public Law 113-291. The committee
remains concerned that air refueling requirements may exceed
capacity at Eielson Air Force Base. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than October 14, 2016, on the impact
of air refueling operations at Eielson Air Force Base, an
estimate of the ability to achieve air refueling requirements
following the establishment of two F-35 squadrons in fiscal
year 2020, and a business case analysis of the impact of these
additional aircraft on refueling operations in the Alaska area-
of-operations.
Armed Forces Sports Program and Service Academy Athletic Interns
The committee notes the significant end strength reductions
the military services will continue to implement through fiscal
year 2017. Although the committee provides the Department with
a wide latitude of authority in order for the military services
to execute their end strength reductions, the committee is
concerned by the prioritization of some military sports
programs. The committee believes these programs should be
analyzed to determine the impact they may have on the readiness
of units by allowing personnel to spend an extended period of
time participating in sports programs instead of serving in
their military occupational skill.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 1, 2017, on the impact that the Armed Forces Sports
program has on the military services' readiness.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2016,
on the Armed Forces Sports program. At a minimum, the briefing
shall include:
(1) The purpose of the program;
(2) Its measures of performance and effectiveness;
(3) The number of service members participating in the
program;
(4) The cost of the program; and
(5) The number of days service members spend in the
program.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by December
1, 2016, on service academy athletic interns. At a minimum, the
briefing shall include:
(1) The purpose of service academy graduate athletic
interns;
(2) The number of service academy graduates who remain at
the service academies for a full or partial year as an athletic
intern;
(3) How the academies measure the performance and
effectiveness of athletic interns;
(4) The cost to the academies to maintain graduate athletic
interns; and
(5) The career impact to those who remain at the academies
as athletic interns.
Army Aviation Multi-Component Pilot Program
The National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA)
recommended the Army develop ``a substantial pilot program'' to
test multi-component approaches in the Army's aviation units.
The committee believes that multi-component aviation units can
improve readiness and enhance force integration by exploiting
the differing strengths of the Regular Army and Reserve
Components. The Army has begun limited use of multi-component
approaches in aviation units with fixed-wing C-12 aircraft.
Other co-located units, such as Black Hawk and Chinook
helicopters in some States, allow units from different
components to train together. The committee understands the
Army is already pursuing implementation of the NCFA
recommendation and is in the design phase of the pilot program.
The committee applauds the Army's efforts to test the aviation
multi-component approach and expects the Army to provide
progress reports as requested by the committee on the
initiative as it moves forward.
Assessment of Navy and Marine Corps Training Requirements
In the coming years, the Navy and Marine Corps will
confront an increasingly complex security environment that will
demand a wide range of missions, such as defeating terrorist
organizations and responding to worldwide humanitarian crises.
To meet these evolving challenges, the military services have
developed plans to synchronize training and deployment
schedules to improve readiness and are reemphasizing core
training skills that degraded during a decade of
counterinsurgency operations. However, factors such as
equipment availability and access to training ranges can affect
the services' ability to conduct training for their core
capability areas. Moreover, the military services continue to
face an environment of uncertain and constrained budgetary
resources for the foreseeable future.
The committee is aware that some targeted investments have
been made since fiscal year 2013 to improve training readiness
but remains concerned about the ability of the Navy and the
Marine Corps--to include Navy and Marine Corps Reserve--to
balance training investments with available resources. As a
result, the committee believes the services will need to re-
examine the requirements for training their forces and explore
whether they can achieve additional efficiencies or cost
savings in their training approaches, such as by increasing
reliance on virtual or simulator technologies to meet some
training tasks.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to evaluate Navy and Marine Corps training
requirements and provide a preliminary briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2017, with an
assessment of the following:
(1) To what extent do the Navy and Marine Corps processes
establish requirements and resource needs to train forces for
core capability areas?
(2) To what extent have the Navy and Marine Corps conducted
training for core capability areas and identified any factors
that limit this training?
(3) To what extent have the Navy and Marine Corps taken
steps to integrate the use of virtual or simulated training to
prepare forces for the full range of military operations?
Any remaining work and a final report will be completed
within a time as subsequently agreed upon with the committee.
C-130 Aircraft Maintenance and Modernization
Given current and future depot-level C-130 maintenance
requirements, the likelihood of additional unscheduled
requirements, depot capacity, the shortfall in depot
maintainers, and broader responsibility for other military
service C-130 maintenance requirements, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Air Force to provide an unclassified
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later
than September 30, 2016, on the service's approach to C-130
maintenance, service life extension, and modernization
requirements over the next 5 years.
Condition-Based Maintenance on Navy Surface Ships
The committee notes that in 2013, the Department of the
Navy established policy directing the integration of Condition-
Based Maintenance (CBM) on ships, ship systems, and equipment.
The committee understands that CBM has been successfully
implemented on aircraft, helicopters, military and commercial
vehicles, and trains and has demonstrated cost savings and
increased operational readiness. However, the committee has
learned that, with the exception of Littoral Combat Ships
(LCS), the Navy has not implemented condition-based maintenance
on its surface ships. The committee further notes that the CBM
demonstration initiative for amphibious ships to address long-
standing diesel readiness issues has been stalled for more than
3 years.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief
the House Committee on Armed Services by June 30, 2016, on the
status of implementing CBM on Navy surface ships. The committee
expects this briefing, at a minimum, to address the
implementation plan for amphibious ships.
Corrective Actions in Response to the Temporary Detention of United
States Sailors by Iran
The committee remains concerned regarding the totality of
circumstances that contributed to the temporary detention of
ten United States Navy sailors by force of the Islamic Republic
of Iran in January 2016. The committee directs the Chief of
Naval Operations to notify the committee upon the conclusion of
the ongoing investigation stemming from the events in question.
The committee also directs the Chief of Naval Operations to
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees no
later than 90 days following the conclusion of the
investigation to provide an update on corrective actions taken,
including any administrative actions or judicial proceedings
initiated against any service member as a result of that
investigation.
Defense Language Institute Support to the Intelligence Community
The committee remains interested in ensuring that the
Intelligence Community recruits, trains, and retains the most
capable language experts. In light of ongoing global conflicts
in the Middle East and North Africa, and the challenges posed
by near-competitor states such as the Russian Federation and
the People's Republic of China, it is critical that the
Department of Defense continue to adequately fund and support
foreign language programs, especially the Defense Language
Institute (DLI).
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army,
in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence and
the Director of the National Security Agency, to:
(1) Conduct an updated manpower study of the Defense
Language Institute to determine the Institute's faculty and
staff manning needs given increased requirements levied upon
them by the Intelligence Community and the Department of
Defense; and
(2) Develop a plan to modernize the 1996 Defense Language
Institute pay structure, taking into account the significant
variation between the DLI and other Department of Defense
educational institutions and local colleges, including
California community colleges. The new pay structure should
appropriately reflect the capabilities of the DLI workforce and
should seek to provide competitive salaries to Defense Language
Institute Foreign Language Center instructors.
The committee further directs the Secretary of the Army, in
coordination with the Director of National Intelligence and the
Director of the National Security Agency, to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, by March 1, 2017,
on the status of the manpower study and the new pay structure
plan detailed above, as well as the status of efforts to meet
the increased Intelligence Community and Department of Defense
language expert requirements.
Defense Travel System
The committee is concerned that the Defense Travel System
(DTS) is challenging for many service members to use,
particularly among the Reserve Component. The committee has
received information that the DTS process for booking travel,
such as to-and-from drill locations, is often cumbersome and
time consuming. The committee believes that the Department of
Defense should explore ways to reform the DTS to make the
system more user-friendly. The committee notes that the Defense
Travel Management Office was established in 2006 as the single
focal point for commercial travel within the Department. The
committee directs the Director of DTS to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Service not later than September
1, 2016, on ways to improve DTS to ensure it better meets the
needs of Department of Defense travelers.
Force of the Future
The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's
personnel reforms collectively known as ``Force of the
Future.'' These reforms are ``designed to provide the military
services a balanced set of force management tools that will
allow them to improve their return on investment in human
capital, improving military readiness in the long-run, while
preserving military readiness and acknowledging operational
demands in the near-term.'' The Department has to date issued
two tranches of these reform proposals and plans to deliver
more as they are ready for implementation. The committee
supports the Department's efforts to address shortcomings in
its military and civilian personnel systems and encourages its
attempts to find innovative solutions to attract and maintain
quality personnel. However, the committee is concerned that the
readiness implications of many of these proposals have not been
adequately addressed.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2016,
on the readiness impacts of each of the approved and pending
Force of the Future proposals. At a minimum, the briefing shall
include the estimated cost of each proposal across the Future
Years Defense Program; the estimated loss of days, by service,
of both military and civilian personnel; and details of how the
Department plans to measure the performance and effectiveness
of each proposal.
Global Response Force Readiness
In January 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
published his Joint Operational Access Concept, which describes
in broad terms his vision for how joint forces will operate in
response to emerging anti-access and area-denial security
challenges. Subsequently, in ``Sustaining U.S. Global
Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,'' the
Secretary of Defense posits that the U.S. military will invest
as required to ensure its ability to operate effectively in
anti-access and area-denial environments, which would include
implementing the Chairman's Joint Operational Access Concept.
At the heart of that concept is the Global Response Force
(GRF), an airborne brigade combat team prepared to deploy
anywhere in the world within 96 hours of notification. Formed
around an airborne infantry brigade, the Global Response Force
also includes artillery, reconnaissance, Strykers, M2 Bradley
Fighting Vehicles, combat aviation, and other support,
engineering, and logistical assets as needed.
According to the Army's fiscal year 2017 budget estimate
justification documents, forces dedicated to Global Response
Force requirements will remain ready. Recognizing that a
critical aspect of maintaining a ready force is training, the
committee is concerned that the Department's 2017 European
Reassurance Initiative budget request allocates $25 million to
exercising the Global Response Force, a figure that is less
than half of what was enacted in fiscal year 2016. The
committee believes a minimum of four joint, collective training
opportunities during the fiscal year focusing on ``no-notice''
alert, marshal, and deploy operations is necessary to fully
exercise installation nodal and outload capabilities, ensure
joint interoperability between the Army and the Air Force, and
validate the overall combat readiness of the GRF. Given the
decrement in fiscal year 2017, the committee is also concerned
that other aspects of GRF readiness, such as manning,
equipping, local training, or logistical or other support may
likewise be adversely affected by present fiscal pressures,
budgetary constraints, and competition for resources. In order
to better understand the challenges that the Department may be
facing with regard to the GRF and the impact they may have on
the GRF's readiness, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2017, that
assesses the following:
(1) The factors, if any, that may affect the ability of the
GRF to carry out its intended missions;
(2) The extent to which the GRF's available support
capabilities (including logistics, command and control,
engineer, and intelligence) address operational requirements;
and
(3) The impact, if any, that fiscal pressures or other
challenges, such as the competition for resources, have had on
GRF manning, equipping, and training.
Green Flag East
The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's
commitment to invest $1.00 billion over 5 years in Red Flag and
Green Flag exercises, resulting in no fewer than 34 major
exercises. The committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
required the Secretary of the Air Force to assess the adequacy
of aviation resources provided during Green Flag East exercises
at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC). The committee
remains concerned that Green Flag East continues to experience
a lack of variety of air assets. The committee recommends the
Secretary of the Air Force consider allocating a dedicated
fixed-wing unit, manned or unmanned, to Green Flag East to
support the anticipated increase in training days at the JRTC,
including a potential doubling of Reserve Component rotations.
Impact of Mandatory Training Requirements on Achieving Increased
Readiness
The committee understands that mandatory training
requirements in the military services can range from training
for nuclear, biological, and chemical defense to marksmanship
qualification, suicide prevention, physical fitness, and sexual
assault prevention, among others. A 2002 study at the Army
company commander level found there were 297 days of annual
mandatory training requirements for 256 available training
days. Discussions across the force confirmed that commanders
receive additional mandatory training requirements regardless
of their units' ability to actually comply with the totality of
the requirements. The Department of the Army Inspector General
in 2012 reported that at none of the 16 locations inspected
were companies in the Army Force Generation process able to
complete all mandatory training.
The Army responded to a February 2015 study for the U.S.
Army War College, which stated overwhelming training
requirements may contribute to military personnel exaggerating
or falsely reporting compliance in meeting statistical training
requirements, by undertaking the ``Objective T'' initiative.
``Objective T'' seeks to reset mandatory training for
appropriate individual-, leader-, and unit-level training;
shift selected mandatory training tasks to ``as-required''
elements of command responsibility; establish a biennial cycle
for select mandatory training tasks for the Reserve Components;
and adopt new standards for mandatory training.
While the Army War College study focused on Army personnel,
testimonies indicate this is a problem facing all branches of
the U.S. military. The committee is concerned that the ever-
increasing training demand forces military leaders at multiple
levels in the chain of command to make ethical decisions
between actually training to standard or falsifying reporting,
as well as choosing between training for mission essential
tasks and those perceived to be of lesser value.
In light of these concerns, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services by February 1, 2017, addressing each of the
following issues:
(1) What is the level and range of mandatory training
required annually in each of the military services, and do the
requirements derive from law, policy, or guidance;
(2) What processes do the military services use to
establish and track mandatory training requirements for service
members;
(3) To what extent do the military services review and
validate existing mandatory training requirements and assess
the effectiveness of training strategies in meeting intended
training objectives;
(4) To what extent do the military services have processes
in place to analyze the impact of mandatory training
requirements and compliance checks on the training readiness
and capabilities of their forces; and (5) To what extent do
individual commanders have flexibility to prioritize mandatory
training requirements in light of the amount of time available
to complete individual and unit training.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than December 1, 2016, on preliminary findings of the
Comptroller General's study.
Language Training
The committee believes that foreign language proficiency,
including immersive regional and cultural training, is a major
force multiplier and a key component of national defense. The
committee therefore supports the fiscal year 2017 budget
request for the Defense Language Institute (DLI) Foreign
Language Center. The committee believes the fiscal year 2017
funding level will allow the DLI to address capability gaps in
advanced foreign language training that otherwise would hamper
the Department's ability to attain strategic national security
objectives.
Further, due to recent Russian Federation activities in
Eastern Europe, the committee believes the Department of
Defense should examine whether training for U.S. service
members in Russian language, regional expertise, and culture
are sufficient to ensure service members deploying to Eastern
Europe are prepared to effectively fulfill mission
requirements. The committee urges the Director of the Defense
Language and National Security Education Office (DLNSEO) to
assess the need for additional courses in Russian language,
regional expertise, and culture training.
As the Department continues to engage with allies across
the combatant commands through security cooperation events, the
committee encourages the Department to build awareness of
foreign cultures and fluency in foreign languages and to
provide opportunities for allies to experience American culture
and improve their English-language proficiency. Among the
opportunities the committee recommends exploring are expanding
Army Cadet Command's Cultural Understanding and Language
Proficiency program to the other military services, expanding
the number of allied English-language instructors who receive
instruction annually at the DLI, temporary overseas assignments
for DLI instructors to teach English to allied students, and
partnerships with U.S. colleges and universities who have
degree programs for English-as-a-foreign-language studies.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of the DLNSEO
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than September 30, 2016, on the feasibility and
estimated costs of these opportunities and provide a suggested
list of developing countries prioritized for engagement and
instruction.
Management Software for Navy Training
The committee recognizes the importance of providing
software applications designed to support visibility of
readiness levels for individual service member training and
qualifications. The committee notes that the Advanced Skills
Management (ASM) system used by the Department of the Navy is a
software application designed to identify job tasking
requirements, assist in determining proficiencies, document
qualifications and certifications, and track completed
technical training. The committee notes that the Fleet
Management and Planning System (FLTMPS) used by the Department
of the Navy is a software application designed to assist in
monitoring and managing training requirements, unit manning,
and personnel and training status. The committee is aware of
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software alternatives that may
offer existing capabilities at a cost savings to the Navy.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than August 1, 2016, that includes:
(1) Market research conducted by the Navy to identify
commercial software solutions for support training and manning
requirements;
(2) A cost-benefit analysis of integration of ASM
capabilities into FLTMPS;
(3) A cost-benefit analysis of available COTS and
government-off-the-shelf software solutions for training and
manning requirements;
(4) A review of the Department's acquisition strategy to
enhance ASM and FLTMPS; and
(5) The long-term acquisition strategy for a software
application designed to measure individual service member
readiness as a critical gauge of readiness.
Military Bands
While the committee provides the Department of Defense with
a wide latitude of authority for the military services to
execute the end strength reductions that are continuing through
fiscal year 2017, the committee is concerned by the
prioritization of some military units. The committee believes
that the services may be able to conserve end strength by
reducing the number of military bands.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 1, 2017, on the Department of Defense requirement for
military bands.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2016,
on military bands. At a minimum, the briefing shall include:
(1) The number of military bands, by service, and their
location;
(2) The cost of military bands (including recruitment,
training, facilities, and transportation);
(3) The number of service members assigned to military
bands;
(4) The history of reductions in military bands over the
past 5 years; and (5) The feasibility of combining military
bands at joint locations.
Mobility Support for Operations on the Korean Peninsula
U.S. and Republic of Korea forces train and plan together
to deter and defeat aggression emanating from the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea. As a result of this longstanding
alliance, operational and contingency plans have been codified,
coordinated, and exercised. Over time those plans have evolved
to meet changing conditions, enhance readiness, and strengthen
the alliance's ability to defend the Republic of Korea and
maintain stability on the Korean Peninsula. Plans for rapidly
reinforcing U.S. forces already on the peninsula would require
U.S. Transportation Command to undertake the rapid movement to
the Korean Peninsula of forces and capabilities presently
located in the continental United States and elsewhere. In
light of new and increasingly threatening dynamics, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to assess the following:
(1) The factors, if any, that may affect U.S.
Transportation Command's ability to carry out its wartime
mission with respect to operations on the Korean Peninsula;
(2) The extent to which U.S. Transportation Command's plans
and capabilities are postured to support the outbreak of
hostilities on the Korean Peninsula;
(3) The readiness of U.S. Transportation Command's assets
(air, land, and sea) to carry out its wartime mission; and
(4) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to U.S. Transportation Command's
support of operations on the Korean Peninsula.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than February 1, 2017, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings and to submit a final report to the
congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the
time of the briefing.
Output-Based Readiness Metrics
The committee notes that current readiness metrics largely
focus on inputs rather than outputs, such as the amount of
training completed, the number of personnel assigned to units,
or the maintenance level of equipment. The committee is
interested in how output-based readiness metrics, including
objective measures of how well units and personnel perform
during realistic training and exercises, could offer
alternative measures of the ability of forces to perform the
missions assigned to them and could help to improve the ways in
which readiness is measured and resourced. The committee
encourages the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to consider developing output-based readiness metrics
that could be used to assess the ability of units to perform
the tasks specified in their mission essential task lists and
to consider how data related to these metrics could be
appropriately collected and retained during relevant operations
or training exercises.
Refinement of Joint Staff Input Into the Quarterly Readiness Report to
Congress
The committee is aware that the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in complying with the Quarterly Readiness
Report to Congress (QRRC) required by section 482 of title 10,
United States Code, is seeking to refine the Joint Staff's
input into the QRRC required through section 117 of title 10,
United States Code, in order to improve relevance and
timeliness in reporting while minimizing redundancy and
overlapping processes. The committee itself, in previous
authorization acts, has sought to increase the QRRC's value to
the committee through the selective addition of information
regarding preparation for, and support to, contingency
operations and by eliminating portions of the QRRC which are
available from other sources or no longer deemed important to
congressional decision making. In light of current concerns
about the readiness of U.S. military forces, the committee
supports the Chairman's efforts to refine readiness information
and reporting requirements and to streamline processes to meet
the 45-day QRRC statutory deadlines, including consideration of
separating and alternating semiannual assessments with
semiannual reports.
Regional Air Ranges and Exercise
The committee notes that each military service relies on
major national air ranges and military operating areas to
provide realistic combined-arms pilot training against a
variety of targets and simulated threats. The committee
believes these ranges provide critical and efficient
opportunities for small and large units to train together as a
joint force on a variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground
scenarios in increasing levels of complexity. The committee
also believes that the integration of fourth- and fifth-
generation combat capabilities on regional ranges during
frequent local exercises is critical to maintain the readiness
and proficiency of aircrews to meet combatant commanders'
requirements across the entire spectrum of potential
operations.
The committee notes that diminished training resources
require a prioritization of investments in training
infrastructure. The committee believes that regional, jointly
managed air ranges, and frequent, locally planned exercises
would result in training opportunities for each service that
are realistic, efficient, and effective. Looking ahead, the
committee believes that the services must address common
concerns about limited airspace to meet training requirements
for fifth-generation aircraft and standoff precision-guided
munitions by collaborating on the establishment and management
of joint regional ranges consisting of connected, existing
service-specific ranges. The committee also believes that
regional ranges must be equipped with mobile joint threat
emitters designed as a multi-threat, high-fidelity simulator
with realistic, effective radiated power levels to help train
aircrews to identify and counter enemy missile or artillery
threats, as well as integrated air defense systems in a war-
like training environment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to establish an investment strategy for the preservation and
enhancement of regional ranges and exercises needed to provide
adequate live training for aircrews across the full spectrum of
operations. The committee notes that the Department's annual
sustainable ranges report should inform this report and may
facilitate development of an investment strategy. The strategy
shall include:
(1) An assessment of the importance of regional ranges and
exercises;
(2) A review of existing threats to continued operation or
limits of regional ranges;
(3) A review of measures taken to date to preserve the
capabilities of each regional range;
(4) A prioritized list of specific actions needed to
promote compatible development in areas around each regional
range;
(5) A prioritized list of proposed investments, including
installation of joint threat emitter systems; and
(6) Specific actions proposed to enhance the training
opportunities by combining existing regional ranges, enlarging
operating areas, and establishing joint range management
entities.
The committee further directs the Secretary to submit a
report to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than
December 11, 2016, that includes the investment strategy and
descriptions of other initiatives to improve regional
opportunities for realistic, joint training of military
aircrews.
Regional Biosecurity Plan Implementation
The committee notes that in March 2015, the Department of
the Navy released the ``Regional Biosecurity Plan for
Micronesia and Hawaii.'' This document provided recommendations
that, if appropriately implemented, will minimize the harmful
ecological, social, cultural, and economic impacts of invasive
species through the prevention and management of such species'
introduction, expansion, and dispersal within the region. With
the influx of permanent and rotational U.S. military personnel
and equipment in the region, the committee understands that the
Department of the Navy agreed to fund the development of this
plan in part to assist with minimizing the risk of introduction
and spread of invasive species to and within the region. The
committee notes that the document contains numerous
recommendations and action items at different priority levels
for the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with other Federal agencies as appropriate, to
provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee, not
later than February 1, 2017, regarding the Department's
implementation of the Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia
and Hawaii. In addition to the steps that are being taken to
implement the recommendations and action items, the briefing
may include an estimate of the additional costs associated with
continued implementation, to include specifying in detail the
cost for each component and program of the Department of
Defense.
Report on Small Boat Maintenance
The committee is aware that some of the small boats and
watercraft of the Navy Installation Command (CNIC) and United
States Naval Academy do not utilize the Navy's Maintenance and
Material Management (3M) program or are partially covered. The
committee recognizes that over the life of these small
watercraft, on-time performance maintenance inspection actions
are necessary to optimize performance, reduce equipment failure
and breakdowns, and ensure operational availability of these
assets.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide an unclassified briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services, not later than August 31, 2016, on the
service's approach to small boat and small watercraft
maintenance. This briefing shall include, at a minimum:
(1) An inventory of Navy Installation Command and United
States Naval Academy small boats and watercraft;
(2) The maintenance routine and inspections for these small
watercraft and boats; and
(3) A review of existing Navy maintenance programs and
commercially available maintenance products used with other
small boats and watercraft.
Review of the Readiness of Military Sealift Command Ships and
Employment Plans
The committee understands the Navy has called for a fleet
with more distributed lethality to extend the global reach of
its combatant ships. Concurrently, the Military Sealift Command
(MSC) fleet will need to provide the logistics support required
by globally distributed operations. These demands will be in
addition to new tasking to the MSC fleet, given the declining
numbers of combat ships in the fleet. In some mission areas,
such as amphibious operations, MSC platforms are taking on new
roles. For example, the Expeditionary Fast Transport (formerly
designated the Joint High Speed Vessel) and the Afloat Forward
Staging Base are providing some amphibious capabilities,
including rapid transport of troops and equipment and forward
logistics support and command and control to other Navy ships
and helicopters in operational areas. The committee notes the
Navy has introduced these ships into the fleet but has not yet
provided a comprehensive account of the missions they are
suitable to support. MSC's expanded roles also require a
healthy supply of experienced mariners and a robust number of
U.S. merchant ships to generate these qualified mariners. With
declining ship numbers in the U.S. merchant fleet, the
committee is concerned these new requirements may not be fully
addressed.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees to address the following:
(1) What challenges does Military Sealift Command face with
respect to material condition and service life of its fleet and
what impact, if any, do these have on maintaining needed
warfighting capabilities;
(2) What personnel and training challenges have impacted
the Military Sealift Command, and what effects, if any, do
these pose to maintaining warfighting readiness;
(3) How are Military Sealift Command's mission requirements
evolving? What implications, if any, are there for the
command's personnel and force structure; and
(4) Any other related matters as deemed appropriate in
order to provide a comprehensive examination of Military
Sealift Command readiness and employment plans.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a preliminary briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than February 1, 2017, with the report to be
submitted at a date to be determined at the time of the
briefing.
Rotary-Wing Aviation Readiness and Safety
The committee notes with concern the frequency of mishaps
in rotary-wing aviation over the past 5 years. The committee
further notes that the commander of the Army's Aviation Center
of Excellence described home-station training as a significant
concern due to the inability of the Army to provide sufficient
flying hours for all pilots to meet established standards.
Similarly, the committee notes that the Deputy Commandant of
the Marine Corps for Aviation has described the reduction of
funding for aviation training and maintenance as a critical
concern. Further, the committee believes that the proficiency
of rotary-wing pilots and the readiness of rotary-wing
platforms provide crucial capabilities to the joint force.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Army and
the Secretary of the Navy to prioritize rotary-wing aviation
funding in order to ensure that the United States maintains
this crucial capability into the future.
The committee directs the Chief of Staff of the Army, the
Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps each to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, not later
than January 2, 2017, on the impact of reduced funding on
rotary-wing aviation readiness and safety from fiscal year 2012
to the present and an estimate of the impact to aviation
readiness and safety if funding were maintained at levels
consistent with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-
25) through fiscal year 2023.
Soldiers Medically Unavailable for Training
The committee is concerned about the number of soldiers
who, while assigned to deployable units, are medically
unavailable for training or deployment. The committee shares
the Army's desire to provide these soldiers the medical
treatment they deserve, while at the same time moving them to
Warrior Transition Units and/or discharging them as quickly as
practicable. The committee recognizes the readiness strain that
permanently non-deployable soldiers place on deployable units,
and encourages the Army to make this process as streamlined as
possible.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2016,
regarding the effects on readiness of medically non-deployable
soldiers. The briefing should include, at a minimum, the number
of medically non-deployable soldiers currently in deployable
units, the average time a medically non-deployable soldier
waits to be reassigned out of a deployable unit, the process
the Army uses to discharge medically non-deployable soldiers,
what the Army is doing to speed up the discharge process, and
any issues that slow down the discharge process.
Support Capabilities for Operations in Europe
Since the end of the Cold War, the size and footprint of
U.S. forces in Europe have decreased. Recently, however,
Russian activities in the region have provided cause for
reassessment. The Secretary of Defense recommended in the
budget request for fiscal year 2017 to quadruple the allocation
for the European Reassurance Initiative to $3.40 billion,
saying that this money will go to pay for increased rotations
of U.S. forces to Europe, increased prepositioned stocks, and
increased multinational training, among other things. Moreover,
a significant part of the Department's future focus will be on
Eastern Europe, where the United States has not previously had
a significant military footprint. This increased U.S. effort in
Europe raises concerns about the adequacy of the logistical and
other support capabilities needed to sustain future operations.
In light of these concerns, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate the
following with regard to the Department's support capabilities
for increased activities in Europe and provide a preliminary
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services on the
following factors not later than February 1, 2017, with a
report to follow at a date to be determined at the briefing:
(1) To what extent have the U.S. European Command and
supporting commands identified gaps in logistical and other
support capabilities relevant to an increased presence under
the European Reassurance Initiative;
(2) How have the relevant Department of Defense
organizations addressed any identified gaps in logistical and
other support capabilities; and
(3) To what extent have the relevant Department of Defense
organizations evaluated requirements for prepositioned stocks
and other forward-positioned equipment to support future
operations in Europe and developed a joint strategy and plan to
implement any needed changes to these items.
Synthetic Training System and Small Arms Qualification
The committee notes that in reviewing base security forces'
response to the September 16, 2013, active-shooter attack at
the Washington Navy Yard, Department of the Navy officials
recognized the Navy's small-arms qualification programs are not
aligned to post-9/11 force protection watch-standing
requirements and that Navy programs and policies regarding
hostile intent determination are unclear, under-resourced, and
lack standardization among small-arms trainers. Also, the
committee was concerned to learn that training prior to live-
fire qualification lacks requisite frequency or sufficient
standardization across all commands or weapons types to develop
satisfactory proficiency; small arms marksmanship instructors
lack the tools, procedures, and training to teach proper
shooting techniques and to remediate shooter deficiencies; Navy
Security Forces and force protection personnel lack adequate
training to enhance proficiency after initial qualification;
and the crew-served weapon course of fire does not objectively
measure accuracy.
In support of the review's recommendation to address these
training shortfalls through an improved small-arms training
program, the committee encourages the Navy to proceed in a
manner that will utilize synthetic marksmanship training
systems that have a proven track record. For example, synthetic
small arms training systems utilized by Navy Expeditionary
Combat Command, Naval Special Warfare Command, and Naval Health
Research Center, and the Joint Multi-National Training Center,
are leveraging data collection and metric analysis to improve
training efficiency and ensure that training effectiveness
consistently transfers to live-fire qualifications and skills
sustainment.
The committee notes, however, that the limited objective
experiment conducted on behalf of U.S. Fleet Forces Command to
determine the most advantageous capabilities of small-arms
simulators reported on a single basic skills simulation
training system in their inventory and did not evaluate
advanced systems used by other commands. As the Navy implements
small-arms simulator training systems to meet force protection
requirements and hostile intent determination gaps, the
committee encourages the Navy to evaluate a broader range of
systems including those described above and not be limited to
existing basic firearms training and engagement skills training
systems and programs of record.
Toward that end, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services, not later than September 30, 2016, regarding the
Navy's assessment of advanced, innovative non-program-of-record
small-arms weapons and crew-served training systems, including
those at the commands mentioned above, and outlining the
planned program elements and parameters that will be used to
contract for any small-arms simulation system in fiscal year
2017 and future fiscal years.
Other Matters
Acquisition of Highly Technical Contract Services
The committee notes that in June 2012, the Navy issued
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 4200.7
addressing services contracting management that included
``tripwires''' triggering higher level review of specific
contracting issues. Among the specific issues for which
tripwires were established was the level of proposed contractor
labor rates in competitive cost-type and time-and-materials
service contracts and individual task orders.
According to the Navy instruction, tripwires were not
intended to preclude execution, but instead to require higher
level concurrence or notifications before continuing to
execute. While the committee is generally supportive of efforts
to oversee the cost and performance of contracts for services,
the committee is concerned that the manner in which contracting
organizations are interpreting this instruction may essentially
be imposing a ceiling on labor rates in certain categories. The
committee believes this may be occurring due to the
unwillingness of lower level managers to seek higher level
review and approval of proposed labor rates above those set by
the tripwires, even in cases where such a request would be
appropriate given the nature of the specific work to be
performed. This approach may be affecting the service
industry's ability to recruit and retain personnel in labor
categories where there is significant competition among
private-sector firms for limited numbers of highly qualified
personnel, especially cybersecurity specialists.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to review the impact of the implementation and practice of the
tripwire instruction with respect to labor rates on the ability
to achieve contract objectives in areas where access to senior,
highly skilled technical support is essential, and for which
industry labor rates generally above the levels set by the
tripwires are applicable and appropriate. The Secretary shall
provide a briefing on his findings to the House Committee on
Armed Services by December 1, 2016.
Adoption of Tactical Explosive Detection Military Working Dogs
The committee notes the Tactical Explosive Detection Dog
(TEDD) program was established in January 2011 as a temporary,
Army-funded program supporting Army Brigade Combat Teams by
providing maneuver units with canine assets to mitigate
casualties associated with improvised explosive devices. In
2013, U.S. Central Command curtailed the requirement for TEDDs,
and the TEDD program was terminated in February 2014. The
Department of the Air Force, the executive agent for all
military working dogs, delegated development of a disposition
plan for the 229 TEDDs to the Department of the Army, through
the Office of the Provost Marshall General (OPMG). The
committee recognizes the challenge OPMG had in the disposition
of TEDDs due to a limited transition window.
However, the committee is aware of persistent concerns
raised by former TEDD handlers regarding their opportunity to
adopt the TEDDs. The committee notes that the Department of the
Army has, on multiple occasions, examined this issue in a
singular fashion, examining a specific handler or TEDD. Despite
these reviews, the committee believes the Army has not been
sufficiently responsive in addressing generally known
challenges in the TEDD adoption process. The committee believes
that the Army's reluctance to review the adoption application
process holistically to ensure that military working dog
handlers were provided the first opportunity to adopt TEDDs
failed to meet the intent of military working dog adoption
processes in law, instruction, and regulation.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by August
31, 2016, that should address the following issues:
(1) How TEDD handlers were identified and contacted to
verify intent to adopt TEDD military working dogs, including a
listing of all TEDD handlers, the method by which they were
contacted, the handlers' stated intentions regarding TEDD
adoption, and instances of handlers reporting errors in the
adoption process;
(2) What steps the Secretary has taken to ensure that all
military working dog handlers have visibility into the adoption
process of all military working dogs, including TEDDs;
(3) The factors that led to instances in the adoption
process of TEDDs where handlers did not have the first
opportunity to adopt the TEDD, and how the Secretary intends to
prevent future process errors in military working dog
adoptions;
(4) Any resource, legislative, or departmental policy
changes needed to correct deficiencies in the adoption process;
and
(5) The process for selection of a handler for military
working dog adoption when more than one handler requests to
adopt the military working dog.
Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal
The committee has been closely monitoring proposed changes
to the Army's Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) force
structure, force modernization, and branch proponency for
impacts upon capability and capacity to provide scalable and
tailorable EOD mission command and EOD forces to conduct
counter-improvised explosive devices operations, counter-
unexploded ordnance operations, and combating weapons of mass
destruction elimination operations in support of the Army and
joint force commanders.
The Secretary of the Army has recently informed the
committee that the Training and Doctrine Command has
established a capability manager for explosive ordnance
disposal to integrate EOD force modernization activities across
all of the Army's Centers of Excellence. However, the committee
remains concerned that the Army has not clearly identified its
future branch proponency requirements for an EOD Corps
consisting of a fully integrated explosives ordnance disposal,
ammunition, and explosives safety basic branch.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by December 1, 2016, on the Army's EOD branch. At a minimum,
the report shall include:
(1) EOD officer development and career management program
depicting key development assignments and key leadership
positions from lieutenant to that of Logistics Corps general
officer;
(2) EOD officer and EOD senior noncommissioned officer
(NCO) standard of grade authorization requirements to fill the
necessary positions throughout the institutional Army to ensure
enduring health and viability of the EOD branch;
(3) Description of the Army EOD School licensing process of
EOD soldiers;
(4) Identification of joint, interagency, intergovernmental
and multinational EOD commissioned officer and NCO positions;
and
(5) A cost-benefit analysis on any proposed realignment or
relocation of EOD organization, force structure, training, and
branch proponency.
Associated Unit Concept for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
Security Force Manning
The committee recognizes the important mission of the
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) deployment in Guam
and supports permanent basing as a means of establishing
persistent deter-and-defeat capabilities in defense of the
homeland and reassuring allies and partners. The committee
appreciates the Army's commitment to total force integration
and is encouraged by its support of opportunities to leverage
cost savings and enable Active-Duty units to fill unique
combatant command requirements by incorporating National Guard
units into the THAAD security-force mission. Accordingly, the
committee encourages the Department of the Army and the
National Guard Bureau to continue to work cooperatively to
ensure there are adequate resources programmed in fiscal year
2018 to support an Active-Guard associated unit for THAAD
security force manning on Guam.
Collaboration With U.S. Universities
The committee notes that in February 2015, the Secretary of
Defense announced his goal to build the ``Force of the Future''
to enable the Department of Defense to maintain a competitive
edge by, among other things, attracting the top talent from
corporations and universities to serve the nation. One
initiative from this effort is to improve and enhance
Department of Defense internship programs in order to increase
recruitment at colleges and universities.
The committee encourages the Department to pursue the
opportunity to work with U.S. universities to shape certain
curricula and programs with the goal of providing specific
``whole-of-government'' education for potential future
Department leaders, emphasizing enterprise thinking, unity of
effort, and creative, viable solutions to global issues that
affect national security. The committee believes it is
important for the Department to leverage this program to
attract future talent to the civilian workforce. In return, the
Department benefits from placing military and civilian
personnel in the Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows Program
and selected academic programs provided by universities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than November 1, 2016, on efforts undertaken to
encourage universities to offer master's and doctoral level
programs in National Security and Strategic Studies, especially
in regions where universities could leverage the density of
existing joint, inter-organizational, and multinational
organizations.
Combat Footwear Survey
The committee recognizes the ongoing efforts of the
military services to ensure that all new recruits are issued
combat footwear of appropriate size and fit upon entering the
military. Proper combat footwear fit not only maximizes comfort
but prevents injury and can improve combat effectiveness. The
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 acknowledged the
growing number of women in the military and directed the Office
of the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to determine
whether the military services were meeting the needs of female
service members with regard to proper combat footwear. Upon
review of the study report, the committee notes, with concern,
that the Army, the largest service in terms of force structure,
is the only service not to design combat footwear using lasts
designed specifically for women. The study report also noted
that the Army's most recent survey questioning whether service
members were satisfied with the fit and sizing of combat boots
was in 1992.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to conduct a survey of no fewer than 2,000 female Active Duty
and Reserve Component soldiers from a variety of relevant
military occupational specialties to determine whether or not
they are satisfied with the fit, size, and performance of
combat footwear issued to them. In order to establish
appropriate comparisons, this study should also undertake, but
not be limited to, a comparison of satisfaction rates among
male soldiers and among both male and female service members
from the other military services.
The committee further directs the Secretary of the Army to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than September 1, 2016, on the results of the study.
Disabled Veterans Non-Profit Groups
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense is not maximizing the talents and efforts of non-profit
groups who employ significant numbers of persons with
disabilities, including veterans, who make products for the
Department as participants in the AbilityOne Program. The
committee encourages the Department to continue to explore
additional opportunities to utilize the expertise, capability,
and capacity of these non-profit groups and incentivize the
Department's acquisition workforce to give them increased
consideration as contracting solutions when doing so achieves
the Department's acquisition objectives.
Disposal of Excess Agriculture-Related Equipment
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has a
disposal process for its excess or unused equipment. Many
individuals, including firefighters, state agencies, law
enforcement, and private citizens, have access to equipment
through this disposal process. The committee believes that some
of this equipment might be appropriate for use in agricultural
operations, and that veteran-owned farming operations could
benefit from greater awareness of what is available. Therefore,
the committee directs the Director of the Defense Logistics
Agency to provide a briefing, not later than December 1, 2016,
to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives on all agriculture-related equipment disposals
for the last five years. The briefing shall include an itemized
list of each item disposed, a brief description of each item,
the monetary value of each item, and whether the item was
transferred to another government entity or a private company
or citizen.
End-of-Service Veterinary Care for Military Working Dogs
The committee recognizes that military working dogs serve
the nation as extensions of military law enforcement as well as
through detection and tracking of drugs, explosives, and
personnel threats. After numerous tours, military working dogs
are retired from active service and made available for
adoption. The committee recognizes that the physical
environments in which these military working dogs operate may
pose future health challenges for the adopting entity.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than November 18, 2016, on the
following:
(1) An assessment of the number of living retired military
working dogs and an estimate of their annual veterinary care
expenses;
(2) The extent to which a military working dog's health is
impacted by the environment in which the dog served and
subsequent costs;
(3) Options for military working dog post-retirement care;
and
(4) Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to military working dog veterinary
health following retirement.
Flame-Resistant Military Uniform Postures
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 military
services to provide a report on emerging flame-resistant (FR)
technologies for military uniforms and evaluate where these
technologies can provide cost-effective protection to a wider
range of service members. The committee noted that distribution
of flame-resistant uniforms is limited to military units that
are preparing to deploy to contingency operations, are
currently deployed in contingency operations, and to those
serving in certain military occupational specialties. Since
that time, the Army and the Marine Corps conducted an initial
study and have begun to review additional commercial products
for use in varying degrees of FR protection. In light of this,
the committee encourages all military services to consider
implementing FR uniform protective postures based on an
assessment of the threat and the operating environment. The
committee does not intend for the services to alter existing
protection and reliability requirements for units deployed to
contingency operations.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, Secretary
of the Navy, Secretary of the Air Force, and the Commandant of
the Marine Corps to provide a joint briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by August 15, 2016, that outlines
the plan and process, including costs, for providing FR uniform
protection postures for all military personnel.
Military Free Fall Course as a Requirement of the U.S. Army Special
Forces Qualification Course
The committee is aware that in 2012 the U.S. Army Special
Operations Command approved a concept and implementation plan
for offering the Military Free Fall (MFF) course to all Special
Forces upon completion of the Special Forces Qualification
Course (SFQC), but prior to graduation. The committee would
like to better understand the addition of the MFF course on
Special Forces, including the impact on overall recruiting and
retention if successful completion of MFF becomes a requirement
for graduating SFQC.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S.
Special Operations Command to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2016, on
the MFF course, including impacts on readiness if MFF becomes
mandatory.
Military Glove System
The committee is aware that the military services currently
lack a single glove system effective in a wide variety of
climate environments. Modern organizational clothing and
individual equipment (OCIE) provide service members with a
distinct combat advantage. The committee encourages the
services to pursue commercial-off-the-shelf solutions for
military handwear and other personal protective equipment (PPE)
and OCIE items to ensure that service members are provided with
innovative, readily available solutions. Further, the committee
supports efforts by the services to support a strong domestic
industrial base to ensure that innovative and cost-effective
commercial PPE/OCIE items are available in the future.
National Guard Cyber Protection Teams
The committee is aware that the Army National Guard has
developed a plan to establish 10 cyber protection teams (CPT)
to complement the Army's build for its contribution to the
cyber mission force. The committee also understands that
decisions relating to the establishment of those teams, and
where they would be based, were made late in the budget cycle,
and thus were not properly synchronized in the fiscal year 2017
budget request. The committee is aware that the Army National
Guard has established three CPTs, but because of the lack of
funding in fiscal year 2017, it will not be on track with its
schedule for establishing teams this year.
Further, the committee recognizes that these Army National
Guard CPTs are not integrated into the Army Cyber Command
structure for cyber mission teams. This is unlike the approach
the Air Force has taken, which integrates some Air National
Guard units as part of its cyber mission force structure. The
committee notes that the National Guard brings important
capabilities to the Army, including experience and skills from
industry experts, and the ability to bring greater outreach and
support to States. The committee believes that the Army needs
to work more expeditiously to determine and codify the role
National Guard forces should take in the cyber domain.
The committee supports the training of the National Guard
CPTs planned for fiscal year 2017, and urges the Army, as well
as the National Guard, to ensure that projected funding
disconnects are resolved in the fiscal year 2018 budget
request. The committee also urges Army Cyber Command to
finalize and promulgate clear policy about the role of Reserve
Component CPTs in the Army's cyber mission build.
National Guard Unit for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands
In response to section 515 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), the
National Guard Bureau (NGB) in August 2015 reported that
establishing National Guard units in both the Territory of
American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI) is feasible, but ``major steps are necessary to
reach that end state.'' Among the issues raised were the
territories' limited ability to recruit, maintain, and sustain
units, and that the costing framework to transfer force
structure from one State or territory to American Samoa or the
CNMI would have an impact on the donor State's or territory's
ability to accommodate the NGB's ``Essential Ten'' homeland
capabilities.
With these issues in mind, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services, not later than February 1, 2017,
on how the Department of Defense would establish, maintain, and
sustain a National Guard unit in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. At a minimum, the briefing shall
include details regarding force structure allocation,
recruiting, and funding requirements, including military
construction, that would allow the committee to evaluate the
cost and overall impact of locating a National Guard unit in
CNMI.
Procurement and Inspection of Armored Commercial Passenger-Carrying
Vehicles
In a report and briefing to Congress on procurement and
inspection of armored commercial passenger-carrying vehicles to
transport civilian employees of the Department of Defense,
dated August 2015, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics found that Department of
Defense components procure and inspect armored commercial
passenger-carrying vehicles in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations and that Departmental policy provides
components the necessary flexibility to procure armored
vehicles to meet mission requirements.
However, the committee has learned that a ``presumption of
quality'' on the part of the General Services Administration,
and in the absence of known and clearly understood
specifications, calls into question whether the Department's
acquisition policies and procedures for the armoring of these
vehicles provide appropriate physical protection for Department
of Defense civilians. The committee is concerned that the rigor
applied to the procurement of armored military vehicles is
absent for the procurement of armored commercial passenger-
carrying vehicles. The committee questions whether appropriate
standards are in place to ensure safety, quality, qualified
vendor selection, contract compliance, sustainment, and
reliability of armored commercial passenger-carrying vehicles.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the following and provide a
preliminary briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than September 30, 2016, with a final report at a
mutually agreed-upon date:
(1) The extent to which DOD components complied with
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) C-4500.51 in procuring
armored commercial passenger-carrying vehicles over the past 5
years, including the requirement or specifications for vetting
of suppliers, ballistic and blast mitigation protection and
inspection, automotive safety, and road performance;
(2) To what extent contracts for armored commercial
passenger-carrying vehicles have been awarded over the past 5
years to firms that do not have a valid U.S. security clearance
and whether such contract awards are compliant with DODI C-
4500.51, including procurements from third-party brokers, both
domestic and international, and leased vehicles;
(3) To what extent the Department of Defense has purchased,
quarantined, and refurbished armored commercial passenger-
carrying vehicles that do not meet contract specifications, and
at what cost above the original purchase or lease price;
(4) To what extent the Department of Defense has guidance,
policy, and procedures in place to track purchase, acceptance,
deployment, and fleet management of armored commercial
passenger-carrying vehicles used to transport civilian
employees; and
(5) How the protection and security requirements,
specifications, processes, and policies for acquiring armored
commercial passenger-carrying vehicles to transport civilian
employees of the Department of Defense compare with the same
for uniformed military personnel and compare with those for
employees of the U.S. Department of State.
Public-Private Partnerships for Cyber Education and Training
The committee is aware of the efforts of the Reserve
Components of the military services, including the National
Guard, to develop cyber protection teams that can leverage the
best attributes, authorities, and capabilities of both civilian
and military cyber practitioners. The committee recognizes that
Reserve Component cyber personnel often bring a wealth of
experience from their civilian life, coupled with the
additional training and discipline instilled by military
service. The committee is concerned, though, that the current
training pipeline is a major bottleneck to fully manning and
training cyber mission teams. This problem is exacerbated by
the fact that current active units are prioritized in the
current schoolhouses, which already have limited available
training billets.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should look at additional ways to diversify the training
pipeline available to all cyber personnel to help relieve that
bottleneck. Elsewhere in this report, the committee encourages
the Department to use Reserve Officer Training Corps programs,
as well as senior military academies, to develop and implement
common curricula that can satisfy the joint training standard.
Also elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the
Department of Defense to review its cyber training equivalency
process to help improve the ability to give cyber personnel
credit for other experience, certifications, or commercial
training they may have received that meets the joint training
standard. The committee also encourages the Department to look
at additional ways to build public-private partnerships with
academia, industry, and non-profit institutions as a way to
develop additional training curricula equivalent to the joint
standard to diversify that pipeline.
Retaining Critical Skills and STEM Capabilities During Headquarters
Downsizing
The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) directed the
Secretary of Defense to achieve not less than a 25 percent
reduction in headquarters, administrative, and support
activities of the Department of Defense during the period
beginning with fiscal year 2015 and ending with fiscal year
2019. The committee remains concerned that these cuts may
result in the loss of critical capabilities across the
Department of Defense and military services, particularly in
the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
competencies. As demonstrated by section 1105 of this Act, the
committee has made clear its intention that the Department of
Defense and the military services recruit, hire, and retain the
Nation's top scientific and engineering talent. It would,
therefore, be imprudent for the military services and the
Department to achieve headquarters, administrative, and support
activities reductions by reducing the number of STEM employees
just because their workplace resides within a headquarters
function.
Public Law 114-92 requires the Secretary, as part of the
annual budget submission for the Department of Defense, to
include a report describing and assessing the progress of the
Department in implementing the headquarters reduction plan for
fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019. As part of this reporting
requirement, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
include a detailed assessment on the downsizing of employees,
including through attrition, by component or military service
that are considered STEM employees, and the operational impact
on the Department of Defense or military service of that loss.
Further, as the committee has stated in past House reports,
any reduction in personnel should not be implemented as an
across-the-board cut, but rather should be strategically
designed to retain critical functions, capabilities, and
skillsets--including, but not limited to the depots, the
arsenals, the ammunition plants and the acquisition workforce--
and to eliminate unnecessary or redundant functions or
skillsets that do not benefit or support mission requirements.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretaries of each of the military services to provide a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than February 15 of
calendar years 2017, 2018, and 2019, on any depot, arsenal, or
ammunition plant position that has been reduced as a result of
headquarters downsizing. The report should include the position
description, critical skills required for that position, and
justification for the reduction. The report should also provide
details on any gaps in compliance with section 2464 of title
10, United States Code, at the facility from which a position
was cut or gaps in critical skill sets at an arsenal.
The Role of the National Security Contractor
The committee recognizes that government contractors
provide critical subject-matter and engineering expertise, as
well as help to ensure program continuity across the spectrum
of national security and intelligence programs. The committee
acknowledges that the Department of Defense and the
Intelligence Community will continue to work with these
essential partners to ensure national security. At the same
time, the committee reminds these agencies of their
responsibility to remain vigilant with taxpayer funding by
maintaining appropriate levels of contract oversight and
regular review.
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--Rule of Construction Regarding Alternative Fuel
Procurement Requirement
This section would amend section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) to
clarify that this section shall not be construed as a
constraint on any conventional or unconventional fuel
procurement necessary for military operations.
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment
Section 321--Pilot Program for Inclusion of Certain Industrial Plants
in the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Initiative
This section would authorize a 5-year pilot program to
allow for government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO)
industrial plants to participate in the Armament Retooling and
Manufacturing Support (ARMS) Initiative (10 U.S.C. 4551-4555).
The committee notes the ARMS Initiative currently applies
to GOCO ammunition manufacturing facilities and depots. The
committee understands the ARMS Initiative was created to allow
the Army to rent portions of its ammunition plants that are not
being used in production to commercial companies. The committee
notes the revenues from the property rental are used to help
pay for the operation, maintenance, and environmental cleanup
at the facilities; these savings in overhead cost lower the
production cost of the goods manufactured, as well as fund the
environmental cleanup at no cost to the government.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee required the Secretary of
the Army to provide a report on manufacturing infrastructure
investment for GOCO Joint Systems Manufacturing Center-Lima
(JSMC-L), in an effort to obtain a comprehensive analysis of
the operational costs associated with this facility, and to
encourage the Army to explore more effective and efficient
operating models at JSMC-L. The report recommended amending the
ARMS Initiative to include GOCO industrial plants as a means to
improve operating efficiency. The committee believes that this
recommendation warrants further consideration, and believes the
authorized pilot program should provide the opportunity to gain
a better understanding of ways to improve operating
efficiencies at JSMC-L. This provision does not authorize GOCO
industrial plants' use of Army Working Capital Funds.
Section 322--Private Sector Port Loading Assessment
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
conduct a quarterly assessment of the private sector port
loading for Norfolk, Virginia; Mayport, Florida; San Diego,
California; Puget Sound, Washington; and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
This section would also require the Secretary to brief the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the assessments by October 1, 2016, and to
provide quarterly updates through September 30, 2021.
Section 323--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defense Contract
Management Agency
This section would limit funding for the Defense Contract
Management Agency (DCMA) until the DCMA Director provides a
briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on the agency's plan to foster the
adoption, implementation, and verification of the Department of
Defense's revised Item Unique Identification policy across the
Department and the defense industrial base.
Subtitle D--Reports
Section 331--Modification of Annual Department of Defense Energy
Management Reports
This section would modify subsection (a) and (b) of section
2925 of title 10, United States Code, to modify and extend,
with a sunset date of January 31, 2021, the ``Annual Report
Related to Installations Energy Management'' report and the
``Annual Report Related to Operational Energy'' report. This
amendment would supersede section 1080 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Section 332--Report on Equipment Purchased from Foreign Entities and
Authority to Adjust Army Arsenal Labor Rates
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees 30 days
after the submission of the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2018 on weapons, weapons systems, components,
subcomponents, and end-items purchased from foreign entities
that could be manufactured domestically in depots or arsenals
as well as a plan for moving that workload into such arsenals
or depots. It also would authorize the establishment of a 2-
year pilot program permitting Army arsenals to adjust their
labor rates charged to customers based upon changes in workload
and other factors. Finally, 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
by May 1, 2019, that assesses certain information related to
arsenal labor rates.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 341--Explosive Ordnance Disposal Corps
This section would amend section 3063 of title 10, United
States Code, to add Explosive Ordnance Disposal Corps to the
list of Army branches.
Section 342--Explosive Ordnance Disposal Program
This section would establish a joint Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (EOD) program, with the Navy as executive agent for
the Department of Defense, to coordinate and integrate
research, development, and procurement for EOD defense
programs. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a review of the management structure of the
program and to brief the results of the review to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by May 1, 2018.
Section 343--Expansion of Definition of Structures Interfering With Air
Commerce and National Defense
This section would amend section 44718 of title 49, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
include the interests of national security, as determined by
the Secretary of Defense, in the Secretary's aeronautical
studies and reports required under this this statute.
Section 344--Development of Personal Protective Equipment for Female
Marines and Soldiers
This section would require the Army and Marine Corps to
develop a joint acquisition strategy to provide more effective
personal protective equipment and organizational clothing and
equipment to meet the specific and unique requirements for
female Marines and soldiers.
Section 345--Study on Space-Available Travel System of the Department
of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study of the space-available travel system and to
provide the results of such a study to the congressional
defense committees within 180 days after entering into a
contract with a federally funded research and development
center for the purposes of conducting such a study.
Section 346--Supply of Specialty Motors from Certain Manufacturers
This section would exempt certain small business
manufacturers of specialty motors from the requirements of
section 431.25 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
regarding energy conservation standards.
Section 347--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds Until Establishment and
Implementation of Required Process by Which Members of the Armed Forces
May Carry Appropriate Firearms on Military Installations
This section would limit the obligation and expenditure of
15 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated for
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, for the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for fiscal year 2017,
until the Secretary of Defense establishes and implements a
process by which members of the Armed Forces may carry an
appropriate firearm on a military installation, as required by
section 526 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
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, 2017:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2016 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2017 FY 2016
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................... 475,000 460,000 480,000 20,000 5,000
Navy........................................... 329,200 322,900 324,615 1,715 -4,585
USMC........................................... 184,000 182,000 185,000 3,000 1,000
Air Force...................................... 320,715 317,000 321,000 4,000 285
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 1,308,915 1,281,900 1,310,615 28,715 1,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 2017. The committee recommends 480,000 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 322,900 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 185,000 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and
321,000 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, 2017:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2016 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2017 FY 2016
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 342,000 335,000 350,000 15,000 8,000
Army Reserve................................... 198,000 195,000 205,000 10,000 7,000
Navy Reserve................................... 57,400 58,000 58,000 0 600
Marine Corps Reserve........................... 38,900 38,500 38,500 0 -400
Air National Guard............................. 105,500 105,700 105,700 0 200
Air Force Reserve.............................. 69,200 69,000 69,000 0 -200
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 811,000 801,200 826,200 25,000 15,200
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, 2017:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2016 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2017 FY 2016
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 30,770 30,155 30,155 0 -615
Army Reserve................................... 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0
Navy Reserve................................... 9,934 9,955 9,955 0 21
Marine Corps Reserve........................... 2,260 2,261 2,261 0 1
Air National Guard............................. 14,748 14,764 14,764 0 16
Air Force Reserve.............................. 3,032 2,955 2,955 0 -77
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 77,005 76,351 76,351 0 -654
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
2017:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2016 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2017 FY 2016
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 26,099 25,507 25,507 0 -592
Army Reserve................................... 7,395 7,570 7,570 0 175
Air National Guard............................. 22,104 22,103 22,103 0 -1
Air Force Reserve.............................. 9,814 10,061 10,061 0 247
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 65,412 65,241 65,241 0 -171
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2017 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, 2017:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2016 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2017 FY 2016
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0
Air National Guard............................. 350 350 350 0 0
Army Reserve................................... 595 420 420 0 -175
Air Force Reserve.............................. 90 90 90 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 2,635 2,460 2,460 0 -175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2017 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 2017 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2016 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2017 FY 2016
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 416--Sense of Congress on Full-Time Support for the Army
National Guard
This section would express a sense of Congress that an
adequately supported, full-time support force consisting of
active and reserve personnel and military technicians for the
Army National Guard is essential to maintaining the readiness
of the Army National Guard.
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
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Army National Guard Preventive Intervention for Suicide and Substance
Abuse
The committee commends the Army National Guard for
implementing a new, proactive approach to assessing the at-risk
behaviors of members of the National Guard and for making
suicide and substance abuse prevention a priority. The
committee recognizes the Army National Guard's focused efforts
to combat behaviors that may lead to substance abuse and
suicide among service members, through the implementation of
the Prevention, Response and Outreach program (PRO). PRO, which
is an evidenced-based model that proactively identifies at-risk
behaviors before soldiers are at a point of crisis, employs
data-driven decisions to initiate commander interventions,
monitor completion of support programs, and track follow-up to
ensure ongoing support is available. The committee encourages
the Army National Guard to continue its efforts by leveraging
expertise to accelerate implementation of preventive measures
such as those in the PRO program.
Briefing on Credentialing Programs for Service Members in Combat Arms
Specialties
The committee is supportive of efforts made by the services
to encourage service members to earn civilian credentials in
comparable fields to their military occupations while on duty.
These programs have the potential to remove an obstacle to
employment faced by members of the military after they conclude
their service. However, the committee is concerned that the
opportunity to earn these credentials is limited for service
members in combat arms fields. While this is largely due to the
lack of an equivalent profession outside of uniform, the
Department of Defense identified in a 2013 report to Congress
that these service members possess soft skills such as
``leadership, problem-solving, and team-building [which] can be
related to the skills and credentials required for civilian
careers.'' The committee agrees with this assessment that the
skills, character, and training that our service members
possess make them outstanding potential employees. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretaries of the military services
to brief the House Committee on Armed Service no later than 120
days from the date of the enactment of this Act on the
availability of credentials provided by accredited bodies which
are aligned with the skills possessed by service members in
combat arms specialties as well as how service members in these
types of specialties are informed of those opportunities.
Briefing on Stars and Stripes Funding
Before the Secretary of Defense or the Defense Media
Activity makes a determination or takes action to remove or
reduce the appropriated funding for the Stars and Stripes, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense or his designee to
brief the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives on the justification or determination for the
reduction or removal of Stars and Stripes from appropriated
funding.
Community and Military Education Partnerships
The committee is aware that partnerships exist between the
military and civilian communities to enhance education support
of all children by understanding the needs and perspective of
military children. Therefore, the committee directs Secretary
of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than March 1, 2017, on the policies
governing ongoing partnership efforts between the Department
and communities with unusually high concentrations of military
dependents enrolled in public schools. The briefing should
address the following elements: an evaluation of partnership
efforts in areas considered overseas assignments with unusually
high concentrations of military dependents enrolled;
organizations and resources currently dedicated to enhancement
of these community partnerships; policies and guidelines
governing the funding of community partnerships; and any other
matters the Secretary deems relevant.
Comptroller General Review of the Military Entrance Processing Stations
Medical Examinations
The committee understands that it is often difficult for
the military services to have full visibility of the medical
history of potential recruits. The committee is concerned that
incomplete medical information and inadequate medical screening
may result in attrition before the Active Duty enlistees'
initial commitments are fulfilled. Further, the committee is
concerned that the lack of availability of the Department of
Defense electronic health record within the Military Entrance
Processing Station (MEPS) exacerbates the lack of visibility of
pre-service medical conditions by the services throughout the
individual's career. Therefore, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of
the MEPS medical screening and submit a report on results of
the review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives not later than March 1, 2017.
The review shall address, at a minimum, the following:
(1) An evaluation of the extent to which attrition prior to
completion of initial commitment is related to medical reasons;
(2) An assessment of the processes in place for recruiters
and at MEPS for identifying, screening, and tracking medical
qualifications of applicants; and
(3) An assessment of whether the current structure of the
MEPS supports optimal medical screening and permanent
documentation of medical conditions identified prior to initial
entry.
Cyber Science Education at the Service Academies
The committee recognizes the growing threat to United
States national, economic, and infrastructure security, among
others, from destructive and disruptive cyberattacks by
malicious government, criminal, and individual actors. The
Department has formally recognized cyberspace as a domain of
warfare that has become as critical to military operations as
land, sea, air, and space, and as such, the military must be
able to defend and operate within it. The committee believes
that this practice should begin at the earliest levels of
education within the U.S. military. The committee therefore
encourages the Department to recognize the importance of cyber
education within each of the U.S. military service academies
and actively promote cyber sciences education and training
within the service's respective curriculum.
Database Tracking System for Valor Awards
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
commitment to improving the awards and decoration process in
order to recognize service members for their actions in a
timely and efficient manner. The Department's recent Military
Decorations and Awards Review, in conjunction with the
Department's report on the Medal of Honor Process that was
directed in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446)
accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, highlighted numerous
ways to improve the timeliness of processing Medal of Honor
recommendations and mitigate the mishandling or loss of a
nomination. The committee encourages the Department to develop
and implement a Department-wide electronic awards system, much
like the Marine Corps Improved Awards Processing System, in
order to streamline and facilitate online processing from
initiation through approval, and provide better visibility of
high-level valor awards, as well as to serve as the official
system of record for preserving the award documents for later
verification.
Dual Military Shared Parental Leave Feasibility Study
The committee notes that dual military couples are faced
with unique challenges after the birth of a child. Women
account for 15.6 % (201,318) of the active duty force and the
number of annual births for active duty women is typically
between 15,000 and 16,000 or about 7-8% of the women on active
duty every year. Currently, a service member who gives birth is
afforded 12 weeks leave and a service member whose spouse gives
birth is eligible for 10 days of parental leave. There are
approximately 84,000 dual military marriages that have to
balance the challenges of two of the most solemn commitments
they can make: a commitment to serve their country and a
commitment to start and support a family.
The committee recognizes that paid maternity and parental
leave can encourage recruitment and retention and help support
the well-being of military families, especially those dual
serving military families. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of allowing dual
military couples to allocate shared parental leave based on the
needs of their family. Specifically, the Secretary should
address the impact on military recruitment, retention, and
readiness, as well as the medical impact on the service members
and the ability of both service members to bond with their
child. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services on his findings
by December 1, 2016.
Enhanced Access and Consideration before Discharge Review Boards and
Correction of Military Records Boards
The committee recognizes the efforts made by the Department
of Defense and the military departments to ensure applicants
before Discharge Review Boards and Boards for the Correction of
Military Records receive full and fair consideration of their
applications for discharge upgrades. However, the committee
encourages the Department to look for additional opportunities
to enhance the review process, and allow applicants every
opportunity to present the facts associated with their
application. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department
to extend the ``liberal consideration'' standard established
for those applicants who allege a nexus between their
misconduct and a diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or
related conditions to all discharge upgrade cases considered by
Discharge Review Boards, in addition to Boards for the
Correction of Military Records.
In addition, the committee notes that advances in
technology have made remote communication through video
teleconferencing, telephone and similar technology more
efficient and cost-effective than ever before. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretaries of the military departments, to examine
the feasibility of incorporating commercial, off-the-shelf
video and video teleconferencing technologies to allow
applicants to the Discharge Review Board or, when appropriate,
the Boards for the Correction of Military Records, to appear
before the boards remotely. The committee further directs the
Secretary to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives not later than
February 1, 2017, on the results of the examination.
Implementation by the Services of the Recommendations Listed in the
``Program to Assist Veterans to Acquire Commercial Driver's Licenses
Report to Congress''
The committee notes that the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141) mandated the creation of a
report from the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation
with the Secretary of Defense, and in cooperation with the
States, to study the regulatory, economic, and administrative
challenges in obtaining Commercial Drivers Licenses by members
and former members of the Armed Forces who received training
and operated military Commercial Motor Vehicles safely during
their service. The result was the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's (FMCSA) report ``Program to Assist Veterans to
Acquire Commercial Driver's Licenses Report to Congress''. The
committee is aware that while some of the recommendations have
been partially implemented by particular Services, some of the
Services have yet to take action on the proposed
recommendations. Easing the transition to civilian employment
for our service men and women should be a priority of the
Department of Defense, especially when the skills and training
gained while in the service are applicable to the civilian
market. Accordingly, the committee directs the service
secretaries to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees, no later than February 1, 2017, regarding where the
services currently are in their efforts to implement these
recommendations and what their plans are to implement those
that have not been completed fully.
Improved Oversight of Hazing Prevention Programs and Reporting in the
Military Services
The committee recognizes the efforts made by the Department
of Defense and the military services to improve hazing
prevention programs and increase oversight in an attempt to
eliminate hazing in the military. Although the military
services have created prevention training programs and have
established reporting mechanisms, the committee remains
concerned with the wide disparity in the programs across the
services, to include the variation in reporting and tracking
requirements of incidents of hazing. The committee notes the
Department of Defense issued an updated policy, dated December
23, 2015, that defines hazing and bullying, directs
requirements for training and education with respect to hazing
and bullying, and standardizes reporting of hazing and
bullying. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives not later than
December 1, 2016, on the implementation of the changes outlined
in the December 23, 2015, policy memorandum. This briefing
shall include an overview of the results of the 180-day report
on allegations directed by the memorandum.
Information Regarding On-the-Job Training and Apprenticeship Programs
The committee is concerned about the lack of information
provided on Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for on-the-job training
and apprenticeship programs during the Transition Assistance
Program (TAP). In a November 2015 report, the Government
Accountability Office found that the Transition Assistance
Program did not adequately inform service members transitioning
from Active Duty service of their options with respect to the
availability of apprenticeship programs, in addition to Post-9/
11 educational benefits. For example, 81 percent of surveyed
TAP participants reported that they did not think TAP
adequately informs veterans about on-the-job training and
apprenticeship options. Nearly 50 percent of veterans who have
used their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for a non-college degree,
such as a trade school program, had the same response. The
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense in collaboration
with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure on-the-job
training and apprenticeship programs are adequately addressed
in TAP.
Informing Service Members About the United Services Military
Apprenticeship Program
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure
that all enlisted sailors and Marines receive a briefing during
their military occupational specialty training that provides an
overview of the United Services Military Apprenticeship Program
(USMAP), including how to register and navigate USMAP and the
value of USMAP in obtaining civilian employment following
military service. The Secretary of the Navy is also encouraged
to ensure that USMAP coordinators are assigned to appropriate
commands. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
April 1, 2017, on the updated policy implementation plan for
USMAP.
Integration of Women Into Previously Closed Military Occupations
The committee recognizes the extensive research and
planning undertaken by the Department of Defense and the
military services to fully integrate women into the Armed
Forces. The committee understands that the services have begun
to execute the implementation of their approved plans to open
all previously closed military occupational specialties, career
fields, and branches for accession by women. The service
implementation plans address the Secretary of Defense's seven
specified concerns: transparent standards, population size,
physical demands and physiological differences, conduct and
culture, talent management, operating abroad, and assessment
and adjustment. The committee notes the services' commitment to
maintaining gender neutral standards and the intent to assign
women to previously closed occupational specialties based on
merit rather than quotas. The committee believes assigning
personnel, regardless of gender, should be based on established
standards and merit and will monitor these critical factors to
ensure the military services are complying with their plans.
Military Reemployment Initiatives
The committee applauds the efforts of the military services
to partner with local communities to assist service members
with post-military employment in the community. The committee
is aware of an initiative between Tyndall Air Force Base, Eglin
Air Force Base, Hurlbert Field, and the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity to provide the skill sets of transitioning
service members in the area to the local community to assist
with providing jobs as well as expanding economic development
for the community. The committee believes these efforts are
beneficial to service members and veterans. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense and the military
services, where appropriate, to continue to work with local
communities to assist service members with post-service
employment by expanding this program to other service branches
and to ensure that the transfer of information is as efficient
as possible.
National Guard Bureau Briefing Requirement
The committee notes a perceived imbalance regarding manning
and resource allocation on a State by State and territory by
territory basis, therefore the National Guard Bureau is
directed to provide a report to the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives on the distribution of full-
time manning and controlled grade positions as they relate to
all 54 states and territories no later than February 1, 2017,
that includes the following elements:
(1) A description of the National Guard Bureau formula and
allocation of full-time manning and how that number relates to
resource end strength; why states are currently equally funded
at the headquarters, staff and senior controlled grade level.
(2) Analysis and recommendations of a manning and end
strength formula based upon an equitable formula as opposed to
equally divided among states and territories, to include why
states are not resourced at the paid end strength levels with
full-time manning when requested to increase end strength by
National Guard Bureau.
Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality Compliance With Department of
Defense Policy
The committee is concerned about the protection of severely
disabled employees of Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality
(NAFI) facilities from losing their jobs and directs the United
States Air Force to adhere to Department of Defense Instruction
4105.67 and section 2492 of title 10, United States Code, which
states that Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentalities will not
enter into contracts or agreements that will result in the loss
of jobs pursuant to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (AbilityOne
Program). Currently, the Air Force Transformation Initiative
(AFTI) is phasing out employees with severe disabilities who
are employed through the AbilityOne program and replacing them
with non-disabled individuals employed by the commercial prime-
vendor for AFTI.
Therefore, the committee further directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to submit a report to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than October 1, 2016, on the Air
Force's compliance with the Randolph-Sheppard Act, section 107
of title 20, United States Code.
Report on Department of Defense Efforts To Provide Timely
Review of Separation Characterization of Former Members of the Armed
Forces Who Were Separated by Reason of Sexual Orientation
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a report on the efforts by the
Department of Defense to ensure that former members of the
Armed Forces whose separation was characterized, pursuant to
section 654 of title 10, United States Code, as in effect
before such section was repealed pursuant to the Don't Ask,
Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-321), as less
than honorable by reason of their sexual orientation, are
granted a timely process to correct the separation
characterization to honorable. The report shall include the
following:
(1) The number of such former members of the Armed Forces
whose separation has been upgraded to honorable.
(2) The number of such former members whose request for an
upgrade has been denied and, in the case of such members, the
general trends for such a denial being overturned.
(3) The feasibility of providing automatic upgrades for
such former members whose separation was less than honorable
solely by reason of their sexual orientation and whose record
does not disclose any type of misconduct.
Report on the Purpose and Utility of a Registration System for Military
Selective Service
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by July 1, 2017, a report on the current and
future need for a centralized registration system for military
selective service. The report under subsection shall include
the following:
(1) A detailed analysis of the current benefits derived,
both directly and indirectly, from the Military Selective
Service System, including:
(A) The extent to which mandatory registration
benefits military recruiting;
(B) The extent to which a national
registration capability serves as a deterrent
to other nations.
(2) An analysis of the functions currently performed
by the Selective Service System that would be assumed
by the Department in the absence of a national
registration capability;
(3) An analysis of the systems, manpower, and
facilities that would be needed by the Department to
physically mobilize inductees in the absence of the
Selective Service System;
(4) A detailed analysis of the Department's manpower
needs in the event of an emergency requiring mass
mobilization, including:
(A) A detailed timeline, along with the
factors considered in arriving at this
timeline, of when the Department of Defense
would require:
(i) The first inductees to report for
service;
(ii) The first 100,000 inductees to
report for service;
(iii) The first medical personnel to
report for service.
(B) An analysis of any additional critical
skills that would be needed in the event of a
national emergency, and a timeline for when the
Department would require the first inductees to
report for service.
(5) A list of the assumptions used by the Department
when conducting their analysis.
Review and Report on Port Chicago
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to carry
out a thorough review of the circumstances which may have
influenced the mutiny charges against, and convictions of the
individuals convicted in courts-martial arising from the
explosion at the Port Chicago (California) Naval Magazine on
July 17, 1944. The purpose of the review shall be to assess the
extent to which racial prejudice or other factors may have
impacted the African American sailors who were stationed at
Port Chicago and Mare Island throughout the duration of their
service. Specifically, the committee directs the Secretary to
review findings of racial bias including those acknowledged in
the Navy's 1994 report entitled ``Port Chicago Courts-Martial
Review.'' If the Secretary determines that the filing of a
charge of mutiny against any of the African American sailors in
any such case was connected to, or impacted by, racial
prejudice, or if the Secretary determines that the presence of
prejudicial practices created a pattern of discriminatory
treatment affecting African American sailors at Port Chicago,
then, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the committee
directs the Secretary to submit to the President and Congress
such recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate
regarding corrective actions that should be considered.
Review of Qualified Joint Tours
The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
ongoing commitment to ensuring the interoperability of the
joint force. The committee notes that operations conducted by
the Department and the uniformed services at all levels of
command are increasingly characterized by their joint nature.
Accordingly, in light of the review of the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law
99-433), the committee urges the Department to continue these
efforts and directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives not later than December 1, 2016, on the
composition of the Joint Duty Assignment List (JDAL) and
recommendations for congressional action required to bring the
current JDAL in line with the joint nature of the current
force.
Suicide Prevention
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
Inspector General report entitled ``Assessment of DOD Suicide
Prevention Process,'' dated September 30, 2015, made a series
of recommendations to improve the Department's efforts to
reduce the incidence of suicide in the U.S. military. The
committee applauds the efforts by the Department of Defense and
the military services to reduce suicide and improve prevention
programs, but the committee believes that the Department can
and should improve its efforts, based on the Inspector
General's recommendations. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than September 1, 2016,
on the implementation of the recommendations made in the
Department of Defense Inspector General's report.
Troops to Teachers Partnership
The committee notes that veterans and their family members
have proven to be exceptional teachers, as demonstrated through
the national Troops to Teachers program where almost 20,000
veterans have distinguished themselves in America's classrooms.
The committee believes that the Troops to Teachers program
provides an organizational plan for a national effort to
overcome two critical issues facing our nation: the continuous
improvement of our schools and the transition of service
members and their families into civilian roles after they have
served our nation. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to investigate the establishment of a
public-private partnership with a 501c organization capable of
leveraging private donations and relationships to improve and
expand upon the current Troops to Teachers model.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Section 501--Number of Marine Corps General Officers
This section would amend sections 525, 526 and 5045 of
title 10, United States Code, to authorize an increase in the
number of general officers in the grade above major general
from 15 to 17, decrease the number of general officers in the
grade of major general from 23 to 22 and increase the number of
deputy commandants within the Marine Corps from 6 to 7.
Section 502--Equal Consideration of Officers for Early Retirement or
Discharge
This section would amend section 638a of title 10, United
States Code, to provide the Secretaries of the military
departments authority to consider officers for involuntary
separation below the grade of lieutenant colonel or commander
as a single, consolidated year group without distinctions based
on retirement eligibility. Such a change allows the military
departments to conduct separation boards in a manner consistent
with promotion selection board practices.
Section 503--Modification of Authority to Drop from Rolls a
Commissioned Officer
This section would modify section 1161 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense (or in the case
of a commissioned officer of the Coast Guard, the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating when it is
not operating in the Navy), in addition to the President, to
drop from the rolls certain commissioned officers.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Section 511--Extension of Removal of Restrictions on the Transfer of
Officers Between the Active and Inactive National Guard
This section would amend section 512 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) to extend the authorization to allow officers to
participate in the Inactive National Guard for 3 years, from
December 31, 2016 until December 31, 2019. The extension would
give the National Guard more flexibility to access departing
Active Component members during the drawdown and provide a 5-
year period to evaluate the benefits of Inactive National Guard
transferability.
Section 512--Extension of Temporary Authority to Use Air Force Reserve
Component Personnel to Provide Training and Instruction Regarding Pilot
Training
This section would amend section 514(a)(1) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) to extend, for 1 year, the current temporary authority for
the Air Force to allow no more than 50 Active Guard and Reserve
personnel and dual status military technicians to instruct and
train Active Duty and members of foreign military forces in the
United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or possessions
of the United States as a primary duty.
Section 513--Limitations on Ordering Selected Reserve to Active Duty
for Preplanned Missions in Support of the Combatant Commands
This section would amend section 12304(b) of title 10,
United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to
order forces to Active Duty during the year of execution if the
Secretary identifies manpower and associated costs for the year
of execution and provides a 30-day notice to the congressional
defense committees.
Section 514--Exemption of Military Technicians (Dual Status) from
Civilian Employee Furloughs
This section would amend section 10216(b)(3) of title 10,
United States Code, to exempt military dual-status technicians
from civilian employee furloughs.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Section 521--Technical Correction to Annual Authorization for Personnel
Strengths
This section would amend section 115 of title 10, United
States Code, to update the references to section 502(f) of
title 32, United States Code, as amended by the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364). Section 502(f) provides for the conditions under
which the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air
Force may order a member of the National Guard to perform
training or other duty in addition to required drills and field
exercises.
Section 522--Entitlement to Leave for Adoption or Birth of Child by
Dual Military Couples
This section would amend section 701(i) of title 10, United
States Code, to provide one service member up to 21 days of
leave under this subsection and the other service member up to
14 days of leave for the adoption of a child for dual-military
couples of the Armed Forces.
Section 523--Revision of Deployability Rating System and Planning
Reform
This section would amend chapter 1003 of title 10, United
States Code, to revise the Department of the Army's
deployability rating system and manner in which the Army is
required to track prioritization of deployable units. To the
extent it would apply across all Army components, this section
would facilitate implementation of the Army ``Total Force''
Policy by requiring systems to identify the priority of
deployment and track readiness for all Army units, not just for
the Reserve Components. Currently, the Army is operating under
the construct set forth in the Army National Guard Combat
Readiness Reform Act of 1992 (title XI of Public Law 102-484;
10 U.S.C. 10105 note), which was enacted after the experience
of Operation Desert Storm when several Army National Guard
combat brigades were mobilized for, but not deployed to,
combat.
Section 524--Expansion of Authority to Execute Certain Military
Instruments
This section would amend section 1044d(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to enable notaries to execute military
testamentary instruments. This section would also modify
section 1044a of title 10, United States Code, to extend
Federal notary powers to those civilian paralegals working
within military legal assistance offices.
Section 525--Technical Correction to Voluntary Separation Pay and
Benefits
This section would amend section 1175a of title 10, United
States Code, by updating the references to section 502(f) of
title 32, United States Code, and the list of involuntary
mobilization authorities.
Section 526--Annual Notice to Members of the Armed Forces Regarding
Child Custody Protections Guaranteed by the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act
This section would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to notify service members with dependents annually,
and prior to deployment, of the child custody protections
guaranteed under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
Section 527--Pilot Program on Consolidated Army Recruiting
This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to
establish a 3-year pilot program in which recruiters from all
three components (Regular, Reserve, and National Guard) are
authorized to recruit individuals into any of the components,
and receive credit toward periodic enlistment goals for each
enlistment regardless of component. Not later than 1 year after
implementation of the pilot program, the Secretary of the Army
shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives and the Senate a detailed report on the
design of the program. The Secretary would also be required to
submit a final report at the conclusion of the pilot period.
Section 528--Application of Military Selective Service Registration and
Conscription Requirements to Female Citizens and Residents of the
United States Between the Ages of 18 and 26
This section would amend section 3802(a) of title 50,
United States Code, to require both male and female United
States citizens, and every other male or female citizen
residing in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26,
to register with the Selective Service.
Section 529--Parental Leave for Members of the Armed Forces
This section would amend chapter 40 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new section 701a which would authorize
14 days of leave to a member of the Armed Forces who becomes a
parent when that member's spouse gives birth. This section
would also amend section 701 of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize 36 days of leave, to be shared between two members
of the armed forces who are married to each other and adopt a
child.
Subtitle D--Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and Domestic
Violence Prevention and Response
Section 541--Expedited Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect to State
Child Protective Services
This section would amend section 1787 of title 10, United
States Code, to require military and civilian personnel of the
Department of Defense working on military installations, who
are otherwise required by law to report suspected instances of
child abuse and neglect to their Department of Defense chain of
command, to also promptly notify State Child Protective
Services. This section would focus on reporting requirements
between the Department of Defense and State Child Protective
Services, but is in no way intended to require or encourage
unnecessary duplicative efforts on the part of federal and
state agencies regarding investigations or other proceedings.
Section 542--Extension of the Requirement for Annual Report Regarding
Sexual Assaults and Coordination with Release of Family Advocacy Report
This section would extend the requirement for the Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) report through
January 31, 2021. In addition, it would require the release of
the SAPRO report to be timed to coincide with the release of
the Family Advocacy Program Report, as required elsewhere in
this Act. This amendment would supersede section 1080 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92).
Section 543--Requirement for Annual Family Advocacy Program Report
Regarding Child Abuse and Domestic Violence
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives an annual report, beginning not later
than January 31, 2017, through January 31, 2021, on the child
abuse and domestic abuse incident data contained in the
Department of Defense Family Advocacy Program central registry
for the previous year, and an analysis of the effectiveness of
the Family Advocacy Program.
Section 544--Improved Department of Defense Prevention of and Response
to Hazing in the Armed Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a comprehensive data-collection system for reports
related to hazing in the Armed Forces, and require the
Secretary of each military department to improve training to
better recognize, prevent, and respond to hazing.
Section 545--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 amend section 1034 of title 10, United
States Code, to establish the burden of proof under this
section for military retaliation investigations to be the same
as the burden of proof applicable to retaliation investigation
under section 1221(e) of title 5, United States Code.
Section 546--Improved Investigation of Allegations of Professional
Retaliation
This section would amend section 1034(c)(4) of title 10,
United States Code, to require the Secretary concerned to
ensure that any individual investigating an allegation of
retaliation be trained in the definition and characteristics of
retaliation, and where applicable, trained in the
characteristics of sex-related offenses.
Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, and Transition
Section 561--Revision to Quality Assurance of Certification Programs
and Standards
This section would amend section 2015 of title 10, United
States Code, relating to a program to enable members of the
Armed Forces to obtain, while serving in the Armed Forces,
professional credentials related to military training and
skills that translate into civilian occupations. Specifically,
this section would amend the requirements of any credentialing
program used in connection with the skills program.
Section 562--Establishment of ROTC Cyber Institutes at Senior Military
Colleges
This section would amend chapter 103 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out
a program to establish ROTC Cyber Institutes at the six Senior
Military Colleges for purposes of accelerating the development
of foundational expertise in critical cyber operational skills
for future military and civilian leaders of the Armed Forces
and Department of Defense, to include such leaders of the
Reserve Components.
Section 563--Military-to-Mariner Transition
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating to jointly report on the steps the Departments of
Defense and Homeland Security have taken to maximize the extent
to which Armed Forces service, training, and qualifications are
creditable towards United States merchant mariner licenses and
certifications and to promote awareness among Armed Forces
personnel who serve in vessel operating positions of the
requirements for post-service use of training, education, and
practical experience from service in the Armed Forces in
satisfying requirements for merchant mariner licenses and
certifications.
Section 564--Employment Authority for Civilian Faculty at Certain
Military Department Schools
This section would amend section 4021 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow the Secretary concerned to hire staff for
professional military education courses regardless of course
length.
Section 565--Revision of Name on Military Service Record to Reflect
Change in Name of a Member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine
Corps, after Separation from the Armed Forces
This section would amend section 1551 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow any person who legally changes their name
to reflect their gender identity after separation from the
Armed Forces to receive a new certificate of discharge or
acceptance of resignation order under that new name.
Section 566--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 enhance efforts of the Department
of Defense to provide job placement assistance and related
employment services directly to members of the National Guard
and Reserves. This section would also require the Secretary to
submit a report on the program to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
January 31, 2021.
Section 567--Prohibition on Establishment, Maintenance, or Support of
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Units at Educational
Institutions That Display Confederate Battle Flag
This section would amend section 2102 of title 10, United
States Code, to prohibit the Secretary concerned from
establishing, maintaining, or supporting a Reserve Officers'
Training Corps unit at an educational institution that displays
the Confederate battle flag except where the board of visitors
has voted to take down the flag described.
Subtitle F--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 2017 to local educational agencies that are impacted by
the enrollment of dependent children of military members and
Department of Defense civilian employees.
Section 572--Support for Programs Providing Camp Experience for
Children of Military Families
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide support to nonprofit organizations that carry out camp
or camp-like programs for children of military families who
have experienced the death of a family member or a family
member with substance abuse disorder or post-traumatic stress
disorder.
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards
Section 581--Review Regarding Award of Medal of Honor to Certain Asian
American and Native American Pacific Islander War Veterans
This section would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to review the service records of Asian American and
Native American Pacific Islander veterans from the Korean war
and Vietnam war to determine if the award of the Medal of Honor
is appropriate. The Secretary concerned would be obligated to
review the records of veterans who were previously awarded the
Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, and the Air Force
Cross, and veterans submitted to the Secretary concerned during
the 1-year period beginning with the date of the enactment of
this Act. In those cases where the Secretary concerned
determines that service records support the award of the Medal
of Honor, this section would also waive the statutory time
limitations for award.
Section 582--Authorization for Award of Medals for Acts of Valor
This section would waive the statutory time limitation
specified in sections 3744, 6248, and 8744 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow the President to award the Medal of Honor
to those individuals identified by the ``Current Conflict
Service Cross and Silver Star Awards Review'' directed by the
Secretary of Defense on January 7, 2016.
Section 583--Authorization for Award of the Medal of Honor to Gary M.
Rose for Acts of Valor During the Vietnam War
This section would waive the statutory time limitation
under section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, to allow
the President to award the Medal of Honor to Gary M. Rose, who
served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War. The
committee takes this action based on the written confirmation
by the Secretary of Defense that the actions of Gary M. Rose
merit the consideration of award of the Medal of Honor by the
President.
Section 584--Authorization for Award of the Medal of Honor to Charles
S. Kettles for Acts of Valor During the Vietnam War
This section would waive the statutory time limitation
under section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, to allow
the President to award the Medal of Honor to Charles S.
Kettles, who served in the United States Army during the
Vietnam War. The committee takes this action based on the
written confirmation by the Secretary of Defense that the
actions of Charles S. Kettles merit the consideration of award
of the Medal of Honor by the President.
Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters
Section 591--Burial of Cremated Remains in Arlington National Cemetery
of Certain Persons Whose Service Is Deemed To Be Active Service
This section would amend section 2410 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of the Army to ensure
that the cremated remains of an individual, whose service has
been determined to be Active Duty service, are eligible for
inurnment with military honors in Arlington National Cemetery.
Further, this section would require the Secretary, not later
than 180 days after enactment of this Act, to submit a report
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of
the Senate and the House of Representatives on the interment
and inurnment capacity of Arlington National Cemetery.
Section 592--Representation from Members of the Armed Forces on Boards,
Councils, and Committees Making Recommendations Relating to Military
Personnel Issues
This section would require that enlisted or retired
enlisted members of the Armed Forces be represented on all
boards, panels, commissions, or task forces established under
chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, to render a
recommendation on any aspect of personnel policy directly
affecting enlisted personnel.
Section 593--Body Mass Index Test
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
review the current body mass index test procedure.
Section 594--Preseparation Counseling Regarding Options for Donating
Brain Tissue at Time of Death for Research
This section would require that information be provided
during transition separation counseling concerning options for
donating brain tissue at the time of the member's death for
chronic traumatic encephalopathy research.
Section 595--Recognition of the Expanded Service Opportunities
Available to Female Members of the Armed Forces and the Long Service of
Women in the Armed Forces
This section would express Congress' recognition of women
who have served and are currently serving in the Armed Forces.
Section 596--Sense of Congress Regarding Plight of Male Victims of
Military Sexual Trauma
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of Defense should enhance access to intensive medical
and mental health treatment of male victims of sexual assault;
look for opportunities to use them as presenters at prevention
training; and ensure medical and mental health providers are
trained to meet the needs of male victims.
Section 597--Sense of Congress Regarding Section 504 of Title 10,
United States Code, on Existing Authority of the Department of Defense
to Enlist Individuals, Not Otherwise Eligible for Enlistment, Whose
Enlistment Is Vital to the National Interest
This section would restate the existing authority under
section 504 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the
enlistment of certain individuals.
Section 598--Protection of Second Amendment Rights of Military Families
This section would amend section 921(b) of title 18, United
States Code, to state that, for the purposes of chapter 44 of
title 18, a member of the Armed Forces on active duty and the
spouse of such a member are residents of the State in which the
permanent duty station of the member is located, and that the
spouse may satisfy the identification document requirements of
the chapter by presenting specified documents.
Section 599--Pilot Program on Advanced Technology for Alcohol Abuse
Prevention
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a pilot program to demonstrate the feasibility of
using breathalyzers to monitor the progress of alcohol abuse
prevention programs.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Feasibility Study to Expanding Veterans Access to Commissary
The committee seeks to better serve disabled veterans that
live near military installations and would like to increase
their access to commissary and exchange facilities. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report on the
feasibility of allowing disabled veterans with a thirty percent
disability rating or higher; or that have been awarded a Purple
Heart the use of the commissary and exchange stores on the same
basis as a member of the armed forces entitled to retired or
retainer pay. The determination should include an evaluation of
the potential costs to the Department and the impacts to the
disabled veteran community. The committee further directs the
Secretary to submit the results of the report to the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2017.
Inspector General Review of the Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Contract for
the Pacific
The committee is concerned about the performance of the
current Pacific Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (FFV) delivery
contract, the past FFV contract and the FFV local purchase
authority across the Defense Commissary Agency enterprise
outside the continental United States. The committee therefore
directs the Department of Defense Inspector General to evaluate
and report to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2017, on the effectiveness of the new FFV purchase process vice
the previous second destination transportation funded process,
and to do an assessment of the similar local purchase process
currently ongoing in Europe.
The evaluation shall address the following issues so as to
facilitate comparison between the establishment and progression
of the local sourcing model in Europe and in the Pacific:
(1) A timeline showing the percentage of locally sourced
produce made available to commissaries in Europe as compared to
the Pacific, in 6 month increments, beginning from a point in
time not less than 6 months prior to the expiration of
precursor contracts in each theater. The review should include
any information related to produce market maturity in both
theaters and any documented issues related to the locally
sourced produce in both.
(2) The amount of produce sold and appropriated funds paid
by the Department of Defense for second destination
transportation (surface, air and in-theater) in the last full
year prior to award of the first contract for the locally
sourced fresh fruits and vegetables for commissaries in Europe
and the Pacific theater.
In addition, the Inspector General shall compare the
Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) contract for produce in effect
through the end of October 2015, and the new contract's
performance which began in November 2015, to include:
(1) Comparison of the amount of produce lost due to
spoilage or importation delays/requirements between the
previous Pacific contract to the current contracts.
(2) Comparison of the benefits/impacts of the current and
previous DeCA models for the provision of fresh fruits and
vegetables to Pacific commissaries relative to:
(a) Department of Defense;
(b) Commissary patrons; and
(c) The Cost of Living Allowance.
(3) Documentation of the percentage of increase or decrease
in local market prices on produce as compared to Pacific
commissary prices on produce.
The Inspector General may call upon the Defense Contract
Audit Agency for assistance in performing an audit of the
recently replaced fresh fruits and vegetable contract DeCA
administered for its overseas commissaries in the Pacific
theater between April 2008, and October 2015, to ensure that
the produce prices offered to commissary patrons were
reasonable.
Service Members Group Life Insurance Report
The committee notes that Active Duty service members are
required to participate in pre-deployment readiness briefings,
in which Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) is a
covered topic. The committee is concerned about the process by
which service members subsequently select life insurance
coverage during their pre-deployment readiness processing.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives by December 1, 2016, evaluating the
information provided to each service member on their SGLI
benefits as he or she prepares for deployment. The evaluation
shall include but is not limited to:
(1) The number of service members who have opted for less
than $400,000 of SGLI coverage and died in combat during their
deployment for the last 10 years;
(2) The current briefing materials provided to service
members informing them of prerequisites necessary for
deployment, the number of administrative decisions required for
pre-deployment, the number of pre-deployment briefings given,
and the amount of time period in which the pre-deployment
briefings occur;
(3) The ratio of briefers-to-service members that
communicate SGLI benefits in service members' preparation for
deployment and the opportunity for service members to seek one-
on-one counseling for guidance on pre-deployment paperwork;
(4) The financial and familial effects of an automatic
increase to maximum SGLI benefit levels when a service member
prepares to deploy, of which a service member must opt out in
order to not receive the highest coverage, then an automatic
resumption of the service members' previous SGLI levels upon
their return from deployment.
(5) Any proposed changes to the pre-deployment process
which lessens the administrative burden for a service member
while maximizing benefits for next of kin in the event of SGLI
benefit use.
Student Loan Interest for Eligible Military Borrowers
The committee notes that service members are exempt from
paying interest on their federal student loans for the length
of time served in an area of hostilities. Unfortunately, since
2008, eligible service members have avoidably overpaid $100
million dollars in federal student loan interest payments due
to a lack of communication between the Department of Education,
Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and
student loan servicers.
The committee also notes that the Higher Education
Opportunity Act (Public Law 110-315) requires the Secretary of
Education, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to create a publicly
available, searchable website that discloses information
concerning those who qualify as an eligible military borrower
in order to receive loan interest accrual exemptions based on
their service in an area of hostilities. Moreover, the
Secretary of Education, in coordination with the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, is tasked with
making such information widely known to members of the Armed
Forces (including members of the National Guard and Reserves),
veterans and eligible dependents of veterans, States,
institutions of higher education and the general public.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of Education and the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to establish a plan of action to
ensure the required information regarding eligible military
borrowers is shared in a timely manner so service members can
receive the benefits due under the law. The committee further
directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee
on Armed Services on the plan of action by December 1, 2016.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Annual Adjustment of Monthly Basic Pay
This section would direct that the rates of basic pay under
section 203(a) of title 37, United States Code, be increased in
accordance with section 1009 of title 37, United States Code,
notwithstanding a determination made by the President under
subsection (e) of such section 1009.
Section 602--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 603--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, and section 5702(a)(2) of title 5, United
States Code, to prohibit the Secretary concerned from altering
the per diem allowance for the duration of a temporary duty
assignment of a member of the Armed Forces or an employee of
the Department of Defense.
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, 2017, 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, the
authority to reimburse travel expenses for inactive duty
training outside of normal commuting distance, and income
replacement payments for Reserve Component members experiencing
extended and frequent mobilization for Active Duty service.
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Health Care Professionals
This section would extend 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, 2017.
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, 2017.
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,
contracting bonus for Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
cadets and midshipmen, hazardous duty pay, assignment pay or
special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and
the retention bonus for members with critical military skills
or assigned to high-priority units, until December 31, 2017.
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,
2017.
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Amount of Aviation Special Pays for
Flying Duty
This section would amend section 334(c)(1) of title 37,
United States Code, to increase the statutory limits for the
aviation incentive pay and retention bonus and allow the
Secretary concerned the flexibility to increase the aviation
incentive pay limit set forth in regulations issued by the
Secretary of Defense under section 374 of title 37, United
States Code.
Section 617--Conforming Amendment to Consolidation of Special Pay,
Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities
This section would amend section 332(c) of title 37, United
States Code, to conform the consolidated bonus amount to the
current amount authorized under section 308j of title 37,
United States Code. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) increased the bonus
authority to $20,000 under section 308j, but will sunset on
September 30, 2017, when the new consolidated bonus authorities
take effect pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act
for 2008 (Public Law 110-181).
Section 618--Technical and Clerical Amendments Relating to 2008
Consolidation of Certain Special Pay Authorities
This section would make technical and clerical corrections
to titles 10, 20, 24, 36, 37, and 42, United States Code, as
well as section 586 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), section 362 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2007 (Public Law 109-364), and section 112(c)(5)(B) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as part of the Department of
Defense's transition to the consolidated authorities in section
661 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181), which provided eight consolidated
statutory special and incentive pay authorities for future use
to replace those currently in use. This section is consistent
with technical corrections included each year in the annual
National Defense Authorization Act.
Section 619--Combat-Related Special Compensation Coordinating Amendment
This section would amend section 1413a(b)(3) of title 10,
United States Code, to correct the computation of Combat-
Related Special Compensation (CRSC) to match the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 enacted military
retirement system reduction in the retirement base pay
multiplier from 2.5 percent to 2.0 percent for the years of
service formula to calculate retired pay to be restored by
CRSC.
Subtitle C--Disability, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits
Section 621--Separation Determinations for Members Participating in
Thrift Savings Plan
This section would repeal section 632(c)(2) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) that added an additional definition of separation from
government service which addresses cases of separation and/or
resumption of service but applies only to military members. The
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which oversees and
administers the Thrift Savings Plan, has identified conflicts
between section 632(c)(2) and section 211(c) of title 37,
United States Code, which applies to the entire Federal
Government workforce.
Section 622--Continuation Pay for Full Thrift Savings Plan Members Who
Have Completed 8 to 12 Years of Service
This section would amend section 356 of title 37, United
States Code, to authorize the Department of Defense the
flexibility to pay continuation pay at any point between the
time the member completes 8 years of service and before the
member reaches 12 years of service, in exchange for an
agreement to continue serving for a period of not less than 3
additional years.
Section 623--Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance
This section would amend section 1450(m) of title 10,
United States Code, to extend the Special Survivor Indemnity
Allowance at $310 per month through fiscal year 2018.
Section 624--Equal Benefits Under Survivor Benefit Plan for Survivors
of Reserve Component Members who Die in the Line of Duty during
Inactive-Duty Training
This section would amend section 1451(c)(1)(A) of title 10,
United States Code, to eliminate the different treatment under
the Survivor Benefit Plan accorded members of the Reserve
Component who die from an injury or illness incurred or
aggravated in the line of duty during Inactive-Duty training,
as compared to the treatment of members of the Armed Forces who
die in the line of duty while on Active Duty.
Section 625--Use of Member's Current Pay Grade and Years of Service,
Rather Than Final Retirement Pay Grade and Years of Service, in a
Division of Property Involving Disposable Retired Pay
This section would amend section 1408(a)(4) of title 10,
United States Code, to change the calculation concerning a
service member's retired pay in a division of property.
Subtitle D--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits and Operations
Section 631--Protection and Enhancement of Access to and Savings at
Commissaries and Exchanges
This section would amend sections 2481(a) and (c), 2483(c),
2484, 2485, and 2487 of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a
comprehensive strategy to optimize practices across the defense
commissary and exchange system that reduce the reliance of the
system on appropriated funds without reducing the benefits to
the patrons of the system or the revenue generated by non-
appropriated fund entities or instrumentalities of the
Department of Defense for the morale, welfare, and recreation
of members of the Armed Forces.
Subtitle E--Travel and Transportation Allowances and Other Matters
Section 641--Maximum Reimbursement Amount for Travel Expenses of
Members of the Reserves Attending Inactive Duty Training Outside of
Normal Commuting Distances
This section would amend section 478a(c) of title 37,
United States Code, to authorize the Secretary concerned, on a
case-by-case basis, to reimburse travel expenses at a higher
amount for Reserve Component members traveling to training from
rural areas.
Section 642--Statute of Limitations on Department of Defense Recovery
of Amounts Owed to the United States by Members of the Uniformed
Services, Including Retired and Former Members
This section would amend section 1007(c)(3) of title 37,
United States Code, to establish a 10-year limitation on the
collection of an overpayment of salaries and benefits or unpaid
bills of service members. This section would establish a
statute of limitations that goes into effect 10 years after it
is signed into law and would direct the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service to quantify the lost revenue for the
Congressional Budget Office.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Briefing on TRICARE Coverage for Emerging Health Care Services
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives,
not later than June 30, 2017, on implementation of section 704
of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291). The briefing shall include: the activities that have been
undertaken to implement provisional TRICARE coverage for
emerging health care services and supplies; any activities to
implement such authority that are planned but have not yet
occurred and the rationale for the delay; the services and
supplies that have been granted such provisional TRICARE
coverage; the rationale, if any, for implementation of
demonstration projects for TRICARE coverage of such services
and supplies in lieu of implementation of the provisional
TRICARE coverage; and the impact that implementation of the
provisional TRICARE coverage has had on access to and provider
reimbursement for such services and supplies as compared to
non-coverage.
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care
Partnerships
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense and
the Department of Veterans Affairs have established
partnerships to provide health care to beneficiaries of both
departments. The committee understands that these partnerships
expand access to care to veterans and Department of Defense
beneficiaries, particularly in medically underserved areas. In
addition, these partnerships provide Department of Defense
providers additional patients with complex medical conditions
that enhance medical provider readiness. However, the committee
is aware that the Department of Defense-Department of Veterans
Affairs joint facility, the Captain James A. Lovell Health Care
Center at Naval Station Great Lakes, Illinois, established by
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84), continues to suffer from management and
leadership challenges, as reported by several Government
Accountability Office evaluations. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1,
2016, on any plans for establishing new Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs partnerships to provide health
care.
Designation of TRICARE Providers with Military Awareness and Cultural
Training
The committee is aware that military beneficiaries prefer
to seek assistance from mental health providers who have some
knowledge and experience serving military populations. Section
717 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92), directed the Secretary of Defense to
develop a system by which non-Department of Defense mental
health care providers receive a readiness designation if they
meet certain criteria relating to knowledge with respect to the
culture of members of the Armed Forces and family members. The
committee believes this paradigm is similar for beneficiaries
seeking health care from providers in the TRICARE network. The
committee is aware that there are training programs available
for businesses and organizations that employ or work with
former military members. Therefore, the committee encourages
the Department of Defense to include TRICARE providers in the
same system developed for mental health care providers and to
look for opportunities to use existing training programs.
Diabetes Prevention Programs
The committee notes that the occurrence of diabetes within
the currently serving military population and their families is
relatively small compared to the incidence of diabetes in the
general United States population. It is estimated that there
are 30 million Americans with diabetes but only approximately
50,000 military members or their family members with the
disease. The committee is aware that the number of military
beneficiaries with diabetes increases to more than 200,000 for
retirees and their family members who are under the age of 65
and doubles to over 400,000 for those beneficiaries in the
TRICARE for Life, Medicare-eligible population. The committee
is also aware that the Department of Health and Human Services
recently expanded a pilot program for Medicare beneficiaries to
prevent diabetes that showed estimated savings of $2,650 for
each enrollee in the program. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Department of Defense to examine the feasibility
of using a similar program for TRICARE beneficiaries to prevent
diabetes, improve health, and reduce health care costs.
Expedited Treatment for Fetal Repair
The committee is aware that advances in fetal medicine
present military personnel and their dependents with
opportunities to correct fetal anomalies in-utero, or before
birth. The committee understands that complex birth defects
have varying times for fetal intervention but in all instances
of fetal anomalies, the earliest referral for in-utero
procedures is best to ensure optimal outcomes for mother and
fetus. The committee is concerned that in some cases, military
beneficiary referrals have taken several weeks or longer.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than January 14, 2017, on the process for referring
beneficiaries for fetal repair procedures. The Secretary shall
include in the briefing information on referrals during
calendar year 2016 that required an intervention, the amount of
time between diagnosis, referral, treatment and the outcomes of
such treatments.
Full Spectrum Ultraviolet Technologies for Routine Disinfection and
Outbreak Mitigation
The committee is aware that both hospital-acquired
infections and surgical site infections continue to be a major,
yet preventable threat to patient and health care worker safety
in both civilian and military treatment facilities, including
the deployed environment. Full spectrum ultraviolet (UV)
technologies have been shown to reduce infection rates in the
health care environment in multiple published, peer-reviewed
studies. In addition to routine disinfection in military
treatment facilities, there are UV technologies that can be
deployed as a biodefense mitigation strategy in the event of an
outbreak including natural and man-made events. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to investigate full
spectrum UV technologies to support patient and staff safety
through routine disinfection, and as a mitigation strategy in
response to a biological outbreak.
Gluten-Free Meals Ready to Eat
The committee is aware of the impact that celiac disease
and gluten sensitivity have on the health and medical readiness
of members of the Armed Forces. The committee notes that the
Army has expanded its field combat Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) by
providing vegetarian meals and meals that accommodate religious
requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than February 1, 2017, on the feasibility
and any existing effort to provide a gluten-free MRE option.
Improving Beneficiary Experience and Outcomes
The committee notes the Department of Defense continues to
seek ways to improve the health care service experience for
military beneficiaries and personnel health and readiness, and
lower the total cost of care. The committee is aware that
certain large private sector employers are offering each
covered family an on-demand health care navigator who is a
trusted individual to assist families with understanding and
utilizing their health benefits, support them in accessing and
navigating the healthcare delivery system, and provide them
with information so they can make informed decisions in
collaboration with their care providers.
This approach has the potential to produce enhanced
clinical outcomes, improved beneficiary experiences in
navigating the health care system, and reduced utilization
which may lower health care costs. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to determine the feasibility
of incorporating the use of healthcare navigators into the
Military Health System to improve beneficiary experience and
outcomes. The Secretary shall submit the results to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by April 1, 2017.
Improving Pediatric Health Care Under TRICARE
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
made strides to improve the delivery of health care services to
pediatric patients, especially those patients with severe
disabilities. However, the committee remains concerned that the
Department has not completed addressing the deficiencies noted
in the report required by section 735 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than September 1, 2016, on the actions taken and the plan
to correct the remaining deficiencies identified in the
pediatric health care report.
Infertility Treatment and Services for Wounded Ill or Injured Members
of the Armed Forces
The committee notes the robust infertility services and
supplies available to seriously wounded, ill or injured service
members. Services include infertility testing and treatment,
correction of the physical or physiological cause of the
infertility as well as assisted reproductive services that will
now include a demonstration of cryopreservation for Active Duty
prior to deployment. The committee is concerned that some
seriously wounded, ill or injured service members may not be
aware of the services available to them after they depart the
military. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to implement a plan by December 1, 2016, to
actively reach out to former members of the military who were
seriously wounded, ill or injured and inform them of the
infertility services available to them.
Joint Medical Research Test Centers
The committee recognizes the need to develop joint
capabilities for military health research projects to optimize
opportunities to identify impactful research opportunities that
support the Department of Defense's medical readiness. The
Pacific Joint Information Technology Center (P-JITC) is the
only joint research test center for the Military Health Service
(MHS), and has produced successful research efforts, such as
the Unified Theater Server Platform and Radio-Frequency
Identification Bar Code Project. The committee also recognizes
the need for joint requirements in four overarching focus
areas: military health care services, theater/operational
medicine, information technology infrastructure and data
management, and medical resourcing. The committee encourages
continued development of these capabilities at a joint research
test center. The committee notes that the Defense Health
Technology Review established a Review Panel to identify
opportunities for efficiencies and savings through
standardization and consolidation. As a result of the review,
the P-JITC was recommended to be consolidated into existing MHS
architecture. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of
the Defense Health Agency to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2017, on a comprehensive plan to conduct
joint research across the MHS.
Military Medical Photonics
The committee is aware that military medical photonics
research has been shown to improve battlefield patient care
using photomedicine technologies. Recent breakthroughs in this
research include major technology advances in burn and wound
management, tissue imaging and bonding for vascular and
reconstructive surgery, diagnosis and treatment of major eye
diseases and trauma, critical care sensors and monitors, early
assessment of inhalation airway injury, rapid imaging of
coronary artery disease, and normalization of severe scarring
from traumatic wounds. The committee encourages the Department
of Defense to continue the work to develop important,
innovative technologies for battlefield medicine.
Network of Support
The committee commends the Department of Defense's efforts
to inform military families of the aspects and stressors of
daily military life experienced by members of the armed forces,
as well as the services available to assist service members
with those stressors. However, the committee believes that the
military services can improve upon current efforts by providing
information over the duration of the military service and
during the transition to civilian life, when appropriate,
coordinating across all branches the information that is
provided, and how it is disseminated, and providing service
members the opportunity to submit their ``network of support''
to receive this important information. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the options for new
recruits of the armed forces to identify a small number of
people that encompass their network of support and to identify
the best ways to integrate these contacts into existing
outreach efforts, including the estimated cost associated with
this effort. In addition, the Secretary shall brief the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives not
later than February 1, 2017, on the results of the assessment.
Osteoarthritis
The committee is aware that the physical demands of
military training and deployment may increase the risk of
osteoarthritis in service members. The committee is concerned
that post-traumatic osteoarthritis may affect the readiness of
our military, yet there is limited information on the scope and
impact of osteoarthritis on the military. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives not later than June 30, 2017, on the overall
discharge rate of military service members as a result of
osteoarthritis, the impact to the overall medical readiness
from post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and recommendations on
prevention and treatment to reduce the number of service
members suffering from osteoarthritis.
Prescription Opioid Abuse and Effects on Readiness
The committee is aware of increased misuse of prescription
opioid drugs on the national level. The committee understands
that the Department of Defense employs several methods to
prevent, educate and identify abuse of opioid drugs by military
service members. However, the committee is concerned that new
strategies may be necessary to combat opioid drug abuse to
improve service member individual readiness, health and quality
of life. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed
Services by October 1, 2017, on the Department's efforts to
prevent, educate and treat prescription opioid drugs abuse by
military service members. The report shall include: research on
more comprehensive treatments for opioid addiction; integration
of drug treatment into healthcare settings and addressing
behavioral interventions; research on next generation
analgesics in order to identify new pain relievers with reduced
abuse, tolerance, and dependence risk; devising alternative
delivery systems and formulations for existing drugs that
minimize diversion; a focus on developing more effective means
for preventing overdose deaths; and focused strategies on
public communication and education.
Private-Public Partnership in Military Treatment Facilities
The committee is aware that there are significant
challenges regarding access to health care on military bases
particularly at smaller and mid-sized bases. The committee is
committed to improving access to care at military treatment
facilities (MTF) for military beneficiaries and to ensure the
readiness of military medical providers. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the
feasibility of including private-public partnerships using
contracted services to provide health care within MTFs. In
conducting the assessment, the Secretary shall consider the
benefit of providing additional services, not previously
available at clinics, through the partnerships, hybrid models
of privately contracted care with direct military oversight
providing services within the MTFs, potential costs savings by
operating an MTF through the partnership, increased patient
satisfaction, improved access to care measured by appointment
availability and wait time, and overall improvement to service
member medical readiness. Not later than December 1, 2016, the
Secretary shall brief the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives on the results of the assessment.
Storage of DNA Samples of Members of the Armed Forces
The committee notes that the Department of Defense uses the
Armed Forces Repository of Specimens for the purpose of
identifying human remains. The repository of DNA samples is
critical to the identification of service members if they
become casualties or Missing in Action and the remains are
recovered. The committee is concerned that the storage of the
original and duplicate DNA samples for members of the Armed
Forces is in one location and could jeopardize future
identification if the facility becomes inoperable. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the
feasibility of storing duplicate DNA samples in an alternate
facility and provide the results of the review to the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by December
1, 2016.
TRICARE Coverage of Medically Necessary Foods
The committee is aware that medically necessary foods are
prescribed for the safe and effective management of multiple
disorders which affect digestion, absorption, and metabolism of
nutrients. The committee is also aware of current TRICARE
Program policy directing coverage of nutritional therapy when
it is used as the primary source of calories or as the primary
source of a required macronutrient. The committee is concerned
that healthcare providers may have difficulty obtaining
approval of medically necessary foods and formulas for the
management of their patients' diseases and conditions, such as
for the management of inflammatory bowel disease, eosinophilic
esophagitis, and major milk sensitivity in pediatric
populations. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to review the adequacy of current TRICARE coverage
policy for nutritional therapy and provide a briefing of its
findings to the Armed Services Committee of the House of
Representatives by July 1, 2017. The briefing shall address the
following elements; rates of appeal for denial of coverage,
average length of appeal, rates of denial of nutritional
therapy coverage in pediatric and adult populations, and any
other matters that the Secretary may deem appropriate.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Reform of TRICARE and Military Health System
Section 701--TRICARE Preferred and Other TRICARE Reform
This section would establish TRICARE Preferred as the self-
managed, preferred provider option that would replace TRICARE
Standard and Extra. This section would also establish annual
enrollment fees and fixed dollar copayments for Active Duty
family members and retirees who join the armed services on or
after January 1, 2018, and enroll in TRICARE Preferred or in
TRICARE Prime, the managed care option. In addition, this
section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish
an annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Preferred for
beneficiaries who were in the Active Duty or retired categories
prior to January 1, 2018. However, the Secretary may not
establish this annual enrollment fee until 90 days after the
Comptroller General of the United States submits a report, not
later than February 1, 2020, to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on
access to care, network adequacy, and beneficiary satisfaction
under TRICARE Preferred compared to the baseline review. This
section would require the Comptroller General, not later than
September 1, 2017, to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on the baseline assessment of network adequacy and
beneficiaries' access to care under the TRICARE health care
provider network. Further, this section would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit an implementation plan, not
later than June 1, 2017, to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives to improve access
for TRICARE beneficiaries. The Comptroller General would be
required to submit, not later than December 1, 2017, to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a review of the implementation plan submitted
by the Secretary.
Section 702--Reform of Administration of the Defense Health Agency and
Military Medical Treatment Facilities
This section would require the Defense Health Agency to
become responsible for management of military treatment
facilities throughout the Department of Defense, while
preserving the responsibilities of the commanders of such
facilities for ensuring the readiness of the members of the
armed forces and civilian employees at such facilities and for
furnishing the health care and medical treatment provided at
such facilities. The Defense Health Agency would establish an
executive-level management office consisting of professional
health care administrators to manage health care operations,
finance and budget, information technology, and medical affairs
across all military treatment facilities. In addition, this
section would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit an
interim report to the congressional defense committees not
later than March 1, 2017, on the preliminary plan to implement
these changes, and a final report not later than March 1, 2018.
This section would also require the Comptroller General of the
United States to review each of the plans submitted by the
Secretary and to submit the Comptroller's assessment to the
congressional defense committees by September 1, 2017, and
September 1, 2018, respectively.
Section 703--Military Medical Treatment Facilities
This section would modify chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, by inserting a new section 1073d which would
establish the requirements for military medical treatment
facilities in order to support medical readiness of the Armed
Forces and the readiness of medical personnel. This section
would further require the Secretary of Defense, in
collaboration with the Secretaries of the military departments,
to submit an updated Military Health System Modernization Study
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This
section would also require the Secretary to submit to the
congressional defense committees, not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act, an implementation plan
to restructure or realign the military medical treatment
facilities in accordance with section 1073d of title 10, United
States Code.
Section 704--Access to Urgent Care Under TRICARE Program
This section would modify chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, by inserting a new section 1077a to require the
Secretary of Defense, not later than 1 year after enactment of
this Act, to ensure urgent care is available through 11:00 p.m.
at military treatment facilities the Secretary determines to be
appropriate. Further, this section would require that if urgent
care is unavailable at the military treatment facilities,
access to urgent care through the TRICARE network providers
would be available through 11:00 p.m. This section would also
eliminate the preauthorization requirement for urgent care.
Section 705--Access to Primary Care Clinics at Military Medical
Treatment Facilities
This section would further modify section 1077a of title
10, United States Code, as added elsewhere in this Act, to
require the Secretary of Defense to expand the primary care
clinic hours at military treatment facilities during the week
and on weekends beyond the standard business hours of the
installation.
Section 706--Incentives for Value-Based Health Under TRICARE Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
develop and implement value-based incentive programs as part of
the TRICARE contracts to encourage health care providers under
the TRICARE program to improve the quality of care and the
experience of the covered beneficiaries. Not later than 1 year
after implementation of a value-based incentive program and
annually thereafter through 2022, the Secretary of Defense
would be required to brief the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, and any other
appropriate congressional committee, on the quality performance
metrics and expenditures related to the incentive program.
Section 707--Improvements to Military-Civilian Partnerships to Increase
Access to Health Care and Readiness
This section would amend section 1096 of title 10, United
States Code, to improve military-civilian partnerships to
deliver health care to beneficiaries in a more effective,
efficient, or economical manner and to provide members of the
Armed Forces with additional training opportunities to maintain
readiness requirements for military health care providers.
Section 708--Joint Trauma System
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Senate an implementation plan to
establish a Joint Trauma System as an enduring organization
within the Defense Health Agency. The Joint Trauma System would
serve as a reference body for all trauma care provided within
the military health system; establish standards of care for
trauma services; coordinate the translation of research from
the Defense Centers of Excellence into standards of care; and
coordinate the lessons learned from joint trauma partnerships
into clinical practice. This section would also require the
Comptroller General of the United States to review the
implementation plan not later than 120 days after the Secretary
submits the implementation plan.
Section 709--Joint Trauma Education and Training Directorate
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
assess the number of traumatologists needed to meet the
requirements of the combatant commanders and to establish a
Joint Trauma Education and Training Directorate to create
enduring partnerships with civilian trauma centers. These
military trauma surgeons and physicians, along with the
clinical support teams, would be embedded within civilian
trauma centers to maintain professional readiness to treat
critically injured patients. This section would also require
the Secretary to submit an implementation plan to the
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than July 1, 2017.
Section 710--Improvements to Access to Health Care in Military Medical
Treatment Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that military medical treatment facilities implement and
consistently practice the following requirements: first call
resolution, standardized appointment scheduling, increased
provider productivity, and managed appointment utilization
through maximizing use of telehealth and secure messaging. This
section would require the Secretary to implement the
requirements by February 1, 2017, and provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
and the Senate on the implementation not later than March 1,
2017.
Section 711--Adoption of Core Quality Performance Metrics
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
adopt the core quality performance measures agreed upon by a
collaborative group of Federal agencies, health plans, national
physician organizations, employers, and consumers. The core
quality measures would be used to evaluate performance of the
Military Health System and the TRICARE network.
Section 712--Study on Improving Continuity of Health Care Coverage for
Reserve Components
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
study the options for providing health care coverage to certain
current and former members of the Selected Reserve. The section
would require the Secretary to submit a report of the findings
and recommendations to the congressional defense committees not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Subtitle B--Other Health Care Benefits
Section 721--Provision of Hearing Aids to Dependents of Retired Members
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
sell hearing aids to dependents of retired members of the
uniformed services.
Section 722--Extended TRICARE Program Coverage for Certain Members of
the National Guard and Dependents During Certain Disaster Response Duty
This section would require that members of the National
Guard be treated as if they were on Active Duty for purposes of
coverage under TRICARE while performing disaster response duty,
if the period immediately follows a period of full-time
National Guard duty, unless a Governor determines that it is
not in the best interest of the member or State.
Subtitle C--Health Care Administration
Section 731--Prospective Payment of Funds Necessary to Provide Medical
Care for the Coast Guard
This section would amend chapter 13 of title 14, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
make a prospective payment to the Secretary of Defense of an
amount that represents the actuarial valuation of treatment or
care provided to members of the Coast Guard, former members of
the Coast Guard, and their dependents at facilities under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Defense except for any period
during which the Coast Guard operates as a service in the Navy.
Subtitle D--Reports and Other Matters
Section 741--Mental Health Resources for Members of the Military
Services at High Risk of Suicide
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a methodology that identifies which members of the
military services are at high risk of suicide based on
association with units that have a high rate of suicide and
provide additional mental health resources to members who have
deployed with such units.
Section 742--Research of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy
This section would authorize not more than $25.0 million to
be used to award grants for research of Chronic Traumatic
Encephalopathy.
Section 743--Active Oscillating Negative Pressure Treatment
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
consider using active oscillating negative pressure treatment
for members of the Armed Forces who incur blast-related
injuries.
Section 744--Long-Term Study on Health of Helicopter and Tiltrotor
Pilots
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
carry out a long-term study of helicopter and tiltrotor pilots
to assess the acute and chronic medical conditions of such
pilots. This section would also require the Secretary to brief
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by June 6, 2017, on the results of such study.
Section 745--Pilot Program for Prescription Drug Acquisition Cost
Parity in the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program to evaluate whether extending
additional discounts for prescription drugs filled at retail
pharmacies will maintain or reduce cost for the Department of
Defense.
Section 746--Study on Display of Wait Times at Urgent Care Clinics,
Pharmacies, and Emergency Rooms of Military Medical Treatment
Facilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
study the feasibility of displaying average wait times at
urgent care clinics, pharmacies, and emergency rooms of
military medical treatment facilities. Not later than March 1,
2017, the Secretary would be required to submit a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
and the Senate, which includes the estimated costs for
displaying wait times.
Section 747--Report on Feasibility of Including Acupuncture and
Chiropractic Services for Retirees Under TRICARE Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the
feasibility of furnishing acupuncture and chiropractic services
to retirees under TRICARE.
Section 748--Clarification on Submission of Reports on Longitudinal
Study on Traumatic Brain Injury
This section would, notwithstanding section 1080 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92), require the Secretary of Defense to submit to
Congress the reports required by section 721 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364).
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Acquisition Auditing and Agility
The committee continues to believe that more could be done
to improve the efficiency of defense contract audits. According
to its annual report, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
had an inventory of more than 18,000 incurred cost submissions
at the end of fiscal year 2014, and the average time to
complete these cost audits was about 1,000 days. Meanwhile, the
Department of Defense recently withdrew a proposal that would
have enabled additional external auditors to assist DCAA in
conducting agency audits of contractor business systems. The
inability of DCAA to carry out its audit responsibilities in a
timely manner has cost and schedule consequences for both
defense acquisition programs and the Department's industrial
base.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a comprehensive review of DCAA's
current backlog of incurred cost submissions and contractor
business system audits. The review shall assess issues such as:
(1) How DCAA defines and measures its backlog for audits;
(2) The nature, extent, and dollar value of the audits that
comprise the backlog;
(3) The factors contributing to why audits have remained
open;
(4) DCAA's criteria and approach for conducting audits and
reducing the backlog;
(5) The time and resources used by DCAA to conduct backlog
audits;
(6) The cost avoidance, cost savings, or other benefits
realized from completing backlog audits;
(7) Whether any additional measures are needed to improve
DCAA's ability to complete audits within a reasonable period of
time; and
(8) Recommendations on ways to reduce DCAA's backlog and to
prevent a backlog from reoccurring.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 1, 2017, on the interim results of the review, and to
provide a final report to the congressional defense committees
by August 1, 2017.
Acquisition Manager Career Paths
For many years, acquisition experts have emphasized that
military and civilian acquisition managers need more knowledge
and experience to be able to effectively develop, manage, and
oversee complex weapon system programs in the Department of
Defense. The committee recognizes that the Department has
recently made progress in improving the capacity of the
acquisition workforce by providing acquisition managers with
additional training, industry exchange opportunities, and
leadership development. However, the committee continues to be
concerned that these efforts focus on managing the ``process''
of the Department's acquisition system rather than on
developing technical and business expertise, knowledge of
industry operations, and the skills needed to achieve desired
acquisition outcomes. The committee also is concerned that
efforts to develop more skilled acquisition managers are
hampered by the lack of clear and comprehensive acquisition
manager career paths and incentives. Many acquisition studies
have identified conflicts between what military officers need
to do to be promoted and their tenure as program managers, as
well as the limited incentives available to retain highly
experienced managers.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a comprehensive study of the
career paths, development, and incentives for military and
civilian acquisition managers in the Department of Defense. The
review shall assess issues such as: (1) how acquisition career
paths for civilian and military acquisition managers are
structured and implemented in the military services; (2) the
extent to which career development and training provide the
requisite skills and experience needed to work effectively with
industry; (3) the extent to which career path opportunities
support program acquisition tenure requirements; (4) whether
career path opportunities and other existing financial
mechanisms are effective in retaining high performing managers;
and (5) whether changes are needed in authorities, regulations,
or procedures to provide for more effective career paths and
development opportunities for acquisition managers. The
committee further directs that the Comptroller General brief
the House Committee on Armed Services on the interim results of
the review by March 1, 2017, and provide a final report to the
congressional defense committees by September 1, 2017.
Advanced Small Business
Section 1613 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees by
January 1, 2014, a report on an independent assessment of the
procurement performance of the Department of Defense related to
small business concerns. The committee is concerned that it has
not yet received the results of the independent assessment. The
committee understands that some of the required items have been
completed and some continue to be assessed. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the
results of the independent assessment as soon as possible. The
committee further directs the Secretary to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Small Business
of the House of Representatives not later than February 1,
2017, on the elements of the assessment that have been
completed. In particular, the committee seeks information on
the transition challenges faced by businesses that graduate
from small business programs or grow to exceed the size
standards for participation in such programs, along with
specific recommendations on steps that should be taken to help
ensure the continued health and growth of such businesses (item
7 of the independent assessment).
Appropriate Use of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Source
Selection Processes and Contracts
The committee notes that in a memorandum on ``Appropriate
Use of Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable Source Selection
Process and Associated Contract Type'' dated March 4, 2015, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics stated that ``Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable
(LPTA) has a clear, but limited place in the source selection
`best value' continuum. Used in appropriate circumstances and
combined with effective competition and proper contract type,
LPTA can drive down costs and provide the best value solution.
LPTA offers a streamlined and simplified source selection
approach to rapidly procure commercial and non-complex services
and supplies we need to support the warfighter. If not applied
appropriately, however, the Department can miss an opportunity
to secure an innovative, cost-effective solution to meet
warfighter needs to help maintain our technological edge.''
The committee agrees with this assessment of the limited
and appropriate use of LPTA source selection processes and
contracts, and the risks of their inappropriate use. However,
the committee is concerned that LPTA processes and contracts
are being used in many circumstances far beyond the depiction
of appropriate in the Under Secretary's memorandum, resulting
in the negative consequences described in the memorandum. For
example, LPTA contracts have been inappropriately used to
procure sensitive electronic test equipment that are very
technical in nature and require calibration, repair, and
software updates during their life cycle. Such long-term costs
are not considered under LPTA processes, even though they may
increase taxpayer costs by millions over the life of the
equipment. Another example is procurement of personal
protective equipment, which the committee strongly believes
demands consideration of additional performance above a minimum
threshold. The committee is also concerned that LPTA processes
may prevent the Department of Defense from hiring auditing
firms with the necessary experience to conduct audits for
large, complex, multinational organizations.
The committee also is concerned that these anecdotal
examples suggest a more widespread over-use of LPTA processes
and contracts that may be having substantial unintended
consequences. Therefore, the committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
to:
(1) Conduct a review of the Department's formal and
informal policy guidance regarding the use of LPTA source
selection processes and contracts;
(2) Conduct a survey of contracting officers regarding
their understanding of such policy guidance; and
(3) Compile data on the frequency and type of goods or
services for which LPTA source selection processes and
contracts were used during fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
The committee further directs the Under Secretary to
provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than March 1,
2017, on the findings of the review, survey, and data
compilation related to LPTA processes and contracts.
Contracting Delays for the Small Business Innovative Research Program
The committee is aware that in the past, continuing
resolutions for the budget have caused delays in getting funds
for Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program out to
program offices. Additionally, these continuing resolutions
also cause contracting backlogs with other contracts in the
Department of Defense. The committee is concerned that SBIR
contracting may become even further delayed by being put at the
end of any contract officer's work queue. The committee
applauds the Department for looking for innovative solutions to
this problem, including the establishment of contracting
centers of excellence to deal with the logjam. The committee
encourages the Department to continue refining such ideas, and
look at other ways to streamline and improve the SBIR
contracting process.
Defense Acquisition University Course Curriculum
The committee is concerned that, following the issuance of
Executive Order 13502, there have been very few project labor
agreements (PLAs) used for Department of Defense construction.
In 2010, the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the
Middle Class found that agency contracting offices had limited
utilization of PLAs. The committee is concerned that such low
utilization may result from limited curriculum on the use of
PLAs at the Defense Acquisition University (DAU). For example,
the committee notes that PLAs are not a main focus area of
DAU's course on construction contracting (CON244). The
committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1,
2016, on the extent to which DAU instructs students on the use
of PLAs. The briefing should include recommendations on how to
elevate the importance of PLAs in DAU's curriculum.
Development Planning
Development planning has long been recognized as an
effective tool for the Department of Defense, and the Air Force
in particular, to understand future warfighting needs and
reconcile those with available and potential capabilities,
concepts, and emerging technologies, and to provide a technical
foundation for acquisition programs. A 2014 study by the
National Research Council of the National Academies called
development planning ``a key process to support the Secretary
of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force in
strategic decisions that guide the Air Force toward mission
success today and in the future.'' The committee is encouraged
by the commitment of the Department and the Air Force to
development planning, including experimentation and
prototyping, as a tool to support emerging capabilities that
will lead to more effective and lower cost weapon systems.
Developmental and Operational Testing Agility
The committee recognizes that developmental and operational
test and evaluation activities are an integral part of the
acquisition of weapon systems, as they provide knowledge of a
system's capabilities and limitations as it matures and is
eventually deployed for use by the warfighter. However, the
committee is concerned that test and evaluation processes in
the Department of Defense may not be sufficiently aligned to
support recent efforts to increase the rapid acquisition,
prototyping, and fielding of advanced warfighter capabilities.
In an environment where threats and technologies are changing
at a rapid pace, it is critical that the Department have an
agile acquisition system that provides the warfighter with the
best capabilities possible.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation, in coordination with the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test
and Evaluation, to conduct a review focused on ways to improve
the agility and effectiveness of developmental and operational
testing within the Department, especially for incremental
upgrades to weapon systems and the rapid prototyping and
fielding of advanced warfighter capabilities. The review should
assess the Department's current use of modeling, simulation,
automated testing, risk-based testing, and other testing
approaches used in government or industry that could be used to
support rapid prototyping and fielding activities. The review
should also address whether operational and developmental test
organizations are sufficiently positioned and resourced to
effectively conduct their missions. The committee further
directs the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than February 1, 2017, on the findings of the review,
along with recommendations for any improvements in test and
evaluation processes and procedures.
Discussions Between Government and Industry After Receipt of Proposals
The committee notes that the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) pertaining to exchanges with
offerors after receipt of proposals is not consistent with the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) on the same subject.
Currently, FAR 15.306 makes clear that contracting officers
must conduct discussions with each offeror within the
competitive range, yet DFARS 215.306 states contracting
officers should conduct such discussions above a certain
monetary threshold, thereby introducing a possible discrepancy
regarding if such discussions are mandatory or optional.
The committee is concerned that such inconsistency could
have an adverse effect on exchanges between government and
industry. Accordingly, the committee reminds the Department of
Defense that the FAR makes discussions with offerors within the
competitive range mandatory and expects Department contracting
officers to follow the FAR. The committee has been supportive
of improving discussions overall between government and
industry. For example, section 887 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92)
required the FAR Council to prescribe a regulation making clear
that acquisition personnel are permitted and encouraged to
engage in responsible and constructive exchanges with industry.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1,
2016, on how the Department implements FAR 15.306 and DFARS
215.306, as well as any revisions or additions to the FAR based
on the requirements of section 887 of Public Law 114-92.
Domestic Source of Traveling Wave Tubes
The committee is concerned with the use of foreign made
components in the most sensitive national security programs.
Specifically, the committee is aware that traveling wave tubes
(TWTs) of non-U.S. manufacturers are being used in critical
satellite and guided missile programs. Additionally, the
committee notes the failure of a TWT constitutes a grave risk
of single point failure in many of these national security
programs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 1, 2017, on the risks of non-U.S. TWTs in national
security programs. The briefing should include recommendations
for ensuring all TWTs used as components in national security-
related procurements are American in origin and manufacture.
Innovation Clusters
The committee recognizes the critical role that industry,
non-profit research institutes, and academia play in the
innovation ecosystem that supports national security. In
particular, the committee believes that small businesses and
non-traditional contractors have an especially important role
to play, though their size and lack of familiarity with
Department of Defense processes can often be an impediment to
effective cooperation. The increasing need for these entities
to be involved in classified research poses additional
problems, and makes it even more difficult for the Department
to leverage these entities for the full range of national
security work.
The committee believes the Department should find methods
to bring together these disparate organizations in new and
novel ways to help build communities that can work together on
vital national security problems. The committee encourages the
Department to support these sorts of regional innovation
clusters or consortia, especially where they can help leverage
limited or high-demand resources, like classified meeting or
processing spaces, which would be difficult for individual
small businesses to invest in by themselves.
Large Lot Procurement
The committee notes that the significant procurement
reductions proposed in the fiscal year 2017 budget request make
clear the imperative of changing acquisition policies to
generate greater efficiencies and to procure more weapon
systems within constrained budgets. The committee is aware that
Department of Defense acquisition officials have evaluated a
concept known as Large Lot Procurement (LLP), which could
generate substantial acquisition savings and more efficient
utilization of the defense industrial base. The committee
understands LLP to involve using a multiyear contract to
purchase units from a portfolio of stable acquisition programs
produced in common facilities. Purchases would be sequenced to
realize economic order quantities, resulting in substantial
savings across acquisition programs. Therefore, the committee
encourages Department of Defense officials to continue to
explore the LLP concept. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than September 1, 2016, on the potential
utility of LLP, barriers to pursuing LLP, and potential policy
and legislative changes necessary to enable LLP. The briefing
should also include a list of current multiyear contracts that
could be included in an LLP and a description of a notional LLP
containing such multiyear contracts.
Operation and Support Cost Data
The committee notes that operation and support (O&S) costs
comprise the majority of the life-cycle costs of a weapon
system, yet O&S costs are difficult to accurately estimate
during the acquisition process because historical data on
actual O&S costs for weapon systems are limited. Section 832 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) directed the Secretary of Defense to
establish standard requirements for the collection of O&S cost
data, the military departments to revise their data systems to
ensure complete and accurate collection of such data, and the
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to
develop and maintain a database on O&S cost estimates,
supporting documentation, and actual O&S costs. The committee
is aware that some progress has been made in improving data
collection and analysis; however, significant deficiencies
still exist. For example, while existing systems collect data
on the amount of funds executed for operation and maintenance
of weapon systems, they fail to capture detailed information on
how and for what purposes such funds are used, which are
critical details for developing reliable O&S cost estimates for
new acquisition programs. In addition, the committee is
concerned that there is insufficient coordination across the
military services regarding the collection of O&S cost data,
making it difficult to integrate and use data across systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of CAPE, in
coordination with the service secretaries and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, to conduct a comprehensive review of the military
services' O&S cost data collection efforts and systems and
provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives by February 1, 2017, on the results of
the review. The review should include a case study of the O&S
cost data available for at least one current major defense
acquisition program from each of the military departments,
based on data that is currently available to CAPE. It should
identify any shortfalls in O&S cost data that reduce the
accuracy of O&S cost estimates and potential sources of
additional data that could improve O&S cost modeling, such as
information on how and for what purposes O&S funds are used and
relevant information on operation and sustainment activities.
The briefing should include recommendations for achieving an
enterprise data repository that could retrieve and consolidate
data from the military departments' various databases that
contain information related to the operation and sustainment of
weapon systems.
Public-Private Competitions Conducted Under Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76
The committee is aware that a moratorium on the conduct of
public-private competitions governed by Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-76 has existed within the Department of
Defense since fiscal year 2008. The committee is also aware
that in the Department's report to the congressional defense
committees on the Department's conduct of public-private
competitions, required by section 325 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), the
Department recommended Congress lift the suspension on A-76
competitions. The committee further notes that historically the
Department has relied on conducting A-76 public-private
competitions in an effort to achieve greater efficiency and
productivity. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to review the
Department's report to congressional defense committees
submitted pursuant to section 325 of Public Law 111-84 and
brief the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2017,
on updated views and recommendations concerning the
Department's ability to implement public-private competitions
under Circular A-76. The briefing shall include what actions
the Department has taken to correct the problems identified
with Circular A-76 by the Department of Defense Inspector
General in report D-2009-034 and by the Government
Accountability Office in report GA0-11-923R.
Rare Earths
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee tasked the Director of the
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to conduct a supply
chain review of rare earths in acquisition category (ACAT) I
programs. DCMA concluded that virtually all ACAT I programs
contain rare earths that are necessary for program
functionality. DCMA also concluded that ACAT I programs
containing rare earths are dependent on foreign sources at
several points in the rare earth supply chain. However, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2016 that
the Department of Defense does not have a comprehensive
approach to identifying rare earths that are critical to
national defense. GAO further concluded that, without a
comprehensive assessment, the ability of the Department to
assess supply chain risks and mitigating actions is limited.
The committee notes that the Department concurred with GAO
recommendations to improve management of rare earths. However,
the committee remains concerned about rare earth supply chain
risks. The committee looks forward to reviewing the results of
the Department's efforts to improve management of rare earths
and will continue to work with the Department to mitigate risks
related to rare earths.
Requirement for Non-U.S. Contracts in Afghanistan
The committee understands that U.S. military personnel and
civilians currently serving in Afghanistan receive contractor
support, which allows them to focus on achieving mission
objectives. This support is paid for with U.S. taxpayer funding
and is executed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR), subject to oversight of the Defense Contract
Management Agency (DCMA), and allows for the appropriate
congressional committees to fulfill their constitutional
obligations to oversee funding for and performance of these
contracts.
The committee is concerned that transferring control of
these activities to a non-U.S. contracting authority could
result in reduced quality of services and overall decline in
contract performance, as well as diminishing Federal and
congressional oversight to protect U.S. taxpayer funds against
waste, fraud, and abuse.
Therefore, to maintain the quality of services being
provided to U.S. personnel serving in Afghanistan, as well as
safeguarding Congress' ability to conduct proper oversight, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December
1, 2016, on the plans and rationale for transferring any
logistics or support contracts in Afghanistan currently awarded
and administered by the U.S. Department of Defense, via the
Army and the other services and defense agencies, to any other
non-U.S. contracting authority. The briefing should include, at
a minimum:
(1) How many U.S.-funded contracts have been transferred to
a non-U.S. contracting authority;
(2) How many more transfers are planned; and
(3) How does DCMA monitor compliance with the FAR and
ensure taxpayer funds are protected against fraud, waste, and
abuse.
Service Contracts Inventory and Accountability
The committee remains concerned about the ability of the
Department of Defense to properly account for its contracts for
services. The committee encourages the Department's recent
efforts to improve its services contracting inventory and
accountability methods in order to inform sourcing decisions
and workforce planning. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by November 1, 2016, regarding the steps the
Department has taken to improve its services contracts
inventory and accountability procedures. Elsewhere in this Act,
the committee includes a provision that would revise the
current requirement related to the inventory of contracts for
services found in section 2330a of title 10, United States
Code.
Small Business Participation Across Industry Categories
The committee continues to support the appropriate use of
small business set asides to strengthen the defense industrial
base. Section 1631 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the head of
each agency to ``develop a plan for achieving [the agency's
small business goals] at both the prime contract and
subcontract level'' that addresses the participation of these
small businesses by industry category. Section 868 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) required that when the Small Business
Administration evaluates an agency's use of small businesses,
it must assess the industrial distribution of those small
business prime contracts and subcontracts. As neither of these
requirements have been fully implemented, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2017, to outline
Department of Defense efforts to ensure that awards to small
businesses, including awards accomplished using set aside or
sole source procedures, are appropriately distributed across
industry categories.
Veterans in Piping Program
The committee is aware that the Veterans in Piping program
offers high-quality skills training and jobs in the pipe trades
to Active Duty military personnel preparing to leave service.
The program is intended to address the growing shortage in the
construction industry of skilled workers and the unemployment
rate among veterans.
The committee supports this and similar transition
programs, but notes that participating employers that provide
training, certification, and guaranteed placement to Active
Duty personnel often bear the full costs of such programs. The
committee is concerned that, without more Department of Defense
support, such transition assistance programs will not reach
their full potential. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives not later than
February 1, 2017, on possible options within current law for
supporting contractors working with service member transition
organizations like the Veterans in Piping program. The briefing
should also include potential legislative options on this issue
for future consideration by the committee.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Section 801--Revision to Authorities Relating to Department of Defense
Test Resource Management Center
This section would amend section 196 of title 10, United
States Code, by limiting application of the existing law to the
Major Range and Test Facility Base and those test and
evaluation facilities that are used to support the acquisition
programs of the Department of Defense. The amendment would
align the statute to the original enactment in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-
314) and would prevent reporting requirements from being
broadened to small laboratory and educational test and
evaluation facilities. The section would also define the term
``significant change'' in test and evaluation facilities.
Section 802--Amendments to Restrictions on Undefinitized Contractual
Actions
This section would amend section 2326 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Department of Defense to consider
the cost risk to the contractor as of the date that a
qualifying proposal to definitize a contract was submitted if
the contract was not then definitized within the statutory 180-
day period. The section would also apply the 180-day
definitization period to foreign military sales contracts and
would amend the definition of a qualifying proposal to a
proposal that contains sufficient information to enable a
meaningful audit of the definitization proposal.
Section 803--Revision to Requirements Relating to Inventory Method for
Department of Defense Contracts for Services
This section would amend section 2330a of title 10, United
States Code, to revise the current requirement related to how
the Department of Defense accounts for and reports contracts
for services.
Section 804--Procurement of Personal Protective Equipment
This section would amend section 884 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) to clarify source selection criteria to be used in the
procurement of personal protective equipment or critical safety
items. The criteria are that best value, rather than reverse
auction or lowest price technically acceptable, contracting
methods should be used in source selections to the maximum
extent practicable.
Section 805--Revision to Effective Date of Senior Executive Benchmark
Compensation for Allowable Cost Limitations
This section would remove the retroactive application
requirement of section 803 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81),
which implemented a cap on the allowable compensation of
contractor employees. As a result of this revision, section 803
would apply to compensation costs incurred after January 1,
2012, under contracts entered into on or after December 31,
2011.
Section 806--Amendments Related to Detection and Avoidance of
Counterfeit Electronic Parts
This section would modify section 818 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) by replacing the term ``trusted suppliers''' with the term
``suppliers that meet anticounterfeiting requirements''', as
well as related conforming amendments.
The committee is aware that the term ``trusted'' in this
context has created some confusion, since ``trusted
suppliers''' refers to a specific category of microelectronics
suppliers that have been accredited by the Defense
Microelectronics Activity. Counterfeit parts refer to a much
broader set of circumstances and require a broader definition
of the supplier base needed to address counterfeiting concerns.
Section 807--Amendments to Special Emergency Procurement Authority
This section would amend section 1903 of title 41, United
States Code, to expand the permissible uses of special
emergency procurement authorities to include support of
international disaster assistance and support of a national
emergency or natural disaster relief efforts in the United
States as defined by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act.
Section 808--Compliance with Domestic Source Requirements for Footwear
Furnished to Enlisted Members of the Armed Forces Upon Their Entry into
the Armed Forces
This section would amend section 418 of title 37, United
States Code, to require the Department of Defense to adhere to
the requirements of section 2533a of title 10, United States
Code, and issue 100 percent American-made athletic shoes to new
recruits upon entrance to basic training. This section would
also allow waivers to be granted in cases of medical necessity.
Section 809--Requirement for Policies and Standard Checklist in
Procurement of Services
This section would establish a procurement policy checklist
to ensure accountability in the acquisition of services.
Section 810--Extension of Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount
Available for Contract Services
This section would extend the cap on the total spending for
services contracts by 1 year.
Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs
Section 811--Change in Date of Submission to Congress of Selected
Acquisition Reports
This section would amend section 2342(f) of title 10,
United States Code, by changing, from 45 to 10, the number of
days after the President's budget request transmittal that
comprehensive annual Selected Acquisition Reports are due to
Congress.
Section 812--Amendments Relating to Independent Cost Estimation and
Cost Analysis
This section would amend sections 2334 and 2434 of title
10, United States Code, to make clear that the Office of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) conducts or approves
independent cost estimates (ICEs) for all major defense
acquisition programs and major automated information systems.
In recognition of improvements made by military department
costing functions, the section would authorize CAPE to approve
ICEs conducted by the military departments rather than
conducting all ICEs itself. The section would require
assessments of risk and potential consequences in independent
cost estimates, rather than the current reporting of confidence
intervals. The section would also standardize and increase the
scope of cost data collected by CAPE to create an enterprise
cost data repository for use by all Department of Defense
costing and acquisition functions. It is the committee's intent
that the establishment of an enterprise data repository should
not add additional layers of oversight to acquisition programs
that are currently managed by the military departments.
Section 813--Revisions to Milestone B Determinations
This section would amend section 2366b of title 10, United
States Code, to remove the requirement for the milestone
decision authority, prior to milestone B approval, to determine
affordability and funding levels for a major defense
acquisition program relative to the Future Years Defense
Program submitted during the year in which the determination is
made. Since the Future Years Defense Program is not developed
until the end of the year, the current requirement is typically
waived. The section would maintain the requirement to determine
affordability based on unit cost and total life-cycle cost, as
well as determine the expected funding for product development
and production.
Section 814--Review and Report on Sustainment Planning in the
Acquisition Process
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into a contract with an independent entity with
appropriate expertise to conduct an assessment of the extent to
which sustainment matters are considered in decisions related
to requirements, acquisition, cost estimating, and programming
and budgeting for major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs).
The study would include an evaluation of the availability and
quality of information on sustainment of MDAPs and major weapon
systems, including operation and support (O&S) cost data; an
assessment of product support strategies for major weapon
systems; an evaluation of how effectively the military
departments consider sustainment matters at key decision points
for acquisition and life-cycle management; and recommendations
for improving access to information and the consideration of
sustainment matters. This section would require the Secretary
to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than
March 1, 2017, on the preliminary findings of the independent
entity. This section would also require the Secretary to submit
to the congressional defense committees by August 1, 2017, the
final report of the independent entity, his comments on the
final report, and proposed revisions to laws or regulations.
The committee received testimony that the Department has
limited ability to estimate the O&S costs of weapon systems,
but such estimates are critical for accurately projecting
complete life-cycle costs. Additionally, the committee
continues to observe that operation and sustainment matters
could receive more careful consideration early in the
acquisition process during the planning and design of MDAPs.
The committee expects the study to provide useful insights into
the use of data in decision making, the effectiveness of
sustainment planning in life-cycle management of major weapon
systems, and how the decisions made early in the acquisition
process affect the long-term operation and sustainment of major
weapon systems.
Section 815--Revision to Distribution of Annual Report on Operational
Test and Evaluation
This section would amend section 139 of title 10, United
States Code, by including the Secretaries of the military
departments in the list of people who receive and who may
comment on the annual report of the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation. The section would also extend the annual
report through January 31, 2021. This amendment would supersede
section 1080 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Commercial Items
Section 821--Revision to Definition of Commercial Item
This section would amend section 103 of title 41, United
States Code, to expand the types of nondevelopmental items that
may be considered commercial items to include items that the
procuring agency determines were developed at private expense
and sold in substantial quantities on a competitive basis to
foreign governments. Currently, nondevelopmental items are
limited to items sold to multiple State and local governments.
This section would eliminate the requirement that a
nondevelopmental item be sold to multiple governments to be
considered a commercial item. This section also would prescribe
that nothing in this section shall affect the meaning of the
term ``commercial item'' under section 2464 of title 10, United
States Code, regarding core logistics capabilities.
Section 822--Market Research for Determination of Price Reasonableness
in Acquisition of Commercial Items
This section would amend section 2377 of title 10, United
States Code, relating to the preference for acquisition of
commercial items by adding a new subsection that would require
procurement officials of the Department of Defense to conduct
or obtain market research when determining price reasonableness
for commercial items.
Section 823--Value Analysis for the Determination of Price
Reasonableness
This section would amend section 2379(d) of title 10,
United States Code, by adding a new paragraph that would allow
contractors to submit information or analysis pertaining to the
value of a commercial item when responding to solicitations.
This section would also allow contracting officers to consider
value analysis, in addition to historic pricing data, when
determining price reasonableness for commercial items.
Section 824--Clarification of Requirements Relating to Commercial Item
Determinations
This section would amend section 2380 of title 10, United
States Code, to expand Department of Defense centralized
records relating to commercial item determinations to include
market research and price reasonableness analysis. This section
would also eliminate the requirement that such records be
publicly accessible.
Section 825--Pilot Program for Authority to Acquire Innovative
Commercial Items Using General Solicitation Competitive Procedures
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to carry
out a pilot program under which innovative commercial items may
be acquired through a competitive selection of proposals,
resulting from a general solicitation and the peer review of
such proposals.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 831--Review and Report on the Bid Protest Process
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 the bid protest
process related to major defense acquisition programs. The
review would include an assessment of the incidence and
duration of bid protests, whether bid protests have delayed
procurement actions, and whether bid protests are frequent by,
or provide financial benefits to, incumbent contractors. The
section would require the Secretary to brief the Senate and
House Committees on Armed Services on the interim findings of
the independent entity by March 1, 2017, and submit the final
report on the findings of the independent entity to the
congressional defense committees by July 1, 2017.
The committee recognizes that the bid protest process
serves a valuable role in helping ensure the overall integrity
of the Federal procurement system. In recent years, however,
there have been conflicting reports about the role of bid
protests in the Department of Defense and whether the number of
protests has increased and contributed to avoidable cost and
schedule effects on acquisition programs.
This review is likely to offer government-wide acquisition
insights. Consequently, the committee intends to coordinate
briefings and lessons learned with the Senate Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs and House Oversight and Government
Reform Committees.
Section 832--Review and Report on Indefinite Delivery Contracts
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the use of indefinite delivery type
contracts by the Department of Defense during fiscal years
2015, 2016, and 2017. The Comptroller General would be required
to report the findings of the review to Congress by March 31,
2018.
Section 833--Review and Report on Contractual Flow-Down Provisions
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 contractual flow-
down provisions related to major defense acquisition programs.
The review would include an assessment of the number of
contractual flow-down provisions; provisions that are critical
for national security; the applicability of provisions for
commodities acquired for multiple programs; and costs, burdens,
and participation rate effects, if any, of contractual flow-
down provisions on defense contractors. The section would
require the Secretary to submit to the Senate and House
Committees on Armed Services a briefing of interim findings of
the independent entity by March 1, 2017, and a final report to
the congressional defense committees on the findings of the
independent entity by August 1, 2017.
The committee is concerned that prime contracts awarded by
the Department of Defense can have adverse effects on
subcontractors due to the myriad flow-down provisions
established in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to the FAR.
The committee is aware that the number of flow-down provisions
has increased substantially and that some provisions may impose
unnecessary burdens for the Department and its suppliers. The
committee also is concerned that some provisions may be flowed
down to subcontractors or suppliers to which they do not apply
or without appropriate tailoring.
This review is likely to offer government-wide acquisition
insights. Consequently, the committee intends to coordinate
briefings and lessons learned with the Senate Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs and House Oversight and Government
Reform Committees.
Section 834--Review of Anti-Competitive Specifications in Information
Technology Acquisitions
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review the
policy, guidance, regulations, and training related to
specifications included in information technology (IT)
acquisitions within 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act. The purpose of this review would be to ensure that
current policies eliminate the use of potentially anti-
competitive specifications, such as the use of brand name
procurements, or references to proprietary specification or
standards in IT acquisitions. This section would also require
the Under Secretary to provide a briefing to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services on the review. Lastly, this section would require the
Under Secretary to revise current policies, guidance, and
training to incorporate any recommended changes from this
review, should changes be warranted.
Section 835--Coast Guard Major Acquisition Programs
This section would amend section 56(c) of title 14, United
States Code, to direct the Chief Acquisitions Officer of the
Coast Guard to inform the Commandant of developments in major
acquisition programs that have new or revisited trade-offs
between costs, scheduling, feasibility, and performance. This
section also would amend chapter 15 of title 14, United States
Code, to clarify the role of the Acquisition Directorate in
ensuring that the needs of customers in major acquisition
programs are met in the most cost-effective manner practicable.
The Vice Commandant of the Coast Guard would be responsible for
representing the operating field units and would serve an
advisory role to the Commandant for major acquisition programs.
The customer of a major acquisition program would be specified
as the operating field unit that would field the acquired
system and ``major acquisition program'' would be defined as a
program with a life-cycle cost estimate of $300.0 million or
more.
This section also would prohibit the Commandant of the
Coast Guard from awarding a contract for the design of an
unmanned aerial system (UAS) for use by the Coast Guard, and
would require the Commandant to use and operate only UASs that
have already been acquired by either the Department of Defense
or the Department of Homeland Security.
This section also would allow the Coast Guard to extend
major acquisition program contracts if the Comptroller General
of the United States finds that extending a current contract
would be more cost effective than awarding a new contract. The
Comptroller General would determine the costs for acquiring
additional vessels under an existing contract, as well as the
incurred costs due to schedule delays and asset design changes
that would result from awarding a new contract.
This section also would require the Commandant to review
all authorities provided under chapter 15 of title 14, United
States Code, and other relevant statutes and deliver a report
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on how the
Commandant can play a more appropriate role in the acquisitions
process with regard to policies, requirements, and implementing
a more customer-oriented acquisition system.
This section also would require the Secretary for the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating to submit a
report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives on an analysis of multiyear procurement
authorities for the procurement of at least five Fast Response
Cutters (beginning with hull 43) and Offshore Patrol Cutters
(beginning with hull 5). The report would include an assessment
of costs and benefits, impact on delivery times, and whether
acquisitions would meet the four-part test under section 2306b
of title 10, United States Code.
Section 836--Waiver of Congressional Notification for Acquisition of
Tactical Missiles and Munitions Greater Than Quantity Specified in Law
This section would waive the requirement for the Secretary
of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees of a
decision, not later than 30 days after the date of the
decision, to acquire a higher quantity of an end item (for
tactical missiles and munitions annual procurements only) than
is specified in law.
The committee believes this could be a considerable process
improvement for the military service acquisition staffs by
eliminating a significant staffing burden in working
congressional notifications for nominal increases in missile
and munition quantities over the budgeted levels that are based
on unit cost savings.
Section 837--Closeout of Old Department of the Navy Contracts
This section would authorize the administrative closeout of
a number of older Navy contracts and assist in obtaining a
clean financial audit. The Department of Defense has estimated
that this proposal would result in a one-time cost avoidance of
at least $1.6 million and a one-time payment to the U.S.
Treasury of approximately $0.58 million.
Section 838--Requirement That Certain Ship Components Be Manufactured
in the National Technology and Industrial Base
This section would amend section 2534 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 839--Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund Determination Adjustment
This section would amend section 1705 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to reduce the
threshold amount that must be credited to the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund during fiscal year 2017
from $400.0 million to $0. This section addresses an
overfunding of the fund that has resulted from carryovers from
prior years.
Section 840--Amendment To Prohibition on Performance of Non-Defense
Audits by Defense Contract Audit Agency To Exempt Audits for National
Nuclear Security Administration
This section would amend section 893 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) to exempt audits for the National Nuclear Security
Administration from the prohibition on performance of non-
defense audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
Section 841--Selection of Service Providers for Auditing Services and
Audit Readiness Services
This section would require the Department of Defense to
select providers for audit and audit readiness services based
on the best value to the Department, rather than based on the
lowest price technically acceptable service provider.
Section 842--Modifications to the Justification and Approval Process
for Certain Sole-Source Contracts for Small Business Concerns
This section would repeal section 811 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) and establish a standard justification and approval process
for sole-source contracts valued at $20.0 million or greater.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
OVERVIEW
The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization
Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433) instituted a series of sweeping
organizational reforms to the Department of Defense to include:
(1) improving military advice to the President and the
Secretary of Defense; (2) improving joint officer management;
(3) placing clear responsibility on the commanders of the
combatant commands; and (4) increasing attention to the
formulation of strategy and to contingency planning.
These reforms were the result of 4 years of congressional
oversight and deliberations. They led to a clear delineation of
roles and responsibilities across the Department. The Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was designated as the principal
military adviser to the President and the Secretary of Defense,
and was to focus on planning and coordination across the joint
force. The unified commands were assigned responsibility for
conducting operations at the direction and control of the
President through the Secretary of Defense, and all combat
forces were to be assigned to the unified commanders. The role
of the military departments was also clarified regarding
organize, train, and equip functions. Lastly, to strengthen
civilian authority, Public Law 99-433 codified the powers and
duties of the Secretary of Defense. By all accounts, these
reforms were a success and remain a model for bipartisan
congressional oversight and reform of national security
structures.
Three decades after Public Law 99-433 was enacted, the
committee believes that the legislation should be reviewed and
reevaluated. The committee recognizes that security challenges
have become more transregional, multi-domain, and multi-
functional; that U.S. superiority in key warfighting areas is
at risk with other nations' technological advances; and that
the Department of Defense lacks the agility and adaptability
necessary to support timely decisionmaking and the rapid
fielding of new capabilities.
This subtitle represents the committee's first step towards
Goldwater-Nichols reform. The committee believes that reform
efforts must start with a clear set of guiding principles and
objectives, and it recognizes that further oversight hearings
and deliberations are necessary to inform additional reforms.
The proposals contained in this subtitle are focused on
increasing accountability and oversight, enhancing global
synchronization and joint operations, and strengthening
strategic thinking and planning, while preserving civilian
control of the military and the role of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff as the principal, independent military
advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense.
This subtitle contains a sense of Congress that outlines a
set of guiding principles for reform. Regarding joint matters,
it contains a provision that would reinforce the advisory role
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) to provide
independent advice on ongoing operations and on the allocation
and transfer of forces across regions to bridge service and
combatant command stovepipes. It contains a provision that
would extend the CJCS term from 2 to 4 years in a manner that
bridges administrations to increase independence and to provide
greater continuity of leadership, and it would require a
revamped independent National Military Strategy to support U.S.
national security objectives and to synchronize individual
combatant command plans. It also includes a provision that
would expand the definition of jobs that qualify for joint duty
credit and decreases minimum joint tour lengths from 3 years to
2 years to enhance operational currency across joint operations
and the joint staff.
Regarding unified commands, this subtitle includes a
provision that elevates U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) to a
unified command and directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to study the dual-hat responsibility of the
CYBERCOM Commander as the Director of the National Security
Agency. Additionally, this subtitle contains a provision that
would further de-layer and reduce top-heavy combatant command
headquarters by reducing the rank of service and functional
component commanders under a combatant command from four-star
to three-star general and flag officers.
Regarding reform within the military departments, the
committee has largely focused its efforts on acquisition reform
and the role of the military services in acquisition through
legislation contained in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and elsewhere in this
Act.
Lastly, this subtitle contains provisions that would
streamline strategic planning within the Department. The
subtitle includes provisions that would eliminate the
ineffective Quadrennial Defense Review and replace it with a
new framework for Secretary-led strategic guidance. The
Secretary would be required to issue top-down Defense Strategic
Guidance every four years that sets force structure and
resource priorities. This guidance would be implemented through
classified annual program and budget guidance and biennial
contingency planning guidance that Congress would receive to
support its oversight. Finally, this subtitle contains a
proposal that would establish an independent Defense Strategy
Commission to make recommendations for the nation's defense
strategy.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Conference Travel Policy
The committee has been concerned about the detrimental
impact that restrictions on the ability of defense laboratory
personnel to travel to technical conferences and symposia have
had on recruitment and retention of personnel in the defense
research enterprise. The committee notes that 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. In some cases,
participation in such conferences is a necessary step in
attaining or maintaining technical professional society
memberships or certifications. Participation in technical
conferences is also a signal of technological leadership to the
international community, and recent restrictions have created a
vacuum in some cases that have led other nations' researchers
and engineers to fill the void. The ability of the Department
to maintain technical leadership means U.S. scientists and
engineers have to be present and active in this community.
The committee is aware that the Office of the Deputy
Secretary of Defense updated the Department's Conference Policy
guidance in September of 2015. These changes have allowed
personnel within the military departments and several other
Department of Defense agencies greater flexibility for
participation in technical conferences and symposia. While some
military departments and Department of Defense agencies have
implemented this new guidance, the committee is concerned about
the uneven implementation of this new, more decentralized
decision making. The committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to ensure the new policy is broadly, and correctly,
understood to ensure that it is fully implemented as soon as
possible.
Defense Logistics Agency Overhead Costs
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) sources and provides
nearly every consumable item used by U.S. military forces
worldwide. The Department of Defense uses the Defense-Wide
Working Capital Fund to cover the Department's costs for
providing services and purchasing commodities under three DLA
activity groups: Supply Chain Management, Energy Management,
and Document Services. The Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund is
reimbursed through DLA's sale of commodities and services to
the military services and other customers, such as other
Federal agencies and foreign military sales. DLA incorporates
overhead costs into the reimbursement rates it charges its
customers, which DLA uses to offset facilities sustainment,
restoration, and modernization; transportation; storage; and
other costs.
The committee is interested in the potential for improving
DLA's overhead cost estimates, which could, in turn, contribute
to more accurate budget estimates and potential savings.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to evaluate the following:
(1) The nature and size of DLA activities financed by
overhead costs reimbursed through the Defense-Wide Working
Capital Fund;
(2) How DLA calculates overhead costs for the commodities
and services it manages through the Defense-Wide Working
Capital Fund;
(3) How DLA's estimated overhead costs have compared to
actual costs since fiscal year 2009, and factors that have
contributed to any differences;
(4) The options, if any, DLA has considered in adjusting
its approach to determining overhead costs in light of any
differences between estimated and actual overhead costs; and
(5) Any best practices that DLA has previously used or is
using to identify and manage overhead costs.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 30, 2017, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller
General's evaluation and to submit a final report to the House
Committee on Armed Services on a date agreed to at the time of
the briefing.
Human Capital Plan for Business Transformation
The committee believes that business transformation will be
increasingly important to the Department of Defense, especially
as shrinking budgets and workforce reductions continue.
Additional demands, like the growing implementation of
enterprise resource planning systems for financial and
personnel management, as well as the deadlines to reach full
financial auditability, further highlight the need to focus on
business transformation, and to have a workforce with the right
skill sets and experience to ensure that business
transformation is successful. As the lead within the Department
of Defense for these activities, these workforce needs are
especially acute for the Deputy Chief Management Officer
(DCMO).
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has pointed out
that the human capital needs for the Office of the DCMO are not
completely defined, and that there appear to be gaps in the
skill sets needed for that office to be effective. An earlier
call to complete a gap analysis of the human capital needs to
better understand what types of personnel are needed to manage
and oversee business transformation efforts has not been
completed. While there is expertise in business systems and
process improvement, GAO found the Office of the DCMO lacking
in people with strategic planning or performance management
expertise. Continuing workforce reductions will not only impact
the ability to conduct this sort of assessment, but also
underline the needs to take a more focused look at the
workforce in order to make strategic decisions about the
limited number of people that office will be able to hire and
retain.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Deputy Chief Management Officer to complete a gap analysis of
the human capital needs of the Office of the DCMO, taking into
account the merger of the positions of Chief Information
Officer and DCMO as directed by section 901 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), and to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2017, on the results of the analysis.
Oversight and Management of Defense-Wide Training
The committee notes that Department of Defense Directive
1322.18 pertaining to military training was last updated in
January 2009. Since then, significant organizational changes
within the Department have occurred, including the
disestablishment of U.S. Joint Forces Command and the
establishment of an Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Readiness, directly affecting the oversight and management of
defense-wide training policies, programs, and resources.
The committee notes that section 4(d) of the Directive
states that ``The Department of Defense shall maintain a
comprehensive and effective Service, Defense Agency, and joint
training management capability to develop, execute, and assess
military training throughout the Department.'' The committee is
aware, however, that, since the disestablishment of U.S. Joint
Forces Command, defense-wide training and training-related
activities and programs have been dispersed throughout the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the
military services, the combatant commands, and other defense
organizations. The committee is concerned that such dispersal,
combined with outdated policy guidance, has led to the
ineffective oversight and management of defense-wide training
and inefficient allocation of training-related resources. The
committee believes that the Department should take a more
holistic approach to managing the defense training enterprise
to enhance the capability and readiness of the joint force, to
include aligning the services' training investments to joint
and common training needs, identifying opportunities for
greater training integration and interoperability, and
advancing innovative training methods and capabilities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
to update Department of Defense Directive 1322.18. The
committee further directs the Secretary and the Chairman to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than December 1, 2016, on the status of the Department's
efforts to update such Directive. The briefing should also
address the following elements:
(1) The scope of training programs, facilities, activities,
and resources covered by the updated Directive;
(2) The delineation of training roles and responsibilities
among the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff,
the military services, the combatant commands, and other
relevant defense organizations;
(3) An assessment of joint and common training requirements
and the adequacy of current, planned, and programmed training
capabilities, resources, and personnel to meet those
requirements;
(4) Any recommendations for improving the oversight and
management of military training and related resources,
including any recommendations for changes in authorities,
budgeting structures, or organizational structures, including
any recommendations for de-layering and consolidating defense-
wide training organizations; and
(5) Any other matters the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Goldwater-Nichols Reform
Section 901--Sense of Congress on Goldwater-Nichols Reform
This section would express the sense of Congress that
certain principles should be adhered to in any reform of the
Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-433). These principles shape the
legislative recommendations contained in this subtitle and will
inform the committee's consideration of future reform
proposals.
Section 902--Repeal of Defense Strategy Review
This section would repeal section 118 of title 10, United
States Code, which requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct
a comprehensive examination of the national defense strategy.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes provisions
that would recommend comprehensive reform of the defense and
military strategies of the Department of Defense.
Section 903--Commission on National Defense Strategy for the United
States
This section would establish a commission to be known as
the ``Commission on National Defense Strategy for the United
States'' to examine and make recommendations with respect to
national defense strategy for the United States. This section
would further set the composition and duties of the commission,
and require the commission to submit a final report to the
President, Secretary of Defense, and the specified
congressional committees on its findings, conclusions, and
recommendations, and to provide an interim briefing to the
specified congressional committees.
The committee notes that the strategic environment has
evolved since the current defense strategy, as outlined in both
the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance and 2014 Quadrennial
Defense Review, was formulated. For example, the strategy does
not reflect a resurgent Russian Federation, the rise of the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or the fragile security
environment in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The
committee believes that the strategy and the assumptions
underpinning it should be reviewed and revised, as appropriate.
The committee further notes that the Congressional
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, in
its 2009 final report, achieved a largely bipartisan consensus
on its recommended strategic posture and nuclear weapons policy
for the United States. The committee encourages the Commission
on National Defense Strategy for the United States to strive
for a similar bipartisan consensus. The committee believes that
the Nation will benefit from such a bipartisan consensus on
national security and that a new administration can leverage
the work of the commission in its own defense strategy and
posture development.
Section 904--Reform of Defense Strategic and Policy Guidance
This section would amend section 113(g) of title 10, United
States Code, regarding Secretary of Defense policy guidance.
Specifically, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to provide:
(1) Written strategic guidance every 4 years to components
of the Department of Defense that expresses the national
defense strategy of the United States;
(2) Written policy guidance annually to components of the
Department that provides program and budget guidance for the
development of the force;
(3) Written policy guidance every 2 years or more
frequently, as needed, to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff that provides contingency planning guidance; and
(4) A copy of all written guidance described above to the
congressional defense committees not later than February 15th
in any calendar year in which any of the guidance is required.
This section on reform of defense strategy and policy
guidance from the Secretary of Defense is complemented
elsewhere in this Act by reform of military strategy from the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee aims to
simplify the strategy and policy guidance required of the
Secretary of Defense and to establish a hierarchy for
Department of Defense strategy and policy guidance documents.
The committee encourages the Secretary to efficiently implement
the requirements of this section and to avoid standing
bureaucracies dedicated to the assembly of such documents.
The committee has previously expressed disappointment that
the Department's seminal strategy document, the quadrennial
defense review, was insufficient in providing a means to set
Department priorities, shape the force, guide capabilities and
resources, and to understand the relationships between
missions, risks, and resources.
Further, the committee understands the importance of the
Department publicly communicating its defense strategy to the
American people, Congress, other U.S. Government agencies, and
international partners and allies. However, the committee also
recognizes that the classified assumptions and analysis
underpinning the strategy, as well as the subsequent
programming, budgeting, and contingency planning guidance that
implement the strategy, are also important oversight tools for
the committee and help to frame the annual budget request.
Therefore, this section would require the congressional defense
committees to receive such information and documents.
Section 905--Reform of the National Military Strategy
This section would strike section 153(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, on the National Military Strategy (NMS) and
replace it with a requirement for the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to prepare a new National Military Strategy or
to update a previous one in conjunction with the other members
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of the unified
and specified combatant commands. The section would also
require that the NMS support the objectives of national
security and defense strategic guidance issued by the President
and the Secretary of Defense, and focus the NMS on, at a
minimum:
(1) Developing military ends, ways, and means to support
national security objectives;
(2) Assessing strategic and military risks, and developing
risk mitigation options;
(3) Establishing a strategic framework for the development
of operational and contingency plans;
(4) Prioritizing joint force capabilities, capacities, and
resources; and
(5) Establishing military guidance for the development of
the joint force.
This section on reform of the military strategy from the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is complemented elsewhere
in this Act with reform of defense strategy and policy guidance
from the Secretary of Defense. The committee aims to simplify
the National Military Strategy and to link it to a hierarchy of
Department of Defense strategy and policy guidance documents.
The committee believes that the NMS should be re-focused to
provide a strategic framework for the development of
operational and contingency plans by the combatant commands,
and to provide joint force and joint capability development
guidance to guide resource investments by the military
services. To provide such guidance, the committee also believes
that the NMS should be a classified document.
Section 906--Modification to Independent Study of National Security
Strategy Formulation Process
This section would amend section 1064 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), which requires an independent study of the national
security strategy formulation process, by adding a requirement
for the study to address the workforce responsible for
conducting strategic planning and to examine how Congress fits
into the strategy formulation process.
Section 907--Term of Office for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff
This section would amend section 152(a) of title 10, United
States Code, to extend the term of office of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2 years to 4 years. This section
would also limit the reappointment of the Chairman to
additional terms only in a time of war, and limit the combined
period of service of an officer serving as Chairman or Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 8 years.
The committee believes that a longer term of office for the
Chairman provides greater stability and continuity of military
leadership at the Department of Defense. Furthermore, by
staggering the Chairman's term of office such that it is not
aligned with the 4 year presidential election cycle, the
committee believes that the Chairman's role in providing
independent military advice to the President and Secretary of
Defense is reinforced.
Section 908--Responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff relating to Operations
This section would amend section 153(a) of title 10, United
States Code, which sets forth the functions of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by codifying the Chairman's
responsibility to provide advice to the President and the
Secretary of Defense on ongoing military operations and to
provide advice to the Secretary on the allocation and transfer
of forces among combatant commands.
While the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433) established the
combatant commands to conduct operations at the direction of
the President, through the Secretary of Defense, the committee
recognizes that these commands individually develop and execute
operational plans for specific regions and functional areas.
The committee also recognizes that security challenges will
become increasingly transregional, multi-domain, and multi-
functional, which will require an entity to transcend
individual combatant commands and to support timely decision-
making by the President and the Secretary. Therefore, the
committee recommends vesting the Chairman with an advisory
responsibility on operations and on the allocation and transfer
of forces among combatant commands.
The committee also believes such a transcendent, global
perspective should be brought to the Department's strategy
development, contingency planning, requirements identification,
resource allocation, and budgeting process. The committee
understands that the Chairman, in an advisory capacity, has
these authorities and encourages the Chairman to exercise them.
Lastly, the committee would note that the intent of Public
Law 99-433 in revising the Chairman's functions was to focus
the Chairman on strategy and planning. While the committee
would grant the Chairman a greater role in advising on
operations, it also believes that the Chairman should remain
focused on strategic direction, strategic planning, and
contingency planning, for the Chairman is the only senior
military leader that, independently and holistically, looks
across the military services and the combatant commands.
Section 909--Assigned Forces within the Continental United States
This section would amend section 162(a) of title 10, United
States Code, to allow U.S. military forces within the
continental United States to be assigned to a military
department as directed by the Secretary of Defense.
Section 162(a) of title 10, United States Code, requires
the Secretaries of the military departments to assign all
forces under their jurisdiction to unified and specific
commands, with certain exceptions. For example, military forces
returning to the continental United States from deployments to
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq,
and who are conducting reset and reconstitution activities, are
required to be assigned to a unified or specified command to
support the missions of that command. This legislative
recommendation would allow those forces, at the direction of
the Secretary of Defense, to be assigned to a military
department during such reset and reconstitution period rather
than a unified or specified command.
Section 910--Reduction in General Officer and Flag Officer Grades and
Positions
This section would amend section 164(e) of title 10, United
States Code, on subordinate commanders of combatant commands to
specify that the grade of an officer serving as the commander
of a service or functional component command shall be no higher
than lieutenant general or vice admiral. This section would
further require that the total number of officers in the grade
of general or admiral on active duty be reduced by five
positions. Lastly, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees on the Department's plan for implementing such
reductions.
The committee remains concerned that a top-heavy chain of
command within the combatant commands adds unnecessary
headquarters staff, adds distance and layers between commanders
and warfighters, and slows decision-making and agility of
command. The committee's focus on the number of senior military
leaders within the combatant commands complements its previous
efforts to streamline Department of Defense headquarters
organizations, including reducing the size of staffs and
eliminating tiers of management. The committee understands that
the Secretary of Defense shares this concern and welcomes the
Secretary's effort to review four-star general and admiral
positions within the Department to simplify and improve command
and control.
Section 911--Establishment of Unified Combatant Command for Cyber
Operations
This section would establish a unified combatant command
for cyber operations with the primary function to prepare cyber
operations forces to carry out assigned missions.
Section 912--Revision of Requirements Relating to Length of Joint Duty
Assignments
This section would amend section 664 of title 10, United
States Code, to reduce the joint duty assignment tour length to
a minimum of 2 years for officers of all ranks, and remove the
statutory requirement for services to maintain a tour length
average.
Section 913--Revision of Definitions Used for Joint Officer Management
This section would amend section 668 of title 10, United
States Code, to revise the statutory definition of ``joint
matters'' to more accurately reflect and properly clarify the
types of joint duty positions for which an officer may receive
joint duty credit to better capture the breadth of duties and
positions that comprise joint matters experience.
Section 914--Independent Assessment of Combatant Command Structure
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
to enter into a contract with an independent entity to conduct
an assessment on combatant command structure, and to provide
recommendations for improving the overall effectiveness of
combatant command structures. Additionally, this section would
require that, not later than March 1, 2017, the Secretary of
Defense submit a report on the findings and recommendations of
the independent entity to the congressional defense committees.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 921--Modifications to Corrosion Report
This section would amend section 2228(e) of title 10,
United States Code, to make revisions to the annual report from
the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight. This amendment
would also supersede the effect of section 1080 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) on the report amended described in this section.
Section 922--Authority To Employ Civilian Faculty Members at Joint
Special Operations University
This section would amend section 1595(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to provide the Joint Special Operations
University (JSOU) the flexibility to hire selected talent. The
committee notes that hiring authority under title 10, versus
the traditional title 5 authority, would ensure JSOU's faculty
remain relevant in their area of expertise by enabling JSOU to
hire faculty with relevant expertise in an expeditious manner
and, if necessary, replace faculty that do not maintain
currency in their area of expertise.
Section 923--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, to clarify when military personnel could be used
for functions currently being performed by civilian personnel
or contractors.
Section 924--Public Release by Inspectors General of Reports of
Misconduct
This section would require the Department of Defense
Inspector General to publicly release reports of administrative
investigations that confirm misconduct of members of the Senior
Executive Service, schedule C employees, or commissioned
officers in the Armed Forces in pay grades O-6 promotable and
above. Information otherwise protected from release would not
be disclosed.
Section 925--Modifications to Requirements for Accounting for Members
of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees Listed
as Missing
This section would remove responsibility for recovering
personnel who are missing during current operations or
activities from the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency.
Subtitle C--Department of the Navy and Marine Corps
Section 931--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. It would also
redesignate the Secretary of the Navy as the Secretary of the
Navy and Marine Corps and redesignate other statutory offices.
Section 932--Conforming Amendments to Title 10, United States Code
This section would make several conforming amendments to
title 10, United States Code, consistent with the redesignation
of the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and
Marine Corps elsewhere in this Act.
Section 933--Other Provisions of Law and Other References
This section would amend other provisions of law and other
references consistent with the redesignation of the Department
of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps and
the redesignation of the Secretary of the Navy as the Secretary
of the Navy and Marine Corps elsewhere in this Act.
Section 934--Effective Date
This section would state that this subtitle and the
amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect on the first
day of the first month beginning more than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
Colombia Peace Process
The committee commends the Republic of Colombia on its
progress over the past 4 years to achieve a peace accord with
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. The committee notes
that the United States has provided assistance over the past 15
years to help the Government of Colombia stabilize the nation.
In those 15 years, Colombia has transformed from a near-failed
state rife with violence, criminality, corruption, and
paralyzing instability, to a state of economic prosperity,
political stability, and security. The committee credits the
people of Colombia and the leadership of the Colombian
Government for this transformation.
The committee supports the peace process in Colombia and is
hopeful that it concludes successfully. However, the committee
also recognizes that challenges remain, including addressing
potential renewed violence and illicit trafficking, an increase
in coca production, charges of human rights violations,
contamination by landmines and unexploded munitions, and a lack
of state presence in many regions. To address these challenges,
the committee believes that the assistance efforts of the
Department of Defense and other U.S. Government organizations
must be sustained.
United States Southern Command Operational Support
The committee commends the Department of Defense and the
U.S. Southern Command for their continued efforts to address
regional instability in Central and South America.
The committee notes several security challenges that
persist in the area of responsibility of U.S. Southern Command.
These challenges include continued violence and instability in
Central America; pervasive drug cartels, corruption, and lack
of economic opportunity; continued drug and illicit
trafficking, particularly in the Caribbean where those nations
serve as transit points; and continued smuggling of
unaccompanied alien children into the United States from
Central America. They also include rising coca production and
increased violence in the Republic of Colombia, as the
Government of Colombia continues its efforts to achieve a peace
accord with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
The committee notes the important work of the U.S.
Government in the Western Hemisphere, and particularly the
Department of Defense, in providing valuable training,
equipment, and assistance to U.S. regional neighbors and
partners to address these challenges. Therefore, elsewhere in
this Act, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million
for Department of Defense United States Southern Command
Operational Support within the Drug Interdiction and
Counterdrug Activities Appropriation.
Other Matters
Accessibility of Translated Foreign Military and Technical Writings
The committee notes that Department of Defense policy,
strategy, and programmatic decision-making are informed by an
understanding of foreign military and technical writings. The
committee also notes that the Department and the U.S.
Intelligence Community have organizations and resources
dedicated to translating foreign military and technical
writings. However, the committee is concerned that these
translated writings are not widely disseminated or easily
accessible within either the Department or the broader
community of analysts supporting and informing U.S. defense
strategy and policy.
The committee encourages the Department to make translated
foreign military and technical writings more accessible within
the Department and the Intelligence Community. The committee
further believes that unclassified translated writings should
be made publicly available so that civilian academics and
researchers can leverage them to enhance their analytical work,
including work conducted for the Department.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than July 15, 2016, on the policies governing the
access and dissemination of translated foreign military and
technical writings. The briefing should also address the
following elements:
(1) Policies and guidelines governing the access and
dissemination of translated writings;
(2) Policies and guidelines governing the releasability of
translated writings, including release authorities;
(3) Organizations and resources currently dedicated to the
translation and dissemination of such writings;
(4) Options to make translated writings more accessible
within the Department and to the public, including
identification of policy changes and resources required for
each option; and
(5) Any other matters that the Secretary may deem relevant.
Air Force Combat Search and Rescue Associate Units
The committee supports the National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force recommendation to expand the use of
associate units, where appropriate. The committee notes,
however, that none of the three Air National Guard combat
search and rescue units in Alaska, California, and New York are
associate units. Therefore, the committee encourages the Air
Force to consider options for making these units active
associate units under an appropriate organizational structure
based on their local mission and operational demands. In
addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives not later than March 1, 2017, on the
potential options for transforming these units into associate
units, including the potential cost, benefits, and challenges
involved in each case.
Airlift Safety and Readiness for Certain Aircraft
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is
concerned about the recent rise in Class A mishaps across the
services. The committee has also observed the decrease in the
readiness and availability of C-40, C-37, C-32, C-21, C-20, C-
12, and C-9 aircraft, which has led to the cancellation or
delay of a number of high-priority missions. These
cancellations and delays, coupled with data on other recent
mishaps, may suggest that the unique way the military services
operate these aircraft may be leading to unforeseen maintenance
issues, which could present a safety risk. The committee also
continues to be concerned with the inconsistent way these
aircraft are scheduled, tasked, operated, and managed among the
military services.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct an assessment of the safety,
readiness, and utilization of C-40, C-32, C-37, C-21, C-20, C-
12, and C-9 aircraft across the military services and to
provide a report on the findings of such assessment to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2017. The
committee expects the Secretary of Defense to provide the
Comptroller General any information and background materials
necessary for completion of the assessment. At a minimum, the
report should include:
(1) A summary of ground and flying safety mishap incidents
by military service, aircraft type, model, and series over the
past 10 years;
(2) A summary of both requested and actual funding for
maintenance and spare parts by military service, aircraft type,
model, and series over the past 10 years;
(3) Current policies and directives governing the operation
and use of these aircraft;
(4) The overall requirement for C-40, C-37, C-32, C-21, C-
20, C-12, and C-9 aircraft compared to the current inventory;
(5) A comprehensive review of scheduling, operational
tasking, and operating procedures, including tactical control,
across all of the military services, including integration and
interoperability among the military services, and potential
ways to standardize these practices;
(6) Utilization rates across all of the military services
and a comparison with commercial practices and standards,
including maintenance intervals;
(7) Maintenance plans, processes, and procedures for
sustainment of the C-40, C-37, C-32, C-21, C-20, C-12, and C-9
aircraft and the impact of maintenance deferrals on operational
availability; and
(8) Any other items the Comptroller General deems relevant
to the assessment.
Army and Joint Force Integration of Former Unmanned Aircraft System
Center of Excellence Responsibilities
The committee notes that under the former Joint Forces
Combatant Command (JFCOM), a Joint Center of Excellence for
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) was established in 2005 by the
Department of Defense at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada. A
separate Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of Excellence (COE)
was established in 2008 by the Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama.
The purpose of the UAS COEs was to establish organizations that
could collaborate and create an environment among the military
services that would foster unity of effort focused on all
aspects of UAS requirements, system development, acquisition,
testing, fielding, training, airspace integration, employment
concepts, sustainment, interoperability, data dissemination,
capability gaps, and shortfalls. Consequently, in 2010 when
JFCOM was disestablished by the Secretary of Defense, both the
Joint COE and the Army COE were subsequently disestablished.
The committee understood at the time that all the
responsibilities of the Joint COE would be divided between the
Joint Staff J-8 Directorate for Force Structure, Resources, and
Assessment, and the Department of Defense UAS Task Force. The
committee further understood that all the responsibilities of
the Army COE would be absorbed within the Capabilities
Development and Integration Directorate of the Army's Aviation
COE at the Army's Training and Doctrine Command.
Although the committee has been assured by the Department
that all aspects of the UAS COEs that were disestablished were
reabsorbed into the aforementioned organizations, the committee
seeks to gain a further understanding regarding particular
aspects of UAS issues.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than October 1, 2016, that explains:
(1) How the Army plans to grow resources and facilities to
support the expansion of UAS orbits through 2030;
(2) How increased Army UAS operations will fit into joint
and executive branch interagency operations; and,
(3) How the Army plans to mitigate frequency encroachment
on test and training ranges.
The committee also directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services, not later than October 1, 2016, that explains how the
role, mission, and responsibilities of the former Joint UAS COE
were absorbed into the governance architecture of the J-8
Directorate of the Joint Staff, and provide an assessment to
the committee regarding the benefits and challenges of those
responsibilities being executed within the J-8 Directorate.
Carrier Air Wing Force Structure
The budget request would deactivate the Navy's 10th carrier
air wing and its associated squadrons. The committee notes that
the Navy wishes to pursue deactivating the 10th carrier air
wing currently assigned to Naval Air Station Lemoore, which is
in contravention to the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to maintain 10 carrier air
wings and associated headquarters. The committee does not
believe the Navy has sufficient analysis to support the risk
associated with a reduction from ten to nine carrier air wings.
Therefore, the committee recommends $134.0 million, an
increase of $2.3 million, in PE87732N, and an increase of
$131.7 million in Operations and Maintenance, Military
Personnel Navy, Reserve Personnel Navy, and Medicare Eligible
Retiree Health Fund Contribution Reserve Navy, in order to
retain the 10th carrier air wing.
Comprehensive Detention Strategy
The committee believes that the Department of Defense's
policy for the disposition of individuals captured on the
battlefield is insufficient.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense intends
to increase the pace of operations in the Republic of Iraq and
the Syrian Arab Republic that are either intended to capture
individuals, or may result in the capture of individuals. In
testimony before the committee on December 1, 2015, the
Secretary of Defense described the creation of an
``expeditionary targeting force'' to assist Iraqi and Kurdish
Peshmerga forces and to put pressure on the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The Secretary stated that, ``These
special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids,
free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.
This force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral
operations in Syria. That creates a . . . virtuous cycle of
better intelligence, which generates more targets, more raids,
more momentum.'' The Secretary went on to say, ``One of the
reasons for the expeditionary targeting for us is precisely to
gain intelligence. And one of the ways you do that is by
capturing people.'' According to the Secretary's public
statements, as well as documents delivered to the committee,
future captures would be considered on a ``case-by-case
basis.''
The committee agrees that battlefield captures can yield
significant intelligence. Given the anticipated increase in
operational tempo, the committee believes that a more
comprehensive detention strategy needs to be established to
improve the intelligence gained from captured individuals and
to ensure lawful dispositions of captured individuals.
Comptroller General Assessment of Deployable Identity Management
Forensics Capability
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has used
biometrics and forensics to successfully identify, target, and
disrupt terrorists and enemy combatants in the Republic of Iraq
and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Expeditionary forensic
laboratories have deployed in theater to quickly exploit
evidence collected from the battlefield, resulting in the
capture and prosecution of enemy combatants. Many of the
Department's expeditionary biometrics and forensics
capabilities were resourced through the Department's Overseas
Contingency Operations funding. The committee notes that the
Department has taken steps to establish expeditionary
biometrics and forensics as enduring capabilities in the base
budget; however, these funding levels may not be adequate to
sustain current and future validated mission requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Department's process for
determining and validating its future expeditionary biometrics
and forensics requirements, as well as actions the Department
has taken to ensure that its expeditionary biometrics and
forensics capabilities, including materiel solutions, trained
personnel, and funding, are available to meet current and
future requirements. The committee further directs the
Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the House Armed
Services Committee by March 1, 2017, on the Comptroller
General's preliminary findings with a report to follow on a
date agreed to at the time of the briefing.
Countering Violent Extremism
The committee remains concerned about the ongoing threat of
violent extremism across the globe. The committee is aware of
coordinated interagency efforts to address the threat of
terrorism and to counter violent extremism. The committee
encourages and supports continued efforts to ensure the urgent
challenges of violent extremism, including root causes such as
lack of effective governance, are addressed in a comprehensive,
interagency approach.
Department of Defense Briefing on United States Ratification of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The committee has heard testimony from a multitude of U.S.
military leaders who are supportive of the U.S. becoming a
formal signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS). The committee is aware that these military
leaders testified that ratifying UNCLOS is in our national
interest, specifically regarding developing territorial
challenges in the South China Sea and the Arctic.
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than September 30, 2016, regarding United States
ratification of UNCLOS. The briefing should contain, at a
minimum, the strategic implications and surmised impacts--both
benefits and disadvantages--to national security, current
foreign military relations, and ongoing military operations
should the United States ratify UNCLOS or maintain the status
quo. The brief should also identify those areas in which the
lack of ratification has impacted the interests of the United
States and our allies.
Department of Defense Strategy for Countering Unconventional Warfare
Section 1097 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) directed the Department of
Defense to develop a strategy to counter unconventional warfare
threats posed by adversarial state and non-state actors.
Section 1097 further directed the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to coordinate this
strategy with the heads of other appropriate departments and
agencies of the U.S. Government. The Secretary is required to
submit this strategy to the congressional defense committees
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
Public Law 114-92.
The committee remains 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.
The committee also notes that the Department of Defense may
require additional time to fully and properly coordinate the
strategy, as directed by section 1097, with the heads of other
appropriate departments and agencies of the U.S. Government.
Given the importance of this coordination and the interagency
aspects of an effective strategy for countering unconventional
warfare threats, the committee expects frequent and periodic
progress updates by the Department should an extension be
required for interagency coordination and the development and
delivery of this strategy. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide an update to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
by May 23, 2016, on the completion of the strategy for
countering unconventional warfare threats required by section
1097 of Public Law 114-92.
Enterprise Resource Planning Financial Management Implementation
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) mandated that the Chief Management Officer
of the Department of Defense develop and maintain a Financial
Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Plan that describes the
specific actions to be taken by the Department to be ready for
audit by September 30, 2017. Implementation of Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) systems is a critical element in the
military departments' audit readiness plans. The Army General
Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) supports standardized
financial management and accounting practices for the Army's
general fund, the Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (Navy ERP)
system standardizes Navy financial management, and the Air
Force Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System
(DEAMS) provides a range of financial management capabilities.
The committee notes that the successful implementation,
operation, and full utilization of GFEBS, Navy ERP, and DEAMS
are critical to the military departments' ability to produce
auditable statements and pass financial audits. The committee
therefore encourages the Army, Navy, and Air Force to ensure
that full implementation, operation, and utilization of their
respective ERP systems remain on schedule. The Department's
Functional Management Office (FMO) is responsible for ensuring
these ERP systems allow the end user to produce auditable,
timely, and accurate reporting of all financial data. To
fulfill the FMO's requirements and to ensure that GFEBS, Navy
ERP, and DEAMS meet auditing standards, the committee believes
that the Department should leverage greater certified public
accountant expertise and Federal financial management
experience. In that regard, the committee believes that this
expertise and experience should be included in any follow-on
award of a contract for implementation of, or enhancement to,
GFEBS, Navy ERP, and DEAMS, to better ensure ERP system
success, compliance with all laws and regulations, and to meet
the functional needs of the financial user community.
Financial Management Systems for Army Non-Appropriated Fund Activities
The committee is aware of the priority placed on financial
management and auditability for the Department of Defense and
the various military services. The committee continues to
emphasize the need to ensure greater visibility and control
over financial resources, in both appropriated and non-
appropriated funds. For the Army, the committee recognizes that
the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) is the
principal enterprise resource planning system for appropriated
funds. While non-appropriated funds are not processed by that
system, the committee is aware that the non-appropriated fund
community is looking at financial management tools to support
their mission. Because of the similarity in requirements, as
well as the efficiencies that could be gained in common
training and enterprise license purchases, the committee
encourages the Army to look at GFEBS as a possible solution to
financial management for non-appropriated fund activities.
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account
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 that the
Department of Defense take into consideration the current
balance within the Foreign Currency Fluctuation, Defense
(FCF,D) account when determining foreign currency levels in
future budget submissions. The committee observes that there
has been no such change to how foreign currency rates are
calculated since it identified the issue 2 years ago.
The General Accounting Office (now the Government
Accountability Office, or GAO) noted in a 1986 report (NSIAD-
86-173) that the purpose of the 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 the Department determines foreign currency rates for
budget programming, 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 of 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 Department will
again realize a net gain in fiscal year 2017 when comparing the
rates used to develop fiscal year 2017 budgetary needs to cover
foreign currency fluctuations with the projected needs based on
current exchange rates. Due to the projected net gain and the
lack of the use of current balances to structure foreign
currency rates, the committee recommends both a reduction in
the O&M budget for fiscal year 2017 as shown in section 4301 of
this Act and a reduction in the Military Personnel budget for
fiscal year 2017 as shown in section 4401 of this Act, and
realigns those funds to support higher priority defense
requirements throughout the Department.
Maintaining Compliance with the Financial Improvement and Audit
Readiness Plan
The committee continues to monitor progress on the
Department of Defense's Financial Improvement and Audit
Readiness (FIAR) plan, and expects the Department to continue
to work towards achieving the goal of validating financial
statements as ready for audit by September 30, 2017, as
required by section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Full audit
readiness will provide the Department and Congress with
auditable information that can be used to verify Department
balance sheets and track Department spending, which will aid in
the appropriate oversight of the Department's various budgetary
activities and appropriations accounts, as well as assist in
the identification of waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to address the findings and
recommendations identified in the Department's latest FIAR Plan
Status Report, dated November 2015, and to continue improving
the Department's audit infrastructure and annual audit regimen.
Minerva Research Initiative
The committee is aware of the ongoing efforts of the
Department of Defense to increase sociocultural understanding
at tactical, operational, and strategic levels through programs
like the Minerva Initiative. The Minerva Initiative is a
university-based, social science research initiative focusing
on areas of strategic importance to U.S. national security
policy. The committee continues to support the Minerva
Initiative's efforts to utilize the capabilities within
universities, research institutions, and of individual scholars
to execute interdisciplinary and cross-institutional projects
addressing specific topic areas determined by the Secretary of
Defense. The committee believes that strategic research
efforts, such as those that are part of the Minerva
Initiative's research program, are critical to better
understand and manage the social, cultural, and political
forces that allow threats, such as the emergence of radical
Islamic groups, to emerge. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to continue to improve their social
science research, foreign area, and interdisciplinary studies
to improve the Department's capacity to understand and predict
these emerging threats.
Preventing Unfair Trade Practices in Military Equipment Sales
The committee notes that offsets are generally prohibited
under most U.S. trade agreements and generally considered a
violation of the principles of the European Union treaty, with
the exception of certain specific, limited, and agreed-upon
defense procurements. The committee believes that any free
trade agreement negotiations between the United States and the
European Union should include a prohibition on offset
agreements with respect to the sale of defense equipment by
U.S. companies to European Union member states that would, for
example, require U.S. companies to reinvest a percentage of the
value of any resulting contract in the importing country.
Recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of the Army
The committee notes that Congress established the National
Commission of the Future of the Army (NCFA) in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291). The primary purpose of the NCFA was to address two major
concerns:
(1) How the Army should best organize and employ the Total
Force in time of declining resources; and
(2) Whether the Army should proceed with the transfer of
AH-64 Apache aircraft from the Reserve Components to the
Regular Army as directed by the Army's aviation restructure
initiative.
In its final report, the NCFA made 63 recommendations that
were directed to the President, Congress, Department of
Defense, Joint Staff, combatant commands, and the Army. In
considering these recommendations, based on the underlying law
that established the NCFA, the commission was instructed to
take into account ``anticipated mission requirements for the
Army at acceptable levels of national risk and in a manner
consistent with available resources and anticipated future
resources.'' Consequently, the commission presumed a budget
request level for fiscal year 2016, and its recommendations
assumed that a total Army force of 450,000 in the Regular Army,
335,000 in the Army National Guard, and 195,000 in the Army
Reserve could not be increased. Furthermore, all
recommendations with funding implications assumed that the Army
would have to take risk and make internal trades to resource
the recommendations, as well as assumed that Congress would not
provide additional resources across the Future Years Defense
Program.
The committee commends the efforts of the commissioners and
their staff for the on-time completion of the NCFA report and
associated recommendations. In general, the committee is
supportive of many of the commission's recommendations;
however, the committee requires additional information from the
Department of Defense and the Army, as well as more time for
sufficient review in order to make informed decisions regarding
most of the recommendations made by the NCFA. Of these
recommendations, the committee supports the recommendation to
retain 4 Apache attack helicopter battalions in the National
Guard and an 11th combat aviation brigade in the Regular Army.
The committee expects the Army to plan and program accordingly
based on available resources across the Future Years Defense
Program. The committee is also supportive of a permanent combat
aviation brigade in the Republic of Korea, a permanent armored
brigade combat team presence in Europe, and increasing armored
brigade combat team capacity in the Army. The committee is also
supportive of the recommendations for developing one Army under
the total force policy. The committee is also supportive of the
recommendation to consolidate Army marketing functions under
the authority of the Army Marketing Research Group to eliminate
redundancy and gain unity of effort. The committee is not
supportive, however, of any recommendation that would reduce
the Army's current force structure or use reductions in combat
force structure as offsets to resource any recommendation.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that
would address the commission's recommendations focusing on Army
modernization capability and capacity shortfalls, as well as
alternative Army force designs and modeling.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Chief of
Staff of the Army, to provide a written assessment of all of
the NCFA recommendations that are within such official's
respective jurisdiction to the congressional defense committees
by December 1, 2016. The committee expects the Army's written
assessment to be separate, and include comments from the Chief
of the National Guard Bureau. The respective assessments should
include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Whether the recommendation is agreeable;
(2) Potential implementation plans for those
recommendations, to include resource options and timelines;
(3) Costs anticipated in execution of those implementation
plans; and
(4) Any legislative assistance required.
Repeal of Report on Unmanned Aircraft Systems
In the committee report (H. Rept. 106-652) accompanying the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to
submit an annual report on the Department's progress in
addressing the challenges facing unmanned aircraft systems. The
Department has provided the requested report for 7 years,
including the most recent report on March 23, 2016. Based on
the committee's ability to obtain the information in these
reports through other means, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to no longer provide this report to the
congressional defense committees, the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, and House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Special Operations Forces Education Briefing
The committee remains concerned that high operational tempo
and dwell times may not afford U.S. Special Operations Forces
(SOF) appropriate time for enrollment in Department of Defense
education programs such as the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP)
and the Post 9-11 GI Bill. Therefore, the committee directs the
Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to brief the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives not
later than September 16, 2016, on the following:
(1) The number of U.S. Special Operations Forces active and
reserve personnel currently enrolled in TAP and the Post 9-11
GI Bill;
(2) The number of SOF active and reserve enrolled in these
programs over the past five years;
(3) Percentage of SOF personnel active and reserve enrolled
in these programs as compared to general purpose forces; and
(4) Any additional elements the Commander deems relevant.
Wassenaar Arrangement Impacts to the Department of Defense
The committee understands the Wassernaar Arrangement on
Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and
Technologies prevents destabilizing accumulations of covered
goods and technologies, and seeks to prevent acquisition of
such items by terrorists. Covered technologies and goods
subject to the Wassernaar Arrangement impact items which have
both military and civilian applications. For example, controls
for software, hardware, and technology that operate, deliver,
or communicate with intrusion software added to the list of
dual-use technologies in 2013 include a number of products
regularly used for cyber security research and defense. The
committee believes restricting export of these technologies may
negatively impact use of such products for national security
purposes. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2017, on the impact of the Wassernaar
Agreement to Department of Defense applications, including
efforts to support alliance partners or otherwise build partner
capacity with friendly nations.
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 2017 in division A of this Act. This
section would limit the total amount transferred under this
authority to $5.00 billion. This section would also require
prompt notification to Congress of each transfer made.
Section 1002--Requirement To Transfer Funds From Department of Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund to the Treasury
This section would reduce the unobligated balance of the
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund by $475.0
million due to excess funds.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities
Section 1011--Extension of Authority To Provide Additional Support for
Counter-Drug Activities of Foreign Governments
This section would amend section 1033 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-
85), as most recently amended by section 1012 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), by extending the authority to provide additional support
for counter-drug activities of foreign governments to September
30, 2019.
Section 1012--Secretary of Defense Review of Curricula and Program
Structures of National Guard Counterdrug Schools
This section would amend section 901 of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006
(Public Law 109-469) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to
review and approve the curriculum and program structure of each
of the National Guard counterdrug schools.
The committee notes the importance of the National Guard
counterdrug schools in the development, training, and
maintenance of skills for Federal, State, local, and foreign
government officials to combat illicit trafficking. The
committee supports increased oversight by the Secretary of
these schools to improve the alignment of curriculum to defense
priorities and the allocation of limited resources.
Section 1013--Extension of Authority To Support Unified Counterdrug and
Counterterrorism Campaign in Colombia
This section would extend, by 1 year, the authority to
support the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign
in the Republic of Colombia originally authorized by section
1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), and most recently
amended by section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1021--Definition of Short-Term Work With Respect to Overhaul,
Repair, or Maintenance of Naval Vessels
This section would amend section 7299a of title 10, United
States Code, and expand the homeport limitation of an overhaul,
repair, or maintenance ship availability from 6 months to 10
months.
Section 1022--Warranty Requirements for Shipbuilding Contracts
This section would require shipbuilding contracts to
include warranty of work for a period of at least 1 year. A
contracting officer may waive this requirement if a limited
liability of warranted work is in the best interest of the
government.
The committee is concerned about incentives that reward
shipbuilders for delivering a ship that needs additional work.
The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office
completed an assessment entitled ``Navy Should Reconsider
Approach to Warranties for Correcting Construction Defects''
dated March 6, 2016. The report indicated that in most
instances, the Navy paid the shipbuilder to build the ship as
part of the construction contract, and then paid the same
shipbuilder again, including profit, to repair the ship when
defects were discovered after delivery.
Section 1023--National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund
This section would expand the transfer authority provided
by section 1022(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to include fiscal
year 2018. Also, this section would amend section 2218a of
title 10, United States Code, relating to the national sea-
based deterrence fund to include authority for multi-year
procurement of critical components to support continuous
production. Finally, this section would clarify the definition
of a national sea-based deterrence vessel.
Section 1024--Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of
Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
using funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to retire
a cruiser or dock landing ship or to place in a modernization
status more than six cruisers and one dock landing ship.
Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense would be prohibited from
obligating more than 75 percent of the funds made available for
the Office of the Secretary of Defense until the Secretary of
the Navy enters into a contract for the modernization of four
cruisers and one dock landing ship and enters into a contract
for the procurement of combat systems upgrades associated with
six such cruisers.
Section 1025--Restrictions on the Overhaul and Repair of Vessels in
Foreign Shipyards
This section amends section 7310(b)(1) of title 10, United
States Code, to prohibit the Department of the Navy from
performing any overhaul, repair, or maintenance work that takes
longer than 6 months in foreign shipyards.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Section 1031--Frequency of Counterterrorism Operations Briefings
This section would amend section 485 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide
monthly counterterrorism operations briefings to the
congressional defense committees.
Section 1032--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or Release of
Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba to the United States
This section would prohibit the use of any amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for
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, 2017, to transfer or release detainees at U.S.
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United
States, its territories, or possessions.
Section 1033--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 use of any amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for
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, 2017, to construct or modify any facility in
the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any
detainee transferred from United States 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 1034--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or Release to
Certain Countries 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 for
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, 2017, to transfer, release, or assist in the
transfer or release of any individual detained at U.S. Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Libya, the Federal Republic
of Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, or the Republic of Yemen.
Section 1035--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Realignment of Forces at
or Closure of 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 for fiscal year 2017 for the closure
or abandonment of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, the relinquishment of control of Guantanamo Bay to the
Republic of Cuba, or the implementation of a material
modification to the Treaty Between the United States of America
and Cuba signed in the District of Columbia on May 29, 1934,
that constructively closes United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay.
Section 1036--Modification of Congressional Notification of Sensitive
Military Operations
This section would modify section 130f of title 10, United
States Code, to provide additional oversight of sensitive
military operations.
Section 1037--Comprehensive Strategy for Detention of Certain
Individuals
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of
National Intelligence, to submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees by July 19, 2017, setting forth the
details of a comprehensive strategy for the detention of
individuals captured and held pursuant to the Authorization for
Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) pending the end of
hostilities. Additionally, this section would require that the
strategy contain certain specific elements. This section would
also define ``appropriate congressional committees''' as the
congressional defense committees, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the Committee
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Section 1041--Expanded Authority for Transportation by the Department
of Defense of Non-Department of Defense Personnel and Cargo
This section would amend section 2649 of title 10, United
States Code, to reinstate the authority of the Secretary of
Defense to provide transportation to allied military personnel
and civilians in contingencies or disaster responses on a non-
interference basis, without charge, and expand such authority
to include allied and civilian cargo, as well as passengers. In
addition, a new subsection would authorize the Secretary of
Defense to enter into a contract or other arrangement with one
or more commercial providers to provide commercial insurance
products to non-Department of Defense shippers using the
Defense Transportation System.
Section 1042--Limitation on Retirement, Deactivation, or
Decommissioning of Mine Countermeasures Ships
This section would modify section 1090 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 111-
92) to prohibit funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal
year 2017 to be used to deactivate, decommission, or place in
reduced operating status any mine countermeasures ships. The
limitation in this section may be waived if the Secretary of
the Navy certifies that the operational test and evaluation for
replacement mine countermeasures capabilities are available in
sufficient quantity and capacity to meet combatant commander
requirements. This section would also modify the reporting
requirement of such section 1090 of Public Law 111-92.
Section 1043--Extension of Authority of Secretary of Transportation To
Issue Non-Premium Aviation Insurance
This section would amend Section 44310(b) of title 49,
United States Code, to extend the authority of the Secretary of
Transportation to provide aviation insurance and reinsurance
upon the request of another U.S. Government agency.
Section 1044--Evaluation of Navy Alternate Combination Cover and Unisex
Combination Cover
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
change the mandatory possession or wear date of the alternate
combination cover or the unisex combination cover from October
31, 2016, to October 31, 2020. This change would provide female
service members a 5-year transition window consistent with
standard uniform policy transition windows for non-operational
and non-tactical uniforms.
Additionally, this section would prohibit the Secretary of
the Navy from implementing or enforcing any change to Navy
female service dress uniforms until the Secretary submits to
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report on the evaluation of Navy female
service dress uniforms. The committee is concerned that recent
changes to Navy female service dress uniforms, uniform covers,
and other non-operational uniform components were not
consistent with the Navy's standard processes for evaluating
uniform items, including user test groups that represented a
broad spectrum of service-member locales and operational
specialties, out-of-pocket expenses to service members,
including members of both the Active Forces and Reserves, and
the inability for the Navy to identify an operational necessity
driving this uniform change during a time of fiscal constraint.
Section 1045--Department of Defense Protection of National Security
Spectrum
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to jointly evaluate and
to provide to the congressional defense committees not later
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act their
views on the following:
(1) The statutory and regulatory options available to them
to protect critical test and training capability in the event
of a spectrum auction that affects frequency used by the
Department of Defense; and
(2) The utility, effect, and limitation, if any, of section
1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106-65).
Section 1046--Transportation on Military Aircraft on a Space-Available
Basis for Members and Former Members of the Armed Forces with
Disabilities Rated as Total
This section would amend section 2641b of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize space-available travel for disabled
veterans with a service-connected, permanent disability rated
as total by the Department of Defense. The committee notes that
this section would clarify eligibility within an existing
category of space-available travel already afforded to disabled
veterans.
Section 1047--National Guard Flyovers of Public Events
This section would provide a statement of policy for
National Guard flyovers of public events.
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports
Section 1061--Temporary Continuation of Certain Department of Defense
Reporting Requirements
This section would exclude certain reports from the effect
of section 1080 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). The committee notes that
section 1080 of Public Law 114-92 would repeal 254 standing
requirements for reports to Congress. The committee believes
that some of these reports should be retained as they provide
valuable oversight information and therefore the committee
recommends retaining 84 reporting requirements, only four of
which would not sunset on January 31, 2021.
Over the past 2 years, the committee has significantly
reduced the number of reporting requirements it levies upon the
Department of Defense. The committee expects the Department to
deliver the remaining reports on time.
Section 1062--Matters for Inclusion in Report on Designation of
Countries for which Rewards May Be Paid under Department of Defense
Rewards Program
This section would modify the reporting requirements in
section 127b(h) of title 10, United States Code, for the
Department of Defense Rewards Program to clarify the
requirement to report on the designation of countries for which
rewards or payment-in-kind may be paid.
Section 1063--Congressional Notification of Biological Select Agent and
Toxin Theft, Loss, or Release Involving the Department of Defense
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
provide notification to the congressional defense committees
within 15 days of notifying the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and/or the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service of any theft, loss, or release of biological select
agents or toxins.
Section 1064--Report on Service-Provided Support to United States
Special Operations Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees within
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on support
contributed from each of the military services towards special
operations forces for each of the fiscal years 2018-20.
Section 1065--Report on Citizen Security Responsibilities in the
Northern Triangle of Central America
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to jointly submit a report to the Committees
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act, on the military units that have been assigned to policing
or citizen security responsibilities in the Republic of
Guatemala, the Republic of Honduras, and the Republic of El
Salvador.
Section 1066--Report on Counterproliferation Activities and Programs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide the congressional defense committees with a biennial
report, with a sunset date of January 31, 2021, on the
Department of Defense's counterproliferation activities and
programs. This report would be a simplified replacement for the
Counterproliferation Program Review Committee report from
section 1603 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160) that has recently
expired. The content of this report is aimed to reduce the
reporting burden on the Department, while still providing the
congressional defense committees with program analysis critical
for robust program oversight.
Section 1067--Inclusion of Ballistic Missile Defense Information in
Annual Report on Requirements of Combatant Commands
This section would amend the statutory requirement of
section 153c of title 10, United States Code, that the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff submits to the congressional
defense committees the annual Integrated Priorities List of the
combatant commands to add a requirement that he also submit the
Integrated Priorities List submitted to the Missile Defense
Agency and U.S. Strategic Command and the Prioritized
Capabilities List produced by them. This section would also
sunset the reporting requirement on January 31, 2021.
Section 1068--Reviews by Department of Defense Concerning National
Security Use of Spectrum
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a
comprehensive review of all uses by the Department of Defense
of spectrum. Such review would include the use of spectrum in
military plans, training, test, and in military capabilities
that are in development or have been fielded for any known or
potential impacts of sharing or repurposing of spectrum used or
allocated to be used by the Department of Defense that may be
reallocated or shared pursuant to a spectrum auction, sharing
arrangement, or other arrangement, or that is otherwise
identified as part of the 10-year plan developed by the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA). The review would further include whether there are
known or possible mitigations in the event of reallocation or
sharing that the Secretary and Chairman recommend would protect
Department of Defense use of spectrum, including the costs to
do so and whether such costs would be borne out of the
Department's total obligation authority.
This section would also require the Secretary and Chairman
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than one year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and every two years thereafter until January 21, 2021, on
the results of such review.
This section would further require the Secretary and
Chairman to certify at the time of submission of such report
and provide such certification to the congressional defense
committees that they understand any potential impacts to
Department of Defense use of spectrum that could result from a
spectrum auction, reallocation, or sharing arrangement as of
that date.
Furthermore, this section would require the Secretary to
notify the congressional defense committees as to whether the
Secretary has not concurred with or otherwise objected to the
most recent version of the 10-year plan developed by the NTIA
not later than 30 days after the date of such non-concurrence
or objection.
Lastly, this section would prevent the Secretary and
Chairman from obligating more than 95 percent of the funding
authorized to be appropriated to the Department for fiscal year
2017 for operation and maintenance for headquarters operations
until 30 days after the date on which the report and
certification are submitted to the congressional defense
committees.
Section 1069--Annual Report on Personnel, Training, and Equipment
Requirements for the Non-Federalized National Guard To Support Civilian
Authorities in Prevention and Response to Domestic Disasters
This section would modify the reporting requirement of
section 10504 of title 10, United States Code, to include a
report on non-federalized National Guard personnel, training,
and equipment requirements.
Subtitle G--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--Modification to Support for Non-Federal Development and
Testing of Material for Chemical Agent Defense
This section would modify subsection (d) and subsection (e)
of section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), to modify and extend,
with a sunset date of January 31, 2021, the ``Support for Non-
Federal Development and Testing of Material for Chemical Agent
Defense'' report to include reporting on any instance where the
Department provides biological select agents or toxins to a
non-Federal entity for development of biological defenses. This
amendment would supersede section 1080 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
The committee notes the importance of developing and
procuring effective biological countermeasures. However, the
committee is concerned by the inadvertent shipments of live
Bacillus Anthracis from Dugway Proving Ground. The committee
encourages the Department to minimize the instances where it
provides biological select agents and toxins to a non-Federal
entity for development of biological defenses as much as
possible.
Section 1083--Increase in Maximum Amount Available for Equipment,
Services, and Supplies Provided for Humanitarian Demining Assistance
This section would raise the monetary cap in section 407 of
title 10, United States Code, for the cost of equipment,
services, and supplies for humanitarian demining assistance and
stockpiled conventional munitions assistance provided by the
Department of Defense, from $10.0 million to $15.0 million in
any fiscal year.
The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts
to provide training, assistance, and equipping of global
partners to support demining efforts. The goal of the
Department's Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) program is to
reduce the adverse effects of land mines and other explosive
remnants of war on noncombatants while supporting U.S.
geographic combatant commander theater campaign plans and
national security objectives. The committee notes the increased
efforts of the Republic of Colombia, the United States, and the
newly commissioned Global Demining Initiative, which consists
of approximately 20 international partners, to address the
demining assistance that Colombia is expected to need following
the anticipated achievement of a peace accord between Colombia
and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
Section 1084--Liquidation of Unpaid Credits Accrued as a Result of
Transactions Under a Cross-Servicing Agreement
This section would amend section 2345 of title 10, United
States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense with the
discretionary authority to liquidate unpaid debts owed to the
United States by a foreign government or international
organization as a result of the Department of Defense providing
logistic support, supplies, or services to that foreign
government or international organization. Liquidation would
occur by offsetting the debt against any amounts owed by the
Department to that foreign government or international
organization for logistic support, supplies, or services
obtained by the Department pursuant to a transaction or
transactions concluded under the authority of subchapter I of
chapter 138, title 10, United States Code.
Section 1085--Clarification of Contracts Covered by Airlift Service
Provision
This section would amend section 9516 of title 10, United
States Code, to ensure both contracts and subcontracts for
airlift service are covered by this section. The committee is
concerned that significant volumes of cargo for the Department
of Defense are moved outside ``contracts for airlift
services,'' and this amendment would ensure any cargo movements
paid for by the Department of Defense, even those in service
contracts such as Logistics Civil Augmentation Program or
Defense Logistics Agency Prime Vendor, will be compliant with
section 9516 and the intent of the National Airlift Policy of
1987. The committee notes that the maintenance of a viable
Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) is a national security priority
and encourages the Department to update its regulations quickly
to ensure that contractors are including a CRAF requirement in
all of their subcontracts. The proposed amendment is not to be
construed as limiting the operational flexibility of Air
Mobility Command or U.S. Transportation Command.
Section 1086--National Biodefense Strategy
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Agriculture to jointly
develop and submit to the appropriate congressional committees,
within 275 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, a
national biodefense strategy and implementation plan. This
section would also require the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide
a joint briefing to the appropriate congressional committees
annually, starting March 1, 2017, and ending March 1, 2019, on
the strategy and status of its implementation. This section
would also require the Comptroller General of the United States
to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees,
within 180 days of submission of the national biodefense
strategy, on a gap analysis of the national biodefense strategy
and its implementation plan.
Section 1087--Global Cultural Knowledge Network
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
carry out a program to support the socio-cultural understanding
needs of the Department of the Army, to be known as the Global
Cultural Knowledge Network. The program would increase the
organic socio-cultural expertise of the Army, and support
future Army missions and regionally aligned forces that would
need access to such expertise. Further, this section would
require the Secretary of the Army to issue a directive related
to the employment of such activities, including oversight
mechanisms and procedures for requesting support. This section
would also prohibit any social scientists from being deployed
outside of the United States unless the Secretary of the Army
provides a waiver.
The committee is aware of past efforts with the Human
Terrain System (HTS) to bring socio-cultural understanding to
units deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom. The committee believes that many valuable
lessons have been learned from HTS, including the need to
institutionalize such organizations so they can retain the
level of oversight and auditability needed to prevent abuse or
misuse of valuable military resources. The committee believes
that specifically authorizing such activities is an important
step in ensuring the Army maintains some level of organic
socio-cultural expertise that can adapt to the future security
environment, while also maintaining robust oversight and
notification safeguards to ensure allegations that affected HTS
in the past are not further perpetuated.
Section 1088--Modification of Requirements Relating to Management of
Military Technicians
This section would delay the implementation date of section
1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92) from January 1, 2017, to October 1,
2017, and align the date of conversion for military technicians
(non-dual status) with military technicians (dual status). This
section would also clarify that the positions to be converted
will be reviewed and determined by leadership from the Army
Reserve, the Air Force Reserve, the National Guard Bureau, and
the State Adjutants General for purposes of implementation.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to
submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2017, on
the feasibility and advisability of converting any remaining
military technicians (dual status) to personnel performing
Active Guard and Reserve Duty under section 328 of title 32,
United States Code, or other applicable provisions of law.
Section 1089--Sense of Congress Regarding Connecticut's Submarine
Century
This provision would express the sense of Congress
commending the dedication and contribution of the people of
Connecticut to the Navy and the submarine force.
Section 1090--LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency
This section would require the Department of Energy to
issue a final decision on any application for the authorization
to export natural gas not later than 30 days after completing
an environmental review or the date of enactment of this Act.
Such a decision applies only to proposals that must also obtain
authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or
the United States Maritime Administration.
Section 1091--Sense of Congress Regarding the Reporting of the MV-22
Mishap in Marana, Arizona, on April 8, 2000
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the reporting of the MV-22 mishap in Marana, Arizona, on April
8, 2000.
Section 1092--Transfer of Surplus Firearms to Corporation for the
Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety
This section would require the Army to transfer excess .45
caliber M1911A1 pistols to the Civilian Marksmanship Program.
Section 1093--Sense of Congress Regarding the Importance of Panama
City, Florida, to the History and Future of the Armed Forces
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the importance of Panama City, Florida, to the history and
future of the Armed Forces.
Section 1094--Protections Relating to Civil Rights and Disabilities
This section would require that religious organizations
that are recipients of or offerors for a Federal Government
contract be provided the protections and exemptions for
religious organizations under the Civil Rights Act.
Section 1095--Nonapplicability of Certain Executive Order to Department
of Defense and National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would exempt the Department of Defense and the
National Nuclear Security Administration from implementation of
Executive Order 13673.
Section 1096--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.
Section 1097--Waiver of Certain Polygraph Examination Requirements
This section would allow the Commissioner of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to waive certain polygraph examination
requirements for qualifying veterans.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Intelligence Agency Housing Allowances
The committee is concerned about the cost of housing
allowances, including the Living Quarters Allowance (LQA)
incentive program for Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
civilian employees serving overseas. The committee is also
concerned about potential disparity between DIA civilian and
military personnel housing allowances and overseas incentives.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness to provide a report to the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by
December 1, 2016, on DIA civilian personnel housing allowances,
the relocation incentive program, and the potential disparity
between military and civilian allowances. The report will
include, at a minimum:
(1) How the Department of Defense determines cost of living
allowance for DIA civilian employees;
(2) How the amount of LQA is determined and the
Department's policy and guidance to military services and
defense agencies for authorizing the payment;
(3) The total cost of DIA cost of living allowances and LQA
paid at overseas locations, by locations; and
(4) The differences between housing allowances for DIA
civilians and their military counterparts, including enlisted
personnel.
Five-Year Limitation on Civilian Personnel Working Overseas
The committee recognizes the challenges that the Department
of the Navy faces in hiring and maintaining a professional
civilian workforce for overseas assignments, particularly ship
repair specialists. The current ``5-year rule'' limiting
civilian personnel to a maximum of 5 consecutive years serving
overseas in the same location may have the unintended
consequence of forcing the departure of highly qualified and
difficult-to-replace ship maintenance professionals. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy or his designee
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by September 1, 2016, on the impact on ship maintenance due to
the 5-year rule. At a minimum, the briefing shall include the
annual rate of civilian attrition because of the rule, what
skills or functions are affected most, how frequently waivers
are requested and granted, what steps the Navy is taking to
address the issue, and the timeline for implementation.
Joint Base Wage Grade Parity
The committee is concerned about the ongoing wage grade
pay-parity issue at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JB MDL).
The 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
brought together three bases with two different wage grade
locality pay rates. In 2009, all salaried employees at JB MDL
were placed on the New York City locality pay area. However,
Federal wage grade system workers were never brought onto the
same wage scale, with 82 percent being paid at the Philadelphia
rate and 18 percent at the New York City rate. The committee
understands the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has had
the authority to fix this discrepancy since 2009 but has yet to
act.
The committee notes this pay disparity has created
management challenges for leaders at JB MDL. In some cases, two
sets of employees are performing the same function on the same
base for the same boss yet are paid at different rates. This
disparity has affected the base's mission by limiting
management's flexibility to move employees from one side of the
base to the other as needed to meet mission requirements and
has negated efficiencies that otherwise would have been
realized under the joint basing model.
On October 15, 2015, the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory
Committee (FPRAC) approved ``Proposal to Move a Portion of
Joint-Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst from the Philadelphia Wage
Area to the New York, NY, Wage Area, 599-ACT1.'' The proposal
recommended that OPM correct the wage grade pay-parity issue at
JB-MDL, bringing wage grade employees onto a single locality
pay. The committee urges OPM to address FPRAC's recommendation
and develop a plan to resolve the pay disparity in a timely
manner.
Security Clearances
The committee has received information from multiple
Department of Defense sources about the length of time it takes
to grant prospective civilian employees security clearances.
The committee is concerned that the process is so lengthy that
many highly qualified civilians find other work rather than
wait for the process to end.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by December 1, 2016, on the Department's efforts to reduce the
length of time it takes to grant security clearances for
civilians. At a minimum, the briefing should include:
(1) The average length of time it takes to grant a civilian
employee or prospective employee a security clearance;
(2) The factors that exist that prevent the Department from
reducing the amount of time it takes to grant security
clearances; and
(3) The steps the Department is taking to reduce the amount
of time it takes to grant a security clearance.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Temporary Direct Hire Authority for Domestic Defense
Industrial Base Facilities and the Major Range and Test Facilities Base
This section would provide direct-hire authority for
Department of Defense industrial base facilities located in the
United States, as well as the Major Range and Test Facilities
Base, for 2 years.
Section 1102--Temporary Personnel Flexibilities for Domestic Defense
Industrial Base Facilities and Major Range and Test Facilities Base
Civilian Personnel
This section would allow Department of Defense industrial
base facilities located in the United States and Major Range
and Test Facilities Base centers to hire temporary employees
into permanent positions outside of the requirements of the
competitive service.
Section 1103--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 grant a 1-year extension of temporary
authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to
civilian personnel on official duty in a combat zone.
Section 1104--Advance Payments for Employees Relocating within the
United States and Its Territories
This section would modify section 5524a of title 5, United
States Code, to authorize advance payment of basic pay for
current civilian employees who relocate within the United
States and its territories to a location outside the employee's
current commuting area.
Section 1105--Permanent Authority for Alternative Personnel Program for
Scientific and Technical Personnel
This section would remove the sunset date and annual
reporting requirement for section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public
Law 105--261), and codify the authority in chapter 81 of title
10, United States Code.
The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency has used this alternative personnel hiring
authority to great effect since its inception. Furthermore, the
committee believes that given the limited scope of this
authority, the fact that there have been no reports of misuse
or abuse in 15 years, and the fact that it does not authorize
any new civilian billets for the Department of Defense, the
authority should be made permanent. The committee believes that
such unique hiring authorities will be important tools for the
technical community in the Department to recruit, hire, and
retain the Nation's top scientific and engineering talent.
Section 1106--Modification to Information Technology Personnel Exchange
Program
This section would modify the Information Technology
Exchange Program established by section 1110 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), as amended by section 1106 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Among the changes, this
section would rename the program the ``Cyber and Information
Technology Exchange Program,'' and would increase the number of
personnel that could be exchanged from 10 to 50.
Section 1107--Treatment of Certain Localities for Calculation of Per
Diem Allowances
This section would consolidate per diem localities in the
Dayton, Ohio, area.
Section 1108--Eligibility of Employees in a Time-Limited Appointment to
Compete for a Permanent Appointment at Any Federal Agency
This section would modify section 9602 of title 5, United
States Code, to clarify the eligibility of employees of a land
management agency in a time-limited appointment to compete for
a permanent appointment at any Federal agency.
Section 1109--Limitation on Administrative Leave
This section would provide that a Federal employee may not
be placed on administrative leave, or other paid non-duty
status without charging leave, for more than 14 total days for
reasons relating to misconduct or performance.
Section 1110--Record of Investigation of Personnel Action in Separated
Employee's Official Personnel File
This section would require the head of an agency to make a
permanent notation in an individual's personnel file if the
individual resigns from government employment while the subject
of a personnel investigation and an adverse finding against the
individual is made as a result of the investigation.
Section 1111--Review of Official Personnel File of Former Federal
Employees before Rehiring
This section would require an appointing authority to
review and consider the information relating to a prospective
employee's former government service in the candidate's
official personnel record file prior to making any
determination with respect to the appointment or reinstatement
of the employee to such position.
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
United States faces a wider range of serious threats than at
any time in recent history. As the Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency testified to the committee in March 2016,
``The world is far more complicated; it is far more
destabilized; it is far more complex than at any time I have
seen it.''
The committee believes that America's global military
capabilities and commitments have undergirded peace, security,
and economic prosperity, and underwritten an international
world order aligned with American interests. However, the
committee also recognizes that others seek to threaten such
security and prosperity. The provisions contained in this title
reinforce the committee's belief that America's military
strength and its global posture and presence, will continue to
be necessary to deter aggression, to reassure U.S. allies and
partners, and to exercise global influence.
The committee continues to focus on U.S. military
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It
recognizes the fragile security situation in Afghanistan and
the risks associated with reducing U.S. forces to 5,500 by
January 1, 2017. Therefore, this Act includes the resources to
sustain at least 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through April
2017, to preserve options and provide time for a new President
to assess the security environment and U.S. military missions
in Afghanistan. The Act would also extend key authorities and
express the committee's view that the President should provide
additional resources to strike the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL) in Afghanistan; authorize unilateral strikes
against the Taliban and the Haqqani Network, the most lethal
group on the battlefield; and provide support for 352,000
Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.
The committee has also focused oversight on the efforts of
the Department of Defense to counter ISIL in the Republic of
Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, as part of Operation
Inherent Resolve (OIR), and to address the growing instability
and terrorism threats across the Middle East and Africa. The
Act would extend the Syria train and equip authority, and
maintain strong congressional oversight of the program through
a continued reprogramming requirement. It would also extend the
Iraq train and equip authority, but fence 25 percent of the
funds until a comprehensive plan is submitted to Congress.
Lastly, it would provide an additional $50.0 million in
stipends and sustainment, exempt from the above fence, for
Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga and Sunni tribal security forces that
are directly engaged in the campaign for Mosul.
The committee remains concerned about the Islamic Republic
of Iran's malign military activities, and H.R. 4909 would
express the committee's view that the United States should
counter Iran's malign activities and ensure that the U.S.
military maintains a robust, enduring posture in the Arabian
Gulf to deter and respond to Iranian aggression.
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 supports
a significant increase in European Reassurance Initiative
funding above the fiscal year 2016 request, including funding
for heel-to-toe rotations of U.S. forces and the pre-
positioning of an Armored Brigade Combat Team's equipment in
Europe. The bill would also provide $150.0 million for the
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to enhance the defense
of Ukraine and to deter further Russian aggression.
In the Asia-Pacific region, H.R. 4909 would express a sense
of Congress on trilateral security cooperation between Japan,
the Republic of Korea, and the United States, and on security
cooperation between the Republic of Singapore and the United
States.
Lastly, the committee notes that the Department has placed
greater emphasis on security cooperation. To aid in its
oversight, the committee would require an independent
assessment of Department of Defense security cooperation
programs; consolidate existing security cooperation authorities
into a new chapter in title 10, United States Code; and
consolidate multiple reporting requirements into a single
document. Additionally, to address concerns that the foreign
military sales (FMS) process is slow, cumbersome, and
complicated, the committee would require the Comptroller
General the United States to undertake a review of the
Department of Defense's performance in the FMS process.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Assistance to Iraqi Forces for Mosul Operations
The committee believes that the operation to retake the
city of Mosul, in the Republic of Iraq, from the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is an important step to achieving
the military objectives of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) and
to supporting the United States vital national security
interests.
The committee notes that the operation to retake Mosul will
be complex and will require sustained operations by security
forces in Iraq, including the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, Sunni
tribal security forces, and local security forces with a
national security mission. The committee believes that an
operation to retake Mosul should include sufficient U.S.
military and logistical assistance and support.
To that end, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes
a provision that would extend the authority of the Secretary of
Defense to provide assistance to the military and other
security forces of, or associated with, the Government of Iraq,
including the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, Sunni tribal security
forces, and local security forces with a national security
mission, to counter ISIL. This authority, specifically as it
pertains to sustainment activities for forces that have direct
involvement in combat operations to retake Mosul, includes
payment of salaries and provision of life support, including
sustenance.
The committee is also concerned that the U.S. military
support for an operation to retake Mosul would be challenged by
current force management levels; restrictions on U.S. Armed
Forces ground combat activities with the Iraqi Security Forces
(ISF), the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, and the Sunni tribal
security forces; and constraints on U.S. airstrikes. Therefore,
the committee believes that such U.S. policy limitations should
be revisited in the lead-up to an operation to retake Mosul.
Further, the committee believes that U.S. assistance and
support should be sustained for all phases of any such
operation.
Assistance to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces
The stability and security of the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan remains a vital national security interest of the
United States. The Afghan National Defense and Security Forces
(ANDSF) are a critical component to the immediate and long-term
security of Afghanistan, which also reinforces stability in the
region.
The committee notes the deteriorating security situation in
Afghanistan due to a resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, as well
as the growth of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in
Afghanistan. As such, the committee remains focused on the
sufficiency of United States assistance to the ANDSF, including
weapons and equipment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services, not later than February 15, 2017, that
includes a review of the major weapon systems and equipment
provided to the ANDSF. The briefing should include, but is not
limited to, the following:
(1) Outline all major weapon systems and equipment procured
for the ANDSF, consistent with the program of record;
(2) Summarize how such weapon systems and equipment support
the overall strategy for the ANSDF;
(3) Describe the current capability and capacity of the
ANSDF to operate and sustain such weapon systems and equipment;
(4) Identify any gaps in ANDSF capability given the
evolving security situation and overall strategy; and
(5) Address any other matters that the Comptroller General
determines appropriate.
Chinese Participation in Rim of the Pacific Exercise
The committee is concerned by certain unilateral actions
taken by the People's Republic of China in the South China Sea
and by the implications that those actions may have on regional
stability. Rather than abiding by internationally accepted
norms and contributing to a peaceful and equitable resolution
to the many disputed claims in the South China Sea, China has
engaged in controversial land reclamation projects and resorted
to aggressive tactics, short of open conflict, to further its
foreign policy goals.
The committee notes that the United States has maintained
its invitation to China to participate, to a limited extent, in
the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise for 2016, despite
China's concerning actions in the South China Sea. The
committee acknowledges the benefits of inviting China to
participate in international exercises, which aim to reinforce
the merits of cooperative security. However, the committee
believes that these invitations should be continuously
evaluated in light of China's conduct. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services, which may include a
classified portion, not later than July 1, 2016, on the merits
of continued Chinese participation in forthcoming RIMPAC
exercises.
Comptroller General of the United States Assessment of Foreign Military
Sales
The committee believes that an efficient, thorough, and
effective Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process is vital to U.S.
foreign policy and national security, and contributes to the
health of the U.S. defense industrial base. The committee is
aware of concerns raised by U.S. military leaders, the defense
industry, and foreign partners that the FMS process is slow,
cumbersome, and complicated. The committee is also aware of
provisions in the committee report (H. Rept. 114-154)
accompanying the State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Bill, 2016, and in the Explanatory
Statement accompanying H.R. 2029, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113), directing the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit a report to
Congress on the interagency processes for implementing the
Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and FMS programs. The
committee supports the GAO review of the FMF and FMS processes,
and contends that continued study of the performance of the
Department of Defense in the FMS process is warranted to
determine if additional efficiencies can be found to improve
the process.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to 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, by June 30, 2017, that further
evaluates the performance of the Department of Defense in the
FMS process. Such a report should include the following:
(1) Roles, responsibilities, and lines of authority for
implementing Department of Defense processes in FMS;
(2) An assessment of performance measures established by
the Department of Defense in the FMS process;
(3) An assessment of the extent to which the Department of
Defense meets established performance measures;
(4) Where performance measures are not met, an assessment
of the causes;
(5) An assessment of the extent to which previous reforms
have improved the efficiency of the FMS process, including but
not limited to training and workforce challenges, challenges
defining partner country requirements, and obtaining
acquisition and delivery status information;
(6) An assessment of FMS compared to practices followed in
other procurement processes such as the procurement of similar
items and services for the U.S. military, excess defense
articles sales to foreign nations, direct commercial sales to
foreign nations, or procurement of items and services under
Department of Defense authorities for building partner
capacity;
(7) An assessment of the impacts of Firm Fixed Price and
Fixed Price Incentive Fee contracting types on the defense
industrial base and the FMS process;
(8) Further examination of the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to ensure the Department
of Defense acquisition work force is properly sized and aligned
to meet the performance measures in (2);
(9) An evaluation of the size and use of the Foreign
Military Sales Trust Fund; and
(10) Any other matters the Comptroller General considers
appropriate.
Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services and
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives not later than
October 31, 2016, on any preliminary findings and
recommendations from its evaluation.
Countering Adversarial Messaging
The committee remains concerned about the success of the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) messaging and
propaganda, and their 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 it
to persist. Consequently, the committee believes that the
campaign to degrade and defeat ISIL on the battlefield must be
linked with a comparable effort to degrade and defeat ISIL's
message in the minds of potential supporters. The committee
recognizes that other extremist groups have taken note of
ISIL's success and are expanding their messaging operations,
particularly in social media.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by March 17, 2017, on the Department of Defense's long-term
strategy to counter adversarial messaging and recruiting
utilizing digital technologies, including social media. The
briefing should address the following questions:
(1) What are the Department's roles, responsibilities, and
rules of engagement when it comes to countering adversarial
messaging?
(2) What is the Department's integrated strategy to counter
online radicalization and recruitment?
(3) What measures of effectiveness exist to inform
outcomes?
(4) What analytical data points have already been collected
to compare our capabilities to those of our adversaries?
(5) What policies, regulations, or other guidance need to
be updated or modified to improve the Department's ability to
execute an integrated strategy?
Counterterrorism and Security Cooperation Efforts in Somalia and the
Horn of Africa
The committee recognizes the contributions made by the
Department of Defense through bilateral security cooperation
and counterterrorism efforts to improve the security situation
in the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Horn of Africa.
These efforts are important to address terrorist threats to the
United States emanating from Al Shabaab. The committee
acknowledges that security and stability improvements in
Somalia require a whole-of-government approach and cooperation
with the international community, including the African Union.
The committee also acknowledges the importance of collaboration
with the Department of State to work with the international
community to prevent Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
recruitment within the region. The committee urges the
Department of Defense to continue coordination of efforts with
the Department of State and international community,
recognizing the important role Somalia plays in the Horn of
Africa.
Department of Defense Briefing on Foreign Military Sales
The committee is aware of concerns raised by U.S. military
leaders, the defense industry, and foreign partners that the
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process is slow, cumbersome, and
complicated. Although FMS is an interagency process, the
Department of Defense plays a key role in implementation. The
committee is aware that the Department has taken certain steps
to improve the FMS process, such as the establishment by the
Deputy Secretary of Defense of the Defense Senior Steering
Group on Arms Transfers and Technology Review, to improve the
Department's decision making on arms transfers and release of
sensitive technology. The committee remains concerned, however,
that inefficiencies may exist in internal Department of Defense
processes that cause suboptimal outcomes such as delays. The
committee therefore directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than September 30, 2016, on the results of the
Department's initiatives to streamline procedures and on other
Department efforts to improve the FMS process.
Enduring Basing Requirements in the U.S. Central Command Area of
Responsibility
The committee notes the criticality of U.S. strategic
basing in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of
responsibility (AOR). Such basing supports myriad operations
conducted by the Department of Defense, including Operation
Inherent Resolve to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant in the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Iraq,
the Resolute Support Mission in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, and the defense of the Arabian Gulf. Further, such
basing reassures U.S. allies and partners in the region,
supports their military efforts in the region, and enables a
forward-based U.S. posture to deter the Islamic Republic of
Iran.
The committee believes that some of these bases within the
CENTCOM AOR are enduring in nature. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than June 15, 2016, on regional
basing in the CENTCOM AOR, including:
(1) The bases that are determined to be enduring within the
AOR;
(2) The enduring missions that such bases will support;
(3) The current funding for such bases;
(4) The plan for sustaining funding for such bases;
(5) The impact to U.S. interests and regional objectives if
such bases are not sustained; and
(6) Any other matters that the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
Enduring High-Resolution Geospatial Data
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
been utilizing sophisticated three-dimensional high-resolution
light detection and ranging systems to provide geospatial data
for tactical users in theaters of hostilities. Such data has
proven to be useful for these tactical users in providing
capabilities for accurate foundation mapping that supports
special operations and other forces with situational awareness,
mission planning, targeting, as well as the ability to share
with coalition partners and aid in the development of partner
capacity. While national capabilities are useful in a strategic
context, the committee believes that these tactical systems are
vital to supporting urgent, in-theater operational forces in
the successful execution of their missions. However, the
committee is concerned that the reliance on overseas
contingency operations (OCO) funds have prevented Special
Operations Command and the Army from properly ensuring that
such capabilities are included in the base budget request.
Funding these capabilities in the base budget ensures these
capabilities are available to support existing and emerging
requirements, while enabling broader application of the
capability in regions outside of traditional OCO-funded
geographies. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of
Special Operations Command, in coordination with the Secretary
of the Army and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
conduct a review of these activities and the capabilities
supporting them and provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services by November 1, 2016. This review should
examine the current requirements, especially those outside of
areas of active hostilities, and how those requirements will be
satisfied across the future years' defense program.
Instability in Libya
The committee notes with concern the continued
deterioration of the security situation in Libya as the Libyans
work to establish a unity government. Instability continues to
grow in the country, providing sanctuary for terrorist groups
to organize, train, and potentially to launch attacks against
U.S. citizens, interests, and allies and partners around the
world.
The committee remains concerned about the expansion of
terrorist elements in Libya, especially, although not
exclusively, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
According to Department of Defense officials, there are over
5,000 ISIL fighters in Libya. In public remarks on February 4,
2016, the Secretary of Defense stated, ``[T]he concern there is
that Libya not get on a glide slope to the kind of situation
that we find elsewhere, where ISIL in a politically disturbed
environment seizes a foothold, gathers a piece of territory
from which it's able to tyrannize people and plot operations
elsewhere.'' ISIL has taken credit for attacks in North Africa,
and there is increasing concern that ISIL fighters from Libya
will conduct attacks in Europe or the United States.
In addition, the lack of security and governance throughout
southern Libya allows terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda
in the Islamic Maghreb to operate freely and threaten
instability across the entire region.
The committee recognizes that instability in Libya affects
the entire region. Countries bordering Libya, such as the
Tunisian Republic, have been especially impacted. The committee
therefore will continue to consider ways in which the
Department of Defense can support Tunisia's ability to maintain
border security and stability.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
conduct prudent planning necessary to advance regional
stability. The committee also urges the administration to work
with U.S. allies and partners in Europe and North Africa to
address the foreign fighter threat in a cooperative and
coordinated manner.
Interpretation of Gross Violation of Human Rights
The committee is aware of the ongoing assessment by the
Department of Defense Inspector General to address allegations
of sexual abuse of children by members of the Afghan National
Defense and Security Forces. The committee remains concerned
about allegations of abuses perpetrated against children, and
therefore encourages the Secretary of State to interpret ``a
gross violation of human rights,'' as referred to in section
620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378d),
to include the sexual abuse of a child.
Military Assistance to the Government of Ukraine
The committee continues to urge the Department of Defense
to provide timely support to the Government of Ukraine to
enable it to defend itself against aggressive actions by the
Russian Federation and Russian-backed separatists that threaten
its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The committee
acknowledges the progress achieved to date by U.S. efforts to
train and equip Ukrainian security forces, but notes that such
efforts may need to be expanded or expedited in the event that
Ukraine's security situation further deteriorates. In such a
scenario, timely access to a sufficient inventory of military
equipment could become critical.
The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than
October 1, 2016, on how efforts, inherent to the Department of
Defense's European Reassurance Initiative and the Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative, including any plans to
preposition military weapons, munitions, and equipment in
Europe, may facilitate the Department of Defense's capacity to
respond to the potential need for additional military
assistance to the Government of Ukraine.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Defense Spending Commitments
The committee acknowledges the importance of allies in the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meeting the defense
expenditure commitments listed in Declaration 14 of the Wales
Summit Declaration, dated September 5, 2014. The declaration
states that allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to
spend a minimum of 2 percent of their gross domestic product
(GDP) on defense will aim to continue to do so, and that allies
whose current proportion of GDP spent on defense is below this
level will aim to move towards the 2 percent guideline.
The committee believes that meeting these commitments is
essential to the security and fiscal interests of the United
States and fellow allied states. Allies that fail to meet this
commitment render NATO less capable of addressing the threats
posed by adversaries. The committee commends the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Republic of Poland,
the Hellenic Republic, and the Republic of Estonia for annual
defense expenditures at 2 percent or more of their GDPs since
the Wales Summit Declaration, and it urges other allied states
to make similar efforts. The committee also urges NATO to
prioritize discussions on allied resourcing and equipping
methodologies at the NATO Warsaw Summit in July 2016.
Report on U.S. Military Enabler Support Within Operation Inherent
Resolve
The committee remains concerned about the overall
effectiveness of indigenous forces on the battlefield in the
Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Iraq, including the
Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and the appropriately vetted
elements of the Syrian opposition. This effectiveness is
hindered by the lack of U.S. military enabler support, such as
attack aviation and counter-improvised explosive device
capabilities for the ISF. Additionally, the committee is
concerned that other actors on the battlefield, such as Shia
militias backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran or Iranian
military forces, may benefit from U.S. military enabler
support.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a report to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than March 1, 2017, that evaluates
U.S. military enabler support to the ISF and such elements of
the Syrian opposition, including:
(1) How U.S. military enablers support coalition
airstrikes;
(2) How enabler resource allocation decisions are made
within Operation Inherent Resolve;
(3) How the United States determines the types of enabler
support to provide;
(4) How the United States ensures that groups, such as
Iranian-back Shia militias or Iranian military forces, do not
benefit from U.S. military enabler support; and
(5) Any other matters that the Comptroller General
determines appropriate.
Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than January 16, 2017, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings.
Reporting Requirements of Authority for Support of Special Operations
to Combat Terrorism
The committee notes the importance of the Authority for
Support of Special Operations to Combat Terrorism, as provided
in section 1208 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as
most recently amended by section 1274 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to notify the
congressional defense committees of funding changes to programs
executed under this authority when such a proposed increase
exceeds 20 percent of the currently approved total for that
particular program, or $1.0 million; whichever amount is less.
Review of Taiwan Midshipman Cruise Training Port Call
The Midshipman Cruising and Training Squadron is the only
annual, long-distance, high-sea training for Taiwanese
officers, sailors, and first-class midshipmen. The committee is
aware that prior to 1979 the Squadron, which made resupplying
port calls at foreign ports and harbors throughout the Pacific
during the training exercise, would routinely stop at U.S.
ports, including those on Guam and Hawaii. The committee notes
that the United States and Taiwan routinely conduct bi-lateral
and multi-lateral training exercises and recognizes the
potential theater security cooperation benefits associated with
increased engagement through Taiwanese port visits.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy,
in consultation with appropriate Department of State
authorities, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by February 1, 2017 on the feasibility of
permitting U.S. port calls in the Pacific for Taiwanese sailors
during the annual training exercise.
Social Media Analytics and Publically Available Information Supporting
Battlespace Awareness
The committee remains concerned with the Department of
Defense's ability to effectively monitor and utilize social
media analytic tools to support awareness of the operating
environment for force protection, operational security, and
other missions. The committee believes that the lack of clearly
defined policies is hampering the ability to use such Publicly
Available Information (PAI) to understand adversarial sentiment
and narrative messaging in theaters of active hostilities, as
well as monitoring for non- and semi-permissive environments,
and areas of potential future activity. While there are some
technology capabilities that currently exist that could support
these activities, including many that can be leveraged from the
commercial sector, the committee believes that the Department
of Defense is not effectively leveraging these tools because of
a fundamental lack of policy, doctrine, and procedures that
delineate how such tools might be used. In the lack of such
guidance, the committee believes that the Department is
abdicating this space to adversaries that have no compunction
to limit their actions, and in fact actively exploit it to
achieve their strategic goals of recruitment, fundraising, and
strategic messaging.
The committee notes that PAI use and exploitation is having
a revolutionary impact on both operations and intelligence
within the Department. Further, the committee recognizes that
while intelligence activities have important uses for PAI, the
Department also has unique operational uses and requirements
for PAI that support force protection, targeting, battlespace
awareness, and other traditional military activities. As a
result, the demand signal for the operational use of PAI has
increased across the force.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct an assessment of the current policy directives on
how defense entities use such social media tools, and to
provide a briefing on this assessment to the House Committee on
Armed Services by February 15, 2017. This assessment should
examine the demand for such capabilities from the combatant
commanders to identify any gaps or areas needing clarification
in policy, doctrine, training, and technology capabilities. In
conducting this assessment, the Secretary should consider
operational missions for social media analytics, such as
battlespace awareness, operational security, and sentiment
analysis for counter-messaging adversarial narratives and the
operational use of PAI. The assessment should also include a
discussion of legal and policy issues associated with the use
of PAI, as well as resource limitations, approval processes,
training requirements, and steps being taken to improve
coordination of effort and leverage best practices and
capabilities across the Department. Finally, the Secretary
should report on how to continue and enhance capabilities to
ensure U.S. persons' PAI is not inadvertently viewed, as well
as methods for addressing inadvertent viewing while in enemy
battlespace.
State Partnership Program Activities in Ukraine
The committee supports the role of the State Partnership
Program (SPP) in Department of Defense security cooperation
efforts, including in activities to assist Ukraine. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) authorized the National Guard to conduct SPP
activities with security forces and governmental organizations
of a foreign country whose primary functions include disaster
response or emergency response, if the Secretary of Defense,
with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, determines and
notifies Congress that the activity is in the national security
interest of the United States. The committee is aware of delays
in making determinations that would permit the National Guard
to carry out SPP activities with Ukrainian security forces or
with governmental organizations whose primary functions include
disaster response or emergency response. The committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to
facilitate timely execution of such determinations, as
appropriate.
Strategy for Regional Counter-Narrative Capabilities
The committee remains concerned with the success of Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant's (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 is also aware that Russian actors have been
highly effective in shaping the information environment against
Ukrainian forces, as well as against other actors in the region
seeking to counter Russian influence. The ambiguity that these
information operations create has been critical in the hybrid
and unconventional warfare strategy of Russian forces, and have
effectively masked, created confusion, or otherwise undermined
timely reactions from Western and allied forces.
Not only does the Department need to consider how
adversaries use such information strategies to support their
operations and undermine our own, but the committee believes
that the Department should be developing an integrated strategy
that can leverage, and when necessary combine with, allied and
partner capabilities to maximize our messaging and its broader
effects. The committee also believes that there are useful
technologies, training, and strategies that U.S. forces could
use to support allied, and international, partner information
operations capabilities to mitigate and marginalize
adversaries' ability to influence and inspire.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to develop and submit a strategy for regionally building
partnership capacity to the House Committee on Armed Services
by June 1, 2017. This strategy should look at means for
monitoring, data collection of narratives, and development of
networks for countering narratives to support the missions of
the combatant commands. Additionally, this strategy should
outline how to leverage existing partnership funds to support
regional cooperation, as well as prioritize the types of
capacity building that could take place, and the regional
partners that are most mature to conduct this kind of capacity
building.
Syria No Fly Zone
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, no later
than October 31, 2016, that gives a detailed description of the
financial costs of establishing and maintaining a no fly zone
over a significant portion or all of Syria, as well as the
tactical, operational and strategic impacts it would have on
the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Al
Qaeda, and other affiliated groups.
The Military Campaign To Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant
The committee is concerned that the end-state objectives
for the military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL), as part of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR),
are unclear and that the resourcing of that campaign may prove
insufficient. While the committee is mindful that a balance
must be struck to minimize the risk of collateral damage, the
committee also remains concerned that limitations on force
management levels, restrictions on the authority for U.S.
military commanders to conduct airstrikes, and the lack of
clarity in overall U.S. policy for the Syrian Arab Republic and
the Republic of Iraq, may hinder the ability of the U.S. Armed
Forces' to plan, execute, and achieve the objectives of the
military campaign against ISIL.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would authorize the
Secretary of Defense to train and equip the Iraqi Security
Forces (ISF), including the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga and Sunni
tribal forces, and the vetted elements of the Syrian moderate
opposition. The committee believes that these efforts are
necessary to counter ISIL; however, these efforts will not
achieve their intended effect without a coherent, comprehensive
plan and a detailed analysis of the full scope of resources
required.
The committee believes that the United States should
support appropriately vetted, effective indigenous groups in
Syria and Iraq, including vulnerable ethnic and minority groups
such as Iraqi Christian militias, with a national security
mission. The committee further believes that, in preparation
for the operation to retake Mosul, Iraq, the United States
should take steps to assist the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga,
including medical evacuations, force protection, logistics, and
radio communications.
The committee believes that the U.S. commander of OIR
should have all authorities necessary to counter ISIL. The
committee also believes that the United States must support its
friends and allies in the region who are participating in the
counter ISIL military campaign, including the Gulf Cooperation
Council countries.
Transparency in Security Cooperation Activities
The committee notes that section 1202 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, to develop and issue a strategic framework
for the Department of Defense to guide prioritization of
security cooperation resources and activities. Elsewhere in
this Act, the committee includes a provision that would require
the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with a
federally funded research and development center, or another
appropriate independent entity, with expertise in security
cooperation to conduct an assessment of the Strategic Framework
for Department of Defense Security Cooperation. Further, in the
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee
directed the Comptroller General of the United States to submit
a report on an inventory of Department of Defense security
cooperation programs intended to build partner security
capabilities. The committee also notes the continued
development of the Global Theater Security Cooperation
Management Information System (G-TSCMIS), which is intended to
provide a comprehensive picture of whole-of-government security
cooperation activities and contribute to planning more
effective cooperative security activities to align or meet
desired outcomes in support of security cooperation end states.
The committee supports such efforts that contribute to
improved security cooperation planning and intends to continue
to review additional measures that may be taken to improve the
transparency of the Department of Defense's security
cooperation program budgeting, planning, implementation, and
outcomes. The committee also intends to continue to review the
Department's development and implementation of effective
assessment, monitoring, and evaluation of security cooperation
programs.
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 1201 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), 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 2017.
Section 1202--Extension of Authority for Training of General Purpose
Forces of the United States Armed Forces with Military and Other
Security Forces of Friendly Foreign Countries
This section would extend the authority in section 1203 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66) for training of general purpose forces of
the United States Armed Forces with military and other security
forces of friendly foreign countries to December 31, 2019.
Section 1203--Modification and Extension of Authority to Conduct
Activities to Enhance the Capability of Foreign Countries to Respond to
Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction
This section would modify section 1204 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) to include a 48-hour congressional notification when
assistance expected to exceed $4.0 million is provided to
certain foreign countries, to cap the funds available at $20.0
million, and extend the authority 1 year, through September 30,
2020.
Section 1204--Extension of Authority for Support of Special Operations
to Combat Terrorism
This section would modify and extend section 1208(h) of the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as most recently amended by
section 1208(b) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291), for 3 years, through fiscal year 2020.
Section 1205--Modification and Codification of Reporting Requirements
Relating to Security Cooperation Authorities
This section would modify and codify certain reports to
Congress for programs carried out by the Department of Defense
to provide training, equipment, or other assistance or
reimbursement relating to security cooperation authorities.
This section would modify the Biennial Report on Programs
Carried Out by the Department of Defense to Provide Training,
Equipment, or Other Assistance or Reimbursement to Foreign
Security Forces, as required by section 1211 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), as follows:
(1) Revise it from a biennial to an annual report;
(2) Extend the expiration date to January 31, 2021;
(3) Include the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives to receive the report;
(4) Strike section 2011 of title 10, United States Code,
relating to authority to reimburse foreign troops for
participation in Joint Combined Exercise Training, from the
specified authorities covered by the report; and
(5) Include additional elements required in the report.
In addition, this section would add the following
provisions to the specified authorities covered by the report:
(1) Section 401 of title 10, United States Code, relating
to authority to provide humanitarian assistance;
(2) Section 1206 of Public Law 113-291, relating to
authority to conduct human rights training of security forces
and associated security ministries of foreign countries;
(3) Section 1534 of Public Law 113-291, relating to the
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund; and
(4) Section 1203 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), relating to training
of general purpose forces of the United States Armed Forces
with military and other security forces of friendly foreign
countries.
The amendments of this section would supersede section 1080
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92).
Modifying, consolidating, and standardizing reports to
Congress on certain programs to train, equip, assist, or
reimburse foreign security forces is intended to create a
single product that will aid transparency, congressional
oversight, and assist the Department of Defense in the
development of effective assessment, monitoring, and evaluation
of security cooperation programs.
Section 1206--Independent Assessment of Department of Defense Security
Cooperation Programs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and
development center, or another appropriate independent entity,
with expertise in security cooperation to conduct an assessment
of the Strategic Framework for Department of Defense Security
Cooperation. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense 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 November 1, 2017, containing the
assessment.
Additionally, the committee expects the Secretary of
Defense, acting through the federally funded research and
development center, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2017, on
the initial findings of the assessment required by this
section.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan
Section 1211--Extension and Modification of Commanders' Emergency
Response Program
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 1211 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), by authorizing the Commanders' Emergency Response Program
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during the period
beginning on October 1, 2016, and ending on December 31, 2017.
This section would also authorize ex gratia payments for
damage, personal injury, or death that is incident to combat
operations of the U.S. Armed Forces in the Republic of Iraq.
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 1212 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), 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
December 31, 2017.
Additionally, this section would limit the overall amount
available for reimbursement to $1.10 billion, of which $900.0
million would be available for reimbursement to the Government
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The committee will
continue to review the reimbursements made to Pakistan and how
it comports with the future of U.S. policy, including key
counterterrorism and security objectives, in the region.
This section would also extend, through December 31, 2017,
the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to notify the
congressional defense committees prior to making any
reimbursement to the Government of Pakistan for 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 making any
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 reimbursement and support authorized for Pakistan
during the period beginning on October 1, 2016, and ending on
December 31, 2017, $450.0 million would not be eligible for a
national security waiver unless the Secretary of Defense
certifies that Pakistan continues to conduct military
operations against the Haqqani Network in North Waziristan, is
demonstrating commitment to preventing 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, including the Haqqani Network, along the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Section 1213--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(f) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), as most recently amended by section 1214 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), through December 31, 2017.
Section 1214--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 most recently amended by section 1215 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), through December 31, 2017.
Section 1215--Sense of Congress on United States Policy and Strategy in
Afghanistan
This section would express certain findings and the sense
of Congress on U.S. policy and strategy in the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan, including that the President should authorize
at least 9,800 U.S. troops to continue to conduct the train,
advise, and assist (TAA) and counterterrorism missions in
Afghanistan after 2016; the President should provide the U.S.
commander in Afghanistan with the authority to unilaterally
strike the Taliban and the Haqqani Network and to conduct TAA
below the corps-level of the Afghan National Defense and
Security Forces; the President should provide additional
resources to strike the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in
Afghanistan; and U.S. military personnel who are tasked with
the mission of providing combat search and rescue, casualty
evacuation, and medical support should not be counted as part
of any force management level limitation in Afghanistan.
Section 1216--Special Immigrant Status for Certain Afghans
This section would modify section 602 of the Afghan Allies
Protection Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-8) by extending the
Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program through December 31,
2017.
Further, this section would modify the eligibility
requirements for applicants to such program by requiring that
any alien, that is submitting an application for Chief of
Mission approval after May 31, 2016, and has been employed by,
or on behalf of, the United States Government, must have served
as an interpreter or translator for United States military
personnel in Islamic Republic of Afghanistan while traveling
off-base with such personnel or performing sensitive and
trusted activities for United States military personnel
stationed in Afghanistan.
Finally, this section would amend the report in section
602(b)(14) of Public Law 111-8 by requiring that the Secretary
of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, provide such report
to the Committees on Judiciary of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than December 31, 2016, and annually
thereafter through January 31, 2021.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria and Iraq
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), as amended by
section 1225 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), by extending the ``Syria
train and equip'' program through December 31, 2017. This
section would also extend the reprogramming requirement through
December 31, 2017.
Further, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to provide a certification, with each reprogramming
request, that the required number and type of U.S. Armed Forces
have been deployed to support:
(1) The strategy for the Syrian Arab Republic required by
section 1225(b) of Public Law 114-92;
(2) A plan to re-take and hold Raqqa, Syria; and
(3) The elements of the Syrian opposition and other Syrian
groups and individuals trained and equipped so that such
elements are able to defend themselves from attacks by the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the Government of
Syria forces.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would authorize $250.0
million to be appropriated in title XV for fiscal year 2017 in
the Syria Train and Equip Fund for assistance to the vetted
Syrian opposition.
The committee notes that recipients of U.S. assistance
under this section should reflect the ethnic make-up of Syria,
including the vetted Sunni elements of the opposition, as
appropriate.
Section 1222--Modification and Extension of Authority To Provide
Assistance To Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
This section would express the sense of Congress that U.S.
policy should support the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, the Iraqi
Security Forces, and Sunni tribal forces in the fight against
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and that there
should be efforts to ensure transparency and oversight
mechanisms for U.S. assistance. Additionally, the sense of
Congress would recognize the important role of the Iraqi
Kurdish Peshmerga and express that the United States should
provide arms, training, and appropriate equipment directly to
the Kurdish Regional Government.
This section would also authorize the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide $680.0
million in assistance in fiscal year 2017 to the military and
other security forces of, or associated with, the Government of
the Republic of Iraq, including Kurdish and Sunni tribal
security forces or other local security forces with a national
security mission, through December 31, 2017.
This section would restrict the obligation or expenditure
of 25 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated for
the ``Iraqi Train and Equip Fund'' (ITEF) until 15 days after
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, submits 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 plan to
retake and hold Mosul, Iraq. However, of the funds authorized
to be appropriated for ITEF, $50.0 million is not subject to
such restriction and is available for stipends and sustainment
to the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, the Sunni tribal security
forces, or other local security forces with a national security
mission. Further, of the $50.0 million for stipends and
sustainment, not less than 33 percent of such funds must be
available for the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga.
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to provide the congressional defense
committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate,
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives, a briefing not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act that includes an assessment
on 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.
This section also would require a briefing that contains an
update of the assessment not later than 180 days after the
first such assessment.
Finally, this section would prohibit U.S. assistance
authorized under this section from being provided to the
Government of Iraq 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that the
Government of Iraq has taken actions to safeguard against U.S.
assistance being transferred or acquired by violent extremist
organizations, as designated by the Secretary of State under
section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1189) or that are known to be under the command and control, or
associated with, the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran.
Section 1223--Extension and Modification of Authority To Support
Operations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq
This section would amend section 1215 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), as most recently amended by section 1221 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), by extending the authority for the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I) for 1 year through fiscal year
2017. This section would also 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
Border Police.
Section 1224--Report on Prevention of Future Terrorist Organizations in
Iraq and Syria
The section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, that describes the political, economic, and security
conditions in the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic
that would be necessary to prevent the formation of future
terrorist organizations therein.
Section 1225--Semiannual Report on Integration of Political and
Military Strategies Against ISIL
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to jointly 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 semiannual report on the political and
military strategies to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL).
Additionally, this section would require the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit, not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, a report that: (1)
reviews the accountability measures taken by the Government of
Iraq for assistance provided under the Iraq Train and Equip
Fund, and (2) the financial management capacity and
accountability of U.S. assistance with respect to recipients
under such fund.
The two reports required under this section would expire 3
years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation
Section 1231--Limitation on Use of Funds To Approve or Otherwise Permit
Approval of Certain Requests by Russian Federation Under Open Skies
Treaty
This section would limit the use of funds authorized by
this Act, or any other Act, for fiscal year 2017 or any
subsequent fiscal year for the approval of an initial or
exhibition overflight, or a certification event, by the United
States for the Russian Federation until a certification and
report are provided to the specified congressional committees.
The certification that would be required by this section
would be a joint certification by the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Secretary of Energy, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, and, in the case of an
overflight of the United States, the Commander of U.S. Northern
Command, and, in the case of an overflight of another state
party to the treaty, the Commander of U.S. European Command.
The certification that would be required would be that the
Russian Federation is taking no action inconsistent with the
terms of the Open Skies Treaty (OST); is not exceeding the
imagery limits set forth by that treaty; is allowing
overflights of certain territories, including Kaliningrad; and
that covered states party to the treaty have been notified and
briefed on concerns of the Intelligence Community regarding
upgraded sensors used under the Open Skies Treaty.
The report that would be required by this section would
include the mitigation costs of complying with the treaty; a
plan to replace the Open Skies Treaty with a more robust
sharing of commercial imagery; and an evaluation by the DNI on
how the Russian Federation uses Open Skies flights in its
intelligence collection posture.
This section would require that, not later than 14 days
after the completion of an observation flight over the United
States, the Secretary of Defense, jointly with the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of National
Intelligence, shall notify the specified congressional
committees, of the flight path of such Open Skies flight; an
analysis of any U.S. critical infrastructure imaged during the
flight; mitigation costs of the Department of Defense as a
result of the flight; and an assessment of how the information
collected during the flight fits into Russia's collection
against the United States.
This section would further limit funds authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or any
other Act for fiscal year 2017 to carry out any activities to
implement the Open Skies Treaty until a joint report is
submitted to the specified congressional committees by the DNI
and the Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
(NGA) on providing enhanced access to U.S. commercial imagery
and other information, and a report by the Secretary of State,
in consultation with the Director of NGA and the Secretary of
Defense on the costs of the Open Skies Treaty.
Section 1232--Military Response Options to Russian Federation Violation
of INF Treaty
This section would withhold $10.0 million from Department
of Defense support functions to the Executive Office of the
President until the Secretary of Defense submits to the
appropriate congressional committees the plan required by
section 1243(d)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) for the development of
military capabilities to respond to the violation of the Treaty
on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces by the Russian Federation
and until the Secretary carries out the development of
capabilities pursuant to such plan and requirement of the same
section of Public Law 114-92.
Section 1233--Limitation on Military Cooperation Between the United
States and the Russian Federation
This section would limit the use of fiscal year 2017 funds
for bilateral military-to-military cooperation between the
Governments of the United States and the Russian Federation
until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, provides a certification relating to
certain actions by Russia to the appropriate congressional
committees. This section would also allow the Secretary of
Defense to waive the limitation under certain conditions.
In effect, this section would extend, by 1 year, section
1246 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92). The committee notes that Russia
continues to illegally occupy Crimea, to foster instability in
Ukraine, and to maintain an aggressive posture towards its
regional neighbors. Bilateral military-to-military cooperation
is unwarranted so long as Russia continues its aggressive and
intimidating behavior towards U.S. partners and allies in
Europe.
Section 1234--Statement of Policy on United States Efforts in Europe To
Reassure United States Partners and Allies and Deter Aggression by the
Government of the Russian Federation
This section would express a series of findings, including
a citation that the Russian Federation presents the greatest
threat to U.S. national security; recommendations from recent
studies calling for increasing U.S. defense presence in Europe;
and a summary of the funding for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and
2017, for the European Reassurance Initiative. This section
would also express a statement that it is the policy of the
United States to reassure U.S. partners and allies in Europe
and to deter aggression by the Government of the Russian
Federation in order to enhance regional and global security and
stability.
Section 1235--Modification of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative
This section would amend section 1250 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) to make conforming changes of a non-substantive nature.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would authorize $150.0 million to carry out this authority
in fiscal year 2017. The committee continues to be concerned
that certain types of assistance are not being provided to the
Ukrainian military and national security forces because they
are considered dual-use in nature. For example, the committee
is aware that the Government of Ukraine's request for sniper
training was denied by the United States because it is
considered offensive training. The committee believes that such
a distinction is irrelevant for training focused on building
basic soldier skills, and urges the U.S. Government to revisit
this issue.
The committee commends the men and women of the U.S. Armed
Forces who have assisted in the training and equipping of the
Ukrainian military and national security forces. The committee
notes the persistent aggression of the Russian Federation in
Ukraine to gain political influence and stature while
attempting to weaken governmental institutions and leadership.
The committee commends the citizens of Ukraine who continue to
face threats from Russian-backed separatists in the Donbass
region. The committee notes the continued need of the Ukrainian
military and national security forces for training, equipment,
and assistance to counter Russian-backed separatists.
Section 1236--Prohibition on Availability of Funds Relating to
Sovereignty of the Russian Federation Over Crimea
This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2017
funds to implement any activity that recognizes the sovereignty
of the Russian Federation over Crimea. The section would also
allow the Secretary of Defense, in concurrence with the
Secretary of State, to waive the prohibition if the Secretary
certifies that doing so would be in the national security
interest of the United States and submits a notification to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives.
In effect, this section would extend, by 1 year, section
1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Section 1237--Modification and Extension of Report on Military
Assistance to Ukraine
This section would express a series of findings and the
sense of Congress on Ukraine. This section would also modify
section 1275 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) to add a reporting element on a description of the
Department of Defense assistance provided to Ukraine for the
protection and monitoring of Ukraine's borders, to add the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives as report
recipients, and to extend the report to December 31, 2019.
Section 1238--Additional Matters in Annual Report on Military and
Security Developments Involving the Russian Federation
This section would amend section 1245 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), as most recently
amended by section 1248(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), to
require additional reporting elements examining the Russian
Federation's foreign military deployments.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 1241--Sense of Congress on Malign Activities of the Government
of Iran
This section would express certain findings and the sense
of Congress on the malign activities of the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran. The sense of Congress would include
that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) does not
address the totality of the malign activities of the Government
of Iran. Additionally, the section would state that the United
States should increase its efforts to counter the continued
expansion of Iran's malign activities in the Middle East;
should ensure that it has robust, enduring military posture and
capabilities forward deployed to deter Iranian aggression; and
should strengthen ballistic missile defense capabilities and
increase security assistance to partners and allies in the
region.
Section 1242--Modification of Annual Report on Military and Security
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China
This section would amend section 1202 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65), which requires the Secretary of Defense to provide to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives an annual report on the military and security
developments involving the People's Republic of China. The
Secretary of Defense would be required to provide such report
by January 31 of each year through January 31, 2021.
Additionally, this section would require a summary of the order
of battle of the People's Liberation Army as part of such
report. This amendment would supersede section 1080 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92).
Section 1243--Sense of Congress on Trilateral Cooperation Between
Japan, South Korea, and the United States
This section would set forth certain findings and express
the sense of Congress on trilateral defense cooperation between
Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States. The sense
of Congress would express that the United States should
continue to support trilateral cooperation with Japan and South
Korea. Additionally, the sense of Congress expresses support
for defense cooperation between Japan and South Korea on the
full range of issues related to the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, as well as non-proliferation, cyber
security, maritime security, security technology and capability
development, and other areas of security mutual benefit.
Section 1244--Sense of Congress on Cooperation Between Singapore and
the United States
This section would express certain findings and the sense
of Congress regarding cooperation between the United States and
the Republic of Singapore, including the United States welcomes
the enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with Singapore and
should expand bilateral defense cooperation and support; the
United States should continue efforts with Singapore to address
transnational issues and strengthen regional and multilateral
institutions; and the United States should improve joint
interoperability and security collaboration with Singapore.
Section 1245--Monitoring and Evaluation of Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid Programs of the Department of Defense
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
use up to 5 percent of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated by this Act for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster,
and Civic Aid (OHDACA) for fiscal year 2017, to conduct
monitoring and evaluation of the OHDACA programs of the
Department of Defense. This section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the specified
committees not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act on mechanisms to evaluate OHDACA
programs. This section is consistent with section 1205 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92).
Section 1246--Enhancement of Interagency Support During Contingency
Operations and Transition Periods
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of State to enter into an agreement under which
each Secretary may provide support, supplies, and services on a
reimbursement basis, or by exchange of support, supplies, and
services, to the other Secretary during a contingency operation
and related transition period.
The committee asserts that such an authority could decrease
the current bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies associated
with negotiating dozens of individual agreements to acquire or
transfer such items as fuel, communications, biometrics data,
blood supplies, and mortuary services, which has affected the
timeliness of providing support to U.S. service members and
diplomats serving in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and
the Republic of Iraq. The committee also notes that the
Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of
State, is authorized to enter into an agreement with certain
foreign countries and international organizations for the
reciprocal exchange of support, supplies, and services, yet is
limited in such reciprocal exchanges with the Secretary of
State in contingency operations.
This section would set a sunset date of December 31, 2018,
to allow the committee to revisit the use and benefits of the
authority. This section would also require a notification to
specified committees, upon use of the authority, containing a
copy of any written agreements entered into under this section
and a description of the acquisitions and transfers of support,
supplies, and services to enable congressional oversight.
Section 1247--Two-Year Extension and Modification of Authorization of
Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities
This section would modify section 943 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417), as most recently amended by section 1271 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92), to permit the recovery of individuals identified
by the Secretary of Defense when a non-conventional assisted
recovery capability is already in place. This section would
also extend the authority through 2020.
The committee reminds the Department that this authority
constitutes a traditional military activity for personnel
recovery and should not be interpreted as an intelligence
activity. The committee notes that failure to use and report
this authority accordingly will jeopardize future re-
authorizations.
Section 1248--Authority To Destroy Certain Specified World War II-Era
United States-Origin Chemical Munitions Located on San Jose Island,
Republic of Panama
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
destroy the eight U.S.-origin chemical munitions on San Jose
Island, Republic of Panama. These munitions are remnants from
research, development, and testing conducted jointly by an
American, British, and Canadian effort during, and shortly
after, World War II. By a letter dated May 8, 2013, the
Republic of Panama formally requested U.S. assistance and
limited its request to disposing of only these eight U.S.-
origin chemical munitions. This section also includes certain
related conditions and a sunset date for the authorization.
Section 1249--Strategy for United States Defense Interests in Africa
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act to the congressional defense committees
that contains a strategy for United States defense interests in
Africa.
The committee is concerned about the broad range of current
and potential security challenges across the continent,
including the deteriorating security situation in Libya and
violence from terrorist organizations and their affiliates such
as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in North Africa,
Boko Haram in the Lake Chad region, Al Qaeda in the Islamic
Maghreb in the western Sahel, and Al Shabaab in the Horn of
Africa. Additionally, the committee is concerned that
insufficient coordination between geographic combatant commands
may hinder the unity of effort necessary to counter threats
that cross combatant command boundaries. The committee believes
that a comprehensive strategy for achieving the Department of
Defense's objectives on the continent will better enable the
Department to address and plan for these challenges.
Section 1250--United States-Israel Directed Energy Cooperation
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out research, development, test, and evaluation
activities, on a joint basis with Israel, to establish directed
energy capabilities to detect and defeat ballistic missiles,
cruise missiles, and other threats to the United States,
deployed U.S. forces, or Israel.
The section would require a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
between the U.S. and Israel regarding the sharing of research
and development costs for directed energy capability to counter
the aforementioned threats and that such MOA be provided to the
specified congressional committees.
This section would limit the authorization for such
activities to not more than $25.0 million.
The authority to carry out this section would expire on
December 31, 2018.
Section 1251--Sense of Congress on Support for Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania
This section would express the 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 1252--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.
Section 1253--Modification 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), by adding two reporting requirements to the Annual Report
on the Military Power of Iran on: (1) Iran's cyber
capabilities, and (2) Iranian military and security
organizations responsible for detaining U.S. Armed Forces or
interfering in U.S. military operations.
Section 1254--Sense of Congress on Senior Military Exchanges Between
the United States and Taiwan
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of Defense should conduct a program of senior
military exchanges between the United States and Taiwan.
Section 1255--Quarterly Report on Freedom of Navigation Operations
This section would amend chapter 3 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding the requirement for the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report on U.S. freedom of navigation
operations to the congressional defense committees not later
than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter. This
reporting requirement would terminate on September 30, 2018.
Subtitle F--Codification and Consolidation of Department of Defense
Security Cooperation Authorities
Section 1261--Enactment of New Chapter for Department of Defense
Security Cooperation Authorities and Transfer of Certain Authorities to
New Chapter
This section would create a new chapter in title 10, United
States Code, entitled ``Security Cooperation,'' and would
transfer and codify, as appropriate, the following existing
security cooperation-related provisions to this new chapter:
(1) Section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84);
(2) Section 1051b of title 10, United States Code;
(3) Section 2010 of title 10, United States Code;
(4) Section 127d of title 10, United States Code;
(5) Section 2282 of title 10, United States Code;
(6) Subsections (a) through (d) of section 1081 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81);
(7) Section 184 of title 10, United States Code;
(8) Section 941(b) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417);
(9) Section 1065 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201);
(10) Section 1306 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337);
(11) Section 8073 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-248; 10 U.S.C. prec.
2161 note);
(12) Section 2166 of title 10, United States Code;
(13) Section 2350m of title 10, United States Code;
(14) Section 2249d of title 10, United States Code;
(15) Chapter 905 of title 10, United States Code;
(16) Section 9415 of title 10, United States Code;
(17) Section 1268 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291);
(18) Section 2249a of title 10, United States Code; and
(19) Section 2249e of title 10, United States Code.
Additionally, this section would extend the authority in
section 273 of chapter 11, title 10, United States Code, as
added by this section, to December 31, 2019.
This section would also make conforming stylistic
amendments, cross-reference amendments, and conforming repeals,
as appropriate.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
OVERVIEW
The budget request for the Department of Defense
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program contained $325.6
million for fiscal year 2017.
The committee continues to support the goals of the CTR
program, which are important for national security. The
committee notes that the CTR Cooperative Biological Engagement
Program now encompasses the majority of the CTR budget request,
and is concerned that CTR is no longer focused on reducing
nuclear threats.
For this reason, the committee recommends certain
reallocations of the budget request for CTR to emerging
proliferation threats, such as Additive Manufacture (``3-D
Printing''), elsewhere in this Act. The committee reaffirms its
view that the CTR program as a whole should ``maintain a strong
focus''' on the full range of threat reduction challenges.
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,
though it notes there is room for improvement and recommends
certain measures elsewhere in this Act to provide the committee
with additional opportunity for oversight.
The committee recommends $325.6 million, the amount of the
budget request, for the CTR program.
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 $325.6 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 2017.
This section would also extend certain notification
requirements, which would allow the committee to enhance its
oversight of proposed CTR projects. Further, it would require a
new determination as to whether other authorities are also
available to the Secretary of Defense, and other Secretaries as
applicable, and if they exist, an explanation for why the
Secretaries were not able to use them for a specific proposed
project.
Section 1303--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Cooperative
Threat Reduction in People's Republic of China
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
obligate and expend funds on Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
activities in the People's Republic of China on a quarterly
basis.
This section would further require that the Secretary of
Defense not obligate or expend funds for CTR activities in
China unless he has submitted to the specific congressional
committees a certification regarding certain nonproliferation
benchmarks (including the arrest of Li Fangwei, also known as
``Karl Lee'') with respect to China.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Beryllium Metal Supply
The committee notes the continuing importance of the
strategic and critical material, beryllium, to national
security. The committee understands that, starting in 2004, the
Department of Defense took affirmative steps to invest in a
domestic beryllium manufacturing facility in order to maintain
security of supply, as well as the affordability of beryllium
for defense systems. The committee encourages the Department to
continue to take affirmative steps to maintain a secure
domestic source of beryllium. The committee notes that several
improvements currently available make the production of
domestic beryllium more efficient and affordable, through the
Defense Production Act and other means, which the Department
should consider as part of this ongoing strategy.
Clarification of Product Improvement Pilot Program Authority
The committee notes that section 330 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) provided the Department of the Army, and subsequently
section 323 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) provided the Department of
the Air Force and the Department of the Navy the authority to
use working capital funds for procuring and installing
components or subsystems that would improve the reliability and
maintainability, extend the useful life, enhance safety, lower
maintenance costs, or provide performance enhancement of weapon
system platforms or major end items. The committee has learned,
however, that some military departments are interpreting the
language in paragraph (a) of section 330 of Public Law 110-181
to mean ``except as stated in section 2208 of title 10, United
States Code.'' The committee notes that the intent of the
statute, as clearly indicated in the phrase ``Notwithstanding
section 2208 of title 10, United States Code. . .'', is to
waive the requirements of section 2208 to enable the execution
of the pilot program established for certain product
improvements. In light of this clarification, the committee
directs the Secretary of each military department to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later
than December 1, 2016, on which weapon system components or
subsystems could be considered as candidates for the product
improvement pilot programs authorized in section 330 of Public
Law 110-181 and section 323 of Public Law 114-92.
Defense Production Act Implications for Propeller Shafts
The committee recognizes that of the Defense Production Act
(DPA) Title III program provides the Department of Defense with
a powerful tool to ensure the timely creation and availability
of domestic production capabilities for technologies that have
the potential for wide-ranging impact on the operational
capabilities and technological superiority of U.S. defense
systems. DPA Title III is unique in that it is the sole
Department of Defense program focused on creating, maintaining,
protecting, expanding, or restoring domestic production
capacity to strengthen domestic industry and to establish the
industrial base capacity for essential national defense
capabilities. The committee supports the DPA Title III program
and recognizes its importance to preserving key capabilities
throughout the defense industrial base.
The committee notes the importance of the segments of the
defense industrial base where limited numbers of suppliers
provide materiel that is critical to readiness of the force.
The committee has been made aware that the industrial segment
responsible for the manufacture and refurbishment of propeller
shafts for the Navy's surface and submarine fleet faces
considerable strain from high demand from Naval Supply Systems
Command and Naval Sea Systems Command. The committee encourages
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, as manager for the DPA Title III program, to ensure
that this and other areas of the defense industrial base are
maintained and enhanced.
Destruction of Chemical Weapons Stockpile
The committee is aware that recently the Program Executive
Office (PEO) for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA)
at the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP)
successfully completed elimination of problematic chemical
munitions deemed unsuitable for processing in the main plant.
The committee is also aware that the PCAPP main plant
operations are scheduled to begin this fiscal year at the U.S.
Army Pueblo Chemical Depot, and systemization is underway at
the Blue Grass Army Depot. The committee believes it is
important to ensure that all chemical weapons stockpile
destruction is completed by December 31, 2023, which is the
congressionally mandated deadline. The committee encourages the
PEO-ACWA to continue to evaluate options to accelerate the
destruction schedules without sacrificing worker and public
safety and security.
Locality Pay at Department of Defense Working Capital Fund Facilities
The committee is concerned that the implementation of the
Department of Defense's policy on locality pay at Defense
working capital fund facilities is having a negative impact on
the rates charged at these facilities. The committee believes
that by allowing working capital fund enterprises to spread the
costs of locality pay increases over a number of years, a
sufficient working capital fund accumulated operating result
would be sustained, and thereby allow these institutions to
provide valuable services at competitive rates. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review
of departmental policy and to provide a briefing on the
findings of the review to the House Committee on Armed Services
by October 31, 2016.
Rare Earth Stockpile Acquisitions by the Defense Logistics Agency
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66) granted authority to the National Defense
Stockpile Manager to acquire six materials for the National
Defense Stockpile: ferroniobium, dysprosium metal, yttrium
oxide, cadmium zinc tellurium substrate materials, lithium ion
precursors, and triamino-trinitrobenzene, and insensitive high
explosive molding powders. The committee is concerned about the
manner in which this acquisition authority has been used for
the procurement of yttrium oxide and dysprosium metal.
Specifically, the awardee of the yttrium oxide acquisition has
closed its mine in the United States. For dysprosium metal, no
solicitation has been issued, even though the Administrator of
Defense Logistics Agency--Strategic Materials (DLASM) issued
requests for information for dysprosium metal and yttrium oxide
less than a month apart.
To better understand how DLASM intends to use this
acquisition authority, the committee directs the Administrator
of Defense Logistics Agency--Strategic Materials to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later
than September 30, 2016, that addresses the following questions
with respect to the yttrium oxide acquisition:
(1) Where will this material be physically mined and
refined?
(2) If either of these process steps will occur outside of
the United States or other allied nations, what is the DLASM's
assessment of the risk associated with that acquisition?
The briefing should also address the following questions
with respect to the dysprosium metal acquisition:
(1) Why has the dysprosium metal acquisition been delayed?
(2) What additional information does DLASM require to issue
a solicitation prior to the expiration of the acquisition
authority for dysprosium in fiscal year 2019, to include the
ability to store or rotate dysprosium metal stocks?
(3) Has DLASM investigated storage mitigation options, such
as a vendor-managed inventory or buffer stock?
Successful Changes to Working Capital Fund Cash Management Policy
The committee is encouraged by the work performed by the
Department of Defense to develop a well-defined metric to
identify lower and upper operational requirements for working
capital fund cash balances rather than resorting to the
arbitrary, outdated goal of maintaining 7 to 10 days of cash to
sustain business operations. The previous metric could not
respond to changes related to external pressures, such as
fluctuations in commodity markets that are outside of the
Department's control.
The committee has directed the Department for several years
to develop a metric that was not arbitrary, but more in line
with true operational requirements. 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. 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.
The committee commended the Department in the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
for initiating processes to determine the correct cash corpus
thresholds for each working capital fund, looking 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.
In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the new methodology
developed by the Department consists of four elemental
components: rate of disbursement, range of operation, risk
mitigation, and reserves for future requirements. Through these
four components, the committee believes the Department has
developed a metric that can adjust to accommodate seasonality,
known changes in the business environment, and unplanned events
within the activities. Absorbing these fluctuations in market
forces stabilizes prices for customers, most notably those
funded through constrained operation and maintenance funds.
Therefore, the committee commends the development of this new
cash-management policy.
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 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 this Act.
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile
Section 1411--Authority to Dispose of Certain Materials from and to
Acquire Additional Materials for the National Defense Stockpile
This section would authorize certain disposals of materials
from, and acquisition of materials for, the National Defense
Stockpile under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98d(b)).
Section 1412--Revisions to the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act
This section would amend sections 4 and 15 of the Strategic
and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c and 15
U.S.C. 98h-6, respectively) to make certain clarifying
amendments and to allow the Department of Defense to contract
with facilities to recycle strategic and critical materials.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 1421--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 1422--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 2017.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Execution of Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund
The Department of Defense provided a briefing to the
committee that the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF)
strategy contemplates extensive, long-term future efforts to
build the capacity of partner nations in certain regions. The
committee supports such efforts, but expects the Department to
address the specific concerns outlined below in future CTPF
reprogramming requests and other Building Partnership Capacity
(BPC) authority notifications, as appropriate. Further, as part
of future BPC proposals or briefings, the committee expects the
Department to differentiate those projects intended solely to
address short-term tactical needs (for example, training a unit
to deploy on a peacekeeping operation) from those that are
long-term (for example, assisting the Federal Republic of
Somalia with the development of a national army).
The committee is concerned that some of the nations
described in past CTPF reprogramming requests lack the capacity
to absorb and sustain some of the assistance contemplated. The
Department should be prepared to provide assessments of the
capacity of nations to absorb and sustain assistance as part of
future CTPF reprogramming requests or BPC authority
notifications. The committee is concerned about the ability of
Somalia to absorb and employ the assistance provided by the
United States effectively, as well as the ability of the
Department, given the security environment in that region, to
oversee how such assistance is maintained and used in the
future. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than June 30, 2016, to update the committee
on efforts to address these concerns. The committee further
directs the Secretary to provide a second briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than December 31, 2016,
on the same subject.
Further, the committee expects that future CTPF
reprogramming requests will include specific programs for
defense institution building for nations that the United States
intends to be part of any long-term effort. The committee also
expects the Department to include as part of any such requests
the specific activities being undertaken by other U.S.
Government agencies, allied countries, and international
organizations that are contributing to the capacity-building
efforts of partner nations, especially in areas that relate to
civilian control of security forces and the rule of law.
The committee continues to expect that the Department will
evaluate carefully the commitments of partner countries that
receive assistance to principles of rule of law and human
rights, especially as part of any long-term effort, and will be
prepared to discuss these commitments as part of any future
reprogramming request or notification of assistance.
Finally, the committee notes that there are efforts within
the Department to evaluate the estimated sustainment costs for
proposed BPC assistance, as well as the sustainment costs for
assistance already provided. The committee expects that such
estimated costs will be provided as they are identified. This
information is vital to evaluating any future changes to policy
or authorities.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee would decrease funding
for the CTPF.
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account
The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations
contained no funding for a National Guard and Reserve Component
equipment account. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee notes
that the base budget request contained $3.0 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 and challenges associated
with efficiently fulfilling combat readiness training
requirements. For example, the committee notes there are
significant modernization, capability, and training challenges
associated with the current Air National Guard aircraft
assigned to the Aerospace Control Alert mission, and those
aircraft crews maintaining proficiency and readiness in other
mission areas critical to full-spectrum combat readiness. The
committee also notes the Army National Guard continues to
experience modernization shortfalls in utility rotorcraft and
heavy lift rotorcraft.
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
rotorcraft, 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, hail and warning escalation of
force systems, out of band infrared pointer and illumination
systems, near infrared aiming and illumination systems,
crashworthy, ballistically tolerant auxiliary fuel systems,
Engagement Skills Trainer II systems, F-16 distributed-
operations mission training centers, 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 $3.0 billion, the full amount of the base
budget request, for National Guard and Reserve equipment.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 1501--Purpose and Treatment of Certain Authorizations of
Appropriations
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 and
section 4103 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 and section 4203 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
section 4302 and section 4303 of division D of this Act.
Appropriations for operation and maintenance identified in
section 4302 would be available for obligation until April 30,
2017.
Section 1505--Military Personnel
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 and
section 4403 of division D of this Act. Appropriations for
military personnel identified in section 4402 would be
available for obligation until April 30, 2017.
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. These appropriations
for the Defense Working Capital Funds would be available for
obligation until April 30, 2017.
Section 1507--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
Wide
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-Wide at
the levels identified in section 4502 and section 4503 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. These appropriations for the
Defense Health Program would be available for obligation until
April 30, 2017.
Section 1510--Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF) at the level
identified in division D of this Act.
The budget request contained $1.00 billion in Overseas
Contingency Operations for CTPF. 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 $1.30 billion for CTPF, and the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92)
authorized an additional $750.0 million for this fund. The
committee is encouraged by improvements in the Department of
Defense's execution of CTPF, but remains concerned about the
capacity of some partner nations to absorb the resources
provided through the fund in a short period of time. Therefore,
the committee recommends $750.0 million, a decrease of $250.0
million, for CTPF.
The committee is also concerned that the Department is
developing, but does not yet have in place, an effective
process to assess, monitor, and evaluate the outcomes of
security cooperation activities, including assistance to
partner countries. The committee intends to conduct close and
thorough oversight of CTPF authorizations to ensure that the
Department executes the funding effectively. Thus, elsewhere in
this Act, the committee provides additional direction to the
Department for the execution of CTPF.
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 $4.50
billion of additional war-related funding authorizations in
this title among the accounts in this title.
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters
Section 1531--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 certain conditions of section 1513 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as amended by section 1531(b) of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383), through December 31, 2017.
Additionally, this section would require that, of the funds
available in ASFF for fiscal year 2017, a $25.0 million goal
would be set to support the recruitment, integration,
retention, training, and treatment of women serving in the
Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, as well as the
recruitment, training, and contracting of female security
personnel for future elections in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan. The Department's efforts to meet this goal should
emphasize programs and activities that promote the integration
of Afghan women into the Afghan National Defense and Security
Forces' (ANDSF) organizational culture, professional
development, and opportunities for advancement. The committee
notes that in recent years there has significant investment
into infrastructure for Afghan women serving in the ANDSF.
Finally, this section would modify the requirement for the
Secretary of Defense to provide a quarterly report to the
congressional defense committees that summarizes the details of
any obligation or transfer of ASFF funds, changes the frequency
of such reporting requirement to a semi-annual basis, extends
such report through January 31, 2021, and makes other
conforming changes. Such report should also address the steps
taken to increase fraud prevention, transparency, and
accountability.
Section 1532--Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
This section would modify subsection 1532(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) by extending the use and transfer authority for the
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to fiscal year
2017. This section would also modify section 1532(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239) by expanding the foreign governments to whom
assistance may be provided in order to counter the flow of
improvised explosive device precursor chemicals. Finally, this
section would extend the authority for interdiction of
improvised explosive device precursor chemicals to December 31,
2017.
Section 1533--Extension of Authority to Use Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Fund for Training of Foreign Security Forces to Defeat
Improvised Explosive Devices
This section would modify section 1533(e) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) by extending the Authority to Use the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Fund for Training of Foreign Security
Forces to Defeat Improvised Explosive Devices and precursor
chemicals from September 30, 2018, to September 30, 2020.
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Accrediting Models for Missile Defense Testing
The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
sometimes uses element models, developed both by MDA and the
military services, during ground tests that have not been fully
accredited; full accreditation could improve the reliability of
test results.
The committee notes that the majority of element models
used during ground tests to support delivery of phase 2 of the
European Phased Adaptive Approach were not accredited, and the
models for Aegis Ashore and the ship-based Aegis ballistic
missile defense weapon systems were not accredited, but have
proven to be successful missile defense capabilities.
The committee is aware that MDA, the services, and the
Office of Operational Test and Evaluation have been working
together to accredit the models used in ground tests to support
operational testing. The committee supports these efforts, and
directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in
coordination with the military services and the Director of the
Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, to provide a
briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than December 1, 2016,
on the status of these efforts and the expected timeline for
accrediting these models to enhance missile defense operational
testing and reliability, the cost, and any technical
limitations or operational considerations that may be
encountered.
Air Force Global Strike Command
Following the establishment of Air Force Global Strike
Command (AFGSC) in 2009, the Air Force has taken limited steps
to consolidate and focus attention on the Air Force's nuclear
mission through this major command. Last year's installation of
a four-star general officer as commander has undoubtedly led to
increased stature within the organizational structure of the
Air Force, but the committee believes further consolidation of
functions is required. Elsewhere in this title, the committee
includes a provision that would consolidate certain nuclear
command and control and missile warning capabilities within
AFGSC.
As part of this consolidation and focus, the committee also
believes AFGSC must be provided the appropriate resources and
manpower required to effectively plan and execute its mission.
Balancing priorities across the service, the committee expects
the Air Force to program funding and personnel commensurate
with the command's mission and needs.
Analytic Line Review of U.S. Central Command Intelligence Assessments
The committee notes that on October 21, 2015, the House
Committee on Armed Services, the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense requested that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence, the Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command
conduct an analytic line review of U.S. Central Command
intelligence assessments. The Department has not yet undertaken
that request. In response, the aforementioned committees
subsequently requested again on January 7, 2016, and April 11,
2016, that an analytic line review be undertaken.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Commander of U.S.
Central Command, to conduct the analytic line review as
described in the classified annex to this report, and to
provide a written report on the review to the congressional
defense committees and the congressional intelligence
committees not later than July 1, 2016.
Army Small Satellite Technology Development
The committee supports the activities of the U.S. Army
Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command
(USASMDC/ARSTRAT) to develop experimental capabilities which
would assist the ground warfighter's exploitation of space
capabilities. USASMDC/ARSTRAT is working to demonstrate
capabilities and identify key technology maturation
requirements to meet the Army's demands for enhanced
intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance, communications,
target acquisition, position/navigation, missile warning,
ground-to-space surveillance, and command and control
capabilities. The committee recognizes the innovation and
progress regarding small satellite technologies and
capabilities. Therefore, in order to leverage this advancing
technology and address the rapidly emerging threat, the
committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to prioritize
and accelerate the technology development and on-orbit testing
of militarily relevant small tactical satellites in support of
warfighter requirements.
Assessment of Department of Defense Efforts To Secure Internet of
Things
The proliferation of embedded computing systems within the
Department of Defense has provided significant capabilities
that have enabled battlefield superiority, created realistic
training environments, facilitated the tracking of supplies and
equipment, improved health care provided to wounded soldiers,
and provided common operating pictures to support command and
control decisions. However, as these and future capabilities
become more connected to the Internet, the success, security,
and resilience of the Department's missions, personnel, and
capabilities could become jeopardized. For example, the same
systems that allow commanders to provide command and control or
have situational awareness of troop movement from remote
locations could be used by enemies or other bad actors to
identify, track, and even misdirect U.S. and allied forces.
Further, while the Department tries to mitigate Internet-based
threats that could emanate from or use Department of Defense
networks, the Department may remain vulnerable based on the
reliance on non-defense networks, such as those from defense
industrial base partners or allies. Those systems may collect
and store critical information the Department is reliant on,
and thus weaknesses in the security of those systems may have
inadvertent impacts on Department of Defense data and networks.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Department of Defense's
planning and management for the security impact and challenges
that the Internet of Things will present to the Department. The
committee directs the Comptroller General 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, 2017, with the
report to follow on a date agreed to at the time of the
briefing. The assessment should address the following:
(1) To what extent does the Department have situational
awareness of the extent to which its current capabilities are
exposed to Internet-based threats and the vulnerabilities that
could result; and what actions, if any, is the Department
taking to mitigate these threats?
(2) To what extent does the Department have policies and
plans in place to monitor, track, report, and manage incidents
where the Department's Internet-based capabilities are accessed
or manipulated?
(3) To what extent has the Department taken action to
manage the security of Internet-based capabilities being
procured by Department of Defense components?
(4) Any other matters the Comptroller General determines
are relevant.
Assessment of Hardening Technologies for Microgrids
The committee is aware of the increasing development and
use of microgrids on Department of Defense installations in an
effort to provide better isolation capabilities from failures
to the public electrical grid, but also to integrate other
sources of energy to make bases more secure in the event of
long-term power outages. The committee is also aware that the
Department recently completed a Joint Concept Technology
Demonstration (JCTD), called ``Smart Power Infrastructure
Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security (SPIDERS), to
demonstrate how to integrate cybersecurity, energy efficiency,
and energy storage technologies into a common architecture for
military installations. However, the committee does not believe
that this demonstration looked at how to integrate technologies
to harden against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from high-
altitude nuclear burst or space weather. The committee remains
concerned that EMP effects could have potentially catastrophic
effects against an electrical grid, and the effects against
such new technology as microgrids is not currently quantified.
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 January
20, 2017, assessing the capabilities and needs for EMP
hardening Department of Defense microgrids. This briefing
should include an overview of the results of the SPIDERS JCTD,
including any technologies that that demonstration considered
that would improve EMP hardening. The briefing should also
assess the three locations used in the demonstration to
identify what kinds of hardening technologies might be
incorporated into their architectures, as well as an estimate
of the projected costs in hardening those sites.
Asset Tracking for Information Technology Security
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
needs a comprehensive asset management system with continuous
remediation across all layers of the open systems
interconnection model in order to achieve and maintain security
over the Department's information technology systems. Section
935 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014 (Public Law 113-66) directed the Department to provide a
plan for a software inventory process for the products for
which any military department spends more than $5.0 million
annually. According to the response from the Chief Information
Officer received January 14, 2016, the Department intends to
use the ongoing Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness
(FIAR) efforts to enable reporting for software licenses owned,
and the information security continuous monitoring (ISCM) to
report software in use and license compliance.
The committee is supportive of utilization of these
processes but believes the Department is capable of achieving
asset management and continuous monitoring prior to the
scheduled FIAR and ISCM schedules of 2018 and 2020 by using
existing capabilities and partnering with industry. Therefore,
the committee directs the Department of Defense Chief of
Information Officer to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2016, on the
utilization of FIAR and ISCM to do information technology asset
tracking, including management processes, resources required,
timelines for execution, and the capture and collection of
data.
Biennial Cyber Exercises
The committee notes that section 1648 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) requires the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National
Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the heads of the critical infrastructure
sector-specific agencies designated under Presidential Policy
Directive-21 and in consultation with Governors of the States
and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure, to
conduct biennial exercises. These exercises are based on
scenarios in which critical infrastructure of the United States
is attacked in cyberspace and the President directs the
Secretary of Defense to defend the United States and provide
support in responding to and recovering from cyberattacks. The
committee believes that these exercises are critical for
developing and sustaining necessary skills, and to identify
potential issues that could compromise the nation's ability to
respond to and recover from such an attack.
The committee urges the Department of Defense to utilize
these exercises to identify gaps and problems that require new
or modified training, capabilities, procedures, or authorities;
document key observations and lessons learned; understand
local, State, and national strengths that should be leveraged;
identify weaknesses that need to be mitigated; and use initial
exercises to make recommendations for future exercises, to
include scenarios and participants. The committee expects to be
kept informed of such exercises and results of those exercises.
Briefing on B61-12 Deployment Plans and Costs for Modifying Dual-
Capable Aircraft
The committee supports the joint efforts of the Department
of Defense and the Department of Energy to develop and deploy
the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb. The committee believes this
modernized B61 weapon is a central component of both our own
strategic deterrent as well as the extended deterrent provided
to allies, and the committee believes that sustaining the
ability to forward deploy B61 bombs on U.S. and allied aircraft
provides important deterrence and assurance value.
To better understand the Department of Defense's plans for
deployment of B61-12 bombs, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
November 1, 2016, on the Secretary's intended plans for
deploying B61-12 bombs. Such briefing should include the
planned deployment locations or areas, the schedule and cost
for swapping out currently deployed B61 bombs, the U.S. and
foreign dual-capable aircraft that the B61-12 will be deployed
on, and the estimated cost of modifying existing dual-capable
aircraft to carry the bombs.
Briefing on Security Standards Related to Forward-Deployed U.S. Nuclear
Weapons
The committee notes the importance of security at bases
with forward-deployed U.S. nuclear weapons.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
cooperation with the Secretary of the Air Force and the
relevant combatant commanders, to provide a classified briefing
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives, no later than November 30, 2016, on the
following:
(1) An evaluation of the security at host bases, including
how these standards compare from base to base;
(2) An evaluation of the security for active nuclear
weapons storage areas;
(3) A description of security improvements and funding
improvements planned at active nuclear weapons storage areas;
(4) A description of programs to address any known
modernization and obsolescence of security equipment at active
nuclear weapons storage areas;
(5) The implications, if any, of the current regional
security threat level and any additional security requirements;
and
(6) The division of costs related to security and security
improvements between the U.S., host nations, and any other
entities, and options to enhance burden-sharing.
Cloud Access Points
The committee remains supportive of enabling the adoption
of cloud computing throughout the Department of Defense in
order to realize cost savings and efficiency, as well as
increased agility and security. The committee recognizes that
the Department must develop the necessary security requirements
to ensure that sensitive missions and data are protected from
evolving cyber threats. However, the committee is concerned
that the current Department approach to protecting the
Department of Defense Information Network from outside
intrusions through the Cloud Access Point (CAP), for data
classified as Information Impact Level 4 and above, may impede
the adoption of cloud-based commercial solutions due to
inadequate implementation of the CAP to date. This approach may
also impede the limitations the current CAP model places on the
Department's ability to scale with commercial cloud service
providers.
In order to move forward with the adoption of cloud
computing, the committee believes the Department should
implement the current CAP iteration to allow the movement of
eligible data to the Federal Risk and Authorization Management
Program accredited commercial cloud providers in the short
term. The Department should also consider developing a strategy
for the development and implementation of a more capable CAP
program that enables greater adoption of commercial cloud,
while also evolving with cybersecurity threats.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Chief Information Officer to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services, not later than December 1, 2016,
with an update on the status of the implementation of the
current CAP program. The briefing should include the
identification of near-term steps necessary to implement the
current CAP program goals and objectives, in addition to long-
term goals and requirements to evolve and improve the CAP
program. Finally, the briefing should also include emerging
standards and practices to address intrusion detection and
institute appropriate firewalls on any defense network
utilizing the CAP program.
Command and Control of National Security Space Assets
The committee is concerned with the growing and serious
threats to U.S. national security space systems. As noted in a
House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on the fiscal
year 2017 budget request for national security space, a senior
military commander offered in the statement for the record
that, ``simply stated, there isn't a single aspect of our space
architecture, to include the ground architecture, that isn't at
risk.'' The committee believes it is important to understand
the operational implications of this risk and the challenges to
command and control of national security space assets in
potential situations in which conflict extends to space.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command, in coordination with each of the combatant
commanders, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees and the congressional intelligence committees by
November 1, 2016, on the importance of and reliance on military
and national reconnaissance space systems in operational
military campaigns; the military operational challenges
regarding the defense and protection of these systems in a
potential conflict with the current and projected future
foreign threats; and complications or problems observed in war
games, exercises, and experiments regarding chain of command or
other aspects of operational authority.
The committee also directs the Director of the National
Reconnaissance Office to separately provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees by November 1, 2016, on the Director's
views as they relate to complications or problems observed in
war games, exercises, and experiments, if any, regarding chain
of command or other aspects of operational authority.
Commercial Geospatial Intelligence
The committee supports the Director of the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's (NGA) leadership to foster a
diverse, resilient, agile, and responsive geospatial
intelligence (GEOINT) program that provides seamless user
access to the best mix of capabilities to meet warfighter
requirements. The committee is aware of the release of the
commercial GEOINT strategy in October 2015. The committee
commends the Director of NGA for both continuing the effective
current commercial partnerships and pursuing new methods of
intelligence collection and analysis by looking to further
leverage current and emerging commercial technology providers'
capabilities, in order to increase capacity, persistence,
resilience, and cost effectiveness. The committee supports
NGA's course of action in partnering with the commercial GEOINT
industry to meet the relevant future warfighter intelligence
requirements, while ensuring that the appropriate steps are
taken to protect national security. The committee encourages
the Director of NGA and the Secretary of Defense to keep the
committee informed of NGA's progress in implementing the
commercial GEOINT strategy.
Commercial Satellite Communications
The budget request contained $86.3 million in PE 303600F
for wideband global satellite communications. Of this amount,
$30.0 million was requested for the commercial satellite
communications (SATCOM) pathfinder program. The committee
supports the Department of Defense's efforts to reform
commercial satellite communications acquisition through
implementing more efficient business practices and innovative
acquisition methods.
However, the committee believes that the Department should
be more rapidly exploring additional opportunities, to include
order-of-magnitude improvements, to increase efficiency of the
acquisition of commercial SATCOM, as required by the
congressionally mandated pilot program defined in section 1612
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92). The committee believes it is important to
evaluate these capabilities in the near term, in order to
inform the path forward on SATCOM acquisition.
Therefore, the committee recommends $116.3 million in PE
303600F, an increase of $30.0 million, for the commercial
SATCOM pilot program as defined in Public Law 114-92.
Additionally, as the Department pursues the various
innovative solutions, the committee recommends it consider
capacity, affordability, mission flexibility, communications
security, and other aspects as appropriate to rapidly address
the warfighter's requirements in the most cost effective manner
for the taxpayers. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees by July 1, 2016, on the implementation plan to
execute the commercial SATCOM pilot program as required in
Public Law 114-92 and an update on the Department's ongoing,
planned, and potential future options for pathfinder programs.
Commercial Space-Based Capabilities
The committee supports the emerging commercial space market
and the leadership of U.S. space industry. The committee
recognizes that these emerging space-based technologies could
enable the government to leverage additional services not
previously available from private entities. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Director of National Intelligence and other relevant
Federal agencies as appropriate, to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees by November 1, 2016, on national
security-related commercial space-based capabilities. The
briefing shall include:
(1) An evaluation of how emerging commercial space-based
capabilities can meet mission requirements and augment
government systems for the Department of Defense and
Intelligence Community;
(2) Identification of existing regulations, and suggested
modifications needed to leverage commercial space-based
capabilities and protect national security;
(3) A strategy for leveraging, as appropriate, commercial
space-based capabilities, products, and services in a timely
manner.
(4) Any other considerations regarding the use of
commercial systems for national security missions.
Comptroller General Assessment of the Management and Measurement of
Cyber Activities
The committee notes that the Department of Defense's
primary cybersecurity mission is to defend its own networks,
systems, and information, and if the Department's systems are
not dependable in the face of cyber warfare, all other missions
are at risk. The committee is aware that a cyber incident could
have significant impact on the Department, including loss of
confidence in national security, loss of national security or
personal identifiable information, and the inability to conduct
military operations.
The committee recognizes that it is imperative that
Department leaders, commanders, and supervisors at all levels
implement cybersecurity discipline, enforce accountability,
manage the shared risk to all Department missions, and take
action as soon as possible, because a weakness in one part of
the Department's network is a vulnerability and potential back
door to other parts of the network. Recently, senior Department
leaders have issued important cybersecurity guidance to help
manage and focus cybersecurity efforts. Among these are a
revised Department Cyber Strategy, a Cybersecurity Campaign
memo, cybersecurity execute orders, a Department Cybersecurity
Scorecard, and Cybersecurity Discipline Implementation Plan.
The committee also recognizes that it has been 6 years
since U.S. Cyber Command became fully operational, and that the
effectiveness of the dual-hat relationship between the director
of the National Security Agency and the commander of United
States Cyber Command has been a matter of concern. The
committee believes that the right balance of effective
management, tone established at the top, and Department-wide
commitment to defense cybersecurity matters is vital to
ensuring success in the Department's cyber efforts. Prior
assessments by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have
highlighted management weaknesses across the Department, and
made recommendations that could improve the Department's
cybersecurity posture.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Department of Defense's
management and measurement of progress in protecting its own
networks, systems, and information, and to provide a report on
the findings to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives by April 15, 2017. The
assessment should address the following:
(1) What are the benefits and drawbacks of maintaining a
dual-hat relationship between the director of the National
Security Agency and the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, and
how is the Defense Department measuring the performance of this
relationship?
(2) To what extent has the Department made progress in
implementing key cybersecurity guidance, such as the Defense
Cyber Strategy, the Cybersecurity Campaign, and the
Cybersecurity Scorecard?
(3) A review of the extent to which the Department has
implemented Government Accountability Office recommendations
from the reports titled ``Management Improvements Needed to
Enhance Programs Protecting the Defense Industrial Base from
Cyber Threats'' (GAO-12-762SU), and ``Defense Cyber Security:
Opportunities Exist for DOD to Share Cybersecurity Resources
with Small Business'' (GAO-15-777).
(4) To what extent has the Department implemented
recommendations from GAO assessments of the Department's
management of cybersecurity issues?
(5) Any other matters the Comptroller General determines
are relevant.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 1, 2017, on the Comptroller General's preliminary
findings.
Comptroller General Review of Software-Intensive Space Acquisition
Programs
Given the importance of space acquisition programs to
national security, as well as the technical complexity, large
investments, and increasing cyber threats, it is imperative
that Department of Defense's space acquisitions incorporate
leading government and industry practices in order to develop
robust systems that meet warfighter needs on a timely basis.
The delays, including urgently needed capabilities being years
behind schedule, and cost growth in acquiring software-
intensive, cyber-hardened, military space systems, such as the
Global Positioning System Next Generation Operational Control
System (OCX) and the Joint Space Operations Center Mission
System (JMS), may indicate that the Department's acquisition
policies, processes, and oversight are not adequately
structured to deliver critical capabilities in a timely and
cost effective manner.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of the Department's
software-intensive military space system acquisitions. The
committee further directs the Comptroller General to deliver a
report of the review to the congressional defense committees by
July 1, 2017. The review should address the extent to which the
Department:
(1) Aligns software development efforts for space systems
with systems engineering and acquisition decision-making
processes;
(2) Understands, establishes, implements, and properly
manages changes in a consistent manner for cybersecurity
requirements for space systems;
(3) Applies applicable industry best practices;
(4) Has appropriately trained technical personnel managing
and supporting these software-intensive activities;
(5) Appropriately leverages independent review teams.
The Comptroller General may include any other applicable
items and shall offer recommendations as appropriate.
Comptroller General Review of the Space Acquisition Workforce
The committee is aware that many Department of Defense
military space system acquisition efforts continue to
experience significant cost, schedule, and performance
challenges. Given the technical complexity and billions of
dollars of investment these efforts involve, it is imperative
that acquisition program offices have adequate numbers of
personnel, from program managers and systems engineers to
contracting officers and cost estimators, with the right mix of
skills and abilities to effectively manage these efforts.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of the state of the
Department's military space system acquisition workforce. This
review is not intended to include the space acquisition
workforce of the National Reconnaissance Office. The committee
further directs the Comptroller General to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2017, on
the review, including any recommendations as appropriate that
would help ensure the Department is well-positioned to manage
its space acquisitions with better results. The review should
include consideration for the numbers and types of personnel
positions authorized; the extent to which the positions have
been filled; the expertise level of the military and civilian
personnel such as seniority, experience, training, technical
knowledge, and length of tenure; opportunities for personal
training and development; and the extent to which federally
funded research and development centers and support contractors
are relied upon to provide program office expertise and
continuity of knowledge.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a
comprehensive study on acquisition manager career paths. The
committee expects the Comptroller General to ensure the studies
are conducted in complementary manner.
Confidence-Building Measures Related to Conventional Prompt Global
Strike Capabilities
The former commander of U.S. Strategic Command stated
during a December 8, 2015, House Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing that ``I believe any
steps (diplomatic or military-to-military) we can take with
adversaries or potential adversaries that allow us to better
understand intentions, motivations, capabilities and decision-
making processes will help build confidence'' and ``regarding
CPGS (conventional prompt global strike) specifically, I
believe it is important to build confidence around
capabilities, numbers, and the attributes that would clearly
separate these weapons from nuclear weapons.''
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives by December 15, 2016, describing
any reciprocal confidence-building measures (CBM) that are
appropriate should the United States deploy a conventional
prompt global strike capability (CPGS) including:
(1) How they would address potential risks such as warhead
ambiguity, destination ambiguity, or survivability of strategic
nuclear forces, and an assessment of whether the Department of
Defense is concerned about these issues;
(2) Whether measures such as reciprocal notifications of a
launch of a CPGS weapon, reciprocal inspections, joint studies
on the implications of CPGS capabilities for warhead ambiguity,
destination ambiguity, or survivability of strategic nuclear
forces, and information exchanges on types of CPGS capabilities
would be considered, and an explanation as to why or why not;
(3) How and if any potential CBMs would vary depending on
the delivery vehicles (land- or sea-based), and flight path
(i.e., boost-glide, ballistic, or other);
(4) His assessment of whether any state that is developing
similar capability is considering such CBMs; and
(5) Whether such state is developing conventional or
nuclear CPGS, and any specific issues that raises for U.S.
detection and defense against such systems.
Contribution of AN/TPY-2 Radars
The committee notes the increased level of ballistic
missile activity by countries like the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The
committee also notes the important contribution of the Army
Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance (AN/TPY-2), including
those deployed in forward-based mode (FBM), to improve early
detection and cuing capabilities to defend against these
evolving threats and to contribute to the protection of U.S.
personnel, allies, and partners.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command to provide a briefing to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
by February 15, 2017, on requirements of the combatant commands
for additional AN/TPY-2 radars in FBM, if any; combatant
command requirements for additional Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense batteries, and such radars, beyond those in the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) budget plans.
The committee also directs the Director of the MDA to
provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives by February 15, 2017,
on any known obsolescence issues, modernization opportunities,
requirements to ensure the capability of the radar industrial
base, options to leverage Foreign Military Sales for the same,
and any plans to provide additional forward-deployed TPY-2
radars to meet increased combatant commander requirements, if
any, along with projected costs of such additional radar
procurements.
The briefing by the Director should also include his
evaluation of the feasibility and operational utility of
operationalizing the AN/TPY-2 radar already stationed at the
Pacific Missile Range Facility to add ballistic missile sensor
capability for the defense of Hawaii until the MDA deploys a
permanent sensor with increased capability to address
increasing threats. The briefing should include any costs and
enhancements to counter electronic attack and advanced jamming
he believes are necessary.
Cyber Hardening Through Program Sustainment
The committee is aware of the ongoing efforts to harden our
major weapon systems against cybersecurity threats. The
committee understands that for many systems, it will be
necessary to address those threats after the system has been
deployed and in sustainment. The committee is concerned that
the current funding and execution processes for modernization
and sustainment are not well synchronized, leading to gaps in
our ability to address some of these problems. The committee
believes that the Department of Defense should examine using
existing cycles for software block upgrades or replacement of
obsolete electronic systems as a way to cost effectively harden
our more vulnerable platforms, such as aircraft, ships,
submarines and other vehicles. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 16, 2017, on how to
implement a pilot to cyber harden existing programs through
sustainment activities in fiscal year 2018. This briefing
should identify a subset of programs to examine, as well as an
estimate of both resources and time needed to carry out such
efforts.
Cyber Training Equivalency
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is in
the process of rapidly expanding the cyber workforce in order
to man the 133 teams of the cyber mission force. As articulated
by the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, the committee
recognizes that a significant bottleneck in that process is the
training pipeline. The committee believes that the Department
should be looking for opportunities to help diversify the
training pathways available to all members of the cyber mission
team workforce, in order to more quickly and efficiently bring
team members up to operational capacity. The committee believes
that diversification can take many forms, such as utilization
of Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) courses, military
academies, public-private partnerships with universities and
other training providers, and senior leader military academies.
The committee also recognizes that the National Security Agency
and the Department of Homeland Security National Centers of
Academic Excellence (CAE) for cyber defense and cyber
operations could also be leveraged to promote higher education
and research in cyber and the production of more cyber
professionals. The committee also believes that to make those
other training pathways effective, the Department needs to have
a robust process for determining equivalency, so that it is
clear when those other avenues can be used to meet the
currently defined joint training standard, such as CAEs, ROTC
program or other certification programs. The committee is
concerned that the immaturity of that equivalency process may
be further slowing up the training pipeline.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by January 30, 2017, on the training equivalency process for
the Department. This briefing should address how the Department
makes recommendations on equivalency for members of the active
and reserve components, as well as for civilian team members.
Specifically, this briefing should include:
(1) What is the decision making chain for making
equivalency decisions?
(2) How does the Department communicate standardized
courses that are eligible for equivalency?
(3) When equivalency is denied, what is the feedback loop
to communicate those decisions back to affected personnel?
(4) What is the process for remediation for service members
to determine what actions might be taken to gain equivalency
certification?
Department of Defense Equities on Approval of the Galileo Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing System
The committee is aware that the National Space Policy of
the United States of America directed the United States to
``engage with foreign GNSS [global navigation satellite system]
providers to encourage compatibility and interoperability,
promote transparency in civil service provision, and enable
market access for U.S. industry.''
The committee is also aware that the European Commission
has requested the approval of its Galileo GNSS system by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in October of 2013. The
committee believes approval of such an allied positioning,
navigation, and timing system could meet important national
security goals, including the goals outlined in the National
Space Policy. The committee is also aware that the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has
concluded that the Galileo system and the European Commission
request ``meets the criteria NTIA previously established to
grant the waiver.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than July 1, 2016, outlining the national security
benefits that the Department of Defense would expect to derive
from a decision by the FCC to approve the European Commission
request for the Galileo GNSS system and any other matters they
deem relevant.
Department of Defense Requirements for National Reconnaissance Office
Programs
The committee is aware that the National Reconnaissance
Office (NRO) provides critical support to both the Department
of Defense and the Intelligence Community. As the NRO develops
acquisition programs, it works to meet the necessary national
security requirements while appropriately balancing cost and
schedule constraints. The committee believes that when NRO
programs are being established or modified, the Department of
Defense, along with other national security customers, should
clearly articulate their requirements. The committee is
concerned that the Department's process for identifying and
articulating its priority intelligence requirements to the NRO,
and the Intelligence Community functional managers, is not well
defined or done in a timely manner.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, jointly with the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence by December 1, 2016, on the process to assess,
identify, and prioritize in a timely manner Department of
Defense requirements to inform NRO programs, as well as
identification of specific upcoming programs and milestones
that will go through such process.
Ensuring Robust Missile Defense for Hawaii
The committee notes with concern the rapid expansion of
missile development and testing by the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK). The committee notes the DPRK's
multiple tests in the past six months of long-range missiles
and engines, all of which violate international sanctions and
continue to threaten the United States. The committee
recognizes the Missile Defense Agency's focus on ensuring the
state of Hawaii is fully protected from missile threats in the
Asia Pacific. The committee notes the plan the Agency submitted
to this committee on fielding a medium-range discrimination
radar to enhance discrimination capability in Hawaii. The
committee continues to remain concerned, however, about the
pace of deploying those systems, in light of the increasing
threat.
Therefore, the committee directs the Missile Defense Agency
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services no later than
120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the
Agency's plan to enhance missile defense in Hawaii, such that
the defense continues to keep pace with the threat.
Ensuring Technical Expertise for Sustainment of the Nuclear Command and
Control System
The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's
recent attention on modernization of the nation's nuclear
command and control (NC2) system. The committee supports this
modernization effort and believes the credibility of the
nation's nuclear deterrent is only as robust as the NC2 system
upon which it relies.
During its oversight, it has come to the committee's
attention that many of the agencies responsible for parts of
the disparate NC2 system are encountering similar difficulties
in attracting, hiring, and retaining highly skilled technical
personnel to steward the NC2 system into the future. The
ability of these organizations to quickly hire and
appropriately compensate civilian employees to carry out the
systems engineering and other complex tasks required within the
NC2 system is exacerbated by the highly classified and highly
technical nature of the work, as well as Federal employment
structures. The committee believes the Department must
coordinate across organizational stovepipes and seek creative
solutions to this problem.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command,
Control, and Communications System established by section 171a
of title 10, United States Code, to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by December 1, 2016, regarding a pilot program
for improving the ability of all organizations with NC2
responsibilities within the Department to attract, hire,
retain, and compensate highly skilled technical personnel to
support NC2 modernization efforts. Such briefing should include
efforts by the Department to work with or support university
programs that could develop necessary skills and provide a
student pipeline in critical areas.
Evaluation of Department of Defense Use of Non-Allied Global Navigation
Satellite Systems
The committee is concerned about the potential reliance of
the Department of Defense on non-allied positioning,
navigation, and timing systems, and systems that use such
systems. Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee
includes a provision that would prohibit the use of such
systems starting in fiscal year 2017 and would require the
Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and the Director of National Intelligence to submit an
assessment of the risks of using such systems to certain
congressional committees. In order to further inform the
committee's position on this matter, the committee directs the
Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense to
provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than July 1,
2016, on the extent to which the Department uses either the
Russian Federation's Glonass or the People's Republic of
China's Beidou Global Navigation Satellite System or
telecommunications systems that rely on them, and potential
impacts of prohibiting use of such systems.
Excess Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Motor Certification
The committee notes that the Air Force Rocket System Launch
Program currently certifies excess intercontinental ballistic
missile motors for 12 months for use by the Department of
Defense and other Federal agencies for launch activities. The
committee is aware that this length of time may not be enough,
especially when launches are delayed. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Air Force to examine other possibilities for
certification that would increase the length of time to at
least 24 months.
Expeditionary Large Data Object Repository for Analytics in Deployed
Operations
The committee supports the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency program called Expeditionary Large Data Object
Repository for Analytics in Deployed Operations (ELDORADO). The
committee is aware that this is a capability designed to
gather, analyze, manage, and store large amounts of
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data from
remote sources in order to, among other objectives, facilitate
rapid access to theater and continental United States analysts,
while at the same time reducing storage and analytical access
costs. The committee is aware that there may be opportunities
to establish additional nodes in the continental United States
to ensure that large data objects are readily available to
analysts to improve the intelligence analysis and exploitation
for the warfighter.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, in coordination with
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees and the
congressional intelligence committees by December 1, 2016, on
the costs, value, and impacts to the Department of Defense and
Intelligence Community of establishing home nodes for ELDORADO
at existing facilities in the continental United States that
are co-located with complementary ISR exploitation and analysis
missions, such as the services' intelligence centers.
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
As the Air Force moves into the technology maturation and
risk reduction (TMRR) phase of the Ground Based Strategic
Deterrent (GBSD) program in fiscal year 2017, the committee
continues its oversight of this important program to
recapitalize a leg of the nation's nuclear triad. The committee
believes the decision by the Air Force and the Department of
Defense to consolidate the missile flight system and related
ground-based infrastructure and equipment into a single
integrated ``weapon system'' is the correct decision and will
facilitate both acquisition and long-term sustainment of the
components that comprise and enable the intercontinental
ballistic missile (ICBM) capability. However, the committee
cautions that the complexity, challenge, importance, cost, and
visibility of the combined GBSD program is significant and
expects the Air Force to provide it the leadership attention
and general officer-level program management it therefore
requires.
The committee understands and appreciates the Air Force's
decision to award two TMRR contracts to develop preliminary
designs, mature technologies, and reduce risk for the GBSD
program. As it has expressed in the past, the committee expects
the Air Force to carefully consider the impacts of the GBSD
program and its acquisition strategy on the industrial base for
subsystems and components through the TMRR phase and beyond. In
particular, 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. industrial base. Full and open competition
will help ensure innovation, cost efficiency, and contractor
performance.
Finally, while the committee supports the GBSD program and
efforts to recapitalize the full triad, the committee believes
the Air Force, U.S. Strategic Command, and the Department of
Defense in general must provide Congress and the public
improved information and transparency regarding why it is
pursuing GBSD. To ensure sustained congressional and public
support for this important program, the Department must, to the
extent possible without compromising national security, be
transparent in the requirements for GBSD, what factors are
driving those requirements, and why it has decided development
and acquisition of a new ICBM system is required.
To enable its continued oversight, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
September 30, 2016, on the GBSD program. Such report should
include the following:
(1) The results of the analysis of alternatives (AOA) on
GBSD, in particular cost and effectiveness comparisons of
various options including life extension or upgrading of the
Minuteman III system until 2045 and the implications for test
assets;
(2) The costs associated with sustaining Minuteman III
until the GBSD system is deployed;
(3) The military requirements for GBSD and the rationale
and drivers for those requirements, including how those
requirements have changed from those of Minuteman III and the
ability of various options considered within the AOA to meet
those requirements;
(4) The Air Force's acquisition strategy and contract
structure for GBSD, including how it expects to manage
industrial base risks throughout the program; and
(5) The incremental cost associated with missile designs
which include the flexibility to develop mobile variants, as
well as the strategic doctrine which will inform an eventual
decision on whether to include mobility requirements in a
future procurement.
Host Based Security System Best Practices
The committee is aware that the Host Based Security System
(HBSS) has become an increasingly effective tool to manage the
cyber defense of the Department of Defense. HBSS is a
capability that monitors, detects, and counters known cyber
threats to the Department, and includes commercially available
intrusion detection and firewall capabilities.
The committee notes that in recent cyber exercises
conducted by United States Cyber Command, HBSS has been the
primary warfighting system for cyber defenders. However, the
committee is also aware from after action reviews and
discussions with senior leaders from the military departments
and Cyber Command, that the results from the various teams are
uneven, in terms of how well they employ HBSS in these
exercises. While some variation in learning and execution can
be useful, the committee believes that the military services
should be learning and implementing best practices to improve
how HBSS is used.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Chief Information Officer, in coordination the military
departments and the Defense Information Systems Agency, to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
August 1, 2017, on the best practices and lessons learned for
use and configuration for the Host Based Security System. This
briefing should include:
(1) Recommendations for configurations or implementations
that have proven successful in recent training exercises where
HBSS is used, as well as from real-world operational
experiences with HBSS;
(2) Identification of opportunities to better leverage
capabilities inherent in the current technology solution, such
as digital rights management, including scenario development
for how such tools might be used in future exercises; and
(3) Identification of gaps from the operational community
that might be found in other commercially available tools that
could potentially be integrated into future generations of HBSS
or follow-on programs.
Hosted Payloads
The committee believes that the Department of Defense may
not be fully taking advantage of opportunities to reduce the
government's cost to launch and operate satellites for defense
purposes. Hosted payloads and ride sharing are two options
which can reduce government launch costs while providing the
Department with the ability to more rapidly procure additional
capacity. The committee supports the Air Force efforts in
establishing the Hosted Payloads Solutions (HoPS) standardized
and streamlined contract vehicle for qualified commercial space
companies to provide hosting services.
The committee believes that a more deliberate consideration
for the use of hosted payloads could better leverage available
commercial capabilities, particularly through the HoPS program.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to
ensure that any future analysis of alternatives for space
capabilities includes hosted payloads and commercial services
as options to satisfy mission requirements. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, on the plan to include
hosted payloads as an option to consider in future analyses of
alternatives, and the standards and any other requirements
necessary for new entrants to qualify for HoPS program
certification.
Improving Intelligence Support to Acquisition
The committee is aware that the Department has begun to
implement a new integrated defense intelligence priorities
(IDIP) process, as directed by section 922 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66). The committee is encouraged by the level of effort
invested in ensuring this process is in concert with the
National Intelligence Priorities Framework, while also
highlighting areas of specific interest to defense intelligence
consumers.
The committee believes the new IDIP emphasis is a good
step, especially in identifying areas needing renewed emphasis.
One area that this process has identified that has atrophied
recently is intelligence support to acquisition. The committee
supports the Department's renewed focus, but believes more work
needs to be done to take into consideration emerging areas of
emphasis. For example, IDIP needs to be more responsive to
addressing intelligence questions surrounding the third offset
strategy. IDIP could also be helpful in better characterizing
areas of concern, such as how well the Department is doing in
protecting unclassified controlled technical information.
The committee is also aware that the Department has
provided substantial new resources to increase intelligence
support to acquisition programs. The committee supports the
Department's decision, but cautions against growing management
or support personnel in the process. The committee believes the
focus should be on providing dedicated analytical personnel,
and when possible, embedding such personnel within acquisition
programs to provide the widest benefit to the affected
community, in addition to educating program management
personnel on the importance of intelligence to acquisition
strategy and programs.
Improving Sea-Based X Band Radar
The committee recognizes the importance of the tracking and
discrimination capabilities that the Sea-Based X-Band (SBX)
radar contributes to the Ballistic Missile Defense System
(BMDS), particularly for the protection of the U.S. homeland.
The committee is aware that the platform has been under-
utilized and encourages the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to
more fully employ the SBX to address increasing threats and
provide support to a greater number ongoing operations and
testing events, if required and cost-effective. Further the
committee understands that for what could be a small investment
in software updates and technology refresh, the SBX could
provide a more robust sensor capability for homeland defense.
Therefore the committee directs the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not
later than January 15, 2017, on MDA's historical utilization
rates for SBX; the requirements, if any, for increased
operational availability, and resultant costs of such increase;
and hardware and or software improvements MDA may pursue to
address obsolescence and modernization needs of the SBX, and to
obtain enhanced sensor capability (and costs and schedule for
such improvements) to address warfighter requirements, if any.
Information Assurance of Joint Test and Evaluation Activities
The committee recognizes that information assurance
policies continue to be disjointed, often redundant, and overly
complex and cumbersome. That problem is highlighted by how
those challenges manifest in the joint test and evaluation
(T&E) community. As noted elsewhere in this report, joint
programs can be especially complex, and thus substantially more
difficult to manage. When network information assurance
policies from the various military departments are included in
that mix, it often results in unnecessary program delays and
bureaucratic red tape. The lack of clear guidance or
reciprocity for information assurance policies is a significant
factor in this problem.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in
coordination with the Department of Defense Chief Management
Officer, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by January 13, 2017, assessing the policies and
processes for coordinating information assurance policies on
test and evaluation facilities when conducting joint or
multiservice T&E activities. The briefing should also make
recommendations for improving reciprocity or prioritization of
interagency policies related to T&E facilities when conducting
joint or multiservice activities.
Insider Threat Capabilities for the Joint Information Environment
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
continuing to implement an initiative known as the Joint
Information Environment (JIE) that is intended to streamline,
standardize, and modernize the information network of the
Department and the military services. A key part of the
strategy to implement JIE is development of a single security
architecture that will improve network monitoring and defense
of the JIE.
The committee notes that the primary focus of network
monitoring and defense has been on external threats to the
network. However, the committee is concerned about the threat
from insiders, as well as the ability for adversaries to move
laterally within a network once they have penetrated barrier
defenses. Historically, the tools used to monitor those
exterior threats do not provide good defenses against insiders
or lateral movements within a network. Where the Department has
been focused on insider threats, the committee is concerned
that those recommendations have been focused on procedural
changes that are not connected to the capabilities, or the
capability needs, for network tools and digital rights
management.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Chief Information Officer, in coordination with the Director of
the Defense Information Systems Agency, to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2016,
on how insider threat capabilities are planned to be integrated
into the JIE. This briefing should address those tools
currently planned for incorporation, like digital rights
management, as well as identification of any gaps in the
architecture where commercial tools for insider threat
monitoring might be included into JIE, or into upgrades to key
enabling capabilities like the Joint Regional Security Stacks
or the Host Based Security System.
Integrated Department of Defense Intelligence Priorities
The committee is aware that the Under Secretary of Defense
for Intelligence has published official guidance on the
Integrated Department of Defense Intelligence Priorities (IDIP)
in accordance with section 922 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The
committee supports these efforts to establish policy which
assigns roles and responsibilities, and provides procedures for
internal coordination of intelligence priorities of the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the combatant
commands, and the military departments to improve the
identification of the intelligence needs of the Department.
Further, the committee is aware that the IDIP is in its initial
stages of execution and the Under Secretary has yet to publish
the first official priorities document.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services, the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense by November 1, 2016, on the status of
the implementation of the IDIP guidance, to include
identification of any consolidated defense intelligence
priorities and the utility of such coordinated activities.
Intelligence Analysis Processes of the Combatant Commands
The House Committee on Armed Services, the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, and the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense established a Joint Task Force to
investigate allegations that senior intelligence leaders at
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) improperly influenced
intelligence analysis. The Task Force has found that CENTCOM
personnel have stated that they follow Intelligence Community
Directives (ICD) and Defense Intelligence Agency tradecraft
notes; however, there are no additional instructions,
directives, policies, or other forms of documentation to apply
those policies to internal CENTCOM practices. The Task Force
has also found indications that, since early 2015, senior
leadership within the CENTCOM intelligence directorate have
implemented various process and organizational changes without
formal documentation, leading to confusion and uncertainty
within the intelligence workforce regarding roles and
responsibilities for analytic review of intelligence products.
The committee directs the Commander of U.S. Central Command
to formally review and document all necessary processes,
policies, instructions, and procedures to ensure effective
implementation and governance within CENTCOM of ICD 203,
Analytic Standards; ICD 206, Sourcing Requirements for
Disseminated Analytic Products; ICD 208, Write for Maximum
Utility; and other Intelligence Community tradecraft
requirements and best practices. The committee also directs the
Inspector General of the Defense Intelligence Agency to provide
in writing by October 1, 2016, a report to the congressional
defense committees and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence showing the extent to which policies have been
established within the CENTCOM intelligence directorate to
ensure compliance with analytic integrity requirements and best
practices.
The committee is also concerned that other U.S. combatant
commands may lack similar intelligence documentation processes.
Therefore, the committee also directs the Inspector General of
the Defense Intelligence Agency to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees by October 1, 2016, on the extent to
which each U.S. combatant command has established the necessary
processes, policies, instructions, and procedures to ensure
compliance with intelligence analytic integrity requirements
and best practices.
Interagency Collaboration on Physical Security for Nuclear Weapons
The committee continues to believe that the Department of
Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration can
better leverage expertise, resources, and lessons learned
between themselves to more effectively and efficiently
safeguard the nation's nuclear weapons. The successful
development and use of the Joint Integrated Lifecycle Surety
(JILS) analysis and decision-support tool is one recent example
of successful interagency efforts to understand and improve
nuclear weapons security. The committee believes much more can
and should be done to enhance collaboration on security across
the two agencies to drive down costs and improve effectiveness.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator for
Nuclear Security, in coordination with the Chairman of the
Nuclear Weapons Council, to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by November 30, 2016, on specific collaborative
opportunities and joint actions they will carry out to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of providing security for
nuclear weapons and defense nuclear facilities. The
opportunities and actions should include:
(1) Comprehensive examination and cross-walking of security
policies, processes, and procedures to seek harmonization and
share lessons learned where appropriate, including with regard
to insider threat mitigation and security infrastructure
sustainment and recapitalization planning;
(2) Joint development or adoption of analysis, training, or
testing tools and methods;
(3) Implementation of common standards and processes for
each organization to utilize physical security technology
tested and approved for general use in nuclear weapon security
environments;
(4) Joint development, testing, and procurement of security
technologies and equipment;
(5) Implementation of a shared interagency program for
conducting force-on-force exercises; and
(6) Such other opportunities or actions that the
Administrator or the Chairman determine appropriate.
Intermediate-Range Ground-Launched Missiles
The committee is concerned that strategic competitors have
fielded large numbers of theater ballistic missiles and ground-
launched land-attack cruise missiles. The People's Liberation
Army (PLA) of the People's Republic of China (PRC), in
particular, possesses a large and growing inventory of these
long-range ground-launched weapons that enables the PRC to hold
targets at risk throughout a broad expanse of the Western
Pacific. The PRC's possession of these missiles compels the
United States and its allies and partners to confront the
prospect that the PLA could strike a large set of targets with
high value, including critical bases and infrastructure, with
very little warning. The committee notes that the PRC's
possession of these missile capabilities has resulted in the
United States and its partners devoting a great deal of energy
and resources to ballistic and cruise missile defense.
The committee notes that the United States, by contrast, is
prohibited from fielding such systems by the 1987 Intermediate
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with the Russian Federation and
several other former Soviet Republics, which prohibits the
parties from fielding surface-to-surface ballistic and cruise
missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (330-
3,400 miles). The committee also notes that prior to the
ratification of this treaty, the U.S. military possessed two
medium-range surface-to-surface missile systems: the Army's
MGM-31 Pershing II medium range ballistic missile (MRBM), and
the Air Force's BGM-109G Gryphon ground-launched cruise missile
(GLCM), a variant of the Navy's ship-launched Tomahawk.
The committee is interested in ascertaining whether
conventional land-based surface-to-surface missiles would have
military value to the United States, or to its allies, as a
means of promptly striking time-sensitive and other high-value
targets, as well as denying enemy use of adjacent waters. The
committee believes that the possession of such capabilities by
the United States could impose upon potential aggressors
defensive costs, including those associated with developing and
deploying ballistic and cruise missile defenses and suppressing
and deterring missile launch, thereby helping the United States
to improve its position in potential long-term military
competitions. In addition, while the committee is mindful of
the potential implications of these systems for regional
stability, the committee also believes that Russian violations
of the INF Treaty cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely
without implications for the long-term viability of the treaty
if only the United States abides by it. Lastly, the committee
notes that research and development of such systems is not
prohibited by the INF treaty.
The committee therefore directs the Commanding General of
the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command to conduct a study
on the potential military benefits of conventional ground-
launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500
and 5,500 kilometers and to provide the results to the
congressional defense committees by not later than April 1,
2017. Such study shall address the following:
(1) Whether such systems could contribute to more effective
offense and defense, assurance and deterrence, against major
powers in Europe, the Middle East and in the Western Pacific,
including by evaluating the roles that medium- and
intermediate-range ground-launched fires played prior to U.S.
ratification of the INF treaty;
(2) The role of such systems in land-attack (including
left-of-launch ballistic and cruise missile defense) and anti-
ship capability;
(3) How such systems could contribute to ``cross-domain
operations''' as described in the U.S. Army Operating Concept
(TRADOC Pam 525-3-1): ``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.''
(4) The estimated cost of developing and procuring such
systems.
(5) The potential force structure that would be required to
deploy such systems, with and without long-range fires being
strictly associated with ground maneuver units; and
(6) The relative costs and benefits of potential INF-
compliant long-range strike systems, such as boost-glide
weapons, in comparison to systems prohibited by the INF Treaty.
The committee further directs that this study shall be
resource-unconstrained and should not assume that resources
would be provided at the expense of current or projected total
obligation authority for the U.S. Army. The Commander shall
submit this report in unclassified form, with a classified
annex if necessary.
The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act, it
recommends an increase in resources for the conventional prompt
global strike development program, and it recommends a
legislative provision regarding potential near-term limited
operational capability for a conventional prompt strike system.
The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit any views he may have on the report submitted by the
Commander of TRADOC, separately, to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not
later than 30 days after the Commander has submitted his views
to such committees. The Secretary should include such matters
relating to the Commander's report that he deems appropriate.
Such views should be submitted in unclassified form, with a
classified annex if necessary.
JLENS Redeployment
The committee is aware that on March 19, 2015, the
Commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) testified at the
House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces that,
``Russia is progressing toward its goal of deploying long-
range, conventionally-armed cruise missiles with ever
increasing stand-off launch distances on its heavy bombers,
submarines, and surface combatants, augmenting the Kremlin's
toolkit of flexible deterrent options short of the nuclear
threshold'' and that ``[s]hould these trends continue, over
time NORAD will face increased risk in our ability to defend
North America against Russian cruise missile threats.''
The committee is also aware that the Commander testified on
April 14, 2016 that, ``[w]e are in the first segment of our
three-phase Homeland Defense Design (HDD) effort, which will
improve our capability to find, fix, track, target, and engage
growing air threats, such as those posed by cruise missiles,
low-slow aircraft, and long-range aviation. In this first
phase, we are testing and evaluating advanced sensors as well
as integrated command and control capabilities. In addition to
the new Stateside Affordable Radar System (STARS), we had begun
a three-year operational exercise of the Joint Land Attack
Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS).''
The committee notes the U.S. Army terminated procurement of
JLENS in 2011. The committee does not support restarting this
program of record. However, the committee notes that the
research, development, testing, and evaluation of JLENs
resulted in the acquisition of two JLENs systems consisting of
two aerostats per system. The exercise supported by the
Commander of NORTHCOM is therefore only using equipment that
the United States already owns.
The committee believes the defense of the national capital
region and the mid-Atlantic region, as part of the broader
defense of the homeland, is critical to national security in
view of the emerging threats posed by Russia and other states.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S.
Northern Command, and any appropriate Department of Defense
officials, to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees on his recommendations for the optimal manner to
complete the first phase of Homeland Defense Design effort.
Such report should include the following elements:
(1) The ideal location to which existing JLENS systems
could be deployed for the defense of the National Capitol and
mid-Atlantic region, and a schedule and detailed estimate of
the costs to relocate the system to that location;
(2) Any issues, including airspace closures, that would
have to be coordinated with other U.S. government agencies, and
a plan to do so, as part of the relocation of JLENS (noting its
direction in House Committee Report 113-446, which accompanied
H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015);
(3) An assessment of the impact to the Homeland Defense
Design of a failure to complete the first phase, including the
operational exercise involving JLENs.
The committee notes that, elsewhere in this Act, it has
recommended continuing funding for JLENS operations to support
the relocation of JLENS to another site.
Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center
The Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center
(JICSpOC) is a joint Department of Defense and Intelligence
Community activity to facilitate information sharing and data
fusion to develop, test, validate, and integrate new space
system tactics, techniques, and procedures for national
security space systems. The committee supports the integrated
interagency efforts to protect and defend critical national
space capabilities in response to increasing counterspace
threats from potential foreign adversaries.
The committee is also aware that the completion of the
initial series of experiments is expected by the end of 2016
and there is no defined strategy for the future the JICSpOC or
its capabilities. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of
National Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees by January 15, 2017, on the future
objectives, strategy, and resources planned for the JICSpOC and
how these activities will be complementary or appropriately
integrated with U.S. Strategic Command's Joint Space Operations
Center and the National Reconnaissance Operations Center. The
Secretary shall also review the costs and benefits of
maintaining a separate JSpOC and JICSpOC as well as the optimal
location to perform the related activities.
Lastly, the committee is aware of the Department of Defense
and Intelligence Community's review of the data protection and
security classification standards and guidance for commercial
space situational awareness and battle management command and
control capabilities. The committee further directs the
Secretary to address in the aforementioned briefing how this
review ensures national security information is protected and
how the warfighter will benefit from this commercial
capability. The briefing should also include the decision
timeline related to the review of the data protection and
security classification standards.
Military Space Acquisition Improvements
The committee is aware and concerned with the challenges
regarding military space acquisition programs. The committee
recognizes the complexity of the space systems being developed
and the associated processes in place in order to ensure the
warfighter requirements are met and the taxpayers are
protected. However, as noted in a statement for the record by a
senior official of the U.S. Government Accountability Office to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services on March 9, 2016, ``Over
more than the last 15 years, we have noted--along with
congressional committees, and various commissions and reviews--
concern about the fragmented nature of DOD's space system
acquisition processes and acquisition oversight,'' and further
that, ``it is clear that more needs to be done to improve the
management of space acquisitions.''
The committee believes there are multiple aspects of
military space acquisition reform that need further review and
improvement, to include: oversight and decision making
authority; requirements development; funding and independent
cost estimates; leadership, staffing, and culture; and
acquisition strategy development to include analysis of
alternatives and technology insertion planning.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of the Space
and Missiles Systems Center to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees by December 1, 2016, on the
challenges of the military space acquisition process and
opportunities for improvement. As part of the briefing, the
Commander shall also address the feasibility, and, if
applicable, the necessary elements of establishing a pilot
program to improve the agility and effectiveness of the
military space acquisition process.
The committee notes that the Director, Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation, in coordination with the Assistant Director
of National Intelligence for Systems and Resource Analyses, is
reviewing the acquisition practices for national security space
programs of the Department of Defense consistent with the
direction in the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016. The committee is aware that the review is ongoing,
and expects the Commander of the Space and Missile Systems
Center will take into account the findings and recommendations
of such review.
Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network
The Air Force's Minimum Essential Emergency Communications
Network (MEECN) program is developing and procuring new
equipment to improve the nuclear command and control system
within the United States. Within the umbrella of MEECN, efforts
include upgrades to Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF)
capability for intercontinental ballistic missile launch
control centers and command posts as well as improved very low
frequency or low frequency capability for airborne and ground
nodes of the nuclear command and control system.
While MEECN is appropriately focused on systems within the
United States, the committee is aware of the need to
recapitalize portions of the nuclear command and control system
that are located outside the United States within geographic
combatant commands. The committee believes an opportunity may
exist to leverage MEECN technologies and programs to accelerate
this recapitalization. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Commander
of U.S. Strategic Command and the commanders of appropriate
geographic combatant commands, to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by September 1, 2016, on potential application
of MEECN technologies and programs to nuclear command and
control nodes outside the United States.
Modernizing the Ballistic Missile Defense System
The committee is concerned that the budget request for
fiscal year 2017 represents a 10 percent decrease in funding
for the Missile Defense Agency as compared to the final
appropriation for missile defense in fiscal year 2016. The
committee understands that this decrease in funding was the
result of how the Department of Defense decided to allocate
budget reductions to meet the defense budget caps enacted by
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-72). The
committee also notes that the budget request for fiscal year
2017 is $300.0 million less than was projected in the Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP) that was submitted along with the
budget request for fiscal year 2016.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a series of
budget increases for the Missile Defense Agency budget for
fiscal year 2017, to a level in excess of what was projected
for fiscal year 2017 in the FYDP submitted with the fiscal year
2016 budget request. The committee intends these recommended
budget increases to help to restore the focus of the agency on
research and development of ballistic missile defense
capability.
Accelerating development of missile defense radars for homeland defense
The budget request included $230.1 million in PE 63884C for
Ballistic Missile Defense System Sensors, but contained no
funding to support acquisition of a medium-range defense radar
and to support implementation of the requirement in section
1684 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92).
The committee believes an increase in funding for enhancing
missile defense of Hawaii is justified in order to ensure that
missile defense keeps pace with increasing threats. The
committee believes that additional funding can initiate
preparations to issue a request for proposal for a medium-range
defense radar in Hawaii, and additional radar coverage to
defend against threats originating from Southwest Asia, that
will improve homeland missile defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends $240.1 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63884C to support acquisition
of a medium-range defense radar and to support implementation
of the requirement in section 1684 of Public Law 114-92.
Booster upgrades for improved homeland defense interceptor
The budget request for fiscal year 2017 contained $274.2
million in PE 64874C for Improved Homeland Defense
Interceptors. Of this amount, $20.8 million was requested for
the C3 Booster Development program.
The committee is concerned that the Future Years Defense
Program for fiscal year 2017 shifts the development schedule
for the C3 booster out in time; the committee understands this
was a result of budget reductions at the Missile Defense Agency
and a shift in priorities to more quickly fielding the
Redesigned Kill Vehicle, consistent with the requirement in
section 1682 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
The committee believes that additional funding could
accelerate the development and initial fielding of an upgraded
Ground-based Interceptor. This acceleration could allow for
earlier flight testing and accelerate the initial fielding and
replacement of the older Capability Enhancement 1 boosters in
fiscal year 2021.
The committee recommends $70.8 million, an increase of
$50.0 million, in PE 64874C for the C3 Booster Development
program.
Cyber protection improvements to the Ballistic Missile Defense System
The budget request contained $31.2 million in PE 91598C for
management headquarters, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), but
contained no funding for cyber protection improvements to the
Ballistic Missile Defense Program.
The committee believes additional funding could be used to
accelerate compliance with the Department of Defense
Cybersecurity Campaign and mitigate cybersecurity risks as
directed by global, regional, and Department of Defense
component authorities. The committee further believes that
additional funding could accelerate implementation of
additional security controls and provide an integrated active
monitoring and reporting capability necessary to protect MDA's
mission and test data and assets from both inside and external
threats.
The committee recommends $56.2 million, an increase of
$25.0 million, in PE 91598C for cyber protection improvements
to the Ballistic Missile Defense Program.
Ground system communications and fire control software upgrades to
enable full Redesigned Kill Vehicle capabilities
The budget request contained $862.1 million in PE 63882C
for Ballistic Missile Defense Midcourse Defense, but contained
no funding for ground system communications modernization and
fire control software upgrades to enable full Redesigned Kill
Vehicle (RKV) capabilities.
The committee understands that the current interceptor in-
flight communications system hardware and software cannot
support the on-demand communications capabilities currently
being designed into the RKV. The committee believes that not
only is the development, testing, and deployment of the RKV a
critical priority for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), it is
further critical that the RKV's full functionality be available
when it is deployed.
The committee is also mindful that the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD) system continues to age and require
increased funding for sustainment, and in many cases consists
of components that have reached obsolescence, as they can no
longer be supported by industry or there are no longer spare
components available.
The committee believes MDA needs to be taking steps now to
address these modernization, sustainment, and obsolescence
issues.
The committee recommends $927.1 million, an increase of
$65.0 million, in PE 63882C for ground system communications
modernization and fire control software upgrades to enable full
Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV) capabilities.
Missile defense test ranges
The budget request contained $293.4 million in PE 63914C
for ballistic missile defense test activities, but contained no
funding to consider the utility of additional test range
locations.
The committee is aware that an additional test range could
be a benefit to the Missile Defense Agency, including potential
sites that have federally licensed national security
operational launch capabilities. The committee is aware of
potential sites that possess extensive infrastructure and
support or have supported U.S. government activities.
The committee recommends $303.4 million, an increase of $10
million, in PE 63914C for test infrastructure to support
potential additional Missile Defense Agency test range
locations.
Multi-Object Kill Vehicle technology maturation
The budget request contained $71.5 million in PE 64894C for
development of the Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV).
The committee believes an increase in funding is justified
in order to ensure that the development of this program is kept
on track and meets the requirements set in section 1681 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92). The committee believes additional funding can
assure technology maturation and risk reduction for key
technologies, including advanced sensors and new propulsion
systems critical to enabling a MOKV.
Therefore, the committee recommends $126.5 million, an
increase of $55.0 million, in PE 64894C for the Multi-Object
Kill Vehicle.
Post-Intercept Assessment acceleration
The budget request contained $439.6 million in PE 63896C
for the Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control, Battle
Management and Communication (C2BMC) system, but contained no
funding for Post-Intercept Assessment acceleration.
The committee is concerned that the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) will be deploying 22 Space-based Kill Assessment (SKA)
sensors in space as hosted payloads, but has not determined how
it will integrate these sensors into the Ballistic Missile
Defense System. The committee believes that by recommending a
funding increase, it can provide MDA with resources to
integrate SKA into the C2BMC in its fiscal year 2020 Spiral
8.2-5 deployment.
The committee recommends $449.6 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, in PE 63896C for Post-Intercept Assessment
acceleration.
Redesigned Kill Vehicle risk reduction
The budget request contained $274.2 million in PE 64874C
for improved homeland defense interceptors. Of this amount,
$247.1 million was for the Redesigned Kill Vehicle program.
The committee believes a funding increase would allow for
the acceleration of system engineering and risk reduction
testing to reduce schedule risk for a Redesigned Kill Vehicle
(RKV) critical design review in late fiscal year 2017 and the
first flight test in fiscal year 2018. As referenced elsewhere
in this report, the committee believes the fielding of the RKV,
consistent with the requirement in section 1682 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), is a high priority for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
system.
The committee recommends $272.1 million, an increase of $25
million, in PE 64874C for the Redesigned Kill Vehicle program.
Next Generation Operational Control Segment
The committee supports the Global Positioning System Next
Generation Operational Control Segment (GPS/OCX) program,
however, is concerned with the significant technical
challenges, cost increases, and schedule delays that the
program is experiencing. The committee recognizes the key
capabilities that the program is designed to address, including
rigorous information assurance requirements to ensure the
ground system is secure from adversary threats; ground control
for the GPS block III satellites; and ground control of the
enhanced anti-jam military code signal. The committee supports
the Department of Defense's close oversight to minimize further
cost growth and schedule delays. The committee believes that
the Secretary of the Air Force should have the appropriate
contingency plans and back-up capabilities for the GPS/OCX
program in place in the event of further challenges with the
GPS/OCX program.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, to
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by
December 1, 2016, on the contingency plans and capabilities for
the GPS/OCX program to ensure that warfighter requirements will
be met and the program risk will be appropriately managed.
Nuclear Weapons Security Forces Standards
The committee is aware that, following the Department of
Defense's Nuclear Enterprise Review, the Air Force has begun
shifting away from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) and
toward an Arming and Use of Force (AUF) standard for qualifying
security personnel responsible for protecting nuclear weapons.
The committee is also aware that the Navy has opted to continue
utilizing the PRP for its nuclear weapon security personnel.
The Air Force has described to the committee why it chose to
move to AUF and why it believes the newly enhanced AUF
standards and process provide equivalent screening and
personnel reliability. The committee notes that the Air Force's
transition to AUF has greatly increased the pool of available
security personnel qualified to guard nuclear weapons and
therefore is concerned that the new AUF standard may not be as
rigorous as the former PRP standard. The committee believes
that custody and security of nuclear weapons is a special
responsibility and requires the highest level of attention and
performance. The committee also notes serious lapses in
performance in Air Force personnel involved in the nuclear
deterrence mission over the past several years.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
February 1, 2017, containing an assessment and comparison of
the Air Force's new AUF standard and the PRP. Such assessment
should evaluate the similarities and differences between AUF
and PRP, the amount of information available under both
standards to determine whether security personnel are able to
perform their job effectively and reliably, the administrative
and other burden on personnel and commanders involved with AUF
and PRP, how many additional Air Force personnel became
available to guard nuclear weapons under the new standard and
why, and the reasons why the Navy continues using PRP and why
the Air Force chose to shift to the AUF standard.
Operationally Responsive Space
The budget request contained $7.9 million in PE 64857F for
the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program. The committee
is pleased to see that funds were requested for the ORS program
through the Future Years Defense Program in the fiscal year
2017 budget request; however, the committee believes the level
of funding requested is not sufficient to achieve the ORS
mission. The committee recognizes that a portion of the ORS
activities may be funded through other related program
elements, depending on the specific activity.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review
of the charter of the ORS program. The committee believes that
a renewed analysis of the ORS program, in the context of the
broader space security and defense activities of the Department
of Defense, may offer an opportunity to reinvigorate and refine
the activities of the office. The committee believes that a
revamped approach to reconstitution could greatly support space
architecture resiliency. This would include, as appropriate,
small satellites through low-cost responsive launch
capabilities and program of record satellite systems through
existing launch infrastructure.
Therefore, the committee recommends $27.9 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 64857F for reconstitution and
responsive launch activities of the Operationally Responsive
Space program.
Plan for Strengthening Outer Space Cooperation With Japan
The committee is aware that the Guidelines for Defense
Cooperation between the United States and the Government of
Japan issued in April 2015 included important openness to
cooperation in several areas, including those utilizing outer
space.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
jointly with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of
National Intelligence, to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, not later than April
1, 2017, outlining the opportunities to improve U.S.-Japan
cooperation in outer space including in maritime domain
awareness; counterproliferation; missile warning and missile
defense; positioning, navigation, and timing; command, control,
and communication; meteorological observation; space
situational awareness; and such other matters they deem
appropriate.
Propulsion Test Facilities
The committee is aware of the importance of small liquid
rocket propulsion for national security applications, including
satellites, rockets, and missile defense systems. The committee
recognizes that propulsion test facilities are a key industrial
base capability that the Department of Defense should closely
monitor and provide the appropriate resources to maintain.
Therefore, the committee recommends that the Secretary of
Defense consider the use of Defense Production Act of 1950
(Public Law 81-774) funding to provide the necessary resources
to maintain the key industrial base capabilities related to
small liquid rocket propulsion for national security
applications.
Quarterly Briefings on Strategic Forces
The committee desires to continue to improve the timing and
content of notifications it receives.
Consistent with the direction in the committee report (H.
Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee directs the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide quarterly briefings to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services, starting June 1, 2016, and continuing through
September 30, 2017, detailing the following:
(1) Readiness and disposition of ballistic missile defense
assets, including interceptors (including Patriot, Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
ships and ashore sites, Army/Navy Transportable Radar
Surveillance radars), as well as any matters related to the
cybersecurity of the ballistic missile defense system,
including data held by contractors who support the same;
(2) Readiness and disposition of assets and personnel in
the nuclear triad (including ballistic missile submarines,
intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear certified heavy
bombers, and systems and components of the nuclear command and
control system), as well as any matters related to the
cybersecurity of these systems, including data held by
contractors who support the same, and the results of readiness,
security, and surety investigations; and
(3) Readiness of national security space systems of the
Department of Defense, as well as any matters related to the
cybersecurity of these systems, including data held by
contractors who support the same.
Report on Long-Range Standoff Weapon
The committee notes that section 1657 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 24, 2016, on the
justification for the number of planned nuclear-armed cruise
missiles, known as the long-range standoff (LRSO) weapon, that
will be acquired. The committee further notes that section 1663
of Public Law 114-92 requires the Secretary to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees by May 31, 2016, on the
outcome of the Milestone A decision for the long-range standoff
weapon. The committee notes that it has received the report
required by section 1657 of Public Law 114-92 and still awaits
submission of the report required by section 1663. The
committee believes the capability provided by LRSO is important
to the long-term credibility of the nation's nuclear deterrent
and seeks to ensure the development and acquisition program
stays on cost and schedule.
In continuance of its ongoing and robust oversight of this
program, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force and the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by September 1, 2016,
containing additional information with respect to the LRSO
program. Such report should include details on the analysis of
alternatives that was carried out with respect to LRSO; an
assessment of any comparative ability of conventionally armed,
long-range cruise missiles to meet deterrence requirements; the
military requirements for LRSO and ability for LRSO to hold
targets at risk as compared to nuclear gravity bombs and other
aspects of the nuclear triad; the capabilities and reliability
of LRSO as compared to the current AGM-86 cruise missile; and a
description of the number of LRSOs to be procured for
operational needs, spares, and test assets and how this
compares to the number of AGM-86s originally procured.
Report on Strategic Missile Commonality
The committee continues to support the nuclear triad and
the need for modernization of all three legs of the triad, and
recognizes and appreciates that the Department of Defense has
made clear that nuclear deterrence is the highest priority
defense mission for the nation. The committee also recognizes
the substantial cumulative cost to accomplish this
modernization and continues to seek opportunities to find
efficiencies and cost savings when possible, without reducing
capability or delaying modernization plans. Therefore, the
committee continues to support efforts to pursue appropriate
commonality between components and subsystems for the Air
Force's and the Navy's strategic missile systems. At the same
time, the committee remains mindful of the risks that
commonality could introduce if a technical failure in a common
component or subsystem led to widespread impacts to two legs of
the triad.
Based on the ``Report to Congress on Strategic Missile
Commonality'' submitted in December 2015 as required in the
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee
believes the Air Force and the Navy have identified promising
areas for pursuing commonality in their respective programs,
but is concerned that the report lacked detail about the
systems, subsystems, and components that are being considered.
The report also did not include any decisions on the specific
common systems, subsystems, or components that would be pursued
or timelines for making decisions on commonality. The committee
is concerned that decisions on commonality may not be completed
in time to inform acquisition cycles, and that without
sufficient oversight and encouragement from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and Congress, the services will revert to
historical stovepipes and miss the opportunity to inform
acquisition strategies.
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, the
Secretary of the Navy, and the Commander of U.S. Strategic
Command, to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by September 30, 2016, detailing the date by which a
decision on incorporating common components and technologies
must be made; the Department's plan for incorporating common
components and technologies for both strategic systems,
including listing which technologies, components, and
subsystems are being pursued for commonality and the rationale
for each; the potential for near-term and long-term cost
savings; how such efforts are being incorporated into program
plans, acquisition strategies, and contracts for the Air
Force's Ground-based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program and the
Navy's D5 Life Extension Program; if and how the Air Force
plans to consider and incorporate potential long-term cost-
savings to the Navy in the GBSD contract award criteria; and,
how the Air Force and the Navy are measuring and assessing
risks of commonality.
Report on Theater Missile Defense Training and Deployment Requirements
The committee understands the continuing strategic
importance of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) missile defense systems for U.S. and allied missile
defense. As threats continue to adapt and increase, the
committee notes the importance of maintaining these systems and
providing adequate training and deployment schedule for the
crews. The committee also notes the requirement in the
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, in which the
committee directed the Comptroller General of the United States
to provide an assessment to the congressional defense
committees on:
(1) The current status of the Army's Patriot system
performance;
(2) The Army's strategy 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 will
have on integration and interoperability; and
(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.
The committee notes the on-going work by the Comptroller
General on this issue, and recently received the interim
briefing on this report and expects to receive the final report
in June. The committee continues to be concerned that the
deployment schedule for Patriot and THAAD may become
unsustainable due to expanding requirements on these units,
which are already highly utilized. Therefore, the committee
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review
the Department's plans for training and deployment cycles for
Patriot and THAAD units and provide a report to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than January 15, 2017, on the ability
to meet current mission and deployment requirements, as well as
the capability and plan to meet potential expanding deployment
requirements.
Review of Dual-Hatting Relationship
The committee is aware that U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM)
was established with an intertwined relationship with the
National Security Agency (NSA) to help improve resourcing and
decision making in this domain by unifying those organizations.
The committee believes that making the Commander of U.S. Cyber
Command and the Director of the National Security Agency a
single individual made sense in 2010 in order to mature
CYBERCOM quickly and prevent duplication of resources or lack
of coordination.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would establish CYBERCOM as a combatant command under the
Unified Command Plan. Therefore, the committee believes it is
timely to reassess the dual-hat relationship. For example, the
committee is concerned that with a dominant focus on cyber
activities, other responsibilities of the NSA, such as signals
intelligence and communications security, may not be gain
adequate focus and attention. The committee is also aware that
during the civilian workforce furloughs that took place in 2013
there were impacts on NSA employees supporting CYBERCOM that
were not felt by NSA as a whole. The committee is also
concerned that proper internal and external oversight of the
two organizations' roles and responsibilities will become
increasingly difficult to distinguish and manage the more cyber
is operationalized, especially as it pertains to NSA's
collection and other activities in support of national and
Departmental priorities for foreign intelligence and
counterintelligence, and CYBERCOM's intelligence activities to
support cyber operations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by November 1, 2016, on a review and assessment of the dual-hat
relationship for CYBERCOM. This review should include the
following:
(1) Roles and responsibilities, including intelligence
authorities, of each organization;
(2) Assessment of the current impact of the dual-hat
relationship, including both advantages and disadvantages;
(3) Recommendations on courses of action for separating the
dual-hat command relationship between the Commander of CYBERCOM
and the Director of the NSA, if appropriate;
(4) Suggested timelines for carrying out such courses of
action; and
(5) Recommendations for legislative actions as necessary.
Satellite Ground Control Systems
The committee is aware of the critical role that the Air
Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) has regarding the
command and control of national security space satellites. The
Air Force is currently fielding modifications to increase
reliability and decrease sustainment costs of the current
system. Additionally, the Air Force engaged in a study of the
viability of using commercial facilities and operations for the
tracking, telemetry and command (TT&C) of government
satellites.
Section 822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) contained a requirement
for the Secretary of Defense to develop a long-term plan for
satellite ground control systems, including the Air Force
Satellite Control Network, and to brief the plan to the
congressional defense committees. The committee is aware that
due to the breadth of the plan it took additional time to
complete; however, the committee has yet to receive the
required briefing. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide the required briefing no later
than July 1, 2016, and also address the viability, costs,
benefits, and security considerations of leveraging commercial
facilities and operations for the TT&C of government
satellites.
Space Defense and Protection
In accordance with section 912 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), the
National Research Council (NRC) completed a study in December
2015 and provided findings and recommendations regarding the
national security space defense and protection options and
strategies to address the near-term and long-term counterspace
threats to U.S. space systems.
The committee remains concerned about the growing and
serious risk that foreign counterspace threats pose to our
national security posture, and the committee believes the NRC
offered useful guidance in addressing this challenge. The
committee is also aware of the coordination and interagency
work that is progressing to address this new threat, and
recognizes the value of ongoing dialogue and updates as policy
and acquisition strategies are developed. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Director of
National Intelligence to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees by December 1, 2016, on the
perspectives and actions, as applicable, being taken in
response to the NRC findings and recommendations.
Space Situational Awareness
The committee believes that improvements to the space
surveillance network of the United States are critical. The
committee is also aware that the Department of Defense may have
the opportunity to increase operational capabilities and cost
effectiveness by employing emerging technologies. For instance,
the committee understands that ground-based optical systems,
currently limited to night-only operations, may be able to be
upgraded for daytime operations to provide greater custody of
critical space assets. Therefore, the committee recommends that
the Secretary of the Air Force review opportunities to
incorporate emerging technologies in order to augment, improve,
or replace the legacy space surveillance network systems in
support of U.S. Strategic Command.
Spaceports
The committee is aware that state-owned spaceports have
supported certain national security launch and missile defense
activities. The committee believes that these facilities may be
able to provide additional flexibility and resilience to the
Department of Defense launch infrastructure, particularly as
the Department evaluates concepts such as reconstitution of
small satellites to address the growing foreign counterspace
threat. However, the committee is also aware of the significant
cost to maintain and modernize the East and West coast ranges
and the priority for the Air Force to maintain those
capabilities. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force and the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2016,
on the opportunities to enhance the capability of these state-
owned spaceports to support national security.
Strategic Plan for the Defense Insider Threat Management and Analysis
Center
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
established the Defense Insider Threat Management Analysis
Center (DITMAC) in order to consolidate and analyze specified
defense reporting of potentially adverse information, to
include potential insider threat information. Specifically, the
DITMAC has the following missions:
(1) Oversee the mitigation of insider threats to defense
personnel, infrastructure, and essential national security
information resident on defense facilities or networks;
(2) Develop risk thresholds and standards for actions, and
compile results to evaluate those actions on threats that
insiders may pose to their colleagues, defense missions, and
resources;
(3) Establish standards to ensure the Department's Insider
Threat Program is compliant with applicable executive orders
and regulations;
(4) Fulfill certain requirements of national insider threat
policy and minimum standards; and
(5) Promote collaboration and information sharing on
insider threats to defense personnel and facilities.
While the DITMAC is a relatively new capability that is
still scaling up to conduct its defined missions, the need for
a robust insider threat capability is important and will
continue to grow in the future. Additionally, with the
Department's new responsibilities for developing and sustaining
the information technology resources related to personnel
security clearances, the DITMAC has the potential to support
that mission area as well.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Defense Security Services to develop and submit a strategic
plan for the DITMAC to the congressional defense committees and
the congressional intelligence committees, not later than June
1, 2017. This strategic plan should address the needed
technical capabilities, such as digital rights management, as
well as updated policies, and workforce considerations to
adequately execute its missions, and a concept of operations
for how the DITMAC might scale if needed to support the
personnel security clearance analysis needs of the Department.
Streamlining Missile Defense Oversight
The committee is aware of significant streamlining and
staffing reductions underway in the Department of Defense as a
result of legislative direction and internal efficiency
improvement efforts.
The committee is also aware of the significant staffing and
resources oversight in the ballistic missile defense enterprise
across the Department, including by U.S. Strategic Command
(STRATCOM), U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), the Joint Staff,
Joint Functional Component Command-Integrated Missile Defense
(JFCC-IMD), and the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense
Organization (JIAMDO). The committee is also aware that while
STRATCOM is the combatant command ``owner'' of ballistic
missile defense under the Unified Command Plan (UCP), it
assigns missile defense to other combatant commands for
operational purposes. In the case of homeland ballistic missile
defense, the committee is not aware of these forces being
assigned to an operator other than the commander of NORTHCOM.
The committee understands that the assignment of other military
forces to combatant commands is ordinarily performed by the
Joint Staff as opposed to a specific combatant command. The
committee believes this oversight structure and UCP assignment
could benefit from a reassessment to ensure the best possible
allocation of staffing resources, especially as significant
streamlining and staffing reduction efforts are underway.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
not later than April 1, 2017, on any changes to the UCP
regarding ballistic missile defense he deems efficient and
expedient, and his assessment of the benefits and costs of the
current division of responsibility between the multiplicity of
organizations including the combatant commands, the Joint
Staff, JFCC-IMD, and JIAMDO. As part of this assessment, the
commander of STRATCOM should recommend to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff whether the Joint Forces Component
Command (JFCC) structure at his command is the optimal and most
efficient structure for division of his varied military
responsibilities under the UCP or if there is an alternate
structure with as good or greater benefits at reduced cost.
Supply Chain Security of Strategic Capabilities
The committee is aware of the report submitted by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), ``DOD Needs to Improve
Reporting and Oversight to Reduce Supply Chain Risk,'' (GAO-16-
236) in February 2016. The committee noted the finding that,
``DOD contractors rely on thousands of subcontractors and
suppliers, including the original component manufacturers that
assemble microcircuits and the mid-level manufacturers
subcontracted to develop the individual subsystems that make up
a complete system or supply.''
The committee is concerned that, as a practical matter, it
appears that the Department possesses very little real data
about the supply chain associated with certain critical
systems. It also appears that the Department largely relies on
assurances it receives from prime contractors, but oftentimes
those prime contractors rely on subcontractors and others for
information regarding supply chains and there may be little or
no actual data on which to base their assurances to the
Department.
Furthermore, the committee is aware that the Department
recently promulgated DFARS Subpart 239.73 (``Requirements For
Information Relating To Supply Chain Risk''), but the committee
is concerned that there has been little practical progress in
implementing these regulations. Moreover, even when
implemented, an approach that relies primarily (or exclusively)
on simply analyzing threat intelligence in Government databases
will almost certainly not generate sufficient data about actual
hardware and software components and subcomponents necessary to
understand critical supply chains.
Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense to conduct an audit to evaluate the
supply chain security and assurance of one network or system
deemed critical in each of the Missile Defense Agency, Air
Force Space Command, the nuclear command and control system,
and a delivery system or platform for U.S. nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, the committee directs the Inspector General to
submit a final report to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than May
1, 2017, on the supply chain security and assurance evaluation
of such networks or systems. The committee further directs the
Inspector General to provide an interim briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than July 1, 2016, on the
manner in which it intends to conduct this evaluation. As part
of the Inspector General's assessment, the following matters
should be addressed:
(1) Does the defense agency or military service responsible
for the particular system or network conduct actual forensic
evaluations of the supply chain associated with the system or
network? Does the agency or service rely on the representations
of U.S. suppliers or does it perform independent verification
and validation of the source of supply for each critical
component and subcomponent of U.S.-branded products or systems?
(2) For software, firmware, and chip design that is deemed
by the command or agency to be critical to the reliability and
performance of the designated network or system, can the
service or agency (or its suppliers) identify by name and
nationality the developers involved?
(3) How much diligence has been performed by the service or
agency on second- and third-tier suppliers?
Sustainment and Modernization of the Cobra Dane Radar
The committee continues to be concerned about the lack of a
plan for the long-term sustainment and modernization of the
Cobra Dane radar at Shemya, Alaska, despite its critical role
in exclusively meeting certain warfighter requirements.
The Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 1356, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Committee Print No. 2) directed the Commander of U.S. Northern
Command, jointly with the Commander of U.S. Air Force Space
Command, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, and the
Director of National Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees not later than April 1, 2016,
on the plan for the Cobra Dane radar and the military
requirements it serves and whether those requirements continue
to justify a material capability solution. The committee has
since received that briefing, and appreciates U.S. Northern
Command's timely response.
The committee notes the finding that, ``programmed
architecture enhancements through 2022 in both SSA [Space
Situational Awareness] and BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense] have
capability gaps, currently covered by Cobra Dane. Cobra Dane is
crucial until all requirements can be fulfilled with system
level improvements.'' However, the committee is also aware that
although there is no dispute that increased funding is required
to sustain Cobra Dane beyond 2022, the budget request contained
no modernization funding for fiscal year 2017, nor was there
any in the fiscal year 2016 request.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command, jointly with the Commander of U.S. Air Force
Space Command, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, and
the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, to provide a briefing
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives not later than December 1, 2016, on the
cost, schedule, and program plans to provide the system-level
upgrades for the BMD and SSA architectures to render Cobra Dane
no longer needed to meet requirements for BMD and SSA. This
briefing should also address the costs (broken out by service
or defense agency), schedules, and system and parts
obsolescence concerns required to maintain Cobra Dane until the
aforementioned system-level upgrades are complete.
Further, the committee expects that the Secretary of
Defense will not take irreversible action concerning the Cobra
Dane radar without first notifying the congressional defense
committees.
Trusted Foundries for Strategic-Hardened Microelectronics
The committee understands that one of the trusted foundries
capable of producing strategic-hardened microelectronics for
the Department of Defense was sold to a foreign-owned company
in 2015. In testimony before the committee on October, 28,
2015, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy expressed concern
about the dwindling number of domestic microelectronic
manufacturers. In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016, the committee noted that the acquisition of the
microelectronics fabrication and related intellectual property
by a foreign-owned entity creates uncertainty about the
Department's future access to strategic-hardened trusted
microelectronics and presents risk for the national security
programs that rely on these products.
The committee recognizes that the Defense Production Act
(DPA) Title III program provides the Department the ability to
ensure the availability of domestic production capabilities for
certain critical technologies, and that the National Security
Space Industrial and Supply Base (NSS ISB) Risk Mitigation
Program was developed to formulate a systematic process to fund
mitigation efforts and rectify shortcomings in the space and
industrial supply base. The committee believes the Department
must ensure a continued domestic supply for strategic-hardened
and trusted microelectronics and should consider utilizing DPA
Title III authorities and the NSS ISB. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by September 1, 2016, containing information on
the Secretary's plans to ensure a continued domestic source of
strategic-hardened trusted microelectronics and the Secretary's
views on using DPA Title III and the NSS ISB for such purposes.
Unified Platform
The committee is aware that U.S. Cyber Command has
articulated a priority for a common set of tools and
infrastructure needed to support the development of the Cyber
Mission Force, to be known as the Unified Platform. The
committee recognizes that the manning of 133 cyber mission
teams will be the critical underlying capability needed to
monitor and defend Department of Defense networks; however,
without capable and sufficient equipment for those teams, that
investment will reap little reward. The committee is aware that
the Air Force has been designated as the executive agent for
performing the analysis of alternatives to support a capability
trade study for Unified Platform. The committee encourages the
Department, in conducting this analysis of alternatives, to
look thoroughly at the full range of government developed
capabilities to ensure that Unified Platform encapsulates a
best of breed of existing systems from the military services
and agencies. The committee further encourages the Department
to take a broad look at existing commercial capabilities in the
marketplace to integrate and leverage those systems as well in
a best-of-breed solution.
Use of Surplus ICBM Motors for Commercial Space Launches
The committee is aware that the Air Force stores and
maintains excess intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
assets for limited reuse to support certain Department of
Defense and other government agency space launch activities.
Section 50134 of title 51, United States Code, provides the
guidelines for use of these excess ballistic missile assets.
The committee is aware that Russia has used Russian made
excess ICBM motors to support commercial launch missions,
including the launching of payloads manufactured in the United
States.
The committee believes that modification to the law to
allow for increased commercial use of decommissioned U.S. ICBM
motors could yield benefits for the U.S. domestic launch
industry and payload launching capacity while also saving the
U.S. Air Force excess motor storage costs. However, the
committee also recognizes concerns regarding unintended
negative consequences for the U.S. commercial space industrial
base resulting from such a change in policy.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
by September 1, 2016, on the range of options and
recommendations, if applicable, for modification of the
existing policy that would support the national industrial base
upon which the Department of Defense relies. In addition, the
briefing should include any other implications, savings, and
costs of such options. The briefing should also address any
requirements for technical data that the Department may require
with regard to usage of such excess ballistic missiles.
Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to conduct an assessment, and provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees by 90 days
after the receipt of the briefing from the Secretary of
Defense, on the study conducted by the Department of the
Defense, and the extent that it appropriately considered the
costs and benefits on the industrial base and the United States
Government, and various options to address this issue.
Weather Forecasting Model
The committee is aware that the Air Force Weather Agency
provides critical weather forecasts for military operations
around the world. The committee is also aware that the Air
Force plans to change its numerical weather modeling approach
from the current weather research and forecasting model to a
United Kingdom-based system. The committee is concerned that
the Air Force may not have conducted a complete analysis of
alternatives, including the appropriate coordination with other
military stakeholders.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Navy, to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees by December 1, 2016, on the
strategic approach and plan to provide weather forecasting in a
manner that meets the military requirements, the options that
were considered to include market research of commercial
capabilities, and the costs and considerations of each option
that was evaluated.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Space Activities
Section 1601--Rocket Propulsion System To Replace RD-180
This section would modify section 1604 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), as amended by
section 1606 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
This section would require that the use of funds for the
development of the rocket propulsion system only be obligated
or expended for the development of the rocket propulsion system
to replace non-allied space launch engines and for the
necessary interfaces to, or integration of, the rocket
propulsion system with an existing or new launch vehicle. The
funds would not be authorized to be obligated or expended to
develop or procure a launch vehicle, an upper stage, a strap-on
motor, or related infrastructure. This section would refer to
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2017 or any fiscal year
thereafter for the Department of Defense for the development of
the rocket propulsion system, and funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 or otherwise made available for fiscal
years 2015-16 for the Department of Defense for the development
of the rocket propulsion system that are unobligated as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
This section would also allow the Secretary to obligate or
expend a portion of the funds described in the prior section,
in any fiscal year for activities not authorized by the prior
section, to include developing a launch vehicle, an upper
stage, a strap-on motor, or related infrastructure. The
Secretary may exceed the limit if a certification with certain
specified elements are provided to the appropriate
congressional committees and the reprogramming or transfer is
carried out in accordance with established procedures for
reprogramming or transfers, including with respect to
presenting a request for a reprogramming of funds.
This section would also define the term `rocket propulsion
system', with respect to the development authorized in this
provision, as a main booster, first-stage rocket engine or
motor. The term does not include a launch vehicle, an upper
stage, a strap-on motor, or related infrastructure.
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
acquire government purpose rights (or greater rights) in
technical data, patents, and copyrights pertaining to the
rocket propulsion system. Such rights may be for the purpose of
developing alternative sources of supply and manufacture in the
event such alternative sources are necessary and in the best
interest of the United States.
This section would also limit the obligation or expenditure
of not more than 90 percent of funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2017 for the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
until the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force
certifies to the congressional defense committees that the
Secretary has carried out the rocket propulsion system program
under section 1604 of Public Law 113-291 during fiscal years
2015 and 2016 as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section
of this Act.
Section 1602--Exception to the Prohibition on Contracting with Russian
Suppliers of Rocket Engines for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Program
This section would modify 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 by
section 1607 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) by striking subsection (c)
and inserting a new subsection.
The new subsection would state that the prohibition would
not apply to either the placement of orders or exercise of
options under the contract numbered FA8811-13-C-0003 and
awarded on December 18, 2013, or contracts that are awarded for
the procurement of property or services for space launch
activities that include the use of a total of 18 rocket engines
designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation in addition
to the Russian-designed or manufactured engines to which
paragraph (1) applies.
Section 1603--Analysis of Alternatives for Wide-Band Communications
This section would amend section 1611 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) by striking subsection (b) and would insert a requirement
for the Secretary of Defense to develop study guidance for the
analysis of alternatives for wide-band communications to
consider the full range of military and commercial satellite
communications capabilities, acquisition processes, and service
delivery models. This section would also require the Secretary
to ensure that any cost assessments of military or commercial
satellite communications systems include detailed full life
cycle costs, as applicable, including but not limited to
military personnel, military construction, military
infrastructure operation, maintenance costs, and ground and
user terminal impacts; and to also identify any considerations
relating to the use of military versus commercial systems for
wide-band satellite communications.
This section would also direct the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the study guidance for the analysis
of alternatives, as well as the completed analysis of
alternatives, as to whether, and to what extent, the Secretary
conducted such analysis using best practices; fully addressed
the concerns of the acquisition, operational, and user
communities; and complied with the guidance in this section.
The Comptroller General would also be required to provide a
description of how the Secretary identified the requirements
and assessed and addressed the cost, schedule, and risks posed
for each alternative included in such analysis. This section
would require the Comptroller General to submit the review to
the congressional defense committees not later than 120 days
after the Comptroller General receives the completed analysis
of alternatives.
The Secretary would also be required to provide a briefing
to the congressional defense committees not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and semiannually
thereafter until the date on which the analysis of alternatives
is completed. The committee expects the study guidance to be
provided to the committee as part of the briefings.
The committee notes that the removal of the fiscal year
2017 date for completing the analysis of alternatives does not
reflect decreased interest or oversight of this program, but
rather that this date was not realistic given the Department's
progress on this analysis and the opportunities for a more
complete analysis. The committee believes that allowing more
time will enable the Department to consider the full range of
options, to include the results of the commercial satellite
communications pathfinders and pilot program.
Section 1604--Modification to Pilot Program for Acquisition of
Commercial Satellite Communications Services
This section would amend section 1605 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), as amended by
section 1612 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), by adding a requirement
that in developing and carrying out the pilot program, the
Secretary shall take actions to begin the implementation of
each specified goal by not later than September 30, 2017.
Section 1605--Space-Based Environmental Monitoring
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) to establish mechanisms to collaborate and coordinate in
defining the roles and responsibilities of the Department of
Defense and NOAA with regards to carrying out space-based
environmental monitoring and planning for future non-
governmental space-based environmental monitoring capabilities.
Furthermore, this section would direct the Secretary of Defense
and the Director of NOAA to jointly submit a report to the
appropriate congressional committees not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act on the mechanisms
established.
This section is not an authorization for a joint satellite
program of the Department of Defense and NOAA.
Section 1606--Prohibition on Use of Certain Non-Allied Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing Systems
This section would require that, not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall ensure that the Armed Forces and each element of
the Department of Defense do not use a non-allied positioning,
navigation, and timing system or a service provided by such a
system. This requirement would sunset on September 30, 2018.
This section would also provide that the Secretary of
Defense may waive the prohibition if the Secretary determines
it is in the national security interest of the United States
and is necessary to mitigate exigent operational concerns, and
notifies the appropriate congressional committees in writing
and a period of 30 days has elapsed from the date of such
notification.
This section would further require the Secretary of
Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
Director of National Intelligence to submit to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act an assessment of the risks to
national security and to the operations and plans of the
Department of Defense from using a non-allied positioning,
navigation, and timing system or service provided by such a
system.
Section 1607--Limitation of Availability of Funds for the Joint Space
Operations Center Mission System
This section would limit 75 percent of the funds authorized
to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2017 for increment 3 of the Joint Space Operations
Center Mission System program, until the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Commander of the U.S. Strategic
Command, submits to the congressional defense committees a
report on such increment. The report would include the
acquisition strategy; requirements; funding and schedule; the
strategy for use of commercially available capabilities, as
appropriate, relating to such increment to rapidly address
warfighter requirements, including the market research and
evaluation of such commercial capabilities; and how it relates
to other applicable activities and investments of the
Department of Defense.
The committee understands that these are critical
capabilities and encourages the Secretary to rapidly conduct
the requirements in this section as necessary to begin
increment 3. Additionally, the committee recommends that the
Secretary leverage commercially available capabilities, as
appropriate and in accordance with the necessary security
requirements, to support the warfighter requirements for the
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System program.
Section 1608--Space-Based Infrared System and Advanced Extremely High
Frequency Program
This section would state that Congress finds the recently
completed analysis of alternatives (AOA) for the space-based
infrared system did not define the criteria and assessment for
resilience and mission assurance. In addition, Congress finds
the AOA for the advanced extremely high frequency program is
ongoing.
Therefore, this section would restrict the Secretary of
Defense from developing or acquiring an alternative to the
space-based infrared system program of record, as well as
developing or acquiring an alternative to the advanced
extremely high frequency program of record, until the Commander
of U.S. Strategic Command and the Director of the Space
Security and Defense Program, in coordination with the Defense
Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, jointly submit an assessment to the
appropriate congressional committees of the resilience and
mission assurance of each alternative considered for the
respective programs. Specifically such review would include the
requirements for resilience and mission assurance; the criteria
to measure such resilience and mission assurance; and how the
alternatives affect deterrence, full spectrum warfighting,
warfighting requirements and relative costs to include ground
stations and user terminals, the potential order of battle of
adversaries, and the capabilities of the broader space security
and defense enterprise.
The restriction would not apply to efforts to examine and
develop technology insertion opportunities for the space-based
infrared system program of record or the satellite
communications programs of record.
Section 1609--Plans on Transfer of Acquisition and Funding Authority of
Certain Weather Missions to National Reconnaissance Office
This section would limit 50 percent of the funding for the
weather satellite follow-on program until the Secretary of the
Air Force submits to the appropriate committees a plan for the
Air Force to transfer, beginning with fiscal year 2018, the
acquisition authority and the funding authority for certain
space-based environmental monitoring missions from the Air
Force to the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), including a
description of the amount of funds that would be necessary to
be transferred from the Air Force to the NRO during fiscal
years 2018 through 2022 to carry out such plan.
This section would also direct the Director of the NRO to
develop a plan to carry out certain space-based environmental
monitoring missions. The plan would include a description of
the related national security requirements, a description of
the appropriate manner to meet such requirements, and the
amount of funding that would be necessary to be transferred
from the Air Force to the NRO during fiscal years 2018 through
2022. The plan would be due to the appropriate committees not
later than the date of the submission of the budget request for
fiscal year 2018. The Director would be authorized to conduct
pre-acquisition activities in fiscal year 2017, to include
requests for information, analyses of alternatives, study
contracts, modeling and simulation, and other activities the
Director determines necessary to develop such plan.
Finally, this section would require the Director of the
Cost Assessment Improvement Group of the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Director of
the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, to certify the funding identified by the
Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of the NRO is
sufficient.
As reflected in the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291) and the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), the committee has
been concerned with the Air Force's lack of planning,
coordination, and execution of activities to meet the top two
Joint Requirements Oversight Council certified requirements for
space-based environmental monitoring. The committee notes that
the current Defense Meteorological Satellite Program began with
the NRO in the 1960s before the program and budget were
transferred to the Air Force. The committee recommends the
Director of the NRO and the Secretary of the Air Force arrange
a similar agreement, in which the NRO develops the program and
then transfers it back to the Air Force after it is in
operation.
This section does not and is not intended to affect the
jurisdiction of the congressional defense committees over the
weather-related missions of the Department of Defense. The
committee expects the funds at the NRO for this activity will
be classified within the Military Intelligence Program.
Section 1610--Pilot Program on Commercial Weather Data
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
establish a pilot program to assess the viability of commercial
satellite weather data to support requirements of the
Department of Defense. The Secretary would have 1 year and up
to $3.0 million to carry out the pilot program by purchasing
and evaluating commercial weather data that meets the standards
and specifications set by the Department of Defense. The
Secretary would be required to provide interim and final
briefings on the utility, cost, and other considerations
regarding the purchase of commercial satellite weather data to
support the requirements of the Department of Defense.
Section 1611--Organization and Management of National Security Space
Activities of the Department of Defense
This section would state findings and the sense of Congress
on the organization and management of the national security
space activities of the Department of Defense. This section
would also direct the Secretary of Defense and the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget to each separately submit a
report to the appropriate committees not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act on the
recommendations to strengthen the leadership, management, and
organization of the Department of Defense with respect to the
national security space activities of the Department.
Section 1612--Review of Charter of Operationally Responsive Space
Program Office
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a review of the Operationally Responsive Space Program
Office and submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. This report would include a review of
the key operationally responsive space needs with respect to
the warfighter and with respect to national security; how the
Office could fit into the broader resilience and space security
strategy of the Department of Defense; an assessment of the
potential of the Office to focus on the reconstitution
capabilities with small satellites using low-cost launch
vehicles and existing infrastructure; an assessment of the
potential of the Office to leverage existing or planned
commercial capabilities; a review of the necessary workforce
specialties and acquisition authorities; a review of the
funding profile; and a review of the organizational placement
and reporting structure of the Office.
Section 1613--Backup and Complementary Positioning, Navigation, and
Timing Capabilities of Global Positioning System
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of Transportation, and Secretary of Homeland Security
to jointly conduct a study to assess and identify the
technology-neutral requirements to backup and complement the
positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) capabilities of the
Global Positioning System for national security and critical
infrastructure.
This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of Transportation, and Secretary of Homeland Security
to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees
not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act on the study.
The report would include the identification of the
respective requirements to backup and complement the
positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities of the Global
Positioning System for national security and critical
infrastructure; an analysis of alternatives to meet such
requirements including at a minimum an analysis of the
viability of a public-private partnership to establish a
complementary PNT system and an analysis of the viability of
service level agreements to operate a complementary PNT system;
and a plan and estimated costs, schedule, and system level
technical considerations, including end user equipment and
integration considerations, to meet such requirements.
This section would also require that each Secretary
designate a single senior official to act as the primary
representative of such Department for purposes of conducting
the study.
The committee is aware that while a continental United
States ``enhanced'' Long-Range Navigation (eLoran) system would
not meet the Department's requirements for worldwide
operations, it could contribute to increasing resilience of PNT
in the United States. The committee is also aware that a
complementary PNT tiger team recommended eLoran as the leading
candidate for fulfilling the maximum number of PNT user needs
within the next 5 years for certain sectors, but that there is
currently no planned funding for this capability. The committee
expects that a joint study will help inform a coordinated,
effective and efficient way ahead for a backup and
complementary system to GPS.
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities
Section 1621--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Intelligence
Management
This section would limit the amount of authorized funds
available to be obligated or expended for intelligence
management until the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence provides a report to the appropriate congressional
committees on counterintelligence activities described in the
classified annex accompanying this Act.
Section 1622--Limitations on Availability of Funds for United States
Central Command Intelligence Fusion Center
This section would establish a limitation on the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2017
for the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Intelligence Fusion
Center.
Twenty-five percent of such funds may not be obligated or
expended until 15 days after the Commander of CENTCOM submits
to the congressional defense committees and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives a report on the steps taken by CENTCOM to
formalize and disseminate procedures for establishing,
staffing, and operating the CENTCOM Intelligence Fusion Center.
Additionally, 25 percent of such funds may not be obligated
or expended until 15 days after the Commander of CENTCOM
submits to the congressional defense committees and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives a report on the steps taken by CENTCOM to
address the findings of the final report of the Department of
Defense Inspector General regarding the processing of
intelligence information by the Intelligence Directorate of
CENTCOM.
Section 1623--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Joint
Intelligence Analysis Complex
This section would limit 15 percent of the increase in
spending for manpower for the Joint Intelligence Analysis
Complex until the Secretary of Defense provides a revised
analysis of alternatives to the congressional defense
committees and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
of the House of Representatives for the basing of a new
complex. The new analysis should be based on operational
requirements and costs and informed by the findings of the
report of the Comptroller General of the United States on the
Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex cost estimating and basing
decision process.
Subtitle C--Cyberspace-Related Matters
Section 1631--Special Emergency Procurement Authority To Facilitate the
Defense Against or Recovery From a Cyber Attack
This section would modify the current special procurement
authority in section 1903(a)(2) of title 41, United States
Code, to include use of such authority for recovery from or
defense against cyber attacks.
Section 1632--Change in Name of National Defense University's
Information Resources Management College to College of Information and
Cyberspace
This section would modify section 2165 of title 10, United
States Code, to change the name of the Information Resources
Management College to the College of Information and
Cyberspace.
Section 1633--Requirement To Enter Into Agreements Relating to Use of
Cyber Opposition Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into agreements with each combatant command relating to
the use of cyber opposition forces by September 30, 2017. This
section would also require the development of a joint
certification and training standard for cyber opposition forces
by March 31, 2017.
The committee recognizes that the Department is making
strides in establishing, manning, and training an adequate
cyber mission force to help defend Department of Defense
networks and information systems. An important aspect of that
training, as well as the maintenance of long-term proficiency,
will be through the use of cyber opposition forces that can
realistically emulate the types of threat actors these teams
will likely face. Just as conventional forces often face
opposition forces in training exercises to improve their combat
capability, the committee recognizes that such practices will
have great utility in the cyber domain.
The committee also believes that the Department's move to a
persistent training environment should be matched with the
ability to continuously integrate such cyber opposition force
training into these ongoing training evolutions. As the
Department tries to marry the persistent training environment
with continuous opposition force training, the committee
believes that there will be a number of issues that should be
addressed. In addition to the need to provide a joint training
standard for those teams that mirrors the joint training
standard for the cyber mission teams, the committee recognizes
that special arrangements will be needed to deconflict training
from real world activities that may happen on mission networks.
The committee urges the Department to address these kinds of
issues in developing agreements with the combatant commands to
integrate cyber opposition force training into continuous and
ongoing training activities.
Section 1634--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Cryptographic
Systems and Key Management Infrastructure
This section would limit the amount of authorized funds
available to be obligated or expended in fiscal year 2017 for
cryptographic systems and key management infrastructure until
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of
the National Security Agency, provides a report on the
integration of the cryptographic modernization and key
management infrastructure programs of the military departments,
including a description of how the military departments have
implemented stronger leadership, increased integration, and
reduced redundancy with respect to such modernization and
programs.
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces
Section 1641--Improvements to Council on Oversight of National
Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System
This section would amend the statutory charter of the
National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System
Council (``The Council''), to add to its responsibilities the
oversight of the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack
Assessment (ITW/AA) system, as well as the Continuity of
Government functions of the Department of Defense. This section
would also require The Council, acting through the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees reviewing potential changes to the architectures of
certain Air Force space systems prior to milestone A and
milestone B approval.
This section would also require that prior to any changes
to the systems under The Council's oversight that would reduce
the strategic missile attack warning time provided to the
national leadership of the United States, it must provide a
notification to the congressional defense committees and wait a
period of 1 year. Additionally, this section would require The
Council to determine each year that the ITW/AA systems have met
all warfighter requirements for operational availability,
survivability, and endurability. In the event The Council
cannot make such a determination, this section would require
the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to jointly submit certain information to the
congressional defense committees.
Lastly, this section would extend the requirement that The
Council provide its annual report to the appropriate
congressional committees until January 31, 2021.
Section 1642--Treatment of Certain Sensitive Information by State and
Local Governments
This section would amend section 128 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that information that the Secretary of
Defense prohibits to be disseminated pursuant to such section
128 that is provided to a State or local government shall
remain under the control of the Department of Defense and that
a State or local law authorizing or requiring a State or local
government to disclose such information shall not apply to such
information.
In addition, this section would amend section 130e of title
10, United States Code, to clarify that the Secretary may
designate information as being Department of Defense critical
infrastructure security information, including during the
course of creating such information, to ensure that such
information is not disseminated without authorization. This
section would provide that information so designated is subject
to a determination process to determine whether to exempt such
information from disclosure. This section would also clarify
that Department of Defense critical infrastructure security
information covered by such section 130e, either by a written
determination or a designation, that is provided to a State or
local government shall remain under the control of the
Department of Defense. Finally, this section would further
provide that a State or local law authorizing or requiring a
State or local government to disclose such information shall
not apply to information that is covered by a written
determination, and that if a person requests, pursuant to a
State or local law, that a State or local government disclose
information that is designated as Department of Defense
critical infrastructure security information, the State or
local government shall provide the Secretary an opportunity to
carry out a determination process to determine whether to
exempt such information from disclosure.
Section 1643--Procurement Authority for Certain Parts of
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Fuzes
This section would authorize $17.1 million of the funds
made available by this Act for Missile Procurement, Air Force,
for the procurement of certain commercially available parts of
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 1644--Prohibition on the Availability of Funds for Mobile
Variant of Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Missile
This section would provide that none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal years 2017 or 2018 may be obligated or
expended to retain the option for, or develop, a mobile variant
of the ground-based strategic deterrent missile.
Section 1645--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Extension of New
START Treaty
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other
Act for fiscal year 2017 or any other fiscal year for the
Department of Defense unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff submits a report to the congressional defense
committees and the Director of National Intelligence submits a
National Intelligence Estimate and a period of 180 days has
elapsed.
Section 1646--Consolidation of Nuclear Command, Control, and
Communications Functions of the Air Force
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to consolidate under a major command, commanded by a single
general officer, the responsibility, authority, accountability,
and resources for carrying out the nuclear command, control,
and communications functions of the Air Force by March 31,
2017. This consolidation would be required to include, at a
minimum, all terrestrial and aerial components of the nuclear
command and control system that are survivable and endurable,
as well as all terrestrial and aerial components of the
integrated tactical warning and attack assessment (ITW/AA)
system that are survivable and endurable.
This section would also require the Secretary to provide
this same commander the responsibility, authority,
accountability, and resources to:
(1) Conduct oversight over all components of the NC2 and
ITW/AA systems, regardless of the location or the endurability
of such components; and
(2) Approve or disapprove of any budgetary actions related
to all components of the NC2 and ITW/AA systems, regardless of
the location or the endurability of such components.
Finally, this section would require the Secretary to submit
a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15,
2017, on the plans and actions taken by the Secretary to carry
out this section, including any guidance, directives, and
orders that have been or will be issued by the Secretary, the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, or other elements of the Air
Force.
Section 1647--Report on Russian and Chinese Political and Military
Leadership Survivability, Command and Control, and Continuity of
Government Programs and Activities
This section would require the Director of National
Intelligence to submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees, consistent with the protection of
sources and methods, by January 15, 2017, on the leadership
survivability, command and control, and continuity of
government programs and activities of the People's Republic of
China and the Russian Federation. The report would be required
to include various matters with respect to these programs and
activities.
This section would also require, not later than 90 days
after the Director submits the report described above, the
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command,
Control, and Communications System, established by section 171a
of title 10, United States Code, to submit an assessment of how
the command, control, and communications systems of the
national leadership of China and Russia compare to such systems
of the United States.
Finally, this section would require the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command to submit, together with the assessment
submitted by the Council described above, the views of the
Commander on the report of the Director, including a detailed
description of how the leadership survivability, command and
control, and continuity of government programs and activities
of China and Russia are considered in plans and options for
which the Commander is responsible.
Section 1648--Sense of Congress on Importance of Independent Nuclear
Deterrent of United Kingdom
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the importance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland's independent nuclear deterrent.
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs
Section 1651--Extensions of Prohibitions Relating to Missile Defense
Information and Systems
This section would extend the prohibitions currently in law
regarding sharing of certain missile defense information with
the Russian Federation and integrating U.S. missile defenses
with Russian or Chinese systems until January 1, 2027.
Section 1652--Review of the Missile Defeat Policy and Strategy of the
United States
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to jointly conduct a new
review by January 31, 2018, of the missile defeat capability,
policy, and strategy of the United States with respect to left-
and right-of-launch ballistic missile defense, the integration
of offensive and defensive forces for the defeat of ballistic
missiles, and the cruise missile defense of the homeland.
The committee recommends this provision in order to require
a new strategy for the more comprehensive set of capabilities
and goals for ballistic and cruise missile defense the United
States now faces. This new strategy would include the full
range of missile defeat capabilities and requirements,
including the integration of left- and right-of-launch
ballistic missile defense, the integration of offensive and
defensive capabilities in ballistic missile defense in both the
defense of the homeland and in regional defense settings, and
the development of homeland cruise missile defense.
This section would also require the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation to submit to the Secretary of
Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
congressional defense committees an annual update on the
implementation of the missile defeat strategy for the 5-year
period beginning on the date of the submission of the report on
the missile defeat policy and strategy review.
The section would further require the Director of National
Intelligence to submit to the congressional defense committees
and the congressional intelligence committees a report, within
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, containing an
unclassified summary of the existing ballistic and cruise
missile threats to the United States, the deployed forces of
the United States, and the friends and allies of the United
States, and an assessment of such threat in 2026. The section
would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense from changing the
non-standard acquisition authorities of the Missile Defense
Agency until the Secretary notifies the congressional defense
committees and a period of 180 days has elapsed. Lastly, the
section would require the Secretary of Defense to designate,
not later than March 31, 2018, a military department or defense
agency with the acquisition authority for the capability to
defend the United States from cruise missiles and the authority
for left-of-launch ballistic missile defeat capability.
Section 1653--Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System and Israeli
Cooperative Missile Defense Program Codevelopment and Coproduction
This section would make available $62 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 the State of Israel for Tamir interceptors for
the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system.
This section would condition those funds subject to the
terms, conditions, and coproduction targets specified for
fiscal year 2017 in a bilateral international agreement
amending 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 such Agreement is being implemented as provided in the
Agreement and an assessment detailing any risks relating to the
implementation of such Agreement.
This section would authorize $150 million and $120 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 Weapon System and the Arrow 3 Upper Tier missile
defense system, respectively.
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 for David's Sling and Arrow 3. 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 international
agreement between the United States and the Government of
Israel; agreed coproduction targets based on the teaming
agreements for the codevelopment programs; and certain other
matters, including apportionment of the costs of any delays for
coproduction.
The committee recommends the authorization of these funds
for procurement of missile defense system batteries and
interceptors for the Government of Israel, however, it is not
establishing specific production goals or commitments.
Section 1654--Maximizing Aegis Ashore Capability
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an evaluation of the optimal anti-air warfare
capability for each current Aegis Ashore Site by not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This
section would also require that such evaluation is a part of
the future deployment of an Aegis Ashore site. The assessment
of Aegis Ashore anti-air warfare capability would include use
of enhanced sea-sparrow missiles, standard missile block 2
missiles, standard missile block 6 missiles, or the SeaRAM
missile system. The Secretary of Defense would be required to
carry out this subsection consistent with the classified annex
accompanying this Act.
The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff would also be required to submit to the
congressional defense committees not later than 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act an evaluation to include:
(1) The ballistic missile and air threat against the
continental United States and the efficacy of deploying one or
more Aegis Ashore sites and Aegis Ashore components for the
ballistic and cruise missile defense of the continental United
States; and
(2) The ballistic missile and air threat against Guam, and
the cost and efficacy of deploying Aegis Ashore there.
Regarding the Aegis Ashore site on the Pacific Missile
Range Facility (PMRF) in Hawaii, this section would restrict
the Secretary from reducing the manning levels or test
capability of that site as they were on January 1, 2015, or to
put the site into a ``cold'' or ``stand by'' status. This
section would also require the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency to notify the congressional defense committees if the
preferred alternative for fielding a medium-range ballistic
missile defense sensor for the defense of Hawaii, identified
through the study conducted by the Director pursuant to section
1689(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), would require any study or
assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (Public Law 91-190). The Director would be required to
initiate that study or analysis not later than 60 days after
his notification.
Lastly, this section would also require the Secretary and
the Chairman to jointly submit to the congressional defense
committees not later than 60 days after the enactment of this
Act an evaluation of the ballistic and air threat to Hawaii;
the efficacy (including with respect to cost and potential
alternatives) of making the Aegis Ashore site at PMRF
operational; deploying the preferred alternative for fielding a
medium-range ballistic missile defense sensor for the defense
of Hawaii; and any other alternative the Secretary and Chairman
determine appropriate.
Section 1655--Technical Authority for Integrated Air and Missile
Defense Activities and Programs
This section would reaffirm the authority delegated to the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) as the Department
of Defense technical authority for integrated air and missile
defense activities and programs. The committee notes the May 8,
2013 Acquisition Decision Memorandum approved by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
designating MDA as the technical authority for the Department
of Defense on these programs, and believes this statutory step
would improve the Department's efforts on integration and
interoperability.
This section would further provide that the Director may
obtain, as detailees from the Joint Functional Component
Command for Integrated Missile Defense and the Joint Integrated
Air and Missile Defense Organization, such manpower as they
deem necessary solely for technical authority responsibilities,
but no more than double the manning assigned for that purpose
as of January 1, 2016. This authority would be to obtain as
detailees the Federal workforce of these two entities.
This section would further require the Director of MDA to
provide an assessment to the congressional defense committees
not later than January 31, 2017, and biennially thereafter
until January 31, 2021, of the state of integration and
interoperability of the integrated air and missile defense
capabilities of the Department of Defense. This assessment
would include an identification of any gaps in the integration
and interoperability of the air and missile defense
capabilities of the Department; a description of the options to
improve such capabilities and remediate such gaps; and a plan
to carry out such improvements and remediations, including
milestones and costs for such plan.
Section 1656--Development and Research of Non-Terrestrial Missile
Defense Layer
The 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, with the support of federally
funded research and development centers with subject matter
expertise, shall commence the planning for the concept
definition, design, research, development, engineering
evaluation, and test of a space-based ballistic missile
intercept and defeat layer.
This section would also include a requirement to commence
the planning for the research, development, test, and
evaluation activities with respect to a space test bed for a
missile interceptor capability.
This section would further require the Director to submit
with the budget request of the President for fiscal year 2018,
a detailed budget and development plan, irrespective of planned
budgetary total obligation authority, assuming an initial on-
orbit demonstration by 2025.
Section 1657--Hypersonic Boost Glide Vehicle Defense
This section would require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) to establish a program of record to
develop and field a defensive system to defeat hypersonic
boost-glide and maneuvering ballistic missiles not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. It would
also require the Director to consider opportunities for co-
development of the defensive system, including through
financial support, with allies and partners of the United
States.
This section would also limit the headquarters expenditures
of both the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
by withholding $25.0 million from each until the Director of
the MDA certifies the establishment of the program of record
and certain other matters.
This section would additionally require the Secretary of
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to
provide a report to specific congressional committees not later
than 120 days after the enactment of this Act on the
implications of the Missile Technology Control Regime of such
defensive system.
This section would require that a plan be submitted along
with the fiscal year 2018 budget request on the cost and
schedule to develop such a defensive capability.
Section 1658--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Patriot Lower
Tier Air and Missile Defense Capability of the Army
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of
fifty percent of the amounts authorized to be appropriated in
fiscal year 2017 for the Patriot lower tier air and missile
defense capability of the Army until:
(1) The Director of the Missile Defense Agency certifies to
the congressional defense committees that such capability, upon
completion of the modernization process for the Patriot radar,
will be interoperable with the ballistic missile defense system
and other air and missile defense capabilities;
(2) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certifies to
the congressional defense committees that such capability, upon
the completion of the modernization process for the Patriot
radar, will meet the modularity sought by the geographic
combatant commands and the validated and objective warfighter
requirements for air and missile defense capability; and
(3) The Chief of Staff of the Army, in coordination with
the Secretary of the Army, submits a determination as to
whether the requirements of the radar modernization program are
suitable for acquisition through an Army Rapid Capabilities
office, the terms of the competition planned for the radar
modernization program ensure fair competition for all
competitors, and either a certification that the radar
modernization acquisition program is the most modern rapid
deployment acquisition program possible at low risk, or a
revised acquisition program has been submitted to the
congressional defense committees and a period of 30 days has
lapsed.
Section 1659--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Conventional
Prompt Global Strike Weapons System
This section would require that not more than 75 percent of
the funds authorized to be appropriated for conventional prompt
global strike capability may be obligated or expended until the
date on which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Commander of U.S. European Command, the Commander of U.S.
Pacific Command, and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command,
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
whether there are warfighter requirements or integrated
priorities lists-submitted needs for a limited operational
conventional prompt strike capability and whether the program
plan and schedule proposed by the program office supports such
requirements and integrated priorities lists submissions.
Section 1660--Pilot Program on Loss of Unclassified, Controlled
Technical Information
This section would require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency to establish a pilot program for the protection
of unclassified, controlled technical information and
controlled unclassified information not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act. In implementing
the required pilot program, the Director would be required to
give priority to data protection options that are used by the
private sector and have already proven successful. The pilot
program would be set for a 5-year duration. The Director would
be required to notify the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate not later than 30 days prior
to the commencement of the pilot program of the following:
(1) The data protection options that the Director is
considering, and their potential cost; and
(2) Such option that is the preferred option of the
Director.
Section 1661--Review of Missile Defense Agency Budget Submissions for
Ground-based Midcourse Defense and Evaluation of Alternative Ground-
based Interceptor Deployments
This section would require the Director of Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act concerning the sufficiency of the
budget request to meet modernization, obsolescence, and to
ensure industrial base capability. Such report would also be
required not later than 30 days after the President's budget
request is submitted in subsequent years through January 31,
2021.
This section would also require that the Commander of U.S.
Northern Command submit to the congressional defense committees
not later than 60 days after each budget request is submitted,
through January 31, 2021, his certification that the budget
request includes a sufficient level of funding for the ground-
based midcourse defense system to modernize the system to
remain paced ahead of the developing limited ballistic missile
threat to the homeland.
This section would further require the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on transportable ground-based
interceptors.
Section 1662--Declaratory Policy, Concept of Operations, and Employment
Guidelines for Left-of-Launch Capability
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop and provide to
the congressional defense committees, not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the following: (1)
both the classified and unclassified declaratory policy of the
United States regarding the use of left-of-launch capability of
the United States against potential targets and how the
Secretary and Chairman intend to ensure that such capability is
a deterrent to attacks by adversaries; (2) both the classified
and unclassified concept of operations for the use of such
capability across and between the combatant commands; and (3)
both the classified and unclassified employment strategy,
plans, and options for such capability.
The committee notes that in the committee report (H. Rept.
114-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee directed the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, to submit a report on left-of-launch no later than
December 1, 2015. The committee directed that this report
detail, among other matters, how the concepts outlined in the
Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense: Vision 2020 strategy
and in the memo from the Chief of Staff of the Army and Chief
of Naval Operations were being implemented, including an
assessment of left-of-launch and non-kinetic means of defense.
While the Department provided a briefing in October 2015 and a
more recent briefing on the fiscal year 2017 budget request for
left-of-launch activities, the Department has not submitted the
required report. The committee notes that while the briefings
answered several of the committee's questions and provided
constructive engagements on this issue, they did not provide a
comprehensive answer to the committee's request. The committee
notes that the report is nearly 5 months late, and expects that
this report will be submitted as soon as possible to help
inform the committee's oversight on this important issue.
Section 1663--Procurement of Medium-Range Discrimination Radar To
Improve Homeland Missile Defense
This section would require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency to issue a request for proposals for a medium-
range discrimination radar by not later than October 1, 2017.
This section would also require the Director to plan to procure
a medium-range discrimination radar or equivalent sensor to
improve the ballistic missile defense of Hawaii.
Section 1664--Semiannual Notifications on Missile Defense Tests and
Costs
This section would require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency to notify the congressional defense committees
semi-annually starting 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act on certain matters related to flight and intercept
tests. The requirement under this section would terminate on
January 31, 2021.
Section 1665--National Missile Defense Policy
This section would repeal section 2 of the National Missile
Defense Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38) and replace it with a
modified statement on the missile defense policy of the United
States.
Section 1666--Sense of the Congress on Initial Operating Capability of
Phase 2 of European Phased Adaptive Approach to Missile Defense
This section would state the sense of the Congress
regarding the declaration at the upcoming North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Summit in Warsaw, Republic of Poland, of the
initial operating capability of the second phase of the
European Phased Adaptive Approach.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 1671--Protection of Certain Facilities and Assets From Unmanned
Aircraft
This section would amend chapter 3 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to take, and
authorize the Armed Forces to take, certain actions necessary
to mitigate the threat of an unmanned aircraft or unmanned
aircraft system that poses an imminent threat (as defined by
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
Transportation) to the safety or security of certain assets or
facilities relating to the nuclear deterrence mission, the
missile defense mission, or the national security space mission
of the Department of Defense.
Section 1672--Improvement of Coordination by Department of Defense of
Electromagnetic Spectrum Usage
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than December 31, 2016, on the value of an intra-
departmental council in the Department of Defense to improve
its coordination on the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
TITLE XVII--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION AGILITY
OVERVIEW
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee expressed concern that the conventional acquisition
system of the Department of Defense is not sufficiently agile
to support warfighter demands. On average, major defense
acquisition programs operate for 9 years before yielding new
capabilities. Requirements determination, budgeting, and
contracting can each take another 2 years or more before
programs begin. Meanwhile, technological change has been
rapidly generating new, and often unforeseeable, innovations.
Global threats are evolving even more quickly, with adversaries
leveraging new technologies to exploit gaps in our military
capabilities. The conventional acquisition system simply does
not enable capabilities to be delivered to warfighters fast
enough.
The committee notes that this persistent lack of agility
derives in part from the basic incentives embedded in the
requirements, acquisition, budget, and oversight processes.
Weapon system requirements must be set anticipating technology
that will be available after years of development, so
requirements are naturally optimistic. Optimism carries with it
substantial technical risk, which has often led to costly
overruns and schedule delays. To avoid such outcomes, the
acquisition system makes short-term, cost-savings decisions
that reduce flexibility and increase long-term costs. Budget
timelines and oversight committees require the military
services to provide detailed budget justifications, even though
such details then limit the military services' ability to
pursue new technological innovations after funds are
appropriated. Then in response to acquisition shortcomings,
both Congress and the Department have imposed new layers of
bureaucratic management and special authorities to circumvent
the conventional acquisition process.
This title is intended to begin to address these challenges
and change the way capabilities are acquired. Rather than
setting requirements in anticipation of future technologies,
weapon system platforms should be designed to provide the
needed warfighter capabilities in the short-term and flexible,
open-system architectures that allow components to evolve with
technologies and threats. The military services should
experiment with and incrementally deploy new components, and
this ``component acquisition'' should be unshackled from the
traditional and time-consuming requirements, acquisition, and
budget processes. The committee recognizes that some
experiments will not succeed, which is an important part of the
learning process. But because developing and fielding new
technologies are central to retaining our military advantage,
component experimentation should be integral to the standard
acquisition system. Components and their underlying
technologies should have a separate, dedicated path for
development, including a funding source that is not constrained
by large acquisition programs of record.
For ``platform acquisition,'' the deliberative
requirements, acquisition, and budget processes remain
critical. Major platforms represent substantial investments
that often remain in the arsenal for decades, so early concept
development should be strengthened to ensure programs are
started well. The Secretary of Defense should be responsible
for establishing early cost and fielding targets for platforms.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be responsible
for establishing requirements for joint warfare. The military
services should then be responsible for managing acquisition
programs in a transparent manner that enables adequate
oversight by the Secretary, the Chairman, and Congress. In the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92), Congress delegated additional acquisition decision
authority to the military services; the committee envisions
further delegation to the services once transparency has
improved. Towards that end, the committee is clarifying the
need for independent technical risk assessments and enhancing
acquisition transparency.
The committee also seeks to improve accountability for
acquisition outcomes. The committee intends that the military
services use component acquisition authorities to more rapidly
pace technological change and threats and to mature component
technologies outside of acquisition programs of record.
Acquisition programs for major platforms should only include
technology development that is not expected to delay deployment
of the platform. If technology is not sufficiently mature, then
the program should not be initiated and the technology should
be matured with separate research and development funds. The
military services should manage programs to comply with program
cost and schedule targets, as well as joint warfare
requirements. In turn, the Secretary should, in the event that
a program deviates from such targets and standards, use his
existing, substantial authorities to make changes within the
program and hold the service leadership accountable, rather
than rebuilding a redundant bureaucracy to manage the program.
The committee once again commends the Department of Defense
for recent efforts to improve the acquisition process, but
notes that reforming acquisition will be iterative and that
there is more work to be done. Agility can be further enhanced
by improving supporting processes, including contracting and
auditing processes, speeding testing, and further supporting
the acquisition workforce. The committee looks forward to
continuing to work with the Department on these and other
important matters.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Implementation of the Acquisition Agility Authorities
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes provisions
that are intended to improve the agility, effectiveness, and
accountability of the Department of Defense's acquisition
system. Key legislative provisions include expanding the use of
modular open system approaches in the design and development of
major defense acquisition programs, providing the Department
with more flexibility to prototype and rapidly deploy weapon
system components and other technologies, expanding delegation
of program management to the military services, and promoting
greater transparency throughout the acquisition process. The
committee recognizes that the Department will need to assess
and develop policies and procedures for how best to implement
several elements of this proposed legislation. Therefore, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with
the service secretaries, the Director of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives, not later than March 31, 2017,
on how the proposed legislation in this title will be
implemented. The briefing should address issues such as:
(1) How key terms that pertain to modular open system
approaches, such as a major system platform, major system
component, and major system interface, should be defined and
operationalized;
(2) How major system interfaces and standards will be
identified, developed, and sustained;
(3) How technical expertise and resources will be provided
to support a modular open systems approach in requirements
development and acquisition program planning;
(4) How prototyping and experimentation of major system
components and other technologies will be overseen by the
military services, including the identification and composition
of the prototype oversight boards, as well as the services'
procedures for selecting prototype projects; and
(5) How officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Joint
Staff, and other offices will maintain visibility, and have
access to relevant data, into the performance of major defense
acquisition programs when an official of a military service is
the milestone decision authority.
As part of the review, the committee directs the Under
Secretary to assess whether additional authorities are needed,
beyond those provided in this title and other existing
authorities, to facilitate development, prototyping, and
experimentation of technologies outside of acquisition programs
of record. The committee is concerned that too often the
Department starts major defense acquisition programs with
immature technologies that result in undesirable outcomes such
as cost growth and schedule delays. The committee wants to
ensure that there are appropriate opportunities and funding
mechanisms in the Department to fully mature and rapidly
demonstrate promising technologies that can enhance warfighting
capabilities without the need to commit prematurely to an
acquisition program.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1701--Modular Open System Approach in Development of Major
Weapon Systems
This section would require all major defense acquisition
programs (MDAPs) initiated after January 1, 2019, to be
designed and developed with a modular open system approach
(MOSA), to the maximum extent practicable. MOSA would be
defined, with respect to MDAPs, as an integrated business and
technical strategy that employs a modular design with major
system interfaces between a major system platform (such as a
ground vehicle, ship, or aircraft) and its major system
components (such as sensors or communication equipment) or
between major system components. Well-defined interfaces at the
shared boundaries between a platform and its components, or
between components, would allow components to be added,
removed, or replaced throughout the life cycle of a platform
system without having to redesign the entire weapon system.
Interfaces would be consistent with widely-supported and
consensus-based standards, unless such standards are
unavailable or unsuitable.
This section also would require MOSA to be addressed
throughout the requirements development and acquisition
processes for MDAPs. Performance requirements for weapon
systems would identify capabilities that would be expected to
evolve during the life cycle of the weapon system due to
evolving technology, threat, or interoperability needs. For
capabilities expected to evolve, the requirements process would
also identify the minimum acceptable capability needed for
initial fielding of the system. The acquisition process would
then ensure that MOSA is considered in analyses of alternative
weapon system solutions, the program acquisition strategy, and
solicitations to industry for the development or production of
the weapon system. Before approving system development, the
milestone decision authority would determine that MOSA with
clearly defined interfaces has been used in the acquisition
program or, if MOSA is not practicable, the basis for not
employing MOSA. Information on the use of MOSA would be
included with the first Selected Acquisition Report submitted
to the congressional defense committees, required under section
2432 of title 10, United States Code. The military services
would be responsible for coordinating the development and
maintenance of interfaces and standards, providing technical
expertise and support to program offices, and ensuring adequate
related training for requirements and acquisition personnel.
Section 1702--Development, Prototyping, and Deployment of Weapon System
Components or Technology
This section would require a major defense acquisition
program (MDAP) initiated after January 1, 2019, to include only
technical development that the milestone decision authority
determines, with a high degree of confidence, would not delay
fielding target for the program. Concurrent technology
maturation and systems development would remain authorized, but
only for technologies for which there is high confidence that
concurrency would not postpone fielding. For higher risk
technologies, the milestone decision authority would use the
new authorities provided in this section, or other available
authorities, to mature and demonstrate technologies prior to
initiating or separate from a program of record.
This section also would provide the military services with
new funding and acquisition flexibility to experiment with,
prototype, and rapidly deploy weapon system components and
other technologies. The committee has received testimony that
the current requirements development, budgeting, and
contracting processes in the Department of Defense preclude new
capabilities from being developed at a pace commensurate with
rapidly changing technologies and threats. To address this
issue, the services would allocate some advanced component
development and prototyping funds within the research,
development, test, and evaluation budget into capability,
weapon system component, or technology portfolios, rather than
specifying all funding for individual projects or acquisition
programs of record. The services would then be able to select
and fund prototyping projects during the year of execution
without waiting the 2-3 years required for the typical budget
process or initiation of a new program of record. The section
also would require each of the military services to establish
or identify a board to oversee this flexible funding,
comprising senior officials with expertise in requirements,
research and development, and acquisition. The boards would be
required to produce strategic plans every 3 years and annually
recommend specific prototype projects based on high priority
warfighter needs and emerging technologies. Further, the
section would require prototype projects to be selected through
a merit-based process, which would allow for subsequent
streamlined procurement contracting and special transfer
authority to fund the initial production for up to 2 years
until follow-on production funding can be obtained through the
regular budget process. Prototype projects and production
transfer authority initially would be limited to $50 million
for each project.
Section 1703--Cost, Schedule, and Performance of Major Defense
Acquisition Programs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, or his
designee, to assign program cost and fielding targets when
major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) are initiated.
Requiring the Secretary to establish such targets would ensure
that the Secretary retains a strategic role in optimizing
capability investment and resource allocation across the
Department of Defense. The establishment of such targets also
would ensure early coordination on programs among key
stakeholders, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the Joint Staff, and the military services. The targets would
promote early trade-offs among program cost, schedule, and
performance objectives to reduce the likelihood of subsequent
cost growth and schedule delays. They would also create key
metrics against which to hold accountable the services that are
executing acquisition programs. To further improve
accountability, the Chief of the military service responsible
for developing a program's requirements would determine that
such requirements are necessary and realistic before submission
to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council for approval. If a
program exceeds its targets, the milestone decision authority
would have to request relief from the Secretary before granting
Milestone B approval.
This section also would require that an independent
technical risk assessment be conducted by the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics prior to
program milestones decisions. Assessments at Milestone A would
identify critical technologies that need to be matured, while
assessments for later milestones identify the maturity levels
of such critical technologies.
This section would also expand delegation of acquisition
program management to the services, by directing that the
service acquisition executives be the milestone decision
authority for joint programs being initiated after October 1,
2019. Further delegation of program execution would reduce
redundant management structures and, when combined with
additional transparency and enforcement mechanisms established
elsewhere in this title, further hold the services accountable
for program outcomes.
Section 1704--Transparency in Major Defense Acquisition Programs
This section would require the milestone decision authority
for a major defense acquisition program to provide a new
``acquisition scorecard'' report to the congressional defense
committees and, when appropriate, to congressional intelligence
committees at each milestone decision point. The scorecards
would present key decision metrics, including the program's
cost and fielding targets, cost and schedule estimates, and
evaluations of technical risks. The scorecards would include
both military service and independent assessments, thereby
highlighting any differing views of programmatic, schedule, or
technical risks. Importantly, the decision metrics in the
scorecards would be extracted from reports and assessments
conducted for milestone decisions pursuant to other statute.
The committee therefore intends that scorecards will be short
(2-3 pages) summary documents produced with very limited data
collection or bureaucracy.
Section 1705--Amendments Relating to Technical Data Rights
This section would make several amendments to technical
data rights set forth in section 2320 of title 10, United
States Code. First, this section would delineate types of
interfaces and specify the rights provided to the U.S.
Government in such interfaces. The U.S. Government would have
government purpose rights in technical data related to a major
system interface developed either at private expense or with a
mix of Federal and private funds and used in a modular open
system approach (MOSA) required elsewhere in this title. This
section also would clarify that the U.S. Government has limited
rights to technical data pertaining to a general interface
between an item or process and other items or processes
developed exclusively at private expense. The U.S. Government
would have government purpose rights in the technical data of a
general interface developed with a mix of Federal and private
funds unless the Secretary of Defense determines that the
negotiation of different rights would be in the best interest
of the United States.
Second, this section would specify that the U.S. Government
has limited rights to the detailed manufacturing and process
data of major system components used in MOSA and developed
exclusively at private expense. Third, this section would
require the U.S. Government and Department of Defense
contractors to negotiate for data rights when items or
processes are developed with a mix of Federal and private
funds. Currently, the U.S. Government is entitled to government
purpose rights when items or processes are developed with mixed
funding unless the Secretary determines negotiated rights are
in the best interest of the United States. Finally, this
section would limit deferred ordering of technical data to 6
years after delivery of the last item on a contract and to
technical data generated, not utilized, in the performance of
the contract. Currently, the Department may require the
delivery of technical data generated or utilized in the
performance of a contract at any time after completion of the
contract. The committee expects the Department to develop its
sustainment strategies and plans for technical data earlier in
the acquisition process so it depends upon deferred ordering
less frequently.
The committee notes that the use of MOSA required elsewhere
in this title relies upon the ability of major system
components to be added, removed, or replaced as needed
throughout the life cycle of the major weapon system due to
evolving technology, threats, sustainment, and other factors.
Therefore, major system interfaces that share a boundary
between major system components and major system platforms are
critical, and it is imperative that the government have
appropriate access to the technical data of such interfaces. It
is the committee's intent that any contractor would be able to
develop a major system component that properly integrates into
and meets the form, fit, and function requirements of a weapon
system. The committee also intends that detailed technical data
internal to privately funded major system components remain
proprietary so that industry can protect the intellectual
property of their components. The committee understands the
importance of technical precision in the implementation of
MOSA, particularly with regard to establishing clear
delineation of major system platforms, major system interfaces,
and major system components. As such, the committee urges the
Department to carefully consider and take input from industry
on the meanings and implications of these key terms. The
committee expects the Department to include this consideration
in its review of the MOSA authorities and its briefing on the
implementation of MOSA required elsewhere in this report.
The committee notes that section 813 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) established a government-industry advisory panel to review
the rights in technical data conveyed in sections 2320 and 2321
of title 10, United States Code, and the regulations
implementing such sections. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to extend the duration of the panel and to provide
the panel's final report and the Secretary's recommendations to
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2017.
Additionally, the committee directs the panel to develop
recommendations for changes to sections 2320 and 2321 of title
10, United States Code, and the regulations implementing such
sections. In conducting its review, the committee directs the
panel to consider the appropriate technical data rights for the
U.S. Government and Department of Defense contractors to
support the modular open system approach required elsewhere in
this title.
TITLE XVIII--MATTERS RELATING TO SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Nonapplicability to Defense Production Act
The committee notes that nothing in this title shall be
construed to affect the operations of title III of the Defense
Production Act of 1950 (50a U.S.C. 2091) as in effect before
the enactment of this Act.
Review of Surety Bonds Required by Federal Contractors
Section 874 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) provided reforms to improve the quality and
availability of surety bonds required by Federal contractors.
Given these improvements, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to review the use of surety bonds
as they apply to Federal small business procurement contracts.
The review shall examine:
(1) How frequently bonding requirements are waived by
Federal agencies;
(2) The standards and processes for waiving the
requirements;
(3) The review processes for such waivers;
(4) Any difference in results between instances in which
requirements were or were not waived; and
(5) The whistleblower process when fraud related to surety
bonds is reported.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a final report to the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Committee of the Senate and the Small Business
Committee of the House of Representatives by June 30, 2017.
Review of the Office of Government Contracting and Business Development
of the Small Business Administration
The committee has heard concerns about inefficiencies,
duplication, and gaps in the Small Business Administration's
programs intended to ensure that small business prime
contractors are indeed small and qualify for the various
procurement programs from which they benefit. Furthermore,
numerous reforms to these programs enacted in the National
Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2013, 2014, 2015,
and 2016 have not been implemented in a timely fashion. The
committee, therefore, directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a comprehensive review of the
operations of the Office of Government Contracting and Business
Development at the Small Business Administration. The review
shall assess:
(1) The extent to which the personnel of the Small Business
Administration who carry out procurement and business
development programs report to the Office of Government
Contracting and Business Development;
(2) Whether greater efficiency and consistency in the
certification process of procurement and business development
programs could be achieved by creating a single organizational
unit of employees to process all certifications required by
procurement and business development programs;
(3) Whether greater efficiency and efficacy in the
performance of procurement and business development programs
could be achieved by improving the alignment of the field
personnel assigned to such programs;
(4) How the Office of Government Contracting and Business
Development could improve its staffing of regulatory drafting
functions and its coordination with the Federal Acquisition
Regulatory Council to ensure timely rulemaking by the Small
Business Administration; and
(5) Any other areas in which the Comptroller General
determines that the Small Business Administration could improve
its performance with respect to procurement and business
development programs.
The committee further directs that the Comptroller General
to provide a final report to the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Committee of the Senate and the Small Business
Committee of the House of Representatives by June 30, 2017. The
committee intends, for purposes of this report, the term
``procurement and business development program'' to mean a
program related to procurement or business development
established under section 7, 8, 15, 31, 36, 44, 45, or 46 of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631).
Small Business Subcontractor Transparency
Small businesses are an essential part of a healthy and
balanced defense industrial base. In October 2015, the Small
Business Administration proposed a rule (Federal Register
Document 2015-25234) to ensure tracking of small business
subcontractors at multiple tiers on contracts with individual
subcontracting plans, consistent with section 1614 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66). However, the rule does not appear to address the
lack of subcontracting transparency, nor how lower-tier small
business subcontractors will be counted towards agency
subcontracting goals. It is the intent of the committee that
any subcontractor tracking mechanisms created in conjunction
with section 1614 of Public Law 113-66 also be used to
facilitate the small-business scorecard program set forth in
section 868 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services and Small Business of the House of
Representatives, not later than March 1, 2017, on the status of
the actions required under section 1614(c) of Public Law 113-
66.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Improving Transparency and Clarity for Small Businesses
Section 1801--Plain Language Rewrite of Requirements for Small Business
Procurements
This section would amend section 15(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(a)) to revise existing statute
without changing its meaning. The revision would better
organize the section and would modernize terms consistent with
those in titles 10 and 41, United States Code. Since this
section would not change the meaning of the existing statute,
the committee notes it should not result in revisions to
regulations or policies.
Section 1802--Improving Reporting on Small Business Goals
This section would amend section 15(h) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(h)) to require the Small Business
Administration, using data already required to be collected
from contractors, to track companies that outgrow or no longer
qualify for a small business program, as well as identify how
prime contracting goals are met. The Small Business
Administration would provide this information in its annual
report, but only after relevant data systems have been modified
to facilitate data collection and reporting. The committee
expects the Office of Small Business Programs at the Department
of Defense to take a leadership role in ensuring that the
systems are appropriately modified.
Section 1803--Transparency in Small Business Goals
This section would amend section 15(h) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(h)) to require the Administrator of
the General Services Administration to issue an annual report
on the share of total contract value awarded to small
businesses. The annual report would not exclude any contracts
from the total contract value.
Section 1804--Uniformity in Procurement Terminology
This section would amend section 3(m) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632(m)) and section 15(j) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 644(j)) to update procurement terminology
consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and with
terminology used in titles 10 and 41, United States Code.
Subtitle B--Clarifying the Roles of Small Business Advocates
Section 1811--Scope of Review by Procurement Center Representatives
This section would amend section 15(l) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(l)) to reverse a regulatory change
made by the Small Business Administration during enactment of
the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-240) and to
ensure that procurement center representatives review
consolidated contracts or task orders that are fully or
partially set aside or reserved for small business. This
section would also authorize the Small Business Administrator
to limit reviews by procurement center representatives of
certain types of contracts, such as foreign military sales,
contingency operation contracts, or humanitarian operations,
unless the contracting agency requests such a review.
Section 1812--Responsibilities of Commercial Market Representatives
This section would amend section 4(h) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 633(h)), to provide a clear definition of the
duties and responsibilities of the commercial market
representatives employed by the Small Business Administration.
Responsibilities would include providing assistance to small
business concerns seeking subcontracting opportunities on
Federal contracts and assisting prime contractors with meeting
the subcontracting obligations found in section 8(d) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)).
Section 1813--Duties of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization
This section would amend section 15(k) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(k)) to revise the duties of the
Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Utilization in Federal
agencies. The offices would be authorized to provide assistance
to service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses and
participants in the Historically Underutilized Business Zone
program which are not included in the current list of small
business programs. The offices also would review annual
summaries of Government credit card purchases to ensure
compliance with the Small Business Act.
Section 1814--Improving Contractor Compliance
This section would amend sections 15 and 45 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644 and 15 U.S.C. 657r), and section
831(e)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510), to promote the availability of
existing programs that assist small contractors attempting to
comply with Federal regulations. The Small Business
Administration would develop a list of no-cost compliance
assistance programs for small contractors which would be
distributed through the Small Business Administration and
federal agency small-business offices to small contractors.
This section would also require that any mentor-protege
agreement approved by the Small Business Administration or the
Department of Defense address the provision of compliance
assistance to the protege firm.
Section 1815--Responsibilities of Business Opportunity Specialists
This section would amend section 4(g) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 633(g)) to add a job description and reporting
hierarchy for business opportunity specialists of the Small
Business Administration.
Subtitle C--Strengthening Opportunities for Competition in
Subcontracting
Section 1821--Good Faith in Subcontracting
This section would amend section 8(d) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) to improve compliance with
subcontracting requirements. This section would clarify that
failure to provide contractual documentation showing compliance
with a subcontracting plan is a material contract breach, just
as existing law states that failing to comply with a
subcontracting plan is a material breach. Offices of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization would be authorized to
review subcontracting plans, as is the current practice in the
Department of Defense. The Small Business Administration would
be required to provide examples of activities that would be
considered a failure to make a good-faith effort to comply with
a subcontracting plan.
Section 1822--Pilot Program To Provide Opportunities for Qualified
Subcontractors To Obtain Past Performance Ratings
This section would establish a 3-year pilot program in
which small, first-tier subcontractors could obtain past-
performance credit from the Small Business Administration. The
Small Business Administration would coordinate past-performance
requests with the relevant Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization and the prime contractor. If all parties
agree, the subcontractor would be assigned a favorable past-
performance rating; otherwise, the subcontractor would retain a
neutral performance rating. The Comptroller General of the
United States would be required to review the results of the
pilot program to assess whether it helped small subcontractors
transition to prime contracting.
Subtitle D--Mentor-Protege Programs
Section 1831--Amendments to the Mentor-Protege Program of the
Department of Defense
This section would amend section 831 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-
510), to require the Small Business Administration to determine
whether a prospective protege firm is affiliated with its
proposed mentor prior to approval of a mentor-protege
agreement. The same requirement would be removed from the
Department of Defense.
Section 1832--Improving Cooperation between the Mentor-Protege Programs
of the Small Business Administration and the Department of Defense
This section would amend section 45(b) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657r(b)) to require the Department of
Defense to obtain approval from the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration prior to carrying out a mentor-protege
program.
Subtitle E--Women's Business Programs
Section 1841--Office of Women's Business Ownership
This section would amend section 29(g) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(g)) to clarify the duties of the
Small Business Administration's Office of Women's Business
Ownership, and to require that the office establish an
accreditation program for its grant recipients.
Section 1842--Women's Business Center Program
This section would amend section 29 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 656), relating to the Women's Business Center
Program, to provide definitions of key terms relating to
eligibility, to adjust the statutory cap on grants and
requirement for matching funds by $0.035 million, to establish
a mechanism for use of unobligated grant funds at the end of
the fiscal year, and to improve oversight of grant recipients.
This section would also require longer term planning, provide
for continued authorization levels, and improve the application
process.
Section 1843--Matching Requirements Under Women's Business Center
Program
This section would amend section 29 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 656), relating to the Women's Business Center
Program, to limit the ability of the Administrator to waive the
requirement for matching funds by grant recipients, and to
provide that excess non-Federal dollars obtained by a grant
recipient will not be subject to part 200 of title 2, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any successor regulations.
Subtitle F--SCORE Program
Section 1851--SCORE Reauthorization
This section would amend section 20 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) to authorize the SCORE program through
fiscal year 2018, and to permit the current level of
appropriations to extend through that period.
Section 1852--SCORE Program
This section would amend sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(b)-(c)) to rename the Service
Corps of Retired Executives program, the ``SCORE'' program.
This section would provide definitions for terms used in the
SCORE program, require an annual report on the effectiveness of
the program, and direct the Small Business Administration to
establish standards protecting the information of entrepreneurs
counseled by SCORE. Finally, this section would direct SCORE to
utilize webinars and electronic mentoring as a way to increase
SCORE's presence, and to engage in longer term strategic
planning.
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Provisions
Section 1861--Improving Education on Small Business Regulations
This section would amend section 15 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 644) to require the Small Business
Administration to annually share a list of regulatory changes
affecting small-business contracting with entities responsible
for training acquisition personnel, such as the Federal
Acquisition Institute and the Defense Acquisition University,
and to entities providing technical assistance to small
contractors. This section would also require that the
applicable entities periodically update training materials.
Section 1862--Protecting Task Order Competition
This section would amend section 4106(f) of title 41,
United States Code, to maintain a consistent approach to task-
order protests between civilian and defense agencies. In
section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), the Government
Accountability Office was authorized to decide certain bid
protests until September 30, 2016. In section 830 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239), the September 30, 2016, sunset was repealed as it
applied to the Department of Defense. This section would repeal
the sunset as it applies to other Federal agencies.
Section 1863--Improvements to Size Standards for Small Agricultural
Producers
This section would amend section 18(b) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 647(b)) to revise the definition of an
agricultural enterprise. This section would also amend section
3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) to authorize
the Small Business Administration to establish different size
standards for various types of agricultural enterprises. Size
standards would be established according to the existing method
and appeals process by which the Small Business Administration
establishes other size standards.
Section 1864--Uniformity in Service-Disabled Veteran Definitions
This section would amend section 3(q) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632(q)) and section 8127 of title 38, United
States Code, to standardize definitions for veteran-owned small
businesses (VOSBs) and service-disabled veteran-owned small
businesses (SDVOSBs). This section would also require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use the regulations
established by the Small Business Administration for
establishing ownership and control of VOSBs and SDVOSBs. The
Secretary would continue to determine whether individuals are
veterans or service-disabled veterans and would be responsible
for verification of applicant firms. Challenges to the status
of a VOSB or SDVOSB based upon issues of ownership or control
would be decided by the administrative judges at the Office of
Hearings and Appeals of the Small Business Administration. The
committee notes this section would not affect the Department of
Defense.
Section 1865--Required Reports Pertaining to Capital Planning and
Investment Control
This section would require the Small Business
Administration to provide information regarding certain
Federal, major information technology investments to the Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee of the Senate and the
Small Business Committee of the House of Representatives.
Section 832 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) required that this information be provided by
Federal agencies to the Office of Management and Budget and be
made public.
Section 1866--Office of Hearings and Appeals
This section would amend sections 3(a) and 5(i) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a) and 15 U.S.C. 634(i)) to
clarify that the Office of Hearings and Appeals will not hear
appeals on programs not found in the Small Business Act. This
section also would allow a grace period for appeals that occur
before the Small Business Administration implements the
requirements of this section.
Section 1867--Issuance of Guidance on Small Business Matters
This section would require the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to issue guidance with respect to the
changes made to the Small Business Act made in this title.
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 2017. As recommended by the committee,
division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$7,827,591,000 for construction in support of the Active
Forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for
fiscal year 2017.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense requested $5,918,967,000 for
military construction, $205,237,000 for Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) activities, and $1,319,852,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends
authorization of appropriations of $6,445,050,000 for military
construction, $230,237,000 for BRAC activities, and
$1,276,289,000 for family housing in fiscal year 2017. The
Department of Defense also requested $134,040,000 for Overseas
Contingency Operations military construction for fiscal year
2017. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
of $133,591,000 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
2017.''
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, 2019, or the date of enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2020, 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, 2016, or the date of enactment of this Act,
whichever is later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $503,459,000 for Army military
construction and $526,730,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2017. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $572,959,000 for military construction and
$483,167,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2017.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for
several projects requested by the Department of the Army but
not contained in the budget request for military construction
and family housing. These increases include:
(1) $29.0 million for an Access Control Point at Fort
Gordon, Georgia. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee
recommends $29.0 million, an increase of $29.0 million, for
this project.
(2) $23.0 million for a Facility/Company Operations
Facility at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The committee notes that
this project was included on a list of unfunded project
requirements submitted by the Department of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends $23.0 million, an increase
of $23.0 million, for this project.
(3) $10.6 million for a Company Operations Facility
Tactical Equipment Maintenance at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The
committee notes that this project was included on a list of
unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of
the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends $10.6 million, an
increase of $10.6 million, for this project.
(4) $6.9 million for a Fire Station at Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri. The committee notes that this project was included on
a list of unfunded project requirements submitted by the
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends
$6.9 million, an increase of $6.9 million, for this project.
In addition, the committee notes that the budget request
for military construction and family housing includes $143.6
million for Family Housing New Construction at Camp Humphreys,
Republic of Korea. Furthermore, the committee is aware that
this is the first phase of proposed military family housing
construction at Camp Humphreys, with a $153.0 million second
phase planned for fiscal year 2019. Given the requirements that
have been established by the Commander of U.S. Forces Korea to
house command sponsored families on installation, and the
timeline for the relocation of U.S. Forces Korea and Eighth
Army to Camp Humphreys, the committee believes that combining
the two phases into a single project will better meet the
commander's requirements. In addition, the committee believes
that combining the two phases into a single project will result
in efficiencies in terms of the financial costs of the project
and the construction timeline. Therefore, the committee
recommends a total authorization of $297.0 million for Family
Housing New Construction at Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea.
However, the committee supports the authorization of
appropriations for fiscal year 2017 only in an amount
equivalent to the ability of the military department to execute
in the year of the authorization of appropriations. Therefore,
the committee recommends $100.0 million, a reduction of $43.6
million, for this project in fiscal year 2017.
Combat Aviation Hangar Sustainment
The committee is concerned that the Army's aging
maintenance hangars that support its combat aviation units have
not been sustained to the level necessary to meet minimal
operational requirements at the Combat Aviation Brigades. The
committee recognizes that there is a requirement for the Army
to develop an integrated combat aviation maintenance
infrastructure modernization plan to account for the
operational needs informed by future basing and the Aviation
Restructure Initiative. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1, 2017, on
the current condition of the Army's Combat Aviation hangar
infrastructure. At a minimum, the briefing should provide a
list of the locations and facilities where combat aviation
hangars have a facility index rating below 80, the required
cost and scope of work required to restore the facilities, and
the extent to which the degraded facilities pose a risk to
maintenance crews, a hazard to aircraft, and have an adverse
impact on military readiness.
Former Fitzsimons Army Medical Center
The committee is aware that the Fitzsimmons Army Medical
Center was closed as part of the 1995 Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) process. The committee is also aware that the
Department of the Army's transfer of land to the University of
Colorado for the purpose of building the Anschutz Medical
Campus is a successful outcome of BRAC that created thousands
of jobs and allowed the university and its hospital partners to
build a ``science city'' that contributes to the State's
economy, the health of its citizens, and the Nation's
biomedical research infrastructure. However, the committee is
aware that the Department of the Army and the Fitzsimmons
Redevelopment Authority are engaged in negotiations on a claim
over asbestos and other hazardous materials on the land
directly north of the medical campus, which has delayed further
development of the remaining property. The committee encourages
the Secretary of the Army to continue working with the
redevelopment authority with the goal of reaching a mutually
agreeable solution that is in the best interest of the U.S.
Government, protects the Department from future legal
liability, and allows communities to move forward with the
economic revitalization of this property. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later
than 30 days after completion of negotiations, on the terms of
the claim settlement and the timeline and resources required by
the Department to ensure continued revitalization of the
property.
Relocation of the Defense Non-Tactical Generator and Rail Equipment
Center
The Defense Non-Tactical Generator and Rail Equipment
Center (DGRC) is currently located at Hill Air Force Base,
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 agrees with the
Secretary of the Army's decision on August 28, 2015, to
relocate the DGRC. The committee notes that the two prior
congressional-directed studies completed by the Army highlight
a favorable business case for the Army to recapitalize the
center's facilities instead of renovating the existing complex.
The committee also notes that the Army Corps of Engineers
initiated an environmental assessment in January 2016 to study
four Army locations, to include Anniston Army Depot, Alabama;
McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma; Red River Army
Deport, Texas; and Tooele Army Depot, Utah. The committee
understands that the Army expects to complete this
environmental assessment in September 2016, with a final site
selection to be made in the second quarter of fiscal year 2017.
Upon completion of the required environmental assessment, the
committee encourages the Army to expedite its plan for
implementing the relocation. Finally, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide a decision to the House
Committee on Armed Services no later than July 31, 2016, on the
preferred alternative for the relocation of the DGRC, and a
briefing no later than March 1, 2017, on the estimated timeline
to complete the relocation, and the funding requirements,
infrastructure investments, and plan for implementing the DGRC
relocation.
Statue of Ulysses S. Grant at United States Military Academy
The committee notes that The Plain at the United States
Military Academy contains statues of several famous West Point
graduates, including Douglas MacArthur (class of 1903), George
Patton (class of 1909), and Dwight Eisenhower (class of 1915),
but does not include a statue of another consequential
graduate, Ulysses S. Grant (class of 1843). The committee
therefore encourages the Secretary of the Army to consider
placing a statue of Ulysses S. Grant at West Point in time for
the sesquicentennial of his inauguration as the 18th President
of the United States. The committee believes that funding for
any statue should come from non-Federal funds and include a
viable construction plan approved by the Superintendent of the
United States Military Academy.
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 2017. 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
2017.
Section 2103--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 2104--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) 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 2105--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) and previously extended in section 2107
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (division B of Public Law 114-92) until October 1, 2017,
or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later.
This section was included in the President's request.
Section 2106--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2014
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) until October 1, 2017, or the date of the
enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. This section was
included in the President's request.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,027,763 for Navy military
construction and $394,926,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2017. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $1,394,679,000 for military construction and
$394,926,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2017.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project
contained in the budget request submitted by the Department of
Navy for military construction and family housing.
Specifically, this reduction is:
(1) $6.2 million for an Energy Security Hospital Microgrid
at Naval Base San Diego (Balboa Hospital), California. The
committee notes that this project would only support the non-
essential facilities providing support functions for training
and that, in a loss of power, these facilities could be
supported by manually balancing the electrical load. Therefore,
the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $6.2 million,
for this project.
In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of
funding for several projects requested by the Department of the
Navy but not contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. These increases include:
(1) $79.4 million for an Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California. The committee
notes that this project was included on a list of unfunded
project requirements submitted by the Department of the Navy.
Furthermore, the committee notes that this project is an
emergent requirement due to the Department of the Navy's
decision to realign an F-35 carrier squadron to the West Coast
to support Pacific theater operational requirements. While the
committee supports the full authorization for the project in
the amount of $118.9 million, the committee only 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. Therefore, the committee
recommends $79.4 million, an increase of $79.4 million, for
this project.
(2) $73.0 million for a Seawolf Class Service Pier at
Bangor, Washington. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Navy. Therefore, the committee
recommends $73.0 million, an increase of $73.0 million, for
this project.
(3) $66.0 million for an Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plant at Naval Station Mayport, Florida. The committee notes
that this project was included on a list of unfunded project
requirements submitted by the Department of the Navy.
Therefore, the committee recommends $66.0 million, an increase
of $66.0 million, for this project.
(4) $53.0 million for an A-School Dormitory at Naval Air
Station Pensacola, Florida. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Navy. Therefore, the
committee recommends $53.0 million, an increase of $53.0
million, for this project.
(5) $40.0 million for an F-35 Aircraft Parking Apron at
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California. The committee
notes that this project was included on a list of unfunded
project requirements submitted by the Department of the Navy.
Furthermore, the committee notes that this project is an
emergent requirement due to the Department of the Navy's
decision to realign an F-35 carrier squadron to the West Coast
to support Pacific theater operational requirements. Therefore,
the committee recommends $40.0 million, an increase of $40.0
million, for this project.
(6) $34.7 million for a Communications Complex and
Infrastructure at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California.
The committee notes that this project was included on a list of
unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of
the Navy. Furthermore, the committee notes that this project is
an emergent requirement due to the Department of the Navy's
decision to realign an F-35 carrier squadron to the West Coast
to support Pacific theater operational requirements. Therefore,
the committee recommends $34.7 million, an increase of $34.7
million, for this project.
(7) $27.0 million for a Chamber Field Magazine
Recapitalization Phase 1 at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia.
The committee notes that this project was included on a list of
unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of
the Navy. Therefore, the committee recommends $27.0 million, an
increase of $27.0 million, for this project.
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 detecting,
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 $3.5 million related to coconut rhinoceros beetle
response in Guam and Hawaii, and projects to contribute an
additional $2.4 million in fiscal year 2016 based on detection
and identified response requirements. In addition, other
Federal, State, and local agencies have contributed resources
in support of the response. The committee encourages the
Department of the Navy to continue supporting efforts to
detect, monitor, control, and, to the extent practicable,
eradicate coconut rhinoceros beetle populations.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training
The committee is aware of a proposal to increase joint
military training capabilities on the islands of Tinian and
Pagan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands by
developing additional live-fire ranges, training courses, and
maneuver areas. This effort, led by the U.S. Marine Corps, is
intended to address currently unfilled joint military training
requirements in the Western Pacific. The committee is
supportive of this initiative and believes it is critical to
support training capabilities in the western Pacific that build
and sustain military readiness.
The committee is aware, however, that concerns have been
voiced about how this proposed initiative will be implemented,
as well as about potential impacts on the environment,
including specifically cultural and historic sites on the
islands. The committee notes that, following an in-depth review
of nearly 30,000 public comments received on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement released on April 3, 2015, it
was announced that a Revised Drafted Environmental Impact
Statement would be developed and is expected to be released in
2017. The committee believes it is important for the U.S.
Marine Corps to use the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process to fully address the comments received from
government officials of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands and the public regarding this proposed action.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than 30 days after publishing the Final Revised
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), on the outcome of the
FEIS. At minimum, the briefing should explain the preferred
course of action for the development of training capabilities
on the islands of Tinian and Pagan, concerns that were raised
through the NEPA process, and the proposed actions to mitigate
the concerns that were raised through the NEPA process.
Implementation of Guam Munitions and Explosives of Concern Clearance
Policy
The committee is aware that the Territory of Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands have World War II
era Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Munitions and Explosives of
Concern (MEC) distributed across the islands. The committee
notes that the current Explosive Safety Submission for Guam and
the Northern Marianas Islands was approved in June 2010, and
amendment six was approved in June 2015. Due to the potential
military construction cost and schedule increases associated
with compliance with the amended Explosive Safety Submission,
and after further analysis of the safety and construction
requirements, the Chief of Naval Operations issued an Explosive
Safety Exemption in March 2016 for construction projects in
Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands related to the Defense
Policy Review Initiative and realignment of U.S. Marines. The
committee notes that this exemption will be reviewed every 6
months, as conditions on the ground are reassessed as MEC
clearance and construction efforts progress.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide briefings to the House Committee on Armed Services
upon completion of the reassessments that occur at 6 months and
12 months, respectively, after issuing the March 2016
exemption. At minimum, the briefings should address: any
amendments to Explosive Safety Submission or changes to the
Explosive Safety Exemption; the rational for those amendments
or changes; and the impact such amendments or changes may have
to the cost or schedule of construction projects in Guam and
the Northern Marianas Islands. In addition, the briefings
should include an update on technology demonstrations as well
as other procedural or policy modifications that may be under
consideration to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
UXO and MEC clearance in Guam and the Northern Marianas
Islands.
Infrastructure Requirements To Support Marine Rotational Force--Darwin
The committee notes that the U.S. Marine Corps Distributed
Laydown includes plans to deploy 2,500 Marines to Darwin,
Commonwealth of Australia, and northern Australia to conduct
exercises and training on a 6-month rotational basis. The
committee further notes that plans to rotate U.S. Marines to
Darwin were first announced in November 2011, and that the
first iteration of Marine Rotational Force--Darwin (MRF-D)
deployed in 2012. The committee supports these rotations and
believes the training and exercises conducted by the MRF-D has
helped to increase military readiness and develop valuable
partnerships with the Australian Defense Forces and other
partner nations. However, the committee is concerned that the
U.S. Marine Corps has yet to initiate planning and design for
known infrastructure requirements to support the full
complement of 2,500 Marines or programmed these requirements in
the Future Years Defense Program. Of note, the committee is
aware that the U.S. Air Force initiated design of an aircraft
parking apron at Royal Australian Air Force Base Darwin and
requested authorization for the construction of this aircraft
parking apron in the fiscal year 2017 budget request. The
committee is also aware that the U.S. Marine Corps has
identified a requirement for an aircraft parking apron that
would be located adjacent to the proposed U.S. Air Force
parking apron. The committee believes there are financial and
engineering benefits from designing the two aircraft parking
aprons together and expects the U.S. Marine Corps to work with
the U.S. Air Force on a collaborative design effort to meet the
aircraft parking apron requirement.
In light of these concerns, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1, 2017, on
the status of the development of, and planning and programming
for, the infrastructure requirements that will be necessary to
support 2,500 Marines and their equipment in Darwin and the
northern Australia training areas. At minimum the briefing
should include a detailed plan for the infrastructure
requirements necessary to support the MRF-D, the estimated
cost, scope, and timeline for the required infrastructure
investments, and the details of any cost-sharing arrangement
with the Government of Australia for the infrastructure
investments or other support for the MRF-D.
Port of Virginia Channel
The committee is aware that the Port of Virginia
anticipates increasing cargo traffic utilizing the shipping
channel, to include larger ``Post-Panamax'' container ships.
These larger ships and the increased number of commercial users
of the port adjacent to the naval station could complicate the
movement of Navy ships that also use the channel. These larger
ships also require anchorage in deepwater areas that are
currently used for military training and exercises. The
committee understands that the Port of Virginia is pursuing the
possibility of working with Naval Station Norfolk to widen the
channel and dredge new deepwater anchorages. The committee
encourages the Navy to work with the Port of Virginia on this
important issue. The committee further encourages the Secretary
of the Navy to keep Congress updated on the changes in
commercial traffic volume and patterns at the Port of Virginia,
as well as the potential impact on the Navy's operations.
Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility
In January 2014, the U.S. Navy detected the release of an
estimated 27,000 gallons of JP-8 jet fuel from an underground
storage tank located at the Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility in
Hawaii. The committee notes that there are three wells within a
1.4 mile radius of the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility: a
Navy well in addition to the Halawa shaft and the Moanalu well,
both of which are operated by the Honolulu Board of Water
Supply. In response to the fuel release, the U.S. Navy, Defense
Logistics Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Hawaii Department of Health negotiated an enforceable order,
known as an Administrative Order on Consent, which was signed
in September 2015. As part of the order, the committee notes
that the Navy committed to further updates of its existing
Ground Water Protection Plan, to include the installation of
additional monitoring wells as needed and establishing response
procedures in the event that contamination originating from the
facility is found in any drinking water well. The U.S. Navy and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confirm that drinking
water remains in compliance with federal and state standards.
As the U.S. Navy and Defense Logistics Agency continue to
execute the Ground Water Protection Plan, the committee
encourages close coordination and consultation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the Hawaii Department of
Health, and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply regarding the
presence of fuel constituents detected in monitoring efforts
and the potential effects of those fuel constituents on human
health.
Further, the committee notes that in accordance with the
Administrative Order on Consent, the U.S. Navy and Defense
Logistics Agency have undertaken a study to identify and
evaluate various tank upgrade alternatives to determine the
best available practicable technology, as approved by the
Hawaii Department of Health and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, to ensure the continued safe operation of
the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility and prevent future fuel
leaks into the environment. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Director of
the Defense Logistics Agency and the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than 30 days after
the regulatory agencies' approval of the completion of the Tank
Upgrade Alternative decision document for application, of the
best available practicable technology or technologies that will
be used in the Red Hill Bulk Underground Fuel Storage Facility
upgrade. The briefing should address the process for collecting
proposals for the review of available technologies, the
specific technologies that were evaluated, the reasons the
technology or technologies have been selected, and, to the
extent available, the estimated costs, scope of work, and
construction timelines associated with each alternative. In
addition, the briefing should compare the costs of implementing
the technology or technologies that have been selected with the
cost of the replacement or relocation of the existing storage
tanks. Finally, the briefing should address any updates to
Ground Water Protection Plan, as well as the latest data
available from ground water monitoring and how any detected
levels of fuel constituents relate to state and Federal
standards.
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 2017. 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 2017.
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 2017.
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--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) and authorize the
Secretary of the Navy to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project. 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, 2017, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2018, whichever is later. This section was included in the
President's request.
Section 2207--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2014
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed, and
originally included in section 2201 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66), until October 1, 2017, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2208--Status of ``Net Negative'' Policy Regarding Navy Acreage
on Guam
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act
regarding the status of the implementation of the ``Net
Negative'' policy regarding the total number of acres of real
property controlled by the Department of the Navy on the
Territory of Guam.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,481,058,000 for Air Force
military construction and $335,781,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $1,502,723,000 for military construction and
$335,781,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2017.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for several
projects contained in the budget request submitted by the
Department of the Air Force for military construction and
family housing. These reductions include:
(1) $82.3 million for an F-35A Aircraft Weather Shelter
(Squadron #2) at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. The committee
supports the decision made by the Air Force through its
strategic basing process to base two squadrons of F-35As at
Eielson Air Force Base. However, the committee is concerned
about the Air Force's ability and capacity to execute the
number of new military construction projects included in the
budget request, especially given limited construction time
periods. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a
reduction of $82.3 million, for this project.
(2) $53.1 million for the Joint Intelligence Analysis
Complex Consolidation, Phase 3 at Royal Air Force Base
Croughton, United Kingdom. The committee notes that the
Department of the Air Force has yet to obligate funding for the
second phase of the project, which was authorized in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92). In addition, the committee notes that the
Comptroller General of the United States has yet to submit a
report reviewing the Department of Defense's construction and
life-cycle cost estimating in their analysis of alternatives
related to the basing decision for the complex. Therefore, the
committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $53.1 million,
for this project.
In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of
funding for several projects requested by the Department of the
Air Force but not contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. These increases include:
(1) $50.0 million for a Consolidated Communications Center
at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the
committee recommends $50.0 million, an increase of $50.0
million, for this project.
(2) $26.0 million for an E-3G Mission and Flight Simulator
Training Facility at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. The
committee notes that this project was included on a list of
unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of
the Air Force. Therefore, the committee recommends $26.0
million, an increase of $26.0 million, for this project.
(3) $17.0 million for Fire and Rescue Station at Joint Base
Charleston, South Carolina. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the
committee recommends $17.0 million, an increase of $17.0
million, for this project.
(4) $10.9 million for a Vandenberg Gate Complex at Hanscom
Air Force Base, Massachusetts. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the
committee recommends $10.9 million, an increase of $10.9
million, for this project.
Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft 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. The committee is supportive of the
Air Force's strategic basing process and believes that it
provides a thorough, consistent, and transparent process for
basing decisions. With respect to basing decisions for remotely
piloted aircraft (RPA), the committee believes that the Air
Force 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. Further, the committee is
supportive of basing criteria that leverage available Air Force
infrastructure and existing quality of life and base support
facilities, and pairs RPA units with related missions.
Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization
The committee recognizes the vital 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 with the condition of Lincoln Laboratory's facilities
at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, and expressed support
for efforts to recapitalize these important facilities. The
committee is aware that the Air Force intends to obligate up to
$40.0 million in fiscal year 2017 for the planning and design
of two military construction projects to support the
recapitalization of facilities to support Lincoln Laboratory.
The committee notes that the Future Year Defense Program
submitted with the budget request for fiscal year 2017 included
the first construction project, the Advanced Microelectronics
Integration Facility at a cost of $225.0 million, currently
programmed for fiscal year 2019. The committee commends the
Secretary of the Air Force for programming these investments
and for committing to the recapitalization of the facilities
and Lincoln Laboratory. The committee supports these important
recapitalization efforts in order to keep the Department of
Defense and the military services at the cutting edge of
technology.
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 2017. 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 2017.
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 2017.
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 2016 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 (division B of Public Law 114-92) 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 2306--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), and previously extended by section 2309
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92), until October 1, 2017, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2307--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2014
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed,
originally provided by section 2301 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66), until October 1, 2017, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2308--Restriction on Acquisition of Property in Northern
Mariana Islands
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force
from using any of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to
acquire property or interests in property at an unspecified
location in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
until the congressional defense committees have received a
report from the Secretary that provides the specific location
of the property or interest in property to be acquired, the
total cost, scope and location of military construction
projects for divert activities and exercises at the location,
and an analysis of any alternative locations considered,
including other locations or interests within the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands or the Freely Associated
States.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $2,056,091,000 for defense
agency military construction and $62,415,000 for family housing
for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $1,929,643,000 for military construction and
$62,415,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2017.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for several
projects contained in the budget request submitted by the
Department of Defense for military construction and family
housing. These reductions include:
(1) $55.0 million for the Longer Range Discrimination Radar
System Complex, Phase 1, at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska.
The budget request included $155.0 million to construct a
complex supporting missile defense command and control
components to defend the United States from ballistic missile
attacks. 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 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 2017.
Therefore, the committee recommends $100.0 million, a reduction
of $55.0 million, for this project.
(2) $50.0 million for the NSAW Recapitalize Building #2,
Increment 2 at Fort Meade, Maryland. The budget request
included $195.0 million to support a new operations facility.
The committee supports the requirement for this project, but
only supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount
equivalent to the ability of the 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
2017. Therefore, the committee recommends $145.0 million, a
reduction of $50.0 million, for this project.
(3) $35.6 million for the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency (NGA) Military Construction Planning and Design
activities. The budget request included $71.6 million for the
planning and design of military construction projects, to
include the Next NGA West Campus. The committee is concerned
that the site selection for the new campus has not occurred and
that the requirements and scope for the construction of the new
campus have yet to be well defined. Therefore, the committee
recommends $36.0 million, a reduction of $35.6 million, for
this project.
(4) $0.8 million for the Land Acquisition for Next NGA West
Campus, St. Louis, Missouri. The budget request included $0.8
million to purchase a 182-acre land parcel in the Greater St.
Louis Metropolitan Area to allow the construction of the Next
NGA West campus. The committee is concerned that the budget
request does not account for the actual cost of the land due to
the fact that the site selection has yet to occur. The
committee also believes that it would be more appropriate for
the required land acquisition to be included in the request for
authorization of the full scope of the military construction
required for the Next NGA West campus. Therefore, the committee
recommends no funds, a reduction of $0.8 million, for this
project.
In addition, the committee recommends an increase of
funding for a project not contained in the budget request for
military construction and family housing. Specifically, this
increase is:
(1) $15.0 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
$15.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million, for this project.
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 2017. 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 $3,000,000 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 $3,000,000.
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 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
was included in the President's request.
Section 2405--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), and subsequently amended by section
2406 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), until October 1, 2017, or the
date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2406--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2014
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed,
originally authorized by section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66), until October 1, 2017, or the date of
enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction
for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. This section was
included in the President's request.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $177,932,000 for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP)
for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $177,932,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2017.
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 $672,664,000 for military
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for
fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $867,114,000 for military construction for
fiscal year 2017.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for
several projects requested by the Department of the Army for
the Army Reserve that were not contained in the budget request
for military construction and family housing. These increases
include:
(1) $30.0 million for an Army Reserve Center in Phoenix,
Arizona. The committee notes that this project was included on
a list of unfunded project requirements submitted by the
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends
$30.0 million, an increase of $30.0 million, for this project.
(2) $29.0 million for an Equipment Concentration Site in
Barstow, California. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee
recommends $29.0 million, an increase of $29.0 million, for
this project.
(3) $27.5 million for an Army Reserve Center at Joint Base
Lewis-McChord, Washington. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the
committee recommends $27.5 million, an increase of $27.5
million, for this project.
In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of
funding for several projects requested by the Department of the
Army for the Army National Guard that were not contained in the
budget request for military construction and family housing.
These increases include:
(1) $31.0 million for a General Instruction Building at
Camp Guernsey, Wyoming. The committee notes that this project
was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the
committee recommends $31.0 million, an increase of $31.0
million, for this project.
(2) $20.0 million for an Access Control Point at Fort
Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the
committee recommends $20.0 million, an increase of $20.0
million, for this project.
(3) $16.5 million for a National Guard Readiness Center at
Fort Carson, Colorado. The committee notes that this project
was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the
committee recommends $16.5 million, an increase of $16.5
million, for this project.
In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of
funding for several projects requested by the Department of the
Air Force for the Air Force Reserves that were not contained in
the budget request for military construction and family
housing. These increases include:
(1) $9.2 million for an Indoor Small Arms Range at Westover
Air Force Reserve Base, Massachusetts. The committee notes that
this project was included on a list of unfunded project
requirements submitted by the Department of the Air Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends $9.2 million, an increase
of $9.2 million, for this project.
(2) $5.2 million for a Reserve Medical Training Facility at
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the
committee recommends $5.2 million, an increase of $5.2 million,
for this project.
(3) $3.1 million for ADAL Life Support Facility at Hill Air
Force Base, Utah. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the committee
recommends $3.1 million, an increase of $3.1 million, for this
project.
Finally, the committee recommends the inclusion of funding
for several projects requested by the Department of the Air
Force for the Air National Guard that were not contained in the
budget request for military construction and family housing.
These increases include:
(1) $6.0 million for an Indoor Small Arms Range at Toledo
Express Airport, Ohio. The committee notes that this project
was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the
committee recommends $6.0 million, an increase of $6.0 million,
for this project.
(2) $5.0 million for a Control Facility at Joint Base
Andrews, Maryland. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the committee
recommends $5.0 million, an increase of $5.0 million, for this
project.
(3) $12.0 million for unspecified minor military
construction at unspecified worldwide locations. The budget
request included $17.5 million for unspecified minor military
construction at unspecified worldwide locations. The committee
notes that additional funding for unspecified minor military
construction was included on a list of unfunded project
requirements submitted by the Department of the Air Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends $29.5 million, an increase
of $12.0 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 2017. 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 2017. 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 2017. 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 2017. 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 2017. 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 of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) to 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 2612--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2603 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (division B of Public Law 113-291) to 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 2613--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2016 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 (division B of Public Law 114-92) to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project.
Section 2614--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2013
Project
This section would extend the authorization listed,
originally provided by section 2603 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239) and extended by section 2614 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(division B of Public Law 114-92) until October 1, 2017, or the
date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2615--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2014
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations listed,
originally provided by sections 2602, 2603, 2604, and 2605 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) until October 1, 2017,
or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later.
This section was included in the President's request.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $205,237,000 for activities
related to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities. The
committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$230,237,000 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 2019.
This section also clarifies that this prohibition does not
affect the authority of the Secretary of Defense to comply with
any requirement under law, or with any request of a
congressional defense committee, to conduct an analysis, study,
or report of the infrastructure needs of the Department of
Defense.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam
The committee is aware that aqueous film-forming foam
(AFFF), a synthetic foam to extinguish flammable liquid fuel
fires, was developed in the mid-1960s. Since then, it has been
used in both military and civilian firefighting operations.
However, the committee is aware that AFFF contains
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and that the Federal
regulatory agency issued in 2009 a Provisional Health Advisory
covering perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) in drinking water. Furthermore, the committee
is aware that the Department of Defense has sponsored a number
of projects seeking to develop a better understanding of
occurrences, potential remedial treatment, and toxicological
effects of PFOA and PFOS. This includes two projects recently
selected under the Department of Defense's Environmental
Security Technology Certification Program regarding PFOAs and
PFOSs that occur at military sites as well as how they can be
reliably measured in the environment. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services, no later than March 1, 2017,
regarding the Department's efforts and initiatives in response
to PFOAs and PFOSs. Specifically, the briefing should address:
the Department's current policies regarding PFOA and PFAS; the
programmatic approach being taken by the Department of Defense
to identify, investigate, and respond to the presence of PFOA
and PFAS at military installations; and the programmatic
approach to the removal and replacement of PFOAs and PFOSs in
AFFF firefighting foam.
Concept of Operations for Military Environmental Control Units
The committee is aware that a significant amount of fuel
used at forward operating bases is consumed by environmental
control units (ECUs). These ECUs are mostly used to
simultaneously keep service members and major electronic
systems cool in austere environments. Separately cooling
service members and electronics may have the potential to
achieve higher energy efficiency and lower costs. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than February 1, 2017, that details testing accomplished or
planned to evaluate the potential efficiency and lower costs
that may be obtained using a distributed cooling concept of
operations versus legacy approaches. The briefing should
specifically include a discussion of the potential benefits and
savings possible using enclosed-sized ECU units and systems for
equipment cooling, and should compare the size, weight, power,
purchase, and overall operational costs of employing these
units versus legacy expeditionary ECUs. In addition, the
briefing should address the Department of Defense's
organizations engaged in this testing and the organization
designated as the office of primary responsibility.
Condition of Military Airfield Infrastructure
The committee believes that the military departments'
airfields are crucial enablers of rapid mobility and power
projection of the U.S. Armed Forces. The committee recognizes
that the military departments have consistently taken risk in
infrastructure investments over the past decade, due to budget
reductions, and redirected funds from facility sustainment,
restoration, and modernization to other budget priorities. The
committee is concerned that the risk assumed in infrastructure
investments has resulted in the deterioration of runways,
taxiway pavements, parking ramps, and aircraft hydrant fueling
systems that may pose a safety risk to aircrews, a hazard to
aircraft, and have an adverse impact on military operations and
training. The committee believes that when prioritizing
investments in airfield infrastructure, priority should be
given to addressing infrastructure in the worst condition that
directly supports military operations and training. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than February 1, 2017, on the current condition of military
airfield infrastructure. At a minimum, the briefing should
provide a list of the locations where the airfield
infrastructure has a facility index rating below 80, the
required cost and scope of work required to restore the
locations with degraded airfield infrastructure, and the extent
to which the degraded airfield infrastructure poses a risk to
aircrews, a hazard to aircraft, and has an adverse impact on
military operations and training.
Consultation With Federally-Recognized Indian Tribes
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
issued Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4710.02 on
September 14, 2006. This instruction implements policy, assigns
responsibilities, and provides procedures for the Department of
Defense's interactions with Federally-recognized Tribes. The
committee believes that DODI 4710.02, when followed, provides a
consistent and responsive framework for interacting with
Federally-recognized Tribes on issues such as construction,
training, over-flights, access to sacred sites and treaty-
reserved resources, and management of religious and culturally
significant sites. Unfortunately, the committee is concerned
that the Department of Defense may not be complying with their
own instruction and requirements for consultations with
Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretaries of the military departments, to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than March
1, 2017, that addresses compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, and instructions regarding interactions with
Federally-recognized Tribes. In addition, the briefing shall
identify what actions could be taken, consistent with DODI
4710.02, to ensure that timely notice and appropriate
consultation with tribes occurs prior to taking any actions
that may have the potential to significantly affect protected
tribal resources, treaty rights, or Indian lands protected by a
statute, regulation, or executive order.
Contract Management of Problem Construction Projects
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
maintains more than 560,000 facilities valued at nearly $880.00
billion. The Department invests in its infrastructure by using
military construction to replace failing facilities and to
construct new facilities to support new requirements. The
Department uses facilities sustainment, restoration, and
modernization (FSRM) to maintain existing facilities in good
order, restore facilities whose age is excessive or has been
damaged, and alters facilities to implement new or higher
standards to accommodate new functions or missions. Given the
scope of the Department's real property inventory, and the
annual investments made in facilities, the committee notes that
the majority of work on facilities is accomplished through
contracts. The committee notes that there are some examples
where projects may not have met construction quality standards
or where a contractor defaulted on a project before the project
could be completed. The committee is concerned that issues with
construction quality and performance may have an adverse
financial impact on the Department. The committee believes it
is important for the Department of Defense to have a robust,
cross-service plan for contract management and, when
appropriate, recovering funds used for failed or failing
construction contracts or projects that did not meet
construction quality standards.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with each of the military services, to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later
than February 1, 2017, on the Department's policy for
recovering funds from projects where quality standards were not
met, a recent history on failed projects, terminated contracts
and significant facilities with quality problems that occurred
after beneficial occupancy, and the actions that the Department
has taken on these projects to recover funding. Further, the
briefing should identify the offices of primary responsibility
and describe their levels of authority for recovering funds
from failed projects or projects where the contractor has not
meet quality standards, and how these offices share lessons
learned. Finally, the briefing should address how the
Department identifies and ensures poor performing contractors
are kept from receiving future Government work.
Facility Industrial Control Systems
The committee is aware that Department of Defense
facilities increasingly incorporate industrial control systems
integrated into systems and equipment such as air conditioners,
utility meters, and other programmable controllers. While these
systems have the potential to improve facility energy
management and reduce personnel and operating costs, the higher
connectivity of these systems brings an increased threat from,
and vulnerability to, cyberattacks. The committee is aware that
the Department of Defense has undertaken a number of
initiatives to implement and promote secure procedures, adopt
best government practices, and revise Department of Defense
Unified Facility Criteria and Unified Facility Guide
Specifications to address the cybersecurity vulnerabilities of
industrial control systems. The committee encourages the
facilities and installations community to continue these
initiatives to mitigate the identified security risks to
Department of Defense facilities. The committee also recognizes
this as a growing area of concern, and encourages the
Department's cybersecurity community to look more closely at
these classes of vulnerabilities and how to modify tactics,
techniques, and procedures to better position the cyber mission
forces to deal with new and emerging threats proactively.
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 the
Department provided a briefing to the committee on March 10,
2016, in compliance with a directive in the committee report
(H. Rept. 114-102) to accompany the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. The briefing
highlighted the implementation status of the updates to the
Federal Acquisition Regulation that implemented the 2015
amendments to section 2305a, title 10, United States Code. The
briefing addressed the number of design-build contracts
exceeding $4.0 million awarded in fiscal year 2015 where more
than five firms were advanced to step two, and all one-step
design-build contracts awarded in fiscal year 2015. The
committee will continue to closely monitor how these changes
have affected the design, engineering, and construction
industry and the Department's ability to award construction
projects under this authority.
Innovative Construction Materials and Design Process for Military
Engineering in Cold Regions
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
may face challenges to operating in the Arctic, sub-Arctic, and
other extreme cold environments, should the need for operations
arise. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
developing an implementation plan for the National Strategy for
the Arctic Region. The committee notes that the implementation
of the plan may entail engineering challenges such as ability
to construct, maintain, and retrofit horizontal and vertical
infrastructure in cold regions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to perform an assessment of advanced adaptive construction
techniques and innovative materials needed to address the
challenges of changing physical environments which will enable
the Department of Defense to rapidly project force in austere
cold regions. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, no
later than March 1, 2017, on the results of the assessment and
the requirements for adaptive construction techniques and
innovative materials for extreme cold environments.
Installation Access for Ride Sharing Services
The committee is aware that ride sharing services have
increased in popularity in recent years. However, the committee
notes that the Department of Defense has not issued guidance or
policies regarding ride sharing services and their access to
military installations. The committee remains concerned about
the security of military installations and agrees with the
Department's determination that drivers and occupants of ride
sharing vehicles who do not have an authorized identification
card or facility or installation physical access pass would be
treated no differently than other visitors. Such individuals
should be required to clear visitor control and screening
protocols at each installation as directed by the Department of
Defense and military department's policies for visitors to
military installations or facilities. However, the committee
believes more clear guidance from the Department of Defense may
be necessary to assist installation commanders in their efforts
to balance installation security and accommodate ride sharing
services for the benefit of military personnel and civilians on
their installations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services, not later than February 1, 2017,
that outlines the rationale behind the decision to not provide
new or updated guidance or policies regarding ride sharing
services, details of the existing installation commander
authorities to accommodate ride sharing services at Department
of Defense installations and facilities, and explains the level
of engagement the Department has had with the ride sharing
service industry and the options discussed with the industry to
aid in more consistent access procedures across all defense
installations.
Live-Fire Small Arms Training Ranges
The committee is aware that U.S. military live-fire small
arms training ranges, particularly those in the Pacific, face
complicated operational safety and environmental concerns.
Hazards, such as bullet ricochets and toxins from bullets and
projectiles leeching into the natural water system, can have an
environmental, safety, and economic impact on the local
communities near these ranges. The committee is aware that
there are commercially available technologies for live-fire
small arms ranges that may provide a safer, more
environmentally sound alternative to ensure the collection of
spent bullets and other projectiles. The committee believes the
implementation of such technologies could reduce operations and
maintenance costs for the U.S. military and future
environmental remediation costs of the ranges. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess available
technologies and designs that can be incorporated into live-
fire small arms training ranges and to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1,
2017. The briefing shall address the technologies and designs
assessed, how these technologies and designs may enhance range
safety and mitigate adverse impacts to the environment, and the
feasibility of incorporating these technologies and designs
into live-fire small arms range construction.
Military Construction for Military Intelligence Facilities
The committee notes that a number of defense-wide agencies
and branches of the military departments are members of the
Intelligence Community and provide vital support to military
operations. The committee strongly supports the work the men
and women of the intelligence community do on a daily basis and
recognizes the unique infrastructure requirements they have to
support their mission. To that end, the committee notes that
both title 10, United States Code and title 50, United States
Code, provide construction authorities for members of the
Intelligence Community, but there have been inconsistencies on
funding construction requirements through the military
construction program or the military intelligence program. The
committee is concerned that insufficient policy and guidance is
available to the military departments responsible for planning,
programming and executing construction on military
installations in support of members of the Intelligence
Community. Further, the committee is concerned that existing
policy and guidance may not ensure consistent use of
authorities or program funding across the Department of
Defense.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in
coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, to provide a briefing not later than December 1,
2016, to the House Committee on Armed Services, the House
Committee on Appropriations, and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, that outlines the current policies
regarding the construction of military intelligence facilities,
the Department's processes for determining, validating and
prioritizing military intelligence facility projects, and the
project programming guidance available to the military
departments for determining the appropriate funding program for
each project. In addition, the briefing should include a
specific discussion on the use of military intelligence program
funding for military construction, to include the benefits and
impacts of restricting any military intelligence construction
to this program, as well as the requirement for construction
projects to be specifically authorized in law. Finally, the
briefing should include a discussion on the existing statutory
authorities used for the execution and management of military
construction for military intelligence facilities.
Military Housing Privatization Initiative
The committee notes that the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative (MHPI) has privatized more than 200,000 military
homes since the program's inception in 1996. The program has
helped significantly reduce the amount of inadequate on-base
housing and has contributed to the quality of life for military
families. The committee notes that each military department
negotiated their own MPHI agreements with private developers on
a project-by-project basis and, in most cases, the rental rates
for MHPI housing are tied to a service member's Basic Allows
for Housing (BAH) rate. The committee notes that recent changes
to BAH, as well as changes to military force structure, may
impact the viability of MHPI projects and the ability to
adequately sustain and recapitalize housing units.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has yet
to issue policy or guidance to the military departments or the
MHPI partners on how it plans to mitigate these impacts on MHPI
projects. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than September 30, 2016, on its plan to
maintain the viability of the MHPI program. At minimum, the
briefing should include a discussion of the Department's plan
and the alternatives considered for ensuring the continued
viability of MHPI projects.
Modification of Guidance on Use of Airfield Pavement Markings
The committee is aware that Secretary of Defense has taken
some actions to modify the Unified Facilities Guide
Specifications for pavement markings and Department engineering
technical letters on airfield pavement markings to permit the
use of Type III category of retro-reflective beads in
accordance with section 2851 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
However, based on the Air Force's airfield rubber removal,
airfield paint removal, and airfield restriping multi-
installation contract solicitation, released on January 14,
2016, that did not permit Type III category of retro-reflective
beads, it appears that the Department's engineering
organizations have not received sufficient guidance or
methodologies to ensure they comply with section 2851.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than September 30, 2016, that details the full extent
of actions taken to modify specifications, technical letters,
and other Department guidance on airfield markings; the
remaining actions to be taken to update additional Secretary of
Defense guidance; and the outline of the Department's
methodology 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.
Okinawa Consolidation Plan
The committee remains supportive of the Consolidation Plan
for Facilities and Areas in Okinawa that was announced in April
2013, and reaffirmed in the ``2+2 agreement'' on April 27,
2015. Under this plan, the United States will return certain
facilities and areas on Okinawa as conditions are met, when
replacement facilities are constructed, and as a sizable
contingent of U.S. Marine Corps forces are relocated outside of
Japan. The committee believes that implementation of this plan
is crucial to the bilateral security interests of the United
States and Japan.
The committee notes that some progress has been made toward
implementing the Okinawa Consolidation Plan. This includes the
lifting of restrictions on the expenditure of U.S. and Japanese
funding for construction that will support the relocation of
U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam, and the early returns of
parcels of land on U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and
Camp Kinser. However, the committee remains concerned with
delays in the construction of the Futenma Replacement Facility
(FRF). The FRF is a crucial capability that is necessary before
U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma can be returned.
Furthermore, the committee notes that construction on the FRF
will be suspended, as part of a March 2016 agreement between
the Government of Japan and Okinawa Prefectural Government,
while the two sides resume negotiations over the issue.
While the committee appreciates the statements made by the
Government of Japan reaffirming its commitment to
implementation of the plan, the committee is disappointed that
more progress has not been made on this issue since the
landfill permit was signed for the construction of the FRF on
December 27, 2013. The committee encourages continued progress
by both the United States and Japan toward full implementation
of the ``2+2 agreement,'' and hopes that the Government of
Japan and the Okinawa Prefectural Government will make progress
on the FRF in the coming year. Until such time as the FRF is
complete, the committee believes that it is important to invest
in the infrastructure and facilities at Marine Corps Air
Station Futenma to ensure they remain capable of supporting
military training and operational requirements.
Overseas Infrastructure Long-Range Planning
The committee notes that the U.S. Armed Forces operate from
a variety of overseas facilities that are categorized as
enduring locations in the annual ``Report to Congress on U.S.
Global Defense Posture''. Many of these locations support both
steady-state and contingency employment of U.S. forces,
providing reassurance to partners and allies, deterring
potential adversaries, and enabling the rapid projection of
forces if required. The committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense continues to rely on temporary and
expeditionary infrastructure to support steady-state personnel
and operations at certain locations that have had a significant
U.S. presence for more than a decade. Furthermore, the
committee is concerned about the impact these temporary and
expeditionary facilities may have on ability to conduct and
support military operations, the maintenance and availability
of weapon systems and equipment, and the quality of life for
personnel. The committee believes that the rotational nature of
the steady-state populations at these locations may adversely
impact the ability to efficiently and effectively conduct long-
term planning and programming of facilities to support the
enduring military requirements. Finally, the committee is
concerned that there may be a disconnect between the stated
requirement for steady-state personnel, operations, and
facilities compared to the actual situation on the ground.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than February 1, 2017, on the development of facility
requirements for overseas enduring locations supporting
contingency operations. Specifically, the briefing should
address what improvements are being made to improve the long-
term planning and programming process, how that planning and
programming factors in the actual steady-state population and
operations, an overview of plans to transition from
expeditionary to semi-permanent or permanent facilities, and
whether new authorities or changes to existing authorities are
required to support facility investments at overseas enduring
locations.
Report on Military Construction Project Cost Estimating and Execution
Final costs in military construction project execution may
vary from initial estimates for a number of reasons including
scope, design, or other change orders; unanticipated project
design changes; potentially unreliable design or cost
estimating assumptions or methods; or for other reasons. It is
critical for the Department of Defense to execute needed
military construction projects to ensure mission capability and
a safe and healthful operational and residential environment on
military installations. At the same time, in an era of
constrained fiscal resources, the committee is concerned that
the Department and the military services demonstrate effective
military construction project planning, cost estimating, and
execution.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the Department of Defense's
military construction cost estimating and project management
processes and to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees by February 15, 2017, on the findings. The
Comptroller may also provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services by that date with a final report as soon as
practicable thereafter. The Comptroller General's study should
examine:
(1) The extent to which the Department of Defense and the
military departments' systems, practices, and procedures for
designing projects and producing cost estimates for military
construction projects follow leading practices in this area and
are used to support the Department of Defense's budget
submissions;
(2) What is known about the quality of the Department of
Defense's cost estimating performance over time;
(3) How the military departments execute scope and cost
changes in military construction projects; and
(4) The extent to which trends in the execution of
Department of Defense military construction projects since 2010
show any significant differences between project cost estimates
and final cost at execution, including key elements of the
projects and the reasons for those differences, if known.
Workforce Issues for Relocation of Marines to Guam
The committee notes that Guam will require additional
construction capacity to support and sustain the relocation of
Marines to Guam. Further, the committee is aware that the
Department of Defense has indicated that once major
construction activities commence on Guam, companies may need to
rely on temporary H-2B visa workers for construction purposes.
For this reason, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-229) contained a provision that included Guam
and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands outside the
national cap for H-type visa workers. However, the committee
notes that recently the Guam Department of Labor indicates an
increase in the number of denials for H-2B applications
particularly for construction companies that are supporting
military construction projects on Guam. There is concern that
these denials could lead to delays in the program of record
and, as such, the committee urges the Department of Defense to
coordinate with other Federal agencies as appropriate to ensure
that H-2B visa applications are appropriately processed and
that there is sufficient workforce to meet construction
demands.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Section 2801--Modification of Criteria for Treatment of Laboratory
Revitalization Projects as Minor Military Construction Projects
This section would amend section 2805(d) of title 10,
United States Code, increasing the minor military construction
threshold for laboratory revitalization projects from $4.0
million to $6.0 million. This section would further amend
section 2805(d) by eliminating Secretary of Defense review and
approval of projects, inserting a congressional notification
and 21-day wait period, 14-day period if notification is
provided in an electronic medium, and striking the September
30, 2018, sunset clause.
Section 2802--Classification of Facility Conversion Projects as Repair
Projects
This section would amend section 2811 of title 10, United
States Code, to re-classify facility conversion as repair,
thereby allowing all work within the existing dimensions of a
facility to be considered repair.
Section 2803--Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to Use
Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects Outside the
United States
This section would provide continued authority for the
Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated for Operation
and Maintenance for military construction to meet temporary
operational requirements during a time of declared war,
national emergency, or contingency operation through the end of
fiscal year 2017.
Section 2804--Extension of Temporary Authority for Acceptance and Use
of Contributions for Certain Construction, Maintenance, and Repair
Projects Mutually Beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait
Military Forces
This section would extend for 5 years the temporary project
authority for acceptance and use of contributions for
construction, maintenance, and repair projects mutually
beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait military
forces from September 30, 2020, to September 30, 2025.
Section 2805--Notice and Reporting Requirements for Energy Conservation
Construction Projects
This section would amend section 2914 of title 10, United
States Code, to address gaps in the information contained in
congressional notifications submitted by the Secretary of
Defense for the Energy Conservation Investment Program. This
section would also add an annual reporting requirement on the
status of projects being executed under the program beginning
with fiscal year 2017 and ending with fiscal year 2020.
Section 2806--Additional Entities Eligible for Participation in Defense
Laboratory Modernization Pilot Program
This section would expand the defense laboratory
modernization pilot program to include a Department of Defense
research, development, test, and evaluation facility that is
not designated as a Science and Technology Reinvention
Laboratory, but nonetheless is involved with developmental test
and evaluation.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Congressional Notification of In-Kind Contributions for
Overseas Military Construction Projects
This section would establish a notification requirement for
payment in-kind and in-kind contributions used for overseas
military construction projects and repeal the authorization
requirement established for such projects in section 2803 of
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
Section 2812--Prohibition on Use of Military Installations To House
Unaccompanied Alien Children
This section would prohibit any military installation, not
including those installations located outside of the United
States, from being used to house unaccompanied alien children.
Section 2813--Allotment of Space and Provision of Services to WIC
Offices Operating on Military Installations
This section would authorize the Secretary of a military
department to allot space and services on military
installations to local agencies administering WIC programs to
service members and their families.
Section 2814--Sense of Congress Regarding Need To Consult With State
and Local Officials Prior to Acquisitions of Real Property
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the need for the Department of Defense to consult with state
and local officials prior to acquisitions of real property.
Section 2815--Sense of Congress Regarding Inclusion of Stormwater
Systems and Components Within the Meaning of ``Wastewater System''
Under the Department of Defense Authority for Conveyance of Utility
Systems
This section would express the sense of Congress that
stormwater systems and components are included within the
meaning of ``wastewater system'' under the Department of
Defense authority for conveyance of utility systems in section
2688 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2816--Assessment of Public Schools on Department of Defense
Installations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees a report that
includes an update of the July 2011 assessment on the condition
and capacity of elementary and secondary public schools on
military installations.
Subtitle C--Provision Related to Asia-Pacific Military Realignment
Section 2821--Limited Exceptions to 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 2822(d) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
Section 2831--Land Conveyances, High Frequency Active Auroral Research
Program Facility and Adjacent Property, Gakona, Alaska
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey a parcel of real property, including any improvements
thereon, consisting of approximately 1,158 acres near Gulkana
Village, Alaska, and the High Frequency Active Auroral Research
Program Facility to the University of Alaska for consideration.
This section would also authorize the Secretary of the Air
Force to convey a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 4,259 acres
near Gulkana Village, Alaska, to the Alaska Native Corporation.
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Campion Air Force Radar Station, Galena,
Alaska
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, without consideration, public land consisting of
approximately 1,300 acres, including improvements thereon, of
the remaining land currently withdrawn by the Secretary of the
Air Force at the former Campion Air Force Station, Alaska, to
the Town of Galena for public purposes.
Section 2833--Exchange of Property Interests, San Diego Unified Port
District, California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
exchange approximately 0.33 acres in San Diego, California that
contains 48 parking spaces, with the San Diego Unified Port
District in return for property of equal value, and without
encumbrances, that provides the rights to an equivalent number
of parking spaces.
Section 2834--Release of Property Interests Retained in Connection With
Land Conveyance, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to release any and all exceptions, limitations, and conditions
specified by the United States in the deeds conveying
approximately 126 acres of real property in Okaloosa County,
Florida, which were conveyed to the Air Force Enlisted Men's
Widows and Dependents Home Foundations, Incorporated.
Section 2835--Land Exchange, Fort Hood, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
exchange land at Fort Hood, Texas, with the City of Copperas
Cove, Texas, to support the city's efforts to improve arterial
transportation routes in the vicinity of Fort Hood and to
promote economic development.
Section 2836--Land Conveyance, P-36 Warehouse, Colbern United States
Army Reserve Center, Laredo, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, to the Laredo Community College
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
the approximately 725 square foot Historic Building, P-36
Quartermaster Warehouse, at Colbern United States Army Reserve
Center, Laredo, Texas.
Section 2837--Land Conveyance, St. George National Guard Armory, St.
George, Utah
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to covey, without consideration, to the State of Utah all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of public land in St. George, Utah, comprising
approximately 70 acres, for the purpose of permitting the Utah
National Guard to use the conveyed land for military purposes.
Section 2838--Release of Restrictions, Richland Innovation Center,
Richland, Washington
This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation, acting through the Maritime Administrator and
in consultation with the Administrator of General Services, to
release, for consideration, to the Port of Benton all remaining
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property consisting of approximately 71.5 acres,
including any improvements thereon, in Richland, Washington.
Subtitle E--Military Land Withdrawals
Section 2841--Bureau of Land Management Withdrawn Military Lands Under
Military Land Withdrawal Act of 1999
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
a 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.
Section 2842--Permanent Withdrawal or Transfer of Administrative
Jurisdiction of Public Land, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake,
California
This section would amend section 2979 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) to make permanent or authorize transfer
of administrative jurisdiction of the public land withdrawal
for Naval Air Weapons China Lake, California.
Subtitle F--Military Memorials, Monuments, and Museums
Section 2851--Cyber Center for Education and Innovation--Home of the
National Cryptologic Museum
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
establish the Cyber Center for Education and Innovation--Home
of the National Cryptologic Museum at Fort George G. Meade to
be used for the identification, curation, storage, and public
viewing of materials relating to the activities of the National
Security Agency/Central Security Service, its predecessor or
successor organizations, and the history of cryptology.
Section 2852--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 2853--Support for Military Service Memorials and Museums
Highlighting Role of Women in the Military
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide financial support, subject to appropriation, for
military service memorials and museums that highlight the role
of women in the military. This section would also authorize the
Secretary to enter into a contract with a non-profit
organization for the acquisition, installation, and maintenance
of exhibits, facilities, and programs, subject to a report from
the Secretary to the congressional defense committees that
describes how the use of such a contract will help educate and
inform the public on the history and mission of the military,
and is in the best interests of the Department of Defense.
Section 2854--Petersburg National Battlefield Boundary Modification
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to acquire the land and interest in land, only from willing
sellers and without use of condemnation, to expand the boundary
of the Petersburg National Battlefield. This section would also
authorize a land swap of approximately 1.170-acres between the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army.
Section 2855--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.
Section 2856--Recognition of the National Museum of World War II
Aviation
This section would require a certification by the Secretary
of the Air Force, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the
Army to allow recognition of the National Museum of World War
II Aviation in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as America's
National World War II Aviation Museum.
Subtitle G--Designations and Other Matters
Section 2861--Designation of Portion of Moffett Federal Airfield,
California, as Moffett Air National Guard Base
This section would designate the 111-acre cantonment area
at Moffett Federal Airfield, California, utilized by the
California Air National Guard as ``Moffett Air National Guard
Base.''
Section 2862--Redesignation of Mike O'Callaghan Federal Medical Center
This section would rename the Mike O'Callaghan Federal
Medical Center to the Mike O'Callaghan Military Medical Center
by amending the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public Law 104-201), as amended
by section 8135(a) of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 1997 (section 101(b) of division A of the Omnibus
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208), and
as amended by section 2862 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public
Law 112-81).
Section 2863--Transfer of Certain Items of the Omar Bradley Foundation
to the Descendants of General Omar Bradley
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer certain items under the control of the Omar Bradley
Foundation to the descendants of General Omar Bradley.
Section 2864--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 through 2026 on the effectiveness of
the systems to monitor the status of Greater Sage Grouse on
Federal lands under their jurisdiction.
Section 2865--Implementation of Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range-Wide
Conservation Plan and Other Conservation Measures
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Interior from
treating the Lesser Prairie Chicken as a threatened or
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
before December 31, 2022.
Section 2866--Removal of Endangered Species Status for American Burying
Beetle
This section would remove the endangered species status for
the American Burying Beetle.
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $134,040,000 for Overseas
Contingency Operations military construction for fiscal year
2017. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
of $133,591,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations military
construction for fiscal year 2017.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2901--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of certain authorized
Navy construction projects for fiscal year 2017. These projects
represent a binding list of the specific projects authorized at
these locations.
Section 2902--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of certain authorized
Air Force construction projects for fiscal year 2017. These
projects represent a binding list of the specific projects
authorized at these locations.
Section 2903--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations military construction at the levels
identified in section 4602 and section 4603 of division D of
this Act.
TITLE XXX--UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE ENCROACHMENT PREVENTION AND
TEMPORARY CLOSURE AUTHORITIES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3001--Findings and Definitions
This section would summarize certain findings and provide
the definitions for the Utah Test and Training Range
Encroachment Prevention and Temporary Closure Authorities.
Subtitle A--Utah Test and Training Range
Section 3011--Management of BLM Land
This section would direct the Secretary of Interior and the
Secretary of the Air Force to enter into a memorandum of
agreement for the continued management of the Bureau of Land
Management land by the Secretary of Interior for the
preservation of the Utah Test and Training Range.
Section 3012--Temporary Closures
This section would provide the Secretary of the Air Force
authority to take necessary action to temporarily close any
road, trail, or other portion of Bureau of Land Management land
in the Utah Test and Training Range for military operations,
public safety, or national security.
Section 3013--Community Resource Group
This section would establish the Utah Test and Training
Range Community Resource Group.
Section 3014--Liability
This section would not allow the United States to be held
liable for an injury or damage to any individual or property
suffered in the course of any mining, mineral, or geothermal
activity, or any other authorized non-defense-related activity,
conducted on the Bureau of Land Management land.
Section 3015--Effects of Subtitle
This section would clarify that nothing in this subtitle
would affect existing training or weapons impact areas,
military special use airspace, special recreational areas,
historical trails, water rights or federally recognized Indian
tribes.
Subtitle B--Land Exchange
Section 3021--Findings and Purpose
This section would state the key findings and define the
purpose for the Land Exchange of certain Federal land and non-
Federal land between the United States and the State of Utah.
Section 3022--Definitions
This section would define the key terms used in the
subtitle.
Section 3023--Exchange of Federal Land and Non-Federal Land
This section would authorize the Secretary of Interior to
exchange with the State of Utah all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to certain Federal land for all
right, title, and interest in and to certain non-Federal land.
Section 3024--Status and Management of Non-Federal Land After Exchange
This section would require the non-Federal land transferred
to the United States in the Cedar Mountain Wilderness to be
administered as part of the Cedar Mountain Wilderness.
Section 3025--Hazardous Materials
This section would reaffirm that the cost of remedial
actions related to hazardous materials on land acquired under
this subtitle shall be paid by those entities responsible for
the cost under applicable law.
Subtitle C--Highway Rights-of-Way
Section 3031--Recognition and Transfer of Certain Highway Rights-of-Way
This section would recognize the existence and validity of
certain highway rights-of-way and authorize the Secretary with
administrative jurisdiction to convey, without consideration,
to certain counties and the State of Utah as joint tenants,
easements for motorized travel rights-of-way across Federal
land for all highways as shown and described in the official
transportation maps, but excludes any class D road located
within the boundaries of Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area or any
wilderness study area designated in law or by administrative
action in any of the counties.
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 2017 contained $19.06
billion for atomic energy defense activities. The committee
recommends $19.34 billion, an increase of $286.9 million to the
budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2017 contained $12.88
billion for the programs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The committee recommends $13.25 billion, an
increase of $370.0 million to the budget request.
Weapons Activities
Attraction and retention of personnel within the nuclear security
enterprise
The committee is aware of growing concerns across the
nuclear security enterprise regarding the ability to attract
and retain first-class technical, administrative, and
managerial talent. As the laboratories and plants of the
enterprise have undertaken cost cutting measures, for example
moving from defined-benefit pension plans to defined-
contribution 401(k) plans, as well as adjustments to salaries
and benefits to align with federal regulations and market
standards, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
may have eliminated several factors that incentivized top
performing personnel to start or continue a career at NNSA. In
addition, as the timelines for being granted a security
clearance have lengthened, recent graduates or mid-career
officials may be unwilling to wait a year or more to begin
doing substantive, classified work. Furthermore, NNSA and its
laboratories and plants must develop strategies for carrying
out their long-term mission even with a much more mobile
workforce.
While the committee supports, and in fact has mandated,
efficiency measures at NNSA, the committee believes NNSA must
not lose sight of the need to attract and retain the Nation's
most talented workers. The laboratories and plants will
continue to rely heavily on the unique and exciting nature of
their national security work to attract and retain employees,
but must have other tools at their disposal. Creative thinking
and robust understanding of the incentives driving the current
and future workforce is required.
To facilitate this effort, the committee directs the
Administrator for Nuclear Security, together with the members
of the National Nuclear Security Administration Council
established by section 4102(b) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act
(50 U.S.C. 2512(b)) to provide a briefing to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
by October 31, 2016, regarding ongoing or potential actions and
options for improving the attraction and retention of high-
performing employees across the nuclear enterprise. The
committee encourages the Administrator and the council to think
creatively and interview high-performing current, new, and
potential employees for their views. The committee further
encourages examination of options that:
(1) Allow for mobility but encourage staying within or
returning to the NNSA system;
(2) Enable and incentivize unique opportunities such as
sabbaticals, higher education, personnel loans or temporary
assignments, and rotations among Federal service and partner
organizations;
(3) Provide opportunities for mid-career workers to join
the enterprise and directly contribute their outside
experiences to its improvement;
(4) Provide meaningful work and training opportunities to
employees waiting on approval of security clearances;
(5) Such other options as the Administrator or members of
the Council consider appropriate.
Defense nuclear security and physical security infrastructure
recapitalization
The budget request contained $670.1 million for Defense
Nuclear Security at the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). This funding supports both day-to-day
security operations across the nuclear security enterprise as
well as sustainment and recapitalization of physical security
infrastructure and equipment.
The committee continues to encourage the Department of
Energy and NNSA's recent focus on improving physical security
within the nuclear security enterprise. The committee believes
NNSA's development and eventual implementation of a 10-year
recapitalization plan for security infrastructure, coupled with
examination and updates of security policies and practices, as
well as initiation of the Center for Security Technology,
Analysis, Response, and Testing (CSTART), are steps in the
right direction. However, the committee is mindful of the large
list of deferred security infrastructure and equipment
recapitalization needs, which may total over $1.40 billion. As
the committee has noted in the past, more than half of that
amount is represented by the need to recapitalize the Perimeter
Intrusion Detection and Assessment Systems (PIDAS) at the Y-12
National Security Complex and the Pantex Plant. The committee
believes that acceleration of two protected area security
projects at these facilities may lead to both improved security
and significant cost savings over the course of the broader
recapitalization effort. The committee therefore directs the
Administrator for Nuclear Security to submit to the
congressional defense committees as part of the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2018, a project data sheet in
compliance with Department of Energy Order 413.3B for: (1)
installation of a section of PIDAS at the Y-12 National
Security Complex to significantly reduce the size of the
protected area; and (2) the Material Staging Facility at the
Pantex Plant. The Administrator should include in these
materials an analysis and assessment of the potential long-term
cost savings to NNSA from reduction in security and personnel
costs, as well as reduction in the liability associated with
upgrading antiquated PIDAS systems at each facility. For the
Material Staging Facility, the committee expects the
Administrator to consult with the Air Force to leverage similar
protection strategies and lessons learned as the Air Force is
pursuing its Weapons Storage Facility Investment Strategy.
Finally, the committee reiterates its belief that more must
be done to clarify roles and responsibilities within NNSA's
security program and ensure there are clear lines of authority
and accountability, that security decision-making is risk-
informed, that implementation of security practices and
processes is appropriately standardized, and that oversight of
security is consistent and robust. The committee notes that
many reports and studies have made recommendations on this
topic, but follow through and implementation has been lacking.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator to review
all relevant past studies, reports, and statutes and to provide
a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by November 30, 2016, on
actions that will be taken to improve the Defense Nuclear
Security program.
The committee recommends $730.1 million for Defense Nuclear
Security, an increase of $60.0 million to the budget request.
The committee expects $9.0 million of this increase to support
CSTART efforts while the remainder is expended to accelerate
efforts to recapitalize physical security infrastructure.
Deferred maintenance
The budget request contained $554.6 million for
Recapitalization-Infrastructure and Safety, and $294.0 million
for Maintenance and Repair of Facilities. Respectively, these
programs fund efforts to reduce the large backlog of deferred
maintenance across the nuclear security enterprise and day-to-
day preventative or corrective maintenance activities.
Combined, these programs are critical to arresting the
declining state of the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) infrastructure.
Budget request justification materials submitted by NNSA
indicate that NNSA's deferred maintenance backlog remains over
$3.7 billion. The committee recognizes NNSA's efforts to
prevent the deferred maintenance backlog from growing, but also
notes the significant funding required to effectively address
this challenge. The budget request justification materials
highlight that of NNSA's thousands of facilities, 30 percent
are over 60 years old, and 62 percent are deemed inadequate or
substandard. Moreover, 12 percent of NNSA's facilities have
been declared excess but must be maintained in a safe state
because funds are not available for the facilities to be
demolished.
The committee agrees with NNSA that infrastructure risk is
becoming safety risk and mission risk. This fact is evidenced
by the multiple infrastructure failures in 2015 that resulted
in pauses in operations. These failures are increasing in
frequency, severity, and unpredictability as the facilities
age; in 2015 they included multiple fire suppression system
breaks, multiple roof leaks and failures, and an antiquated
electrical distribution panel catching fire. The committee
continues to believe that the decrepit state of the nation's
nuclear security enterprise infrastructure is unacceptable and
must be urgently addressed. The nation cannot expect to attract
and retain first-class scientists, engineers, and technicians
to work in facilities that are falling apart. The committee
also notes the importance of and NNSA's responsibility to make
sufficient investments in preventative maintenance to ensure
facilities do not fall into such states of disrepair.
The committee is encouraged that the Secretary of Energy
and the Administrator for Nuclear Security have taken steps to
prevent the backlog in deferred maintenance from growing even
further. The committee also applauds actions by the Secretary
and the Administrator to dispose of the Bannister Federal
Complex in Kansas City, Missouri, and pursue alternative
financing for an administrative complex at the Pantex Plant.
Such steps show the seriousness with which the deferred
maintenance problem is being addressed, but the committee
believes more must be done to actually reduce the total amount
of backlog. Therefore, the committee recommends $674.6 million,
an increase of $120.0 million, for Recapitalization-
Infrastructure and Safety, and $324.0 million, an increase of
$30.0 million, for Maintenance and Repair of Facilities.
Domestic uranium enrichment program
The committee notes the Department of Energy's October 2015
report on ``Tritium and Enriched Uranium Management Plan
Through 2060'' and the Department's subsequent decision to
modify its plans to enrich uranium to create unencumbered
enriched uranium for defense purposes. Instead of building out
an enrichment capability over the next 10 years, the Department
now proposes to conduct near-term, smaller-scale research and
development activities while developing its longer-term
strategy. The committee notes that these actions have been
enabled by the Department's identification of stocks of
existing unencumbered uranium that it believes can be
repurposed and used for tritium production and other defense
needs. The Department states this modification would save $1.30
billion through fiscal year 2021, but may result in larger
long-term costs. The committee is also aware that the National
Nuclear Security Administration's Director for Cost Estimating
and Program Evaluation intends to review costs and plans for
domestic uranium enrichment.
The committee also notes the Government Accountability
Office's (GAO) October 2014 report on ``Interagency Review
Needed to Update U.S. Position on Enriched Uranium That Can Be
Used for Tritium Production,'' and GAO's significant oversight
activities and expertise on these matters. The committee
believes an independent GAO review and assessment would ensure
the Department's actions are appropriate and its plans to meet
defense requirements for enriched uranium are credible.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
January 31, 2017, on a review and assessment of Department of
Energy's October 2015 report, its subsequent actions, its plans
for domestic uranium enrichment, and how the Department of
Energy has addressed GAO's previous relevant recommendations.
In particular, such review and assessment should examine the
assumptions used by the Department in developing its plans; the
alternatives considered by the Department, including the
timelines, costs, and cost-savings related to such
alternatives; the ability of the Department under its plan to
meet defense requirements for enriched uranium into the future;
and such other matters related to domestic uranium enrichment
that the Comptroller General determines appropriate.
Funding prioritization within Weapons Activities
The budget request contained $9.24 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 recent budget requests.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee discusses its
recommendation for funding for NNSA's core life extension
programs.
As NNSA focuses on its concrete deliverables to the
military, the committee seeks to ensure NNSA adequately
addresses its longer term requirements and needs. Elsewhere in
this title, the committee discusses its recommendations for
increased funding for technology maturity and other future-
focused programs, for deferred maintenance activities, and for
NNSA's plutonium strategy.
Aside from these major recommendations described elsewhere,
the committee recommends smaller adjustments to prioritize
efforts and mitigate program risk within NNSA's Weapons
Activities. For example, the committee recommends $47.1
million, an increase of $4.0 million, for Nuclear
Survivability, to support an increased level of effort. To
support other priorities, the committee also recommends $514.0
million, a decrease of $9.0 million, for the Inertial
Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield program; $656.2
million, a decrease of $7.0 million, for Advanced Simulation
and Computing program; and $55.0 million, a decrease of $14.0
million, for the Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition program.
Overall, the committee recommends $9.56 billion, an
increase of $316.0 million, for Weapons Activities of the NNSA.
Future Years Nuclear Security Program funding
The committee notes that several senior administration and
military officials have expressed concern that the National
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Fiscal Year 2019-2021
Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), submitted to
Congress with the budget request for fiscal year 2017, contains
inadequate funding to meet NNSA's programmatic needs. As the
Secretary of Energy described in a December 23, 2015, letter to
the Director of the White House Office of Management and
Budget, ``the Administration has pursued a disciplined process
in defining the requirements to meet the President's nuclear
security and non-proliferation policy goals and to support the
Navy,'' but the FYNSP ``does not reflect the funding that we
estimate is necessary to meet Administration requirements over
the period of the FYNSP. We estimate that an additional $5.2
billion over FY2019-2021 is needed to establish a viable and
sustainable program portfolio.''
The Secretary's letter went on to state that the ``FYNSP
will lack credibility with Congress and stakeholders; within
NNSA it will fuel uncertainty in program execution, creating
the potential for cost and schedule growth across the nuclear
security enterprise . . . For this Administration's national
security legacy and for the next Administration's planning
requirements, it would not be responsible to submit a budget
with such obvious programmatic gaps . . . Failure to address
these requirements in the near term will put the NNSA budget in
an untenable position beginning in FY2018, will not provide an
appropriate statement of the Obama Administration legacy, and
will provide a misleading marker to the next Administration as
to the resource needs of the nuclear security enterprise.''
Military officials have pointed to similar concerns with
NNSA's future year funding. For instance, the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff expressed these concerns earlier this year. In an April
4, 2016, letter to the committee, the Vice Chairman stated,
``future year funding to sustain the stockpile strategy is
uncertain.'' The Vice Chairman continued, ``I agree with [the
Commander's] assessment and share his concern for the
uncertainty of future funding levels within the nuclear
security enterprise.''
The committee believes the FYNSP is an important planning
and transparency tool for both Congress and the administration,
but that it is only as useful as it is accurate. The committee
expects the administration to develop and submit FYNSP funding
profiles that are accurate and correspond with the
administration's programmatic plans for NNSA. As the Secretary
has stated, inaccurate FYNSP numbers damage the
administration's credibility, can lead to cost and schedule
growth due to program uncertainty, leave a misleading marker of
future budget requirements for the next administration, and
could leave NNSA in an untenable budgetary position in fiscal
year 2018 if the inaccurate FYNSP is followed.
Life extension programs
The budget request contained $1.34 billion for the National
Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) nuclear weapon life
extension programs (LEP). The committee continues to believe
NNSA's primary focus must be its nuclear weapon stockpile
stewardship program. Within that broad mission, the programs
and deliverables directly supporting Department of Defense
requirements must be paramount.
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 for U.S. allies, as well as an
important component of the United States' own strategic
deterrent. The committee also notes the importance of the W76-1
LEP in delivering a nuclear warhead to the Navy that will soon
comprise approximately 70 percent of the nation's operationally
deployed strategic warheads. Furthermore, while not an official
LEP, the W88 ALT 370 will produce a significantly modernized
warhead, including a ``refresh'' of the weapon's conventional
high explosives, that will ensure the W88 remains reliable for
several decades.
Finally, the W80-4 LEP will produce a warhead for the
future long-range standoff (LRSO) weapon, which supports the
air leg of the nation's nuclear deterrent. The committee notes
that NNSA's request for funding for the W80-4 LEP for fiscal
year 2017 is $91.9 million less than was anticipated in last
year's Future Years Nuclear Security Program. With this budget
request, NNSA anticipates a very large jump in development
activities and funding profile in fiscal year 2018 (funding is
proposed to jump over 80 percent from fiscal year 2017 to
fiscal year 2018). The committee is concerned that this funding
profile would create a significant risk of NNSA failing to meet
its scheduled deliverables for the Department of Defense, and
therefore recommends an increase of $21.0 million to the budget
request for the W80-4 LEP.
The committee recommends $1.36 billion, an increase of
$21.0 million, for NNSA nuclear weapon life extension programs.
Plutonium strategy
The budget request contained $185.0 million for Plutonium
Sustainment and $159.6 million for the Radiological Laboratory
Utility Office Building (RLUOB) equipment installation line
item project. Combined, these two budget lines provide much of
the funding in fiscal year 2017 for achieving the nation's
plutonium strategy and revitalizing plutonium pit production
capabilities.
The committee continues to support the National Nuclear
Security Administration's (NNSA) plutonium strategy, which
intends to achieve the statutory pit production requirements
and deadlines 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 is
aware of discussions regarding modifications to these statutory
requirements that would still produce an appropriate amount of
pits necessary to meet requirements on the particular
deadlines, but would focus some capacity on producing war
reserve pits sooner to support the stockpile if needed. The
committee is open to future discussions on this topic, but
cautions NNSA not to plan or program for such changes until and
unless the statute has been amended. Before the committee
entertains suggestions on such changes, the committee expects
NNSA to work closely with the relevant congressional committees
to ensure such a proposal would be both comparable to current
requirements and sufficiently funded.
The committee is also concerned about funding for Plutonium
Sustainment and related efforts in fiscal year 2017 but more
acutely in the Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP).
As discussed elsewhere in this title, it appears that funding
for certain key capabilities within NNSA's fiscal year 2017
FYNSP does not align with program plans or requirements. To
enable long-term planning and oversight, the committee expects
NNSA to develop and submit realistic FYNSPs that align with
stated program plans and needs.
The committee recommends $191.0 million, an increase of
$6.0 million, for Plutonium Sustainment to support mitigation
of schedule risk in meeting statutory pit production
requirements. The committee also recommends $159.6 million for
the RLUOB equipment installation line item project, the full
amount of the budget request.
Stockpile systems, surveillance and assessments, and Integrated Surety
Architecture
The budget request contained $443.7 million for Stockpile
Systems. This funding provides for, among other things, weapon
maintenance, surveillance, and assessment activities. The
fiscal year 2017 budget request proposes, over the Future Years
Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) from 2017 to 2021, a
cumulative decrease from the fiscal year 2016 FYNSP of $181.1
million to Stockpile Systems to fund higher priority efforts
within the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA)
Weapons Activities.
The budget request justification materials provided by NNSA
state that ``these reductions will not restrict NNSA's ability
to annually assess system performance and reliability,'' but
the committee is concerned about long-term trends in
surveillance and assessment funding. The committee will
continue to closely oversee surveillance and assessment
activities to ensure they are provided the funding necessary to
assure the reliability and safety of the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
The budget request justification materials also state that
the cut to the FYNSP for Stockpile Systems is the result of
``most system-specific surety activities (Integrated Surety
Architecture (ISA)) delayed beyond the FYNSP,'' and the
committee understands that while more limited ISA activities
will continue for nearer-term priority systems like the W88,
others have been delayed by at least 3 years. While the
committee recognizes the need to ensure robust funding for
NNSA's life extension programs and other priority activities,
the committee is concerned that this delay to the ISA program
may be shortsighted. Once implemented, ISA will provide
significant improvements in the surety of the stockpile that
have been recommended by the JASON advisory group and
identified by the Joint Integrated Lifecycle Surety tool, and
must not be delayed too long. The committee encourages the
Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Chairman of the
Nuclear Weapons Council, while also balancing other priorities
for sustaining the nuclear stockpile, to reconsider the
decision to defer the development and procurement of system-
specific ISA as they develop the budget request for fiscal year
2018 and evaluate budget needs in the context of available
funding.
The committee recommends $443.7 million for Stockpile
Systems, the amount of the budget request.
Strategic commodities
The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) has begun re-organizing its previously
disparate programs related to critical nuclear material
commodities such as uranium, plutonium, tritium, and lithium.
Each of these strategic commodities is essential to sustainment
and modernization of the nuclear weapons stockpile and each
will require significant investment in infrastructure and
technologies in the coming decade. Some of these programs are
funded through multiple NNSA budget elements and activities are
conducted at multiple sites around the nuclear security
enterprise.
The committee believes that the success of these strategic
commodity programs is dependent on the establishment and
validation of key requirements for program customers, such as
life extension programs and other stockpile programs, as well
as careful coordination and integration to ensure that program
requirements are met in a timely and cost effective way. Both
tasks are impossible without the leadership and management of
an individual or organization that is equipped with the right
skills and authorities. To its credit, NNSA recognizes this
challenge and has appointed what it calls commodity managers to
execute these complex and multifaceted programs. The committee
is encouraged by NNSA's actions and seeks to reinforce and/or
further improve NNSA's use of commodity managers. Accordingly,
the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January
15, 2017, containing an evaluation of NNSA's use of commodity
managers. This review should:
(1) Identify roles, responsibilities, and qualifications
for commodity managers, if any, as identified in Department of
Energy and NNSA directives, policies, or other relevant
guidance;
(2) Evaluate the process used by commodity managers to
identify, validate, and track program requirements in terms of
comprehensiveness, completeness, and risk management practices;
(3) Where possible, identify specific cases in which
commodity managers have met with success or faced challenges in
integrating program requirements with new capabilities, such as
new facilities or technologies.
(4) Assess NNSA's efforts to document the role of its
commodity managers as well as incorporate and share important
lessons learned across the various commodity manager
portfolios; and
(5) Include such other matters related to commodity
managers as the Comptroller General determines appropriate.
Technology maturation programs, prototypes program, and stockpile
responsiveness program
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2017 budget
request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
proposed major reductions to funding provided to technology
maturation and development efforts within NNSA's Weapons
Activities. This includes programs within Enhanced Surety,
Additive Manufacturing, Component Manufacturing Development,
and Research and Development (R&D) Certification and Safety. In
total, the budget request proposed a $109.4 million (41
percent) reduction to technology maturation efforts compared to
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2016.
In testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on
February 11, 2016, the Administrator for Nuclear Security
indicated that the administration proposed these reductions due
to lack of funds. Furthermore, the budget request justification
documents provided by NNSA stated that ``the overall decrease
to technology maturation reflects a realignment to address
higher NNSA priorities.''
The committee understands the need to prioritize scarce
funding, but believes these cuts to be shortsighted. NNSA's
goals for these technology maturation efforts include: ``reduce
life extension program development and qualification timescales
and costs; address evolving threats to assure safety and
security; reduce the time to develop, assess, qualify, and
certify [weapons]; and develop and exercise a critically
skilled workforce.'' NNSA has summarized that ``the purpose of
technology maturation is to reduce the lifecycle costs of the
stockpile.'' Given the uncertain international environment and
the growing costs of stockpile modernization, the committee
believes the magnitude of the cuts proposed in these areas is
too great.
Furthermore, these cuts are contrary to the intention and
core purpose of recent congressionally mandated programs
designed to ensure NNSA is responsive, efficient, and well-
positioned for the future. These programs include the Stockpile
Responsiveness Program established by section 3112 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) and the Prototype Nuclear Weapons for Intelligence
Estimates Program established by section 3115 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), as amended. These programs were established by Congress
to help NNSA become more responsive to emergent problems and
opportunities; reduce timelines and costs for weapons programs;
continually exercise all relevant design and production
capabilities and skills; and attract and retain world-class
scientists, engineers, and technicians. But NNSA's proposed
cuts to these programs and broader technology maturation
efforts will lead to the opposite outcomes. For instance, in
the budget request materials provided to the committee, NNSA
stated that smaller cuts to these programs in fiscal year 2014
had ``resulted in permanent loss'' of key personnel, that the
currently proposed cuts would result in ``limited flexibility
to react to unexpected opportunities of consequences,'' and
that ``reductions to early-stage technology development and
production capability adds risk to life extension programs.''
To address these concerns, the committee recommends $202.5
million, an increase of $46.0 million for R&D Certification and
Safety; $111.0 million, an increase of $12.0 million, for
Primary Assessment Technologies; $53.2 million, an increase of
$16.0 million, for Enhanced Surety; and $77.6 million, an
increase of $31.0 million, for Component Manufacturing
Development.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Comptroller General assessment of project management processes and
systems for defense nuclear nonproliferation programs
The National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA)
Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) consists of
four major operating programs: DNN Research and Development,
Material Management and Minimization, Global Material Security,
and Nonproliferation and Arms Control. The combined budget for
these four programs is approximately $1.20 billion and the
activities supported are widely varied and geographically
dispersed. While a much smaller portion of NNSA's total budget
than Weapons Activities, the committee believes some of the
lessons learned from efforts to improve program management
practices within Weapons Activities may have applications
within DNN. For instance, the ability of major programs to
track performance against concrete baseline goals, set and
track schedule milestones and deliverables, and manage costs
and resources.
With this goal, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees by February 28, 2017, that
reviews and assesses the project and program management
processes and systems used by the DNN operating programs and
DNN senior leaders. In particular, the briefing should examine:
(1) The DNN, NNSA, and Department of Energy requirements,
directives, and guidance that govern the processes and systems
used by DNN for project and program management purposes and
their key characteristics, attributes, and effectiveness;
(2) How DNN program managers use information and tools to
make decisions, track important information and milestones, and
whether the systems used are effective in allowing NNSA to
manage project and program costs, schedules, deliverables, and
results against established baselines;
(3) The transparency among DNN, the partners and
contractors carrying out its work, NNSA and Department of
Energy senior leadership, and Congress regarding costs,
schedules, deliverables, and results;
(4) How DNN program management compares to Weapons
Activities programs and what can be learned from efforts to
improve program management practices within Weapons Activities;
and
(5) Any other aspects of the DNN program and project
management processes and systems the Comptroller General
determines appropriate.
Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program and emergency
preparedness
The budget request contained $271.9 million for the Nuclear
Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This program is
responsible for countering nuclear terror threats, responding
to nuclear incidents worldwide, and providing the Department of
Energy's emergency management capability.
The committee continues to highlight the importance and
value of NNSA's programs that help counter and respond to
nuclear terrorism threats. These programs leverage the unique
technical knowledge and tools of NNSA's laboratories and
provide direct support to the nation's warfighters. The
committee appreciates and supports NNSA's inclusion of a
significant increase in funding within the fiscal year 2017
budget request to recapitalize the secure mobile communications
systems used by these programs. The committee believes NNSA and
all other agencies and departments involved in this important
mission must be provided the funding necessary to ensure robust
and timely communications among field responders, technical
support teams, and national leaders.
The committee notes its continuing concern with the state
of the Department of Energy's emergency management program, and
understands the Department and NNSA share these concerns and
have been taking actions to remedy them. The November 2015
reorganization of the Office of Emergency Operations was one
such step. The planned revision to Department of Energy Order
151.1C on the Comprehensive Emergency Management System is
another such action. While undoubtedly necessary and useful
steps in a long-term remedy, the committee is concerned these
may be too bureaucratically focused to sufficiently address
problems that are more deeply rooted in the culture and
longstanding neglect of this important mission area. The
committee encourages the Secretary of Energy and the
Administrator for Nuclear Security to personally engage in
leading and guiding efforts to address the deficiencies in
emergency management and preparedness.
The committee recommends $271.9 million for the Nuclear
Counterterrorism and Incident Response Program, the full amount
of the budget request.
Naval Reactors
Naval Reactors program
The budget request contained $1.42 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 has long been supportive of the Naval
Reactors program and believes it is an exceptional example of a
nuclear-related government program that is safety-focused,
mission-driven, and well-managed. Due to this success, the
committee and the Navy will continue to have very high
expectations for performance by Naval Reactors, particularly as
it safely stewards the Navy's ongoing nuclear mission and as it
develops and delivers the Ohio-class replacement submarine's
nuclear reactor. The committee will continue its oversight of
these programs, as well as Naval Reactors' efforts to refuel
its S8G land-based prototype and carry out the Spent Fuel
Handling Recapitalization Project.
The committee recommends $1.42 billion for the Naval
Reactors program, the amount of the budget request.
Federal Salaries and Expenses
Briefing on contracting strategy and plan
The committee notes that the Administrator for Nuclear
Security has announced an intention to compete several of the
management and operating (M&O) contracts of the nuclear
security enterprise in the coming years. The committee also
notes that several of the current M&O contracts have been
granted 1-year extensions as the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) manages the workload anticipated from
conducting concurrent competitions.
The committee continues to believe, as first articulated in
section 3157 of H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, that
competition of M&O contracts has resulted in significant
increases in fees paid by the Federal Government and the
Administrator should seek to minimize these fees when possible;
that competition can be an important mechanism to help realize
savings, improve performance, and hold contractors accountable;
and that, when appropriate, the Administrator should carry out
a competition, while also recognizing the unique nature of
federally funded research and development centers intend a
long-term and close relationship between the Government and
such contractors.
The committee believes its ability to conduct oversight of
contract competitions and NNSA's broader contracting strategy
is vital to ensuring competitions are appropriately leveraged
and the costs and benefits adequately weighed. Section 3121 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239), as amended, is a critical tool in this
regard. To continue its oversight, the committee directs the
Administrator to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by December 1, 2016, on NNSA's contracting
strategy and any plans for competition of M&O contracts in the
next 2 years. Such briefing should include discussion of the
matters covered by section 3121 of Public Law 112-239, as
amended.
Briefing on damage assessment of improper disposal of sensitive
information
The committee notes reports that sensitive information
relating to nuclear weapons components was disposed of
improperly, possibly over the course of many years, at the Y-12
National Security Complex. The committee emphasizes the
importance of protecting such information and is concerned that
such a security lapse could have endured for so many years
without coming to light and without corrective action.
The committee understands that the Administrator for
Nuclear Security has requested a damage assessment to examine
the implications of the improper disposal. The committee
directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September
30, 2016, on the results of this damage assessment. This
briefing should include an assessment of the information that
may have been compromised; any potential consequences of
unauthorized persons gaining access to this information; the
extent to which uncertainty about what information may have
been exposed remains; and a description of measures put in
place to prevent such a lapse from reoccurring.
Governance and management reform
The committee continues its efforts to encourage,
stimulate, and conduct oversight of efforts to address
longstanding governance and management problems at the
Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). The committee believes recent
independent studies of these problems have been thorough and
have created a comprehensive list of recommendations for the
Department, NNSA, and Congress to pursue.
Based on its oversight, the committee believes the
Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Secretary of Energy
have been taking initial steps in this regard. But the
committee continues to stress that more must be done and that
focused effort must be sustained for the long term and across
administrations. The deep-rooted and systemic cultural,
management, and trust problems that have been identified as
root causes will not be fixed easily or quickly. The committee
believes that the implementation and oversight mechanisms
established by section 3137 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) will
support this effort and ensure focus on governance and
management is retained in a new administration and a new
Congress.
Several of the independent studies of these issues
identified a lack of trust among Department of Energy, NNSA,
its management and operating partners, and Congress as a
fundamental cause of many of the problems in the nuclear
security enterprise. One advisory panel concluded that
``demonstrated performance is the ultimate measure of success
and the foundation for credibility and trust.'' The committee
agrees and believes NNSA's recent success in executing its
major life extension programs and other key deliverables will,
with time, rebuild that trust. But, even as it encourages these
efforts, the committee will continue to seek focused attention
and action on implementing solutions to the long-term
governance and management challenges. The committee expects the
Administrator and the Secretary to address the requirements of
section 3137 of Public Law 114-92 and submit the required plans
and updates promptly. The committee looks forward to
significant progress and continued engagement with the
Administrator and the Secretary on this issue in the years
ahead.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2017 contained $6.17
billion for environmental and other defense activities. The
committee recommends $6.09 billion, a decrease of $83.1 million
to the budget request.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Hanford Site
The budget request for Defense Environmental Cleanup
contained $716.8 million for defense-related cleanup activities
at the Hanford Site and an additional $1.49 billion for the
Office of River Protection also located at Hanford. As one of
two primary production sites for plutonium during the Cold War,
the long-term cleanup effort at the Hanford Site is a top
priority for this cleanup program.
The committee supports an increased level of effort at the
Hanford Site to accelerate the most critical cleanup efforts.
Therefore, the committee recommends $769.8 million, an increase
of $53.0 million, for cleanup activities at the Hanford Site,
and $1.49 billion, the full amount requested, for the Office of
River Protection.
Technology development
The budget request contained $30.0 million for the
technology development program of the Office of Environmental
Management. This program provides support to research and
development (R&D) efforts that seek to develop new technologies
to reduce cleanup costs and accelerate cleanup schedules.
The committee has long been supportive of technology
development efforts within the defense environmental cleanup
program because it believes that, since the program is expected
to last until 2070 and cost hundreds of billions of dollars,
even small amounts of funding invested in R&D have the
potential to provide large cost savings to taxpayers through
new or more efficient cleanup methods or alternative
approaches. The committee supports the Department's efforts on
R&D as a key component of the cleanup program, and notes that
significant progress may not be possible without increased
funding.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would require a study by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) to examine opportunities to enhance R&D efforts related
to nuclear cleanup. The committee believes that such a study
will support progress and provide an opportunity to increase
focus on promising technology advances or alternative
approaches.
The committee recommends $40.0 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, for the technology development program to
support the NAS study and increased R&D.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
The committee continues to monitor the efforts of the
Department of Energy (DOE) to implement corrective actions and
reopen the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New
Mexico, following the incidents that occurred there in February
2014. As the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB)
noted in its recent annual report, ``Resumption of waste
disposal operations at WIPP is essential to eliminate the risks
posed by transuranic waste stored across the DOE defense
nuclear complex. Completing the extensive recovery actions
needed to resume operations at WIPP in a timely manner while
adequately protecting workers and the public is a challenging
task.''
The Department expects to resume limited waste emplacement
operations at WIPP by the end of 2016, and expects it will not
resume full simultaneous mining and emplacement operations
until all capital construction projects are completed in at
least 2021. As noted by the DNFSB, restarting emplacements is
important to reducing the risks from waste currently stored
throughout the DOE complex, but the committee cautions that
resumption should not occur until the Department is satisfied
it can be done safely and that repeat incidents will not occur.
The committee will continue its oversight of the WIPP restart
process and continues to urge the Department to ensure lessons
learned from it are shared across the enterprise.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Defense nuclear waste repository
The budget request contained $15.3 million for consent
based siting to develop 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.
For instance, a preliminary assessment by the Government
Accountability Office indicates that pursuing the Secretary of
Energy's plan for two repositories (one for only defense waste
and one for both defense and non-defense waste) could require
many billions of additional dollars from the defense budget
function when compared to a single repository solution. With
the many defense priorities facing the Department of Energy in
the next decade, the committee believes that the Secretary
should not spend limited defense funding on a defense-only
repository until the Secretary has developed an understanding
of the costs and impacts to other priority programs within
atomic energy defense activities. Therefore, the committee
recommends no funds, a decrease of $15.3 million, for consent
based siting.
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 2017,
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 specified in the funding table in
section 4701 of this Act.
This section would also authorize several new plant
projects for the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup
This section would authorize appropriations for defense
environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2017 at the
levels specified in the funding table in section 4701 of this
Act.
This section would also authorize a new plant project for
defense environmental cleanup activities.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize appropriations for Other
Defense Activities for the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2017 at the levels specified in the funding table in section
4701 of this Act.
Section 3104--Nuclear Energy
This section would authorize appropriations for certain
nuclear energy programs for the Department of Energy for fiscal
year 2017 at the levels specified in the funding table in
section 4701 of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3111--Independent Acquisition Project Reviews of Capital Assets
Acquisition Projects
This section would insert a new section, section 4733, into
the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.) to
require the Administrator for Nuclear Security and the
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management to
ensure that an independent entity conducts reviews of capital
assets acquisition projects that have a total project cost of
more than $500.0 million at various phases of the acquisition
process. With respect to such reviews for a capital asset
acquisition project that has not yet reached Critical Decision-
1 approval in the acquisition process, this section would
require such review to include best practices regarding an
analysis of alternatives for the project and identify any
deficiencies in such analysis of alternatives. Finally, this
section would require the independent entity that conducts such
reviews to have the appropriate expertise with respect to the
project and the pertinent stage of the acquisition process.
Section 3112--Research and Development of Advanced Naval Nuclear Fuel
System Based on Low-Enriched Uranium
This section would provide that none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the Department of
Energy may be used for research and development (R&D) of an
advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on low-enriched
uranium (LEU). However, this section would also authorize, from
within amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act or
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for defense
nuclear nonproliferation, $5.0 million for the Deputy
Administrator for Naval Reactors to commence initial planning
and early R&D of an advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on
LEU for aircraft carriers and submarines.
This section would also amend section 3118 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) to clarify that, if the Secretary of Energy and the
Secretary of the Navy jointly determine to pursue R&D of an
advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on LEU, the
Secretaries shall ensure that funding for such efforts is
requested in fiscal year 2018 and any future fiscal years only
within a budget line within defense nuclear nonproliferation.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Energy and the
Secretary of the Navy have not yet submitted the determination,
which was due in February 2016, as required by section 3118 of
Public Law 114-92, regarding whether or not to continue to
pursue this R&D program. The committee expects the Secretaries
to submit this statutorily required determination
expeditiously. The committee also expects that, if the
Secretaries make a determination to continue the program, they
carry it out only using funding from within the defense nuclear
nonproliferation account. The committee believes such a program
would need to fully explore whether an LEU-based fuel could
meet military requirements, and assess the implications of such
an LEU-based fuel for fleet size and logistics, costs, benefits
to nonproliferation goals, lowered security costs, and enabling
cutting-edge research for nuclear fuel scientists. The
committee is aware of estimates that indicate that developing
an LEU naval fuel and determining its viability could cost an
estimated $2.00 billion and take at least 10 to 15 years, and
that at least another 10 years (and potentially additional time
and funding) beyond that would be required to deploy an
operational naval nuclear reactor with this fuel. The committee
recognizes the potential benefits of this R&D program, but also
notes that resultant costs and operational impacts of such a
fuel are also unknown but likely considerable. The committee
believes the Secretaries and Congress should carefully weigh
the potential opportunities and benefits, as well as the
potential risks and costs of this path.
Section 3113--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to carry
out construction and project 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 2017, as well as any funds made
available for such purposes in any prior fiscal years that are
unobligated. The Secretary would be allowed to waive this
requirement to carry out construction and project support
activities related to MOX if the Secretary submits to the
congressional defense committees the following, and waits a
period of 15 days:
(1) An updated performance baseline for construction and
project support activities relating to the MOX facility as
required by section 3119(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92);
(2) Notification that the Secretary has sought to enter
into consultations with any relevant State or government of a
foreign country necessary to pursue an alternative option for
carrying out the plutonium disposition program, including a
comprehensive description of the status of such consultations
and a detailed plan and schedule for concluding such
consultations;
(3) The commitment of the Secretary to remove plutonium
from South Carolina and ensure a sustainable future for the
Savannah River Site; and
(4) Either a notification that the prime contractor of the
MOX facility has not submitted a proposal for a fixed-price
contract, within 3 months of the Secretary requesting such a
proposal, for completing construction and project support
activities for the MOX facility, or a certification that such
proposal from the prime contractor is materially deficient or
non-responsive or that an alternative option exists for
carrying out the plutonium disposition program and the total
lifecycle cost of such alternative option would be less than
approximately half of the estimated remaining lifecycle cost of
the mixed-oxide fuel program.
Section 3114--Design Basis Threat
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
update, by August 31, 2016, Department of Energy Order 470.3B
relating to the design basis threat for protecting nuclear
weapons, special nuclear material, and other critical assets in
the custody of the Department of Energy. This section would
also express the sense of Congress regarding the need for the
Intelligence Community, the Department of Energy, and the
Department of Defense to regularly review and assess threats to
U.S. nuclear assets to inform adjustments to security postures.
Section 3115--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Provision of
Certain 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 2017, or any prior fiscal year, for
atomic energy defense 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 determines it is required to meet
requirements that are new and emergency in nature and the
Secretary submits a report to the appropriate congressional
committees containing notification that such waiver is in the
national security interest of the United States, a
justification for such waiver including an explanation for why
the requirements are new and emergency in nature, a
certification that there is no backlog of deferred maintenance
with respect to physical security equipment and related
infrastructure at each Department of Energy defense nuclear
facility, and a period of 15 days elapses.
Section 3116--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Federal Salaries
and Expenses
This section would provide that, of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2017 for the National Nuclear Security
Administration for defense-related Federal Salaries and
Expenses, not more than 90 percent may be obligated or expended
until the date on which the Secretary of Energy submits to the
congressional defense committees and the congressional
intelligence committees the updated plan and description of the
determination of the Secretary required by section 4509(a) of
the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2660(a)). The updated
plan would be regarding the designing and building of
prototypes of nuclear weapons for intelligence purposes that is
required by section 4509(a) to be submitted at the same time as
the budget request for fiscal year 2018.
The committee emphasizes that the design and production of
these prototypes must adhere closely to intelligence-derived
information on foreign nuclear weapons designs and types.
Section 3117--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Defense
Environmental Cleanup Program Direction
This section would provide that, of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2017 for program direction purposes within the
defense environmental cleanup program, not more than 90 percent
may be obligated or expended until the date on which the
Secretary of Energy submits to Congress the future-years
defense environmental cleanup plan required during calendar
year 2017 pursuant to section 4402A of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2582A).
The committee notes that while the requirement for
development and submission of a future-years defense
environmental cleanup plan was created 5 years ago by section
3116 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), the Secretary of Energy
has yet to carry out this requirement. The committee believes
that 5-year budget plans, such as those created by both the
National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of
Defense, are imperfect but useful planning and transparency
tools. The committee expects the Secretary of Energy, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management,
to submit the future-years defense environmental cleanup plan
as required.
Section 3118--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Acceleration of
Nuclear Weapons Dismantlement
This section would provide that, of the funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for any
of fiscal years 2017-21 for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), not more than $56.0 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 2017-21 for NNSA to be obligated or expended to
accelerate the nuclear weapons dismantlement activities of NNSA
beyond the rate contained in the dismantlement schedule
prescribed by the Administrator for Nuclear Security in table
2-7 of the annex of the Fiscal Year 2016 Stockpile Stewardship
and Management Plan (SSMP) submitted by the Administrator to
the congressional defense committees in March 2015.
This section would further prohibit any funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for any
of fiscal years 2017-21 for NNSA to be obligated or expended to
dismantle or dispose of a W84 nuclear weapon.
Finally, this section would include two exceptions to the
prohibitions regarding the W84 and dismantlement schedule
contained in table 2-7 of the SSMP. The first exception would
allow the dismantlement of W84 weapons or weapons not included
in table 2-7 if the Administrator certifies in writing to the
congressional defense committees that:
(1) The components of such weapons are directly required
for the purposes of a current life extension program; or
(2) Such dismantlement is necessary to conduct maintenance
or surveillance of the nuclear weapons stockpile or to ensure
the safety or reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
The second exception would allow the dismantlement of a
nuclear weapon if the President certifies in writing to the
congressional defense committees that:
(1) Such dismantlement is being carried out pursuant to a
nuclear arms reduction treaty or similar international
agreement that requires such dismantlement; and
(2) Such treaty or international agreement 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.
Section 3119--Annual Certification of Shipments to Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant
This section would require, during the 5-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Energy to certify to the congressional defense
committees by February 1 of each year that the management and
operating contractors of the nuclear security enterprise have
certified to the Administrator for Nuclear Security that they
are aware of the contents of each container shipped by the
contractor to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in
sufficient detail. This is to ensure that the container is
handled properly to prevent the release of radiation or
contamination. This section would also require the Secretary to
certify that the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management are aware, for the facilities under
their purview, of the contents of each container shipped to
WIPP in sufficient detail.
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports
Section 3121--Clarification of Annual Report and Certification on
Status of Security of Atomic Energy Defense Facilities
This section would amend section 4506(b)(1)(B) of the
Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2657) to clarify that the
report submitted by the Secretary of Energy pursuant to that
section must contain the Secretary's written certification that
certain atomic energy defense facilities are secure and that
the security measures at such facilities meet the security
standards and requirements of the Department of Energy.
Section 3122--Annual Report on Service Support Contracts of the
National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would amend section 3241A(f) of the National
Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2441a(f)) to add
a new paragraph that requires the Administrator to submit, with
the report required by such section, information regarding the
cost of service support contracts of the National Nuclear
Security Administration and identification of the program or
program direction accounts that support each such contract.
Section 3123--Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements
This section would repeal two reporting requirements. These
include:
(1) Biennial reports on a plan to protect against release
of certain information as required by section 4522(e) of the
Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2672(e));
(2) A report by the Comptroller General of the United
States on the National Nuclear Security Administration's
scientific engagement for nonproliferation program.
Section 3124--Independent Assessment of Technology Development Under
Defense Environmental Cleanup Program
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to seek
to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
Sciences, within 60 days following the date of the enactment of
this Act, to conduct an independent assessment of the defense
environmental cleanup program. Such assessment would be
required to include a review of the technology development
efforts of the defense environmental cleanup program, including
an assessment of the process by which the Secretary identifies
and chooses technologies to pursue under the program. Such
assessment would also include a comprehensive review of
technologies or alternative approaches to defense environmental
cleanup efforts that could reduce long-term costs, accelerate
schedules, or mitigate uncertainties, vulnerabilities, or risks
relating to such efforts; or otherwise significantly improve
the defense environmental cleanup program. The National Academy
of Sciences would be required to submit a report of the
assessment to the Secretary and the congressional defense
committees by September 30, 2017.
The committee recommends this provision to provide a
comprehensive and independent assessment by national experts on
how to strengthen technology development efforts and what
technologies or alternative approaches may warrant
investigation or application. Elsewhere in this title, the
committee recommends a funding increase to technology
development efforts for the defense environmental cleanup
program. The committee believes increased funding and the
recommendations from national experts at the National Academy
of Sciences can bring renewed attention and focus to the
program.
Section 3125--Updated Plan for Verification and Monitoring of
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material
This section would require the President to submit to the
appropriate congressional committees, within 90 days of
enactment of this Act, a comprehensive and detailed update to
the plan for verification and monitoring of nuclear weapons and
fissile material required by section 3133(a) of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). The updated plan
would be required to be submitted in unclassified form, but may
include a classified annex.
This section would also require that, of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2017 for the Department of Defense
for supporting the Executive Office of the President, $10.0
million may not be obligated or expended until the date on
which the President transmits to the appropriate congressional
committees the updated plan required by this section. Finally,
this section would also require the President to provide an
interim briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives (and any other
appropriate congressional committee upon request) an interim
briefing on the updated plan within 30 days of enactment of
this Act.
The committee notes that the Administration delivered, in
response to the reporting requirement contained in section
3133(a) of Public Law 113-291, a classified report consisting
of less than two full pages describing the interagency
coordination mechanisms for verification and monitoring.
Despite being delivered to Congress 10 months after enactment
of that Act, and a month after the report was due to Congress,
the report was not responsive to the congressional requirement
and failed to address many of the required elements, including:
an interagency road map for verification and monitoring with
respect to policy, operations, and research and development
(R&D); identification of requirements for verification and
monitoring (including funding requirements); and
recommendations for building cooperation and transparency to
improve inspections and monitoring.
The committee is also not aware of any relevant
consultations, related to writing this report, with the
entities that should have had significant input into this
report, including relevant Federal Government agencies,
military services, national laboratories, academia, or
industry.
The committee notes the importance of this issue to stem
and detect nuclear proliferation, and questions why the
administration has not accorded the attention and priority to
this requirement as would be warranted to enhance planning on
efforts to support nuclear nonproliferation. This report
requirement resulted from recommendations made by a January
2014 Defense Science Board report titled, ``Assessment of
Nuclear Monitoring and Verification Technologies,'' which found
that ``for the first time since the early decades of the
nuclear era, the nation needs to be equally concerned about
both `vertical' proliferation (the increase in capabilities of
existing nuclear states) and `horizontal' proliferation (an
increase in the number of states and nonstate actors possessing
or attempting to possess nuclear weapons)'' and that ``[t]hese
factors, and others . . . led the Task Force to observe 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 expects that the administration will deliver
a comprehensive and detailed updated report that responds to
each element of the report requirement in section 3133(a) of
Public Law 113-291, and that meaningful consultations with
agencies, military services, national laboratories, industry,
and academia will take place.
To ensure that the administration provides the necessary
focus and attention to developing the required plan and road
map, the committee recommends that the Administration provide
an interim briefing on the plan of work for the report and any
interim findings.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $31.0 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2017. The
committee recommends $31.0 million, the amount of the budget
request.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize $31.0 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2017.
TITLE XXXIII--NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION CAPABILITIES
Section 3301--Short Title
This section would cite the title of this Act as the
``Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act.''
Section 3302--Nuclear Energy
This section would amend section 951 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16271) regarding the Department of
Energy's civilian nuclear energy research and development
mission to ensure that the Department enables the private
sector to partner with national laboratories for the purpose of
developing novel reactor concepts.
Section 3303--Nuclear Energy Research Programs
This section would make technical changes to section 952 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16272) to strike
outdated language.
Section 3304--Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
This section would make technical changes to section 953(a)
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16273(a)) to strike
outdated language.
Section 3305--University Nuclear Science and Engineering Support
This section would make technical changes to section
954(d)(4) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
16274(d)(4)).
Section 3306--Department of Energy Civilian Nuclear Infrastructure and
Facilities
This section would amend section 955 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16275) to provide the Department of
Energy statutory direction for a reactor-based fast neutron
source that would operate as an open-access user facility to
enable academic and proprietary research in the United States.
Section 3307--Security of Nuclear Facilities
This section would make technical changes to section 956 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16276) to strike
outdated language.
Section 3308--High-Performance Computation and Supportive Research
This section would amend section 957 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16277) to provide programmatic authority
for the Department of Energy to leverage its supercomputing
infrastructure to accelerate nuclear energy research and
development capabilities for advanced fission and fusion
reactor technologies.
Section 3309--Enabling Nuclear Energy Innovation
This section would amend subtitle E of title IX of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16271) to add a new
section that would authorize the Secretary of Energy to enable
the private sector to construct and operate privately-funded
reactor prototypes at Department of Energy sites.
Section 3310--Budget Plan
This section would amend subtitle E of title IX of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16271) to require the
Department of Energy to produce a transparent and strategic 10-
year plan for prioritizing nuclear research and development
programs while considering budget constraints.
Section 3311--Conforming Amendments
This section would make conforming changes to the table of
contents of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16271).
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize $14,950,000 for fiscal year
2017 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum
Reserves.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Non-Availability of Vessels
It has come to the attention of the committee that in cases
where Federal departments or agencies shipping government-
impelled cargoes determine that a commercial vessel of the
United States is not available at fair and reasonable rates,
and instead ship such cargoes on foreign-flag vessels, those
cargoes are not being counted as having been shipped on
foreign-flag vessels for purposes of calculating compliance
with section 55305 of title 46, United States Code. The
committee is greatly concerned by this misinterpretation, and
believes that a determination of nonavailability of privately
owned vessels of the United States by any Federal departments
or agencies should not reduce the gross tonnage required to be
transported on privately-owned commercial vessels of the United
States pursuant to section 55305 of title 46, United States
Code.
Recycling United States Vessels in the United States
The committee supports the dismantlement of U.S. government
vessels in U.S. facilities as well as obsolete government
vessels that are contracted for recycling through the Maritime
Administration. The proceeds gained by the Maritime
Administration sales are non-appropriated funds and the
committee believes that these funds will continue to grow and
that they should be distributed to the maritime schools and
heritage organizations more frequently.
Therefore, the committee directs the Maritime
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy,
to submit a report to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate by October 1, 2016
that lists all government-owned vessels that are currently
available for dismantlement; a list of vessels that are
expected to be declared obsolete and dismantled in the next
five years; and the government's plan for dismantling these
vessels in the United States. This report shall also include
the Maritime Administration's plan for the timely distribution
of the proceeds it currently has in its ship disposal accounts,
as well as a projection of future distributions.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3501--Authorization of the Maritime Administration
This section would authorize appropriations for the
national security aspects of the merchant marine for fiscal
year 2017.
Section 3502--Authority To Make Pro Rata Annual Payments Under
Operating Agreements for Vessels Participating in Maritime Security
Fleet
This section would amend subsection (d) of section 53106 of
title 46, United States Code, to permit the Secretary of
Transportation to make a pro rata reduction in the amounts paid
to vessel owners or operators under operating agreements under
chapter 531 of that title if appropriations are insufficient to
make full payment of the amounts authorized and agreed to under
subsection (a) of section 53106.
Section 3503--Authority To Extend Certain Age Restrictions Relating to
Vessels in the Maritime Security Fleet
This section would amend section 53102 of title 46, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense, in
conjunction with the Secretary of Transportation, to extend the
20- and 25-year age restrictions applicable to a
``participating fleet vessel'' found in subsection (5)(A)(ii)
of section 53101, and subsection (c)(3) of section 53106 of
title 46, United States Code, for a period of up to 5 years,
when the Secretaries jointly determine that it would be in the
national interest to do so.
This section would also provide additional technical and
conforming changes.
Section 3504--Corrections to Provisions Enacted by Coast Guard
Authorization Acts
This section would make technical and conforming
corrections to provisions of the Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 2015 (Public Law 114-120).
Section 3505--Status of National Defense Reserve Fleet Vessels
This section would codify the legal status of National
Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) vessels and provide clarity in
situations involving foreign countries. This section would also
clarify that U.S. Maritime Administration's training ships,
which are part of the NDRF, are public vessels. Finally, this
provision would make clear that NDRF vessels remain ``vessels''
within the meaning of section 3 of title 1, United States Code,
until they are delivered to a dismantling facility.
Section 3506--NDRF National Security Multi-Mission Vessel
This section would provide authority to the Maritime
Administrator to enter into a contract for a National Security
Multi-Mission Vessel.
Section 3507--United States Merchant Marine Academy
This section would amend section 51301 of title 46, United
States Code, to codify the qualifications for appointment to
the position of Superintendent of the Merchant Marine Academy.
Section 3508--Use of National Defense Reserve Fleet Scrapping Proceeds
This section would increase the apportionment of National
Defense Reserve Fleet scrapping proceeds to the National
Maritime Heritage Grant Program.
Section 3509--Floating Dry Docks
This section amends section 55122 of title 46, United
States Code, to exempt certain floating dry docks from
limitations imposed by such section 55122.
TITLE XXXVI--BALLAST WATER
Section 3601--Short Title
This section would cite this title as the ``Vessel
Incidental Discharge Act''.
Section 3602--Definitions
This section would provide definitions for the Vessel
Incidental Discharge Act.
Section 3603--Regulation and Enforcement
This section would establish and implement national
standards and requirements for the regulation of discharges
incidental to the normal operations of a vessel for the Vessel
Incidental Discharge Act.
Section 3604--Uniform National Standards and Requirements for the
Regulation of Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel
This section would provide ballast water uniform national
standards and requirements for the regulation of discharges
incidental to the normal operations of a vessel for the Vessel
Incidental Discharge Act.
Section 3605--Treatment Technology Certification
This section would establish a technology certification
process for ballast water treatment technology.
Section 3606--Exemptions
This section would establish exemptions to ballast water
discharge for the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act.
Section 3607--Alternative Compliance Program
This section would establish an alternative compliance
program for ballast water discharge for the Vessel Incidental
Discharge Act.
Section 3608--Judicial Review
This section would establish the process of judicial review
for a final regulation promulgated under the Vessel Incidental
Discharge Act.
Section 3609--Effect on State Authority
This section would prohibit a state or political
subdivision from adopting or enforcing any statute or
regulation of the State or subdivision with respect to a
discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel after
the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 3610--Application With Other Statutes
The section would state that this title shall be the
exclusive statutory authority for regulation by the Federal
Government of discharges incidental to the normal operation of
a vessel to which this title applies.
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 2017
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House
FY 2017 Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations
Title I--Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army.................................... 3,614,787 34,020 3,648,807
Missile Procurement, Army..................................... 1,519,966 172,210 1,692,176
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................... 2,265,177 376,134 2,641,311
Procurement of Ammunition, Army............................... 1,513,157 217,963 1,731,120
Other Procurement, Army....................................... 5,873,949 599,528 6,473,477
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.................................... 14,109,148 -72,300 14,036,848
Weapons Procurement, Navy..................................... 3,209,262 3,209,262
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................ 664,368 664,368
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy............................... 18,354,874 -773,138 17,581,736
Other Procurement, Navy....................................... 6,338,861 -65,900 6,272,961
Procurement, Marine Corps..................................... 1,362,769 1,362,769
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force............................... 13,922,917 13,700 13,936,617
Missile Procurement, Air Force................................ 2,426,621 2,426,621
Space Procurement, Air Force.................................. 3,055,743 27,100 3,082,843
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.......................... 1,677,719 1,677,719
Other Procurement, Air Force.................................. 17,438,056 17,438,056
Procurement, Defense-Wide..................................... 4,524,918 410,700 4,935,618
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund........................... 99,300 -99,300 0
National Guard & Reserve Equipment............................ 250,000 250,000
Subtotal, Title I--Procurement................................ 101,971,592 1,090,717 103,062,309
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................ 7,515,399 3,900 7,519,299
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................ 17,276,301 63,100 17,339,401
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force........... 28,112,251 -7,230 28,105,021
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........ 18,308,826 168,300 18,477,126
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense........................ 178,994 10,000 188,994
Subtotal, Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 71,391,771 238,070 71,629,841
Title III--Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army................................. 33,809,040 26,400 33,835,440
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve......................... 2,712,331 -6,600 2,705,731
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard.................. 6,825,370 -26,276 6,799,094
Operation & Maintenance, Navy................................. 39,483,581 -569,200 38,914,381
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps......................... 5,954,258 -37,200 5,917,058
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................... 927,656 -26,600 901,056
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve................. 270,633 -800 269,833
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................ 37,518,056 -817,635 36,700,421
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................... 3,067,929 -59,700 3,008,229
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard................... 6,703,578 -115,176 6,588,402
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................... 32,571,590 -360,430 32,211,160
US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense............. 14,194 14,194
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid................. 105,125 105,125
Cooperative Threat Reduction.................................. 325,604 325,604
Environmental Restoration, Army............................... 170,167 170,167
Environmental Restoration, Navy............................... 281,762 281,762
Environmental Restoration, Air Force.......................... 371,521 371,521
Environmental Restoration, Defense............................ 9,009 9,009
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Sites................ 197,084 197,084
Subtotal, Title III--Operation and Maintenance................ 171,318,488 -1,993,217 169,325,271
Title IV--Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations............................. 128,902,332 -419,418 128,482,914
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions........... 6,366,908 6,366,908
Subtotal, Title IV--Military Personnel........................ 135,269,240 -419,418 134,849,822
Title XIV--Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army.................................... 56,469 56,469
Working Capital Fund, Air Force............................... 63,967 63,967
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide............................ 37,132 37,132
Working Capital Fund, DECA.................................... 1,214,045 1,214,045
National Defense Sealift Fund................................. 85,000 85,000
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund............................ 773,138 773,138
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction....................... 551,023 551,023
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities................. 844,800 30,000 874,800
Office of the Inspector General............................... 322,035 322,035
Defense Health Program........................................ 33,467,516 -419,500 33,048,016
Subtotal, Title XIV--Other Authorizations..................... 36,556,987 468,638 37,025,625
Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations....... 516,508,078 -615,210 515,892,868
Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
Military Construction
Army.......................................................... 503,459 69,500 572,959
Navy.......................................................... 1,027,763 366,916 1,394,679
Air Force..................................................... 1,481,058 21,665 1,502,723
Defense-Wide.................................................. 2,056,091 -126,448 1,929,643
NATO Security Investment Program.............................. 177,932 177,932
Army National Guard........................................... 232,930 67,500 300,430
Army Reserve.................................................. 68,230 86,500 154,730
Navy and Marine Corps Reserve................................. 38,597 38,597
Air National Guard............................................ 143,957 23,000 166,957
Air Force Reserve............................................. 188,950 17,450 206,400
Subtotal, Military Construction............................... 5,918,967 526,083 6,445,050
Family Housing
Construction, Army............................................ 200,735 -43,563 157,172
Operation & Maintenance, Army................................. 325,995 325,995
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps........................... 94,011 94,011
Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps................ 300,915 300,915
Construction, Air Force....................................... 61,352 61,352
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................ 274,429 274,429
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................... 59,157 59,157
improvement Fund.............................................. 3,258 3,258
Subtotal, Family Housing...................................... 1,319,852 -43,563 1,276,289
Base Realignment and Closure
Base Realignment and Closure--Army............................ 14,499 10,000 24,499
Base Realignment and Closure--Navy............................ 134,373 15,000 149,373
Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force....................... 56,365 56,365
Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure........................ 205,237 25,000 230,237
Undistributed Adjustments
Prior Year Savings............................................ 0 -257,576 -257,576
Subtotal, Undistributed Adjustments........................... 0 -257,576 -257,576
Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations....... 7,444,056 249,944 7,694,000
Total, 051, Department of Defense-Military.................... 523,952,134 -365,266 523,586,868
Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations
Function 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Nuclear Energy................................................ 151,876 -15,260 136,616
Weapons Activities............................................ 9,243,147 316,000 9,559,147
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.............................. 1,807,916 94,000 1,901,916
Naval Reactors................................................ 1,420,120 1,420,120
Federal salaries and expenses................................. 412,817 -40,000 372,817
Defense Environmental Cleanup................................. 5,382,050 -92,100 5,289,950
Other Defense Activities...................................... 791,552 9,000 800,552
Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities.......... 19,209,478 271,640 19,481,118
Independent Federal Agency Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board....................... 31,000 31,000
Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization............ 31,000 0 31,000
Subtotal, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 19,240,478 271,640 19,512,118
Function 054, Defense-Related Activities
Other Agency Authorizations
Maritime Security Program..................................... 211,000 88,997 299,997
Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization............ 211,000 88,997 299,997
Subtotal, 054, Defense-Related Activities..................... 211,000 88,997 299,997
Subtotal, Division C: Department of Energy National Security 19,451,478 360,637 19,812,115
Authorization and Other Authorizations.......................
Total, National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request.......... 543,403,612 -4,629 543,398,983
National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations
National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Request
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army.................................... 235,131 -4,420 230,711
Missile Procurement, Army..................................... 482,817 -172,210 310,607
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................... 153,544 -131,134 22,410
Procurement of Ammunition, Army............................... 301,523 -213,063 88,460
Other Procurement, Army....................................... 1,211,110 -612,028 599,082
Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund........................... 295,000 -25,000 270,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.................................... 358,830 358,830
Weapons Procurement, Navy..................................... 8,600 8,600
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................ 66,229 66,229
Other Procurement, Navy....................................... 64,877 64,877
Procurement, Marine Corps..................................... 118,939 118,939
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force............................... 679,969 -25,600 654,369
Missile Procurement, Air Force................................ 154,845 154,845
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.......................... 164,408 164,408
Other Procurement, Air Force.................................. 3,696,281 3,696,281
Procurement, Defense-Wide..................................... 234,434 234,434
Subtotal, Procurement......................................... 8,226,537 -1,183,455 7,043,082
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................ 100,489 100,489
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................ 40,333 40,333
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force........... 32,905 32,905
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........ 162,419 162,419
Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.......... 336,146 0 336,146
Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army................................. 13,724,112 -5,197,330 8,526,782
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve......................... 24,120 -6,594 17,526
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard.................. 66,907 -19,392 47,515
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.............................. 3,448,715 -1,168,747 2,279,968
Iraq Train & Equip Fund....................................... 630,000 -217,913 412,087
Syria Train & Equip Fund...................................... 250,000 -98,497 151,503
Operation & Maintenance, Navy................................. 5,345,875 -2,226,518 3,119,357
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps......................... 944,359 -331,293 613,066
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................... 26,265 -10,448 15,817
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve................. 3,304 -1,302 2,002
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................ 9,374,830 -3,683,011 5,691,819
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................... 57,586 -22,788 34,798
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard................... 20,000 -7,880 12,120
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................... 5,944,129 -2,239,278 3,704,851
Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance........................... 39,860,202 -15,230,991 24,629,211
Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations............................. 3,499,293 -1,299,721 2,199,572
Subtotal, Military Personnel.................................. 3,499,293 -1,299,721 2,199,572
Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army.................................... 46,833 -18,452 28,381
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide............................ 93,800 -36,956 56,844
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities................. 191,533 191,533
Office of the Inspector General............................... 22,062 22,062
Defense Health Program........................................ 331,764 -130,711 201,053
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund............................ 1,000,000 -250,000 750,000
Ukraine Security Assistance................................... 150,000 150,000
Subtotal, Other Authorizations................................ 1,685,992 -286,119 1,399,873
Military Construction
Army.......................................................... 18,900 18,900
Navy.......................................................... 21,400 21,400
Air Force..................................................... 88,740 -449 88,291
Defense-Wide.................................................. 5,000 5,000
Subtotal, Military Construction............................... 134,040 -449 133,591
Subtotal, Overseas Contingency Operations..................... 53,742,210 -18,000,735 35,741,475
Subtotal, 051, Department of Defense-Military................. 53,742,210 -18,000,735 35,741,475
Total, National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency 53,742,210 -18,000,735 35,741,475
Operations Budget Request....................................
National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations Funding for Base Requirements
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army.................................... 78,040 1,060,200 1,138,240
Missile Procurement, Army..................................... 150,000 196,100 346,100
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................... 267,100 267,100
Procurement of Ammunition, Army............................... 287,700 287,700
Other Procurement, Army....................................... 161,900 106,800 268,700
Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund........................... 113,272 113,272
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.................................... 34,200 3,177,800 3,212,000
Weapons Procurement, Navy..................................... 127,100 127,100
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................ 77,200 77,200
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy............................... 2,267,000 2,267,000
Other Procurement, Navy....................................... 59,329 118,900 178,229
Procurement, Marine Corps..................................... 54,800 54,800
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force............................... 179,430 1,699,600 1,879,030
Missile Procurement, Air Force................................ 184,700 184,700
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.......................... 323,000 323,000
Procurement, Defense-Wide..................................... 4,000 4,000
Subtotal, Procurement......................................... 1,287,871 9,440,300 10,728,171
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................ 33 63,700 63,733
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................ 37,990 50,400 88,390
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense........................ 300,000 300,000
Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.......... 38,023 414,100 452,123
Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army................................. 1,586,475 2,294,934 3,881,409
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve......................... 14,559 220,900 235,459
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard.................. 60,128 326,100 386,228
Operation & Maintenance, Navy................................. 1,481,516 1,300,740 2,782,256
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps......................... 300,000 189,050 489,050
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................... 12,100 12,100
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve................. 7,700 7,700
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................ 124,000 1,038,700 1,162,700
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................... 20,500 20,500
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard................... 171,500 171,500
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................... 38,044 38,044
Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance........................... 3,604,722 5,582,224 9,186,946
Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations............................. 62,965 2,509,750 2,572,715
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions........... 49,900 49,900
Subtotal, Military Personnel.................................. 62,965 2,559,650 2,622,615
Other Authorizations
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities................. 23,800 23,800
Subtotal, Other Authorizations................................ 23,800 0 23,800
Military Construction
Navy.......................................................... 38,409 38,409
Subtotal, Military Construction............................... 38,409 0 38,409
Subtotal, 051, Department of Defense-Military................. 5,055,790 17,996,274 23,052,064
Total, National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency 5,055,790 17,996,274 23,052,064
Operations Funding for Base Requirements.....................
Total, National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency 58,798,000 -4,461 58,793,539
Operations...................................................
Total, National Defense....................................... 602,201,612 -9,090 602,192,522
MEMORANDUM: BASE BUDGET REQUIREMENTS
Base Funding.................................................. 543,403,612 -4,629 543,398,983
Overseas Contingency Operations Funding for Base Requirements. 5,055,790 17,996,274 23,052,064
Total, Base Budget Requirements.......................... 548,459,402 17,991,645 566,451,047
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600)........ 64,300 64,300
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (Function 14,950 14,950
270).........................................................
Title XXXV--Maritime Administration (Function 400)............ 208,146 208,146
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADD)
Title X--General Transfer Authority........................... [5,000,000] [5,000,000]
Title XV--Special Transfer Authority.......................... [4,500,000] [4,500,000]
MEMORANDUM: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE (NON-ADD)
Defense Production Act........................................ [44,605] [44,605]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 House House
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committee
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 523,952,134 -365,266 523,586,868
(051).........................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 19,240,478 271,640 19,512,118
PROGRAMS (053)................
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED 211,000 88,997 299,997
ACTIVITIES (054)..............
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)-- 543,403,612 -4,629 543,398,983
BASE BILL.....................
TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 58,798,000 -4,461 58,793,539
OPERATIONS....................
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE.. 602,201,612 -9,090 602,192,522
Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the
Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or Do Not Require
Additional Authorization (CBO Reestimate of FY 2017 Request)
Defense Production Act 44,000 44,000
Purchases.....................
Indefinite Account: Disposal Of 8,000 8,000
DOD Real Property.............
Indefinite Account: Lease Of 37,000 37,000
DOD Real Property.............
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 89,000 89,000
051...........................
Formerly Utilized Sites 103,000 103,000
Remedial Action Program.......
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 103,000 103,000
053...........................
Other Discretionary Programs... 7,750,000 7,750,000
Other Discretionary Programs-- -133,000 -133,000
proposed rescission (FBI S&E).
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 7,617,000 7,617,000
054...........................
Total Defense Discretionary 7,809,000 7,809,000
Adjustments (050).............
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary
Department of Defense--Military 582,839,134 -369,727 582,469,407
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 19,343,478 271,640 19,615,118
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 7,828,000 88,997 7,916,997
(054).........................
Total BA Implication, National 610,010,612 -9,090 610,001,522
Defense Discretionary.........
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Reestimate of FY
2017 Request)
Concurrent receipt accrual 7,575,000 7,575,000
payments to the Military
Retirement Fund...............
Revolving, trust and other DOD 1,463,000 1,463,000
Mandatory.....................
Offsetting receipts............ -1,856,000 -1,856,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 7,182,000 7,182,000
051...........................
Energy employees occupational 1,169,000 1,169,000
illness compensation programs
and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 1,169,000 1,169,000
053...........................
Radiation exposure compensation 62,000 62,000
trust fund....................
Payment to CIA retirement fund 514,000 514,000
and other.....................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 576,000 576,000
054...........................
Total National Defense 8,927,000 8,927,000
Mandatory (050)...............
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory
Department of Defense--Military 590,021,134 -369,727 589,651,407
(051).........................
Atomic Energy Defense 20,512,478 271,640 20,784,118
Activities (053)..............
Defense-Related Activities 8,404,000 88,997 8,492,997
(054).........................
Total BA Implication, National 618,937,612 -9,090 618,928,522
Defense Discretionary and
Mandatory.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
FIXED WING
001 UTILITY F/W 3 57,529 3 57,529
AIRCRAFT.
003 MQ-1 UAV....... 55,388 29,600 84,988
Ground [29,600]
Mounted
Airspace
Deconflicti
on Radar.
ROTARY
006 AH-64 APACHE 48 803,084 48 803,084
BLOCK IIIA
REMAN.
007 ADVANCE 185,160 185,160
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 UH-60 BLACKHAWK 36 755,146 36 755,146
M MODEL (MYP).
009 ADVANCE 174,107 174,107
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
010 UH-60 BLACK 38 46,173 38 46,173
HAWK A AND L
MODELS.
011 CH-47 22 556,257 22 556,257
HELICOPTER.
012 ADVANCE 8,707 8,707
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
013 MQ-1 PAYLOAD 43,735 43,735
(MIP).
015 MULTI SENSOR 94,527 94,527
ABN RECON
(MIP).
016 AH-64 MODS..... 137,883 137,883
017 CH-47 CARGO 102,943 102,943
HELICOPTER
MODS (MYP).
018 GRCS SEMA MODS 4,055 4,055
(MIP).
019 ARL SEMA MODS 6,793 6,793
(MIP).
020 EMARSS SEMA 13,197 13,197
MODS (MIP).
021 UTILITY/CARGO 17,526 17,526
AIRPLANE MODS.
022 UTILITY 10,807 10,807
HELICOPTER
MODS.
023 NETWORK AND 74,752 74,752
MISSION PLAN.
024 COMMS, NAV 69,960 69,960
SURVEILLANCE.
025 GATM ROLLUP.... 45,302 45,302
026 RQ-7 UAV MODS.. 71,169 71,169
027 UAS MODS....... 21,804 4,420 26,224
Realign APS [4,420]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
028 AIRCRAFT 67,377 67,377
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.
029 SURVIVABILITY 9,565 9,565
CM.
030 CMWS........... 41,626 41,626
OTHER SUPPORT
032 AVIONICS 7,007 7,007
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
033 COMMON GROUND 48,234 48,234
EQUIPMENT.
034 AIRCREW 30,297 30,297
INTEGRATED
SYSTEMS.
035 AIR TRAFFIC 50,405 50,405
CONTROL.
036 INDUSTRIAL 1,217 1,217
FACILITIES.
037 LAUNCHER, 2.75 3,055 3,055
ROCKET.
TOTAL 147 3,614,787 34,020 147 3,648,807
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
001 LOWER TIER AIR 126,470 126,470
AND MISSILE
DEFENSE (AMD).
002 MSE MISSILE.... 85 423,201 85 423,201
003 ADVANCE 19,319 19,319
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
004 HELLFIRE SYS 155 42,013 155 42,013
SUMMARY.
005 JOINT AIR-TO- 324 64,751 324 64,751
GROUND MSLS
(JAGM).
006 ADVANCE 37,100 37,100
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
ANTI-TANK/
ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
007 JAVELIN (AAWS- 309 73,508 15,567 309 89,075
M) SYSTEM
SUMMARY.
Realign APS [15,567]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
008 TOW 2 SYSTEM 595 64,922 80,652 595 145,574
SUMMARY.
Realign APS [80,652]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
009 ADVANCE 19,949 19,949
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
010 GUIDED MLRS 1,068 172,088 75,991 1,068 248,079
ROCKET (GMLRS).
Realign APS [75,991]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
011 MLRS REDUCED 1,704 18,004 1,704 18,004
RANGE PRACTICE
ROCKETS (RRPR).
MODIFICATIONS
013 PATRIOT MODS... 197,107 197,107
014 ATACMS MODS.... 150,043 150,043
015 GMLRS MOD...... 395 395
017 AVENGER MODS... 33,606 33,606
018 ITAS/TOW MODS.. 383 383
019 MLRS MODS...... 34,704 34,704
020 HIMARS 1,847 1,847
MODIFICATIONS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
021 SPARES AND 34,487 34,487
REPAIR PARTS.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
022 AIR DEFENSE 4,915 4,915
TARGETS.
024 PRODUCTION BASE 1,154 1,154
SUPPORT.
TOTAL 4,240 1,519,966 172,210 4,240 1,692,176
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
001 STRYKER VEHICLE 71,680 71,680
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
002 STRYKER (MOD).. 74,348 74,348
003 STRYKER UPGRADE 444,561 444,561
005 BRADLEY PROGRAM 276,433 276,433
(MOD).
006 HOWITZER, MED 63,138 63,138
SP FT 155MM
M109A6 (MOD).
007 PALADIN 36 469,305 125,184 36 594,489
INTEGRATED
MANAGEMENT
(PIM).
Realign APS [125,184]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
008 IMPROVED 22 91,963 22 91,963
RECOVERY
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).
009 ASSAULT BRIDGE 3,465 5,950 9,415
(MOD).
Realign APS [5,950]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
010 ASSAULT 2,928 2,928
BREACHER
VEHICLE.
011 M88 FOV MODS... 8,685 8,685
012 JOINT ASSAULT 9 64,752 9 64,752
BRIDGE.
013 M1 ABRAMS TANK 480,166 480,166
(MOD).
014 ABRAMS UPGRADE 172,200 172,200
PROGRAM.
Realign APS [172,200]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT
VEHICLES
016 INTEGRATED AIR 9,764 9,764
BURST WEAPON
SYSTEM FAMILY.
017 MORTAR SYSTEMS. 8,332 8,332
018 XM320 GRENADE 3,062 3,062
LAUNCHER
MODULE (GLM).
019 COMPACT SEMI- 992 992
AUTOMATIC
SNIPER SYSTEM.
020 CARBINE........ 40,493 40,493
021 COMMON REMOTELY 25,164 25,164
OPERATED
WEAPONS
STATION.
MOD OF WEAPONS
AND OTHER
COMBAT VEH
022 MK-19 GRENADE 4,959 4,959
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
023 M777 MODS...... 11,913 11,913
024 M4 CARBINE MODS 29,752 29,752
025 M2 50 CAL 48,582 48,582
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
026 M249 SAW 1,179 1,179
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
027 M240 MEDIUM 1,784 1,784
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
028 SNIPER RIFLES 971 971
MODIFICATIONS.
029 M119 6,045 6,045
MODIFICATIONS.
030 MORTAR 12,118 12,118
MODIFICATION.
031 MODIFICATIONS 3,157 3,157
LESS THAN
$5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
032 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,331 2,331
$5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).
035 SMALL ARMS 3,155 3,155
EQUIPMENT
(SOLDIER ENH
PROG).
036 BRADLEY PROGRAM 72,800 72,800
Realign APS [72,800]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
TOTAL 67 2,265,177 376,134 67 2,641,311
PROCUREMEN
T OF
W&TCV,
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM
CAL AMMUNITION
001 CTG, 5.56MM, 40,296 40,296
ALL TYPES.
002 CTG, 7.62MM, 39,237 9,642 48,879
ALL TYPES.
Realign APS [9,642]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
003 CTG, HANDGUN, 5,193 5,193
ALL TYPES.
004 CTG, .50 CAL, 46,693 5,998 52,691
ALL TYPES.
Realign APS [5,998]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
005 CTG, 20MM, ALL 7,000 1,077 8,077
TYPES.
Realign APS [1,077]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
006 CTG, 25MM, ALL 7,753 27,234 34,987
TYPES.
Program [-1,300]
reduction.
Realign APS [28,534]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
007 CTG, 30MM, ALL 47,000 47,000
TYPES.
008 CTG, 40MM, ALL 118,178 -2,677 115,501
TYPES.
Realign APS [7,423]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
Unobligated [-10,100]
balances.
MORTAR
AMMUNITION
009 60MM MORTAR, 69,784 69,784
ALL TYPES.
010 81MM MORTAR, 36,125 2,677 38,802
ALL TYPES.
Realign APS [2,677]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
011 120MM MORTAR, 69,133 69,133
ALL TYPES.
TANK AMMUNITION
012 CARTRIDGES, 120,668 8,999 129,667
TANK, 105MM
AND 120MM, ALL
TYPES.
Realign APS [8,999]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
013 ARTILLERY 64,800 64,800
CARTRIDGES,
75MM & 105MM,
ALL TYPES.
014 ARTILLERY 109,515 20,348 129,863
PROJECTILE,
155MM, ALL
TYPES.
Realign APS [20,348]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
015 PROJ 155MM 39,200 140 39,340
EXTENDED RANGE
M982.
Realign APS [140]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
016 ARTILLERY 70,881 24,655 95,536
PROPELLANTS,
FUZES AND
PRIMERS, ALL.
Realign APS [24,655]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
MINES
017 MINES & 16,866 16,866
CLEARING
CHARGES, ALL
TYPES.
Realign APS [16,866]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
NETWORKED
MUNITIONS
018 SPIDER NETWORK 10,353 10,353
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
Realign APS [10,353]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
ROCKETS
019 SHOULDER 38,000 63,210 101,210
LAUNCHED
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
Realign APS [63,210]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
020 ROCKET, HYDRA 87,213 87,213
70, ALL TYPES.
OTHER
AMMUNITION
021 CAD/PAD, ALL 4,914 4,914
TYPES.
022 DEMOLITION 6,380 6,373 12,753
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
Realign APS [6,373]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
023 GRENADES, ALL 22,760 4,143 26,903
TYPES.
Realign APS [4,143]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
024 SIGNALS, ALL 10,666 1,852 12,518
TYPES.
Realign APS [1,852]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
025 SIMULATORS, ALL 7,412 7,412
TYPES.
MISCELLANEOUS
026 AMMO 12,726 12,726
COMPONENTS,
ALL TYPES.
027 NON-LETHAL 6,100 773 6,873
AMMUNITION,
ALL TYPES.
Realign APS [773]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
028 ITEMS LESS THAN 10,006 10,006
$5 MILLION
(AMMO).
029 AMMUNITION 17,275 -3,700 13,575
PECULIAR
EQUIPMENT.
Program [-3,700]
reduction-
excess
carryover.
030 FIRST 14,951 14,951
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO).
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
032 INDUSTRIAL 222,269 20,000 242,269
FACILITIES.
Program [20,000]
increase.
033 CONVENTIONAL 157,383 157,383
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATI
ON.
034 ARMS INITIATIVE 3,646 3,646
TOTAL 1,513,157 217,963 1,731,120
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, ARMY.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
001 TACTICAL 3,733 3,733
TRAILERS/DOLLY
SETS.
002 SEMITRAILERS, 3,716 4,180 7,896
FLATBED:.
Realign APS [4,180]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
003 HI MOB MULTI- 50,000 50,000
PURP WHLD VEH
(HMMWV).
HMMWV [50,000]
M997A3
ambulance
recapitaliz
ation for
Active
Component.
004 GROUND MOBILITY 4,907 4,907
VEHICLES (GMV).
006 JOINT LIGHT 1,828 587,514 1,828 587,514
TACTICAL
VEHICLE.
007 TRUCK, DUMP, 3,927 3,927
20T (CCE).
008 FAMILY OF 8 53,293 147,476 8 200,769
MEDIUM
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV).
Realign APS [147,476]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
009 FIRETRUCKS & 7,460 7,460
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING
EQUIP.
010 FAMILY OF HEAVY 430 39,564 6,122 430 45,686
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
(FHTV).
Realign APS [6,122]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
011 PLS ESP........ 11,856 106,358 118,214
Realign APS [106,358]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
012 HVY EXPANDED 76,561 76,561
MOBILE
TACTICAL TRUCK
EXT SERV.
Realign APS [76,561]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
013 TACTICAL 49,751 27,119 76,870
WHEELED
VEHICLE
PROTECTION
KITS.
Realign APS [27,119]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
014 MODIFICATION OF 64,000 -6,544 57,456
IN SVC EQUIP.
Program [-10,000]
reduction.
Realign APS [3,456]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
015 MINE-RESISTANT 10,611 10,611
AMBUSH-
PROTECTED
(MRAP) MODS.
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
016 HEAVY ARMORED 394 394
SEDAN.
018 NONTACTICAL 1,755 1,755
VEHICLES,
OTHER.
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
019 WIN-T--GROUND 427,598 6,572 434,170
FORCES
TACTICAL
NETWORK.
Realign APS [6,572]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
020 SIGNAL 58,250 58,250
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
021 JOINT INCIDENT 5,749 5,749
SITE
COMMUNICATIONS
CAPABILITY.
022 JCSE EQUIPMENT 5,068 5,068
(USREDCOM).
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
023 DEFENSE 143,805 143,805
ENTERPRISE
WIDEBAND
SATCOM SYSTEMS.
024 TRANSPORTABLE 36,580 36,580
TACTICAL
COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS.
025 SHF TERM....... 1,985 24,000 25,985
Realign APS [24,000]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
027 SMART-T (SPACE) 9,165 9,165
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
031 ARMY GLOBAL CMD 2,530 2,530
& CONTROL SYS
(AGCCS).
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
033 HANDHELD 5,656 273,645 5,656 273,645
MANPACK SMALL
FORM FIT (HMS).
034 MID-TIER 25,017 25,017
NETWORKING
VEHICULAR
RADIO (MNVR).
035 RADIO TERMINAL 12,326 12,326
SET, MIDS
LVT(2).
037 TRACTOR DESK... 2,034 2,034
038 TRACTOR RIDE... 2,334 2,334
039 SPIDER APLA 1,985 1,985
REMOTE CONTROL
UNIT.
040 SPIDER FAMILY 10,796 10,796
OF NETWORKED
MUNITIONS INCR.
042 TACTICAL 3,607 3,607
COMMUNICATIONS
AND PROTECTIVE
SYSTEM.
043 UNIFIED COMMAND 14,295 14,295
SUITE.
045 FAMILY OF MED 19,893 19,893
COMM FOR
COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.
COMM--INTELLIGE
NCE COMM
047 CI AUTOMATION 1,388 1,388
ARCHITECTURE.
048 ARMY CA/MISO 5,494 5,494
GPF EQUIPMENT.
INFORMATION
SECURITY
049 FAMILY OF 2,978 2,978
BIOMETRICS.
051 COMMUNICATIONS 131,356 1,928 133,284
SECURITY
(COMSEC).
Realign APS [1,928]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
052 DEFENSIVE CYBER 15,132 15,132
OPERATIONS.
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
053 BASE SUPPORT 27,452 27,452
COMMUNICATIONS.
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
054 INFORMATION 122,055 122,055
SYSTEMS.
055 EMERGENCY 1 4,286 1 4,286
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
056 INSTALLATION 131,794 131,794
INFO
INFRASTRUCTURE
MOD PROGRAM.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACT INT REL
ACT (TIARA)
059 JTT/CIBS-M..... 5,337 5,337
062 DCGS-A (MIP)... 242,514 242,514
063 JOINT TACTICAL 4,417 4,417
GROUND STATION
(JTAGS).
064 TROJAN (MIP)... 17,455 160 17,615
Realign APS [160]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
065 MOD OF IN-SVC 44,965 44,965
EQUIP (INTEL
SPT) (MIP).
066 CI HUMINT AUTO 7,658 7,658
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS).
067 CLOSE ACCESS 7,970 7,970
TARGET
RECONNAISSANCE
(CATR).
068 MACHINE FOREIGN 545 545
LANGUAGE
TRANSLATION
SYSTEM-M.
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW)
070 LIGHTWEIGHT 74,038 25,892 99,930
COUNTER MORTAR
RADAR.
Realign APS [25,892]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
071 EW PLANNING & 3,235 3,235
MANAGEMENT
TOOLS (EWPMT).
072 AIR VIGILANCE 733 733
(AV).
074 FAMILY OF 1,740 1,740
PERSISTENT
SURVEILLANCE
CAPABILITIE.
075 COUNTERINTELLIG 455 455
ENCE/SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
076 CI 176 176
MODERNIZATION.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
077 SENTINEL MODS.. 40,171 40,171
078 NIGHT VISION 163,029 163,029
DEVICES.
079 SMALL TACTICAL 15,885 15,885
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF.
080 INDIRECT FIRE 48,427 4,270 52,697
PROTECTION
FAMILY OF
SYSTEMS.
Realign APS [4,270]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
081 FAMILY OF 55,536 55,536
WEAPON SIGHTS
(FWS).
082 ARTILLERY 4,187 4,187
ACCURACY EQUIP.
085 JOINT BATTLE 137,501 137,501
COMMAND--PLATF
ORM (JBC-P).
086 JOINT EFFECTS 50,726 50,726
TARGETING
SYSTEM (JETS).
087 MOD OF IN-SVC 28,058 28,058
EQUIP (LLDR).
088 COMPUTER 5,924 5,924
BALLISTICS:
LHMBC XM32.
089 MORTAR FIRE 22,331 290 22,621
CONTROL SYSTEM.
Realign APS [290]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
090 COUNTERFIRE 314,509 -33,000 281,509
RADARS.
Unit cost [-33,000]
savings.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
091 FIRE SUPPORT C2 8,660 8,660
FAMILY.
092 AIR & MSL 54,376 69,958 124,334
DEFENSE
PLANNING &
CONTROL SYS.
Realign APS [69,958]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
093 IAMD BATTLE 204,969 204,969
COMMAND SYSTEM.
094 LIFE CYCLE 4,718 4,718
SOFTWARE
SUPPORT (LCSS).
095 NETWORK 11,063 11,063
MANAGEMENT
INITIALIZATION
AND SERVICE.
096 MANEUVER 151,318 151,318
CONTROL SYSTEM
(MCS).
097 GLOBAL COMBAT 155,660 155,660
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).
098 INTEGRATED 4,214 4,214
PERSONNEL AND
PAY SYSTEM-
ARMY (IPP.
099 RECONNAISSANCE 16,185 16,185
AND SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET.
100 MOD OF IN-SVC 1,565 1,565
EQUIPMENT
(ENFIRE).
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
101 ARMY TRAINING 17,693 17,693
MODERNIZATION.
102 AUTOMATED DATA 107,960 107,960
PROCESSING
EQUIP.
103 GENERAL FUND 6,416 6,416
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS
SYSTEMS FAM.
104 HIGH PERF 58,614 58,614
COMPUTING MOD
PGM (HPCMP).
105 CONTRACT 986 986
WRITING SYSTEM.
106 RESERVE 23,828 23,828
COMPONENT
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS).
ELECT EQUIP--
AUDIO VISUAL
SYS (A/V)
107 TACTICAL 1,191 1,191
DIGITAL MEDIA.
108 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,995 96 2,091
$5M (SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT).
Realign APS [96]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
109 PRODUCTION BASE 403 403
SUPPORT (C-E).
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
110A CLASSIFIED 4,436 4,436
PROGRAMS.
CHEMICAL
DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
111 PROTECTIVE 2,966 2,966
SYSTEMS.
112 FAMILY OF NON- 9,795 9,795
LETHAL
EQUIPMENT
(FNLE).
114 CBRN DEFENSE... 17,922 1,841 19,763
Realign APS [1,841]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
BRIDGING
EQUIPMENT
115 TACTICAL 13,553 26,000 39,553
BRIDGING.
Realign APS [26,000]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
116 TACTICAL 25,244 25,244
BRIDGE, FLOAT-
RIBBON.
117 BRIDGE 983 983
SUPPLEMENTAL
SET.
118 COMMON BRIDGE 25,176 25,176
TRANSPORTER
(CBT) RECAP.
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
119 GRND STANDOFF 39,350 39,350
MINE DETECTN
SYSM
(GSTAMIDS).
120 AREA MINE 10,500 10,500
DETECTION
SYSTEM (AMDS).
121 HUSKY MOUNTED 274 274
DETECTION
SYSTEM (HMDS).
122 ROBOTIC COMBAT 2,951 2,951
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS).
123 EOD ROBOTICS 1,949 1,949
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATI
ON.
124 ROBOTICS AND 5,203 268 5,471
APPLIQUE
SYSTEMS.
Realign APS [268]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
125 EXPLOSIVE 5,570 5,570
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL EQPMT
(EOD EQPMT).
126 REMOTE 6,238 6,238
DEMOLITION
SYSTEMS.
127 < $5M, 836 836
COUNTERMINE
EQUIPMENT.
128 FAMILY OF BOATS 3,171 280 3,451
AND MOTORS.
Realign APS [280]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
129 HEATERS AND 18,707 894 19,601
ECU'S.
Realign APS [894]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
130 SOLDIER 2,112 2,112
ENHANCEMENT.
131 PERSONNEL 10,856 10,856
RECOVERY
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS).
132 GROUND SOLDIER 32,419 32,419
SYSTEM.
133 MOBILE SOLDIER 30,014 30,014
POWER.
135 FIELD FEEDING 12,544 2,665 15,209
EQUIPMENT.
Realign APS [2,665]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
136 CARGO AERIAL 18,509 18,509
DEL &
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE
SYSTEM.
137 FAMILY OF ENGR 29,384 9,789 39,173
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION
SETS.
Realign APS [9,789]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
138 ITEMS LESS THAN 300 300
$5M (ENG SPT).
Realign APS [300]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
PETROLEUM
EQUIPMENT
139 QUALITY 4,487 4,800 9,287
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT.
Realign APS [4,800]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
140 DISTRIBUTION 42,656 20,820 63,476
SYSTEMS,
PETROLEUM &
WATER.
Realign APS [20,820]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
141 COMBAT SUPPORT 59,761 5,763 65,524
MEDICAL.
Realign APS [5,763]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
142 MOBILE 35,694 -1,891 33,803
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
SYSTEMS.
Program [-3,500]
reduction.
Realign APS [1,609]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
143 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,716 145 2,861
$5.0M (MAINT
EQ).
Realign APS [145]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
144 GRADER, ROAD 1,742 3,047 4,789
MTZD, HVY, 6X4
(CCE).
Realign APS [3,047]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
145 SCRAPERS, 26,233 26,233
EARTHMOVING.
147 HYDRAULIC 1,123 1,123
EXCAVATOR.
148 TRACTOR, FULL 4,426 4,426
TRACKED.
Realign APS [4,426]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
149 ALL TERRAIN 65,285 65,285
CRANES.
151 HIGH MOBILITY 1,743 2,900 4,643
ENGINEER
EXCAVATOR
(HMEE).
Realign APS [2,900]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
152 ENHANCED RAPID 2,779 2,779
AIRFIELD
CONSTRUCTION
CAPAP.
154 CONST EQUIP ESP 26,712 -3,500 23,212
Program [-3,500]
reduction.
155 ITEMS LESS THAN 6,649 96 6,745
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP).
Realign APS [96]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATI
ON EQUIPMENT
156 ARMY WATERCRAFT 21,860 -5,000 16,860
ESP.
Program [-5,000]
reduction.
157 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,967 1,967
$5.0M (FLOAT/
RAIL).
GENERATORS
158 GENERATORS AND 113,266 12,461 125,727
ASSOCIATED
EQUIP.
Program [-7,500]
decrease.
Realign APS [19,961]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
159 TACTICAL 7,867 7,867
ELECTRIC POWER
RECAPITALIZATI
ON.
MATERIAL
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
160 FAMILY OF 2,307 846 3,153
FORKLIFTS.
Realign APS [846]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
161 COMBAT TRAINING 75,359 75,359
CENTERS
SUPPORT.
162 TRAINING 253,050 253,050
DEVICES,
NONSYSTEM.
163 CLOSE COMBAT 48,271 48,271
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
164 AVIATION 40,000 40,000
COMBINED ARMS
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
165 GAMING 11,543 11,543
TECHNOLOGY IN
SUPPORT OF
ARMY TRAINING.
TEST MEASURE
AND DIG
EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
166 CALIBRATION 4,963 4,963
SETS EQUIPMENT.
167 INTEGRATED 29,781 29,781
FAMILY OF TEST
EQUIPMENT
(IFTE).
168 TEST EQUIPMENT 6,342 1,140 7,482
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD).
Realign APS [1,140]
Unit Set
Requirement
s from OCO.
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
169 M25 STABILIZED 3,149 3,149
BINOCULAR.
170 RAPID EQUIPPING 18,003 18,003
SOLDIER
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
171 PHYSICAL 44,082 44,082
SECURITY
SYSTEMS (OPA3).
172 BASE LEVEL 2,168 2,168
COMMON
EQUIPMENT.
173 MODIFICATION OF 67,367 67,367
IN-SVC
EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3).
174 PRODUCTION BASE 1,528 1,528
SUPPORT (OTH).
175 SPECIAL 8,289 8,289
EQUIPMENT FOR
USER TESTING.
177 TRACTOR YARD... 6,888 6,888
OPA2
179 INITIAL SPARES-- 27,243 27,243
C&E.
TOTAL 7,923 5,873,949 599,528 7,923 6,473,477
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
003 JOINT STRIKE 4 890,650 4 890,650
FIGHTER CV.
004 ADVANCE 80,908 80,908
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
005 JSF STOVL...... 16 2,037,768 16 2,037,768
006 ADVANCE 233,648 233,648
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
007 CH-53K (HEAVY 2 348,615 2 348,615
LIFT).
008 ADVANCE 88,365 88,365
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
009 V-22 (MEDIUM 16 1,264,134 16 1,264,134
LIFT).
010 ADVANCE 19,674 19,674
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
011 H-1 UPGRADES 24 759,778 24 759,778
(UH-1Y/AH-1Z).
012 ADVANCE 57,232 57,232
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
014 MH-60R (MYP)... 61,177 -35,000 26,177
Line [-35,000]
shutdown
costs--earl
y to need.
016 P-8A POSEIDON.. 11 1,940,238 11 1,940,238
017 ADVANCE 123,140 123,140
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
018 E-2D ADV 6 916,483 6 916,483
HAWKEYE.
019 ADVANCE 125,042 125,042
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
TRAINER
AIRCRAFT
020 JPATS.......... 5,849 5,849
OTHER AIRCRAFT
021 KC-130J........ 2 128,870 2 128,870
022 ADVANCE 24,848 24,848
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
023 MQ-4 TRITON.... 2 409,005 2 409,005
024 ADVANCE 55,652 55,652
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
025 MQ-8 UAV....... 1 72,435 1 72,435
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
029 AEA SYSTEMS.... 51,900 51,900
030 AV-8 SERIES.... 60,818 60,818
031 ADVERSARY...... 5,191 5,191
032 F-18 SERIES.... 1,023,492 -37,300 986,192
Unobligated [-37,300]
balances.
034 H-53 SERIES.... 46,095 46,095
035 SH-60 SERIES... 108,328 108,328
036 H-1 SERIES..... 46,333 46,333
037 EP-3 SERIES.... 14,681 14,681
038 P-3 SERIES..... 2,781 2,781
039 E-2 SERIES..... 32,949 32,949
040 TRAINER A/C 13,199 13,199
SERIES.
041 C-2A........... 19,066 19,066
042 C-130 SERIES... 61,788 61,788
043 FEWSG.......... 618 618
044 CARGO/TRANSPORT 9,822 9,822
A/C SERIES.
045 E-6 SERIES..... 222,077 222,077
046 EXECUTIVE 66,835 66,835
HELICOPTERS
SERIES.
047 SPECIAL PROJECT 16,497 16,497
AIRCRAFT.
048 T-45 SERIES.... 114,887 114,887
049 POWER PLANT 16,893 16,893
CHANGES.
050 JPATS SERIES... 17,401 17,401
051 COMMON ECM 143,773 143,773
EQUIPMENT.
052 COMMON AVIONICS 164,839 164,839
CHANGES.
053 COMMON 4,403 4,403
DEFENSIVE
WEAPON SYSTEM.
054 ID SYSTEMS..... 45,768 45,768
055 P-8 SERIES..... 18,836 18,836
056 MAGTF EW FOR 5,676 5,676
AVIATION.
057 MQ-8 SERIES.... 19,003 19,003
058 RQ-7 SERIES.... 3,534 3,534
059 V-22 (TILT/ 141,545 141,545
ROTOR ACFT)
OSPREY.
060 F-35 STOVL 34,928 34,928
SERIES.
061 F-35 CV SERIES. 26,004 26,004
062 QRC............ 5,476 5,476
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
063 SPARES AND 1,407,626 1,407,626
REPAIR PARTS.
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT EQUIP
& FACILITIES
064 COMMON GROUND 390,103 390,103
EQUIPMENT.
065 AIRCRAFT 23,194 23,194
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
066 WAR CONSUMABLES 40,613 40,613
067 OTHER 860 860
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
068 SPECIAL SUPPORT 36,282 36,282
EQUIPMENT.
069 FIRST 1,523 1,523
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
TOTAL 84 14,109,148 -72,300 84 14,036,848
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
001 TRIDENT II MODS 1,103,086 1,103,086
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
002 MISSILE 6,776 6,776
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
STRATEGIC
MISSILES
003 TOMAHAWK....... 100 186,905 100 186,905
TACTICAL
MISSILES
004 AMRAAM......... 163 204,697 163 204,697
005 SIDEWINDER..... 152 70,912 152 70,912
006 JSOW........... 2,232 2,232
007 STANDARD 125 501,212 125 501,212
MISSILE.
008 RAM............ 90 71,557 90 71,557
009 JOINT AIR 96 26,200 96 26,200
GROUND MISSILE
(JAGM).
012 STAND OFF 24 3,316 24 3,316
PRECISION
GUIDED
MUNITIONS
(SOPGM).
013 AERIAL TARGETS. 137,484 137,484
014 OTHER MISSILE 3,248 3,248
SUPPORT.
015 LRASM.......... 10 29,643 10 29,643
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
016 ESSM........... 75 52,935 75 52,935
018 HARM MODS...... 178,213 178,213
019 STANDARD 8,164 8,164
MISSILES MODS.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
020 WEAPONS 1,964 1,964
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
021 FLEET SATELLITE 36,723 36,723
COMM FOLLOW-ON.
ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
022 ORDNANCE 59,096 59,096
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
023 SSTD........... 5,910 5,910
024 MK-48 TORPEDO.. 11 44,537 11 44,537
025 ASW TARGETS.... 9,302 9,302
MOD OF
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
026 MK-54 TORPEDO 98,092 98,092
MODS.
027 MK-48 TORPEDO 46,139 46,139
ADCAP MODS.
028 QUICKSTRIKE 1,236 1,236
MINE.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
029 TORPEDO SUPPORT 60,061 60,061
EQUIPMENT.
030 ASW RANGE 3,706 3,706
SUPPORT.
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
031 FIRST 3,804 3,804
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
032 SMALL ARMS AND 18,002 18,002
WEAPONS.
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
033 CIWS MODS...... 50,900 50,900
034 COAST GUARD 25,295 25,295
WEAPONS.
035 GUN MOUNT MODS. 77,003 77,003
036 LCS MODULE 24 2,776 24 2,776
WEAPONS.
038 AIRBORNE MINE 15,753 15,753
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
040 SPARES AND 62,383 62,383
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 870 3,209,262 870 3,209,262
WEAPONS
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY &
MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE 91,659 91,659
BOMBS.
002 AIRBORNE 65,759 65,759
ROCKETS, ALL
TYPES.
003 MACHINE GUN 8,152 8,152
AMMUNITION.
004 PRACTICE BOMBS. 41,873 41,873
005 CARTRIDGES & 54,002 54,002
CART ACTUATED
DEVICES.
006 AIR EXPENDABLE 57,034 57,034
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
007 JATOS.......... 2,735 2,735
009 5 INCH/54 GUN 19,220 19,220
AMMUNITION.
010 INTERMEDIATE 30,196 30,196
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION.
011 OTHER SHIP GUN 39,009 39,009
AMMUNITION.
012 SMALL ARMS & 46,727 46,727
LANDING PARTY
AMMO.
013 PYROTECHNIC AND 9,806 9,806
DEMOLITION.
014 AMMUNITION LESS 2,900 2,900
THAN $5
MILLION.
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
015 SMALL ARMS 27,958 27,958
AMMUNITION.
017 40 MM, ALL 14,758 14,758
TYPES.
018 60MM, ALL TYPES 992 992
020 120MM, ALL 16,757 16,757
TYPES.
021 GRENADES, ALL 972 972
TYPES.
022 ROCKETS, ALL 14,186 14,186
TYPES.
023 ARTILLERY, ALL 68,656 68,656
TYPES.
024 DEMOLITION 1,700 1,700
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
025 FUZE, ALL TYPES 26,088 26,088
027 AMMO 14,660 14,660
MODERNIZATION.
028 ITEMS LESS THAN 8,569 8,569
$5 MILLION.
TOTAL 664,368 664,368
PROCUREMEN
T OF AMMO,
NAVY & MC.
SHIPBUILDING
AND
CONVERSION,
NAVY
FLEET BALLISTIC
MISSILE SHIPS
001 OHIO 773,138 -773,138 0
REPLACEMENT
SUBMARINE
ADVANCE
PROCUREMENT.
Transfer to [-773,138]
Title XIV
National
Sea-Based
Deterrence
Fund.
OTHER WARSHIPS
002 CARRIER 1,291,783 1,291,783
REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM.
003 ADVANCE 1,370,784 1,370,784
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
004 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 3,187,985 2 3,187,985
SUBMARINE.
005 ADVANCE 1,767,234 1,767,234
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
006 CVN REFUELING 1,743,220 1,743,220
OVERHAULS.
007 ADVANCE 248,599 248,599
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 DDG 1000....... 271,756 271,756
009 DDG-51......... 2 3,211,292 2 3,211,292
011 LITTORAL COMBAT 2 1,125,625 2 1,125,625
SHIP.
AMPHIBIOUS
SHIPS
016 LHA REPLACEMENT 1 1,623,024 1 1,623,024
AUXILIARIES,
CRAFT AND
PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
020 ADVANCE 73,079 73,079
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
022 MOORED TRAINING 1 624,527 1 624,527
SHIP.
025 OUTFITTING..... 666,158 666,158
026 SHIP TO SHORE 2 128,067 2 128,067
CONNECTOR.
027 SERVICE CRAFT.. 65,192 65,192
028 LCAC SLEP...... 1,774 1,774
029 YP CRAFT 21,363 21,363
MAINTENANCE/
ROH/SLEP.
030 COMPLETION OF 160,274 160,274
PY
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 10 18,354,874 -773,138 10 17,581,736
SHIPBUILDI
NG AND
CONVERSION
, NAVY.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
003 SURFACE POWER 15,514 15,514
EQUIPMENT.
004 HYBRID ELECTRIC 40,132 40,132
DRIVE (HED).
GENERATORS
005 SURFACE 29,974 29,974
COMBATANT HM&E.
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
006 OTHER 63,942 63,942
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
008 SUB PERISCOPE, 136,421 136,421
IMAGING AND
SUPT EQUIP
PROG.
009 DDG MOD........ 367,766 367,766
010 FIREFIGHTING 14,743 14,743
EQUIPMENT.
011 COMMAND AND 2,140 2,140
CONTROL
SWITCHBOARD.
012 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE 24,939 24,939
014 POLLUTION 20,191 20,191
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
015 SUBMARINE 8,995 8,995
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
016 VIRGINIA CLASS 66,838 66,838
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
017 LCS CLASS 54,823 54,823
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
018 SUBMARINE 23,359 23,359
BATTERIES.
019 LPD CLASS 40,321 40,321
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
020 DDG 1000 CLASS 33,404 33,404
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
021 STRATEGIC 15,836 15,836
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
022 DSSP EQUIPMENT. 806 806
024 LCAC........... 3,090 3,090
025 UNDERWATER EOD 24,350 24,350
PROGRAMS.
026 ITEMS LESS THAN 88,719 88,719
$5 MILLION.
027 CHEMICAL 2,873 2,873
WARFARE
DETECTORS.
028 SUBMARINE LIFE 6,043 6,043
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
030 REACTOR 342,158 342,158
COMPONENTS.
OCEAN
ENGINEERING
031 DIVING AND 8,973 8,973
SALVAGE
EQUIPMENT.
SMALL BOATS
032 STANDARD BOATS. 43,684 43,684
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
034 OPERATING 75,421 75,421
FORCES IPE.
OTHER SHIP
SUPPORT
035 NUCLEAR 172,718 172,718
ALTERATIONS.
036 LCS COMMON 27,840 -10,000 17,840
MISSION
MODULES
EQUIPMENT.
RMMV [-10,000]
program
restructure.
037 LCS MCM MISSION 57,146 -36,400 20,746
MODULES.
RMMV [-36,400]
program
restructure.
038 LCS ASW MISSION 31,952 -10,000 21,952
MODULES.
Early to [-10,000]
need.
039 LCS SUW MISSION 22,466 22,466
MODULES.
LOGISTIC
SUPPORT
041 LSD MIDLIFE.... 10,813 10,813
SHIP SONARS
042 SPQ-9B RADAR... 14,363 14,363
043 AN/SQQ-89 SURF 90,029 90,029
ASW COMBAT
SYSTEM.
045 SSN ACOUSTIC 248,765 248,765
EQUIPMENT.
046 UNDERSEA 7,163 7,163
WARFARE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
048 SUBMARINE 21,291 21,291
ACOUSTIC
WARFARE SYSTEM.
049 SSTD........... 6,893 6,893
050 FIXED 145,701 145,701
SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM.
051 SURTASS........ 36,136 36,136
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
053 AN/SLQ-32...... 274,892 274,892
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
054 SHIPBOARD IW 170,733 170,733
EXPLOIT.
055 AUTOMATED 958 958
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS).
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
057 COOPERATIVE 22,034 22,034
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY.
059 NAVAL TACTICAL 12,336 12,336
COMMAND
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(NTCSS).
060 ATDLS.......... 30,105 30,105
061 NAVY COMMAND 4,556 4,556
AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NCCS).
062 MINESWEEPING 56,675 56,675
SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT.
063 SHALLOW WATER 8,875 8,875
MCM.
064 NAVSTAR GPS 12,752 12,752
RECEIVERS
(SPACE).
065 AMERICAN FORCES 4,577 4,577
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE.
066 STRATEGIC 8,972 8,972
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
AVIATION
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
069 ASHORE ATC 75,068 75,068
EQUIPMENT.
070 AFLOAT ATC 33,484 33,484
EQUIPMENT.
076 ID SYSTEMS..... 22,177 22,177
077 NAVAL MISSION 14,273 14,273
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
080 TACTICAL/MOBILE 27,927 27,927
C4I SYSTEMS.
081 DCGS-N......... 12,676 12,676
082 CANES.......... 212,030 212,030
083 RADIAC......... 8,092 8,092
084 CANES-INTELL... 36,013 36,013
085 GPETE.......... 6,428 6,428
087 INTEG COMBAT 8,376 8,376
SYSTEM TEST
FACILITY.
088 EMI CONTROL 3,971 3,971
INSTRUMENTATIO
N.
089 ITEMS LESS THAN 58,721 58,721
$5 MILLION.
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
090 SHIPBOARD 17,366 17,366
TACTICAL
COMMUNICATIONS.
091 SHIP 102,479 102,479
COMMUNICATIONS
AUTOMATION.
092 COMMUNICATIONS 10,403 10,403
ITEMS UNDER
$5M.
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
093 SUBMARINE 34,151 34,151
BROADCAST
SUPPORT.
094 SUBMARINE 64,529 64,529
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
095 SATELLITE 14,414 14,414
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS.
096 NAVY MULTIBAND 38,365 38,365
TERMINAL (NMT).
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
097 JCS 4,156 4,156
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT.
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
099 INFO SYSTEMS 85,694 85,694
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
100 MIO INTEL 920 920
EXPLOITATION
TEAM.
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
101 CRYPTOLOGIC 21,098 21,098
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.
OTHER
ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
102 COAST GUARD 32,291 32,291
EQUIPMENT.
SONOBUOYS
103 SONOBUOYS--ALL 162,588 162,588
TYPES.
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
104 WEAPONS RANGE 58,116 58,116
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
105 AIRCRAFT 120,324 120,324
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
106 METEOROLOGICAL 29,253 29,253
EQUIPMENT.
107 DCRS/DPL....... 632 632
108 AIRBORNE MINE 29,097 29,097
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
109 AVIATION 39,099 39,099
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
110 SHIP GUN 6,191 6,191
SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT.
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT
111 SHIP MISSILE 320,446 -9,500 310,946
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
Program [-9,500]
execution.
112 TOMAHAWK 71,046 71,046
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
113 STRATEGIC 215,138 215,138
MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIP.
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
114 SSN COMBAT 130,715 130,715
CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
115 ASW SUPPORT 26,431 26,431
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
116 EXPLOSIVE 11,821 11,821
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL EQUIP.
117 ITEMS LESS THAN 6,243 6,243
$5 MILLION.
OTHER
EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
118 SUBMARINE 48,020 48,020
TRAINING
DEVICE MODS.
120 SURFACE 97,514 97,514
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
121 PASSENGER 8,853 8,853
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
122 GENERAL PURPOSE 4,928 4,928
TRUCKS.
123 CONSTRUCTION & 18,527 18,527
MAINTENANCE
EQUIP.
124 FIRE FIGHTING 13,569 13,569
EQUIPMENT.
125 TACTICAL 14,917 14,917
VEHICLES.
126 AMPHIBIOUS 7,676 7,676
EQUIPMENT.
127 POLLUTION 2,321 2,321
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
128 ITEMS UNDER $5 12,459 12,459
MILLION.
129 PHYSICAL 1,095 1,095
SECURITY
VEHICLES.
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
131 SUPPLY 16,023 16,023
EQUIPMENT.
133 FIRST 5,115 5,115
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
134 SPECIAL PURPOSE 295,471 295,471
SUPPLY SYSTEMS.
TRAINING
DEVICES
136 TRAINING AND 9,504 9,504
EDUCATION
EQUIPMENT.
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
137 COMMAND SUPPORT 37,180 37,180
EQUIPMENT.
139 MEDICAL SUPPORT 4,128 4,128
EQUIPMENT.
141 NAVAL MIP 1,925 1,925
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
142 OPERATING 4,777 4,777
FORCES SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
143 C4ISR EQUIPMENT 9,073 9,073
144 ENVIRONMENTAL 21,107 21,107
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
145 PHYSICAL 100,906 100,906
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
146 ENTERPRISE 67,544 67,544
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
OTHER
150 NEXT GENERATION 98,216 98,216
ENTERPRISE
SERVICE.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
150A CLASSIFIED 9,915 9,915
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
151 SPARES AND 199,660 199,660
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 6,338,861 -65,900 6,272,961
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT,
MARINE CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
001 AAV7A1 PIP..... 73,785 73,785
002 LAV PIP........ 53,423 53,423
ARTILLERY AND
OTHER WEAPONS
003 EXPEDITIONARY 3,360 3,360
FIRE SUPPORT
SYSTEM.
004 155MM 3,318 3,318
LIGHTWEIGHT
TOWED HOWITZER.
005 HIGH MOBILITY 33,725 33,725
ARTILLERY
ROCKET SYSTEM.
006 WEAPONS AND 8,181 8,181
COMBAT
VEHICLES UNDER
$5 MILLION.
OTHER SUPPORT
007 MODIFICATION 15,250 15,250
KITS.
GUIDED MISSILES
009 GROUND BASED 9,170 9,170
AIR DEFENSE.
010 JAVELIN........ 1,009 1,009
011 FOLLOW ON TO 24,666 24,666
SMAW.
012 ANTI-ARMOR 17,080 17,080
WEAPONS SYSTEM-
HEAVY (AAWS-H).
COMMAND AND
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
015 COMMON AVIATION 47,312 47,312
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM
(C.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
016 REPAIR AND TEST 16,469 16,469
EQUIPMENT.
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NON-TEL)
019 ITEMS UNDER $5 7,433 7,433
MILLION (COMM
& ELEC).
020 AIR OPERATIONS 15,917 15,917
C2 SYSTEMS.
RADAR +
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
021 RADAR SYSTEMS.. 17,772 17,772
022 GROUND/AIR TASK 3 123,758 3 123,758
ORIENTED RADAR
(G/ATOR).
023 RQ-21 UAS...... 4 80,217 4 80,217
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
024 GCSS-MC........ 1,089 1,089
025 FIRE SUPPORT 13,258 13,258
SYSTEM.
026 INTELLIGENCE 56,379 56,379
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
029 RQ-11 UAV...... 1,976 1,976
031 DCGS-MC........ 1,149 1,149
032 UAS PAYLOADS... 2,971 2,971
OTHER SUPPORT
(NON-TEL)
034 NEXT GENERATION 76,302 76,302
ENTERPRISE
NETWORK (NGEN).
035 COMMON COMPUTER 41,802 41,802
RESOURCES.
036 COMMAND POST 90,924 90,924
SYSTEMS.
037 RADIO SYSTEMS.. 43,714 43,714
038 COMM SWITCHING 66,383 66,383
& CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
039 COMM & ELEC 30,229 30,229
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
039A CLASSIFIED 2,738 2,738
PROGRAMS.
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
041 COMMERCIAL 88,312 88,312
CARGO VEHICLES.
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
043 MOTOR TRANSPORT 13,292 13,292
MODIFICATIONS.
045 JOINT LIGHT 192 113,230 192 113,230
TACTICAL
VEHICLE.
046 FAMILY OF 2,691 2,691
TACTICAL
TRAILERS.
ENGINEER AND
OTHER
EQUIPMENT
048 ENVIRONMENTAL 18 18
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT.
050 TACTICAL FUEL 78 78
SYSTEMS.
051 POWER EQUIPMENT 17,973 17,973
ASSORTED.
052 AMPHIBIOUS 7,371 7,371
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
053 EOD SYSTEMS.... 14,021 14,021
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
054 PHYSICAL 31,523 31,523
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
GENERAL
PROPERTY
058 TRAINING 33,658 33,658
DEVICES.
060 FAMILY OF 21,315 21,315
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.
061 FAMILY OF 9,654 9,654
INTERNALLY
TRANSPORTABLE
VEH (ITV).
OTHER SUPPORT
062 ITEMS LESS THAN 6,026 6,026
$5 MILLION.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
064 SPARES AND 22,848 22,848
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 199 1,362,769 199 1,362,769
PROCUREMEN
T, MARINE
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
001 F-35........... 43 4,401,894 43 4,401,894
002 ADVANCE 404,500 404,500
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
TACTICAL
AIRLIFT
003 KC-46A TANKER.. 15 2,884,591 15 2,884,591
OTHER AIRLIFT
004 C-130J......... 2 145,655 2 145,655
006 HC-130J........ 4 317,576 4 317,576
007 ADVANCE 20,000 20,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 MC-130J........ 6 548,358 6 548,358
009 ADVANCE 50,000 50,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
HELICOPTERS
010 UH-1N 18,337 18,337
REPLACEMENT.
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
012 CIVIL AIR 6 2,637 6 2,637
PATROL A/C.
OTHER AIRCRAFT
013 TARGET DRONES.. 41 114,656 41 114,656
014 RQ-4........... 12,966 12,966
015 MQ-9........... 122,522 122,522
STRATEGIC
AIRCRAFT
016 B-2A........... 46,729 46,729
017 B-1B........... 116,319 116,319
018 B-52........... 109,020 109,020
TACTICAL
AIRCRAFT
020 A-10........... 1,289 1,289
021 F-15........... 105,685 105,685
022 F-16........... 97,331 97,331
023 F-22A.......... 163,008 163,008
024 F-35 175,811 175,811
MODIFICATIONS.
025 INCREMENT 3.2B. 76,410 76,410
026 ADVANCE 2,000 2,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
AIRLIFT
AIRCRAFT
027 C-5............ 24,192 24,192
029 C-17A.......... 21,555 21,555
030 C-21........... 5,439 5,439
031 C-32A.......... 35,235 35,235
032 C-37A.......... 5,004 5,004
TRAINER
AIRCRAFT
033 GLIDER MODS.... 394 394
034 T-6............ 12,765 12,765
035 T-1............ 25,073 25,073
036 T-38........... 45,090 45,090
OTHER AIRCRAFT
037 U-2 MODS....... 36,074 36,074
038 KC-10A (ATCA).. 4,570 4,570
039 C-12........... 1,995 1,995
040 VC-25A MOD..... 102,670 102,670
041 C-40........... 13,984 13,984
042 C-130.......... 9,168 50 72,500 50 81,668
8-Bladed [16,000]
Propellers.
Electronic [13,500]
Propeller
Control
Systems.
In-flight [1,500]
Propeller
Balancing
System
Certificati
on.
T56 3.5 [50] [41,500]
Engine
Upgrade
Kits.
043 C-130J MODS.... 89,424 89,424
044 C-135.......... 64,161 64,161
045 COMPASS CALL 130,257 -70,400 59,857
MODS.
Program [-70,400]
restructure.
046 RC-135......... 211,438 211,438
047 E-3............ 82,786 82,786
048 E-4............ 53,348 53,348
049 E-8............ 6,244 6,244
050 AIRBORNE 223,427 223,427
WARNING AND
CONTROL SYSTEM.
051 FAMILY OF 3 4,673 3 4,673
BEYOND LINE-OF-
SIGHT
TERMINALS.
052 H-1............ 9,007 9,007
054 H-60........... 91,357 91,357
055 RQ-4 MODS...... 32,045 32,045
056 HC/MC-130 30,767 30,767
MODIFICATIONS.
057 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 33,886 33,886
059 MQ-9 MODS...... 141,929 141,929
060 CV-22 MODS..... 63,395 63,395
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
061 INITIAL SPARES/ 686,491 -13,200 673,291
REPAIR PARTS.
Compass [-13,200]
Call
program
restructure.
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
062 AIRCRAFT 121,935 121,935
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
063 B-2A........... 154 154
064 B-2A........... 43,330 43,330
065 B-52........... 28,125 28,125
066 C-17A.......... 23,559 23,559
069 F-15........... 2,980 2,980
070 F-16........... 15,155 24,800 39,955
Additional [24,800]
mission
trainers.
071 F-22A.......... 48,505 48,505
074 RQ-4 POST 99 99
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
075 INDUSTRIAL 14,126 14,126
RESPONSIVENESS.
WAR CONSUMABLES
076 WAR CONSUMABLES 120,036 120,036
OTHER
PRODUCTION
CHARGES
077 OTHER 1,252,824 1,252,824
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
077A CLASSIFIED 16,952 16,952
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 120 13,922,917 50 13,700 170 13,936,617
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
MISSILE
REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BAL
LISTIC
001 MISSILE 70,247 70,247
REPLACEMENT EQ-
BALLISTIC.
TACTICAL
002 JOINT AIR- 360 431,645 360 431,645
SURFACE
STANDOFF
MISSILE.
003 LRASM0......... 20 59,511 20 59,511
004 SIDEWINDER (AIM- 287 127,438 287 127,438
9X).
005 AMRAAM......... 256 350,144 256 350,144
006 PREDATOR 284 33,955 284 33,955
HELLFIRE
MISSILE.
007 SMALL DIAMETER 312 92,361 312 92,361
BOMB.
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
008 INDUSTR'L 977 977
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION.
CLASS IV
009 ICBM FUZE MOD.. 17,095 17,095
010 MM III 68,692 68,692
MODIFICATIONS.
011 AGM-65D 282 282
MAVERICK.
013 AIR LAUNCH 21,762 21,762
CRUISE MISSILE
(ALCM).
014 SMALL DIAMETER 15,349 15,349
BOMB.
MISSILE SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
015 INITIAL SPARES/ 81,607 81,607
REPAIR PARTS.
SPECIAL
PROGRAMS
030 SPECIAL UPDATE 46,125 46,125
PROGRAMS.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
030A CLASSIFIED 1,009,431 1,009,431
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 1,519 2,426,621 1,519 2,426,621
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
SPACE
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
SPACE PROGRAMS
001 ADVANCED EHF... 645,569 645,569
002 AF SATELLITE 42,375 42,375
COMM SYSTEM.
003 COUNTERSPACE 26,984 26,984
SYSTEMS.
004 FAMILY OF 16 88,963 16 88,963
BEYOND LINE-OF-
SIGHT
TERMINALS.
005 WIDEBAND 86,272 30,000 116,272
GAPFILLER
SATELLITES(SPA
CE).
Pilot [30,000]
Program.
006 GPS III SPACE 34,059 34,059
SEGMENT.
007 GLOBAL 2,169 2,169
POSTIONING
(SPACE).
008 SPACEBORNE 46,708 46,708
EQUIP (COMSEC).
009 GLOBAL 13,171 -2,900 10,271
POSITIONING
(SPACE).
Excess to [-2,900]
Need.
010 MILSATCOM...... 41,799 41,799
011 EVOLVED 768,586 768,586
EXPENDABLE
LAUNCH
CAPABILITY.
012 EVOLVED 5 737,853 5 737,853
EXPENDABLE
LAUNCH
VEH(SPACE).
013 SBIR HIGH 362,504 362,504
(SPACE).
014 NUDET DETECTION 4,395 4,395
SYSTEM.
015 SPACE MODS..... 8,642 8,642
016 SPACELIFT RANGE 123,088 123,088
SYSTEM SPACE.
SSPARES
017 INITIAL SPARES/ 22,606 22,606
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 21 3,055,743 27,100 21 3,082,843
SPACE
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
AIR FORCE
ROCKETS
001 ROCKETS........ 18,734 18,734
CARTRIDGES
002 CARTRIDGES..... 220,237 220,237
BOMBS
003 PRACTICE BOMBS. 97,106 97,106
004 GENERAL PURPOSE 581,561 581,561
BOMBS.
005 MASSIVE 3,600 3,600
ORDNANCE
PENETRATOR
(MOP).
006 JOINT DIRECT 12,133 303,988 12,133 303,988
ATTACK
MUNITION.
OTHER ITEMS
007 CAD/PAD........ 38,890 38,890
008 EXPLOSIVE 5,714 5,714
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL (EOD).
009 SPARES AND 740 740
REPAIR PARTS.
010 MODIFICATIONS.. 573 573
011 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,156 5,156
$5 MILLION.
FLARES
012 FLARES......... 134,709 134,709
FUZES
013 FUZES.......... 229,252 229,252
SMALL ARMS
014 SMALL ARMS..... 37,459 37,459
TOTAL 12,133 1,677,719 12,133 1,677,719
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, AIR
FORCE.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER
CARRYING
VEHICLES
001 PASSENGER 14,437 14,437
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
CARGO AND
UTILITY
VEHICLES
002 MEDIUM TACTICAL 24,812 24,812
VEHICLE.
003 CAP VEHICLES... 984 984
004 ITEMS LESS THAN 11,191 11,191
$5 MILLION.
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
005 SECURITY AND 5,361 5,361
TACTICAL
VEHICLES.
006 ITEMS LESS THAN 4,623 4,623
$5 MILLION.
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
007 FIRE FIGHTING/ 12,451 -5,000 7,451
CRASH RESCUE
VEHICLES.
Program [-5,000]
reduction.
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
008 ITEMS LESS THAN 18,114 18,114
$5 MILLION.
BASE
MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
009 RUNWAY SNOW 2,310 2,310
REMOV &
CLEANING EQUIP.
010 ITEMS LESS THAN 46,868 46,868
$5 MILLION.
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMS
EC)
012 COMSEC 72,359 72,359
EQUIPMENT.
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
014 INTELLIGENCE 6,982 6,982
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
015 INTELLIGENCE 30,504 30,504
COMM EQUIPMENT.
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
016 AIR TRAFFIC 55,803 55,803
CONTROL &
LANDING SYS.
017 NATIONAL 2,673 2,673
AIRSPACE
SYSTEM.
018 BATTLE CONTROL 5,677 5,677
SYSTEM--FIXED.
019 THEATER AIR 1,163 1,163
CONTROL SYS
IMPROVEMENTS.
020 WEATHER 21,667 21,667
OBSERVATION
FORECAST.
021 STRATEGIC 39,803 39,803
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
022 CHEYENNE 24,618 24,618
MOUNTAIN
COMPLEX.
023 MISSION 15,868 15,868
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
025 INTEGRATED 9,331 9,331
STRAT PLAN &
ANALY NETWORK
(ISPAN).
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
026 GENERAL 41,779 41,779
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
027 AF GLOBAL 15,729 15,729
COMMAND &
CONTROL SYS.
028 MOBILITY 9,814 9,814
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
029 AIR FORCE 99,460 99,460
PHYSICAL
SECURITY
SYSTEM.
030 COMBAT TRAINING 34,850 34,850
RANGES.
031 MINIMUM 198,925 198,925
ESSENTIAL
EMERGENCY COMM
N.
032 WIDE AREA 6,943 6,943
SURVEILLANCE
(WAS).
033 C3 19,580 19,580
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
034 GCSS-AF FOS.... 1,743 1,743
036 THEATER BATTLE 9,659 9,659
MGT C2 SYSTEM.
037 AIR & SPACE 15,474 15,474
OPERATIONS CTR-
WPN SYS.
038 AIR OPERATIONS 30,623 30,623
CENTER (AOC)
10.2.
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
039 INFORMATION 40,043 40,043
TRANSPORT
SYSTEMS.
040 AFNET.......... 146,897 146,897
041 JOINT 5,182 5,182
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT
ELEMENT (JCSE).
042 USCENTCOM...... 13,418 13,418
ORGANIZATION
AND BASE
052 TACTICAL C-E 109,836 109,836
EQUIPMENT.
053 RADIO EQUIPMENT 16,266 16,266
054 CCTV/ 7,449 7,449
AUDIOVISUAL
EQUIPMENT.
055 BASE COMM 109,215 109,215
INFRASTRUCTURE.
MODIFICATIONS
056 COMM ELECT MODS 65,700 65,700
PERSONAL SAFETY
& RESCUE EQUIP
058 ITEMS LESS THAN 54,416 54,416
$5 MILLION.
DEPOT
PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
059 MECHANIZED 7,344 7,344
MATERIAL
HANDLING EQUIP.
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
060 BASE PROCURED 6,852 5,000 11,852
EQUIPMENT.
Program [5,000]
increase.
063 MOBILITY 8,146 8,146
EQUIPMENT.
064 ITEMS LESS THAN 28,427 28,427
$5 MILLION.
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
066 DARP RC135..... 25,287 25,287
067 DCGS-AF........ 169,201 169,201
069 SPECIAL UPDATE 576,710 576,710
PROGRAM.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
070A CLASSIFIED 15,119,705 15,119,705
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
072 SPARES AND 15,784 15,784
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 17,438,056 17,438,056
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, WHS
037 MAJOR 39 29,211 39 29,211
EQUIPMENT, OSD.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, NSA
036 INFORMATION 4,399 4,399
SYSTEMS
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, WHS
040 MAJOR 24,979 24,979
EQUIPMENT, WHS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DISA
006 INFORMATION 21,347 21,347
SYSTEMS
SECURITY.
007 TELEPORT 50,597 50,597
PROGRAM.
008 ITEMS LESS THAN 10,420 10,420
$5 MILLION.
009 NET CENTRIC 1,634 1,634
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES
(NCES).
010 DEFENSE 87,235 87,235
INFORMATION
SYSTEM NETWORK.
011 CYBER SECURITY 4,528 4,528
INITIATIVE.
012 WHITE HOUSE 36,846 36,846
COMMUNICATION
AGENCY.
013 SENIOR 599,391 599,391
LEADERSHIP
ENTERPRISE.
015 JOINT REGIONAL 150,221 150,221
SECURITY
STACKS (JRSS).
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DLA
017 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 2,055 2,055
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DSS
020 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 1,057 1,057
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
001 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,964 2,964
$5 MILLION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, TJS
038 MAJOR 7,988 7,988
EQUIPMENT, TJS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE
DEFENSE AGENCY
023 THAAD.......... 24 369,608 24 369,608
024 AEGIS BMD...... 35 463,801 65,000 35 528,801
Increasing [65,000]
BMD
capability
for Aegis
Ships.
025 BMDS AN/TPY-2 5,503 5,503
RADARS.
026 ARROW UPPER 120,000 120,000
TIER.
Increase [120,000]
for Arrow 3
Coproductio
n subject
to Title
XVI.
027 DAVID'S SLING.. 150,000 150,000
Increase [150,000]
for DSWS
Coproductio
n subject
to Title
XVI.
028 AEGIS ASHORE 57,493 25,000 82,493
PHASE III.
Classified [25,000]
adjustment.
029 IRON DOME...... 42,000 20,000 62,000
Increase [20,000]
for
Coproductio
n of Iron
Dome Tamir
Interceptor
s subject
to Title
XVI.
030 AEGIS BMD 6 50,098 6 50,098
HARDWARE AND
SOFTWARE.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
003 PERSONNEL 14,232 14,232
ADMINISTRATION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION
AGENCY
021 VEHICLES....... 200 200
022 OTHER MAJOR 6,437 6,437
EQUIPMENT.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
019 AUTOMATION/ 288 288
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
002 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 92 92
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
018 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 4 8,060 4 8,060
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
040A CLASSIFIED 568,864 568,864
PROGRAMS.
AVIATION
PROGRAMS
042 ROTARY WING 150,396 18,600 168,996
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.
Program [18,600]
increase.
043 UNMANNED ISR... 21,190 21,190
045 NON-STANDARD 4,905 4,905
AVIATION.
046 U-28........... 3,970 3,970
047 MH-47 CHINOOK.. 25,022 25,022
049 CV-22 19,008 19,008
MODIFICATION.
051 MQ-9 UNMANNED 10,598 10,598
AERIAL VEHICLE.
053 PRECISION 213,122 213,122
STRIKE PACKAGE.
054 AC/MC-130J..... 73,548 12,100 85,648
A-kits for [12,100]
105mm
integration.
055 C-130 32,970 32,970
MODIFICATIONS.
SHIPBUILDING
056 UNDERWATER 37,098 37,098
SYSTEMS.
AMMUNITION
PROGRAMS
057 ORDNANCE ITEMS 105,267 105,267
<$5M.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
058 INTELLIGENCE 79,963 79,963
SYSTEMS.
059 DISTRIBUTED 13,432 13,432
COMMON GROUND/
SURFACE
SYSTEMS.
060 OTHER ITEMS 66,436 66,436
<$5M.
061 COMBATANT CRAFT 55,820 55,820
SYSTEMS.
062 SPECIAL 107,432 107,432
PROGRAMS.
063 TACTICAL 67,849 67,849
VEHICLES.
064 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 245,781 245,781
<$5M.
065 COMBAT MISSION 19,566 19,566
REQUIREMENTS.
066 GLOBAL VIDEO 3,437 3,437
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES.
067 OPERATIONAL 17,299 17,299
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE.
069 OPERATIONAL 219,945 219,945
ENHANCEMENTS.
CBDP
070 CHEMICAL 148,203 148,203
BIOLOGICAL
SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS.
071 CB PROTECTION & 161,113 161,113
HAZARD
MITIGATION.
TOTAL 108 4,524,918 410,700 108 4,935,618
PROCUREMEN
T, DEFENSE-
WIDE.
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND
001 JOINT URGENT 99,300 -99,300 0
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND.
Program [-99,300]
decrease.
TOTAL 99,300 -99,300 0
JOINT
URGENT
OPERATIONA
L NEEDS
FUND.
NATIONAL GUARD
AND RESERVE
EQUIPMENT
UNDISTRIBUTED
007 MISCELLANEOUS 250,000 250,000
EQUIPMENT.
Program [250,000]
increase.
TOTAL 250,000 250,000
NATIONAL
GUARD AND
RESERVE
EQUIPMENT.
TOTAL 27,441 101,971,592 50 1,090,717 27,491 103,062,309
PROCUREMEN
T.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
015 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP)...... 21,400 21,400
020 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP)............ 2 42,700 2 42,700
026 RQ-7 UAV MODS..................... 1,775 1,775
027 UAS MODS.......................... 4,420 -4,420 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-4,420]
Requirements to Base.
GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS
030 CMWS.............................. 56,115 56,115
031 CIRCM............................. 108,721 108,721
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 2 235,131 -4,420 2 230,711
ARMY.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM
004 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY.............. 2,570 305,830 2,570 305,830
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS
007 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY... 83 15,567 -15,567 83 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-15,567]
Requirements to Base.
008 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY.............. 815 80,652 -80,652 815 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-80,652]
Requirements to Base.
010 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS)........ 698 75,991 -75,991 698 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-75,991]
Requirements to Base.
012 LETHAL MINIATURE AERIAL MISSILE 10 4,777 10 4,777
SYSTEM (LMAMS.
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 4,176 482,817 -172,210 4,176 310,607
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY
MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
007 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT 12 125,184 -125,184 12 0
(PIM).
Realign APS Unit Set [-125,184]
Requirements to Base.
009 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD).............. 5,950 -5,950 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-5,950]
Requirements to Base.
014 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM............ 0 0
Army requested realignment [172,200]
(ERI).
Realign APS Unit Set [-172,200]
Requirements to Base.
WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES
017 MORTAR SYSTEMS.................... 22,410 22,410
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES
036 BRADLEY PROGRAM................... 0
Army requested realignment [72,800]
(ERI).
Realign APS Unit Set [-72,800]
Requirements to Base.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, 12 153,544 -131,134 12 22,410
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION
002 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES............ 9,642 -9,642 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-9,642]
Requirements to Base.
004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES........... 6,607 -5,998 609
Realign APS Unit Set [-5,998]
Requirements to Base.
005 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES.............. 1,077 -1,077 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-1,077]
Requirements to Base.
006 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES.............. 28,534 -28,534 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-28,534]
Requirements to Base.
007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES.............. 20,000 20,000
008 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES.............. 7,423 -7,423 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-7,423]
Requirements to Base.
MORTAR AMMUNITION
009 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 10,000 10,000
010 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 2,677 -2,677 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-2,677]
Requirements to Base.
TANK AMMUNITION
012 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, 8,999 -8,999 0
ALL TYPES.
Realign APS Unit Set [-8,999]
Requirements to Base.
ARTILLERY AMMUNITION
014 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL 30,348 -20,348 10,000
TYPES.
Realign APS Unit Set [-20,348]
Requirements to Base.
015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982.... 140 -140 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-140]
Requirements to Base.
016 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND 29,655 -24,655 5,000
PRIMERS, ALL.
Realign APS Unit Set [-24,655]
Requirements to Base.
MINES
017 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL 16,866 -16,866 0
TYPES.
Realign APS Unit Set [-16,866]
Requirements to Base.
NETWORKED MUNITIONS
018 SPIDER NETWORK MUNITIONS, ALL 10,353 -10,353 0
TYPES.
Realign APS Unit Set [-10,353]
Requirements to Base.
ROCKETS
019 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL 63,210 -63,210 0
TYPES.
Realign APS Unit Set [-63,210]
Requirements to Base.
020 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES....... 42,851 42,851
OTHER AMMUNITION
022 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 6,373 -6,373 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-6,373]
Requirements to Base.
023 GRENADES, ALL TYPES............... 4,143 -4,143 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-4,143]
Requirements to Base.
024 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES................ 1,852 -1,852 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-1,852]
Requirements to Base.
MISCELLANEOUS
027 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES.. 773 -773 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-773]
Requirements to Base.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 301,523 -213,063 88,460
AMMUNITION, ARMY.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
002 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED:............ 4,180 -4,180 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-4,180]
Requirements to Base.
008 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH 643 147,476 -147,476 643 0
(FMTV).
Realign APS Unit Set [-147,476]
Requirements to Base.
010 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES 51 6,122 -6,122 51 0
(FHTV).
Realign APS Unit Set [-6,122]
Requirements to Base.
011 PLS ESP........................... 106,358 -106,358 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-106,358]
Requirements to Base.
012 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK 203,766 -76,561 127,205
EXT SERV.
Realign APS Unit Set [-76,561]
Requirements to Base.
013 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE 101,154 -27,119 74,035
PROTECTION KITS.
Realign APS Unit Set [-27,119]
Requirements to Base.
014 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP...... 155,456 -3,456 152,000
Realign APS Unit Set [-3,456]
Requirements to Base.
COMM--JOINT COMMUNICATIONS
019 WIN-T--GROUND FORCES TACTICAL 9,572 -6,572 3,000
NETWORK.
Realign APS Unit Set [-6,572]
Requirements to Base.
COMM--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
025 SHF TERM.......................... 24,000 -24,000 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-24,000]
Requirements to Base.
COMM--INTELLIGENCE COMM
047 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE........ 1,550 1,550
INFORMATION SECURITY
051 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC).. 1,928 -1,928 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-1,928]
Requirements to Base.
COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS
056 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 20,510 20,510
MOD PROGRAM.
ELECT EQUIP--TACT INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
062 DCGS-A (MIP)...................... 33,032 33,032
064 TROJAN (MIP)...................... 3,305 -160 3,145
Realign APS Unit Set [-160]
Requirements to Base.
066 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND 7,233 7,233
COLL(CHARCS).
069 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL COLLECTION 5,670 5,670
DEVICES (MIP).
ELECT EQUIP--ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
070 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR.. 25,892 -25,892 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-25,892]
Requirements to Base.
074 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE 11,610 11,610
CAPABILITIE.
075 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY 23,890 23,890
COUNTERMEASURES.
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL SURV. (TAC
SURV)
080 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF 4,270 -4,270 0
SYSTEMS.
Realign APS Unit Set [-4,270]
Requirements to Base.
089 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM........ 2,572 -290 2,282
Realign APS Unit Set [-290]
Requirements to Base.
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS
092 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & 31 69,958 -69,958 31 0
CONTROL SYS.
Realign APS Unit Set [-69,958]
Requirements to Base.
ELECT EQUIP--AUTOMATION
102 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP... 9,900 9,900
ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/
V)
108 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING 96 -96 0
EQUIPMENT).
Realign APS Unit Set [-96]
Requirements to Base.
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT
114 CBRN DEFENSE...................... 1,841 -1,841 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-1,841]
Requirements to Base.
BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
115 TACTICAL BRIDGING................. 26,000 -26,000 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-26,000]
Requirements to Base.
ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
124 ROBOTICS AND APPLIQUE SYSTEMS..... 268 -268 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-268]
Requirements to Base.
128 FAMILY OF BOATS AND MOTORS........ 280 -280 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-280]
Requirements to Base.
COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
129 HEATERS AND ECU'S................. 894 -894 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-894]
Requirements to Base.
134 FORCE PROVIDER.................... 53,800 53,800
135 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT........... 2,665 -2,665 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-2,665]
Requirements to Base.
136 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL 2,400 2,400
PARACHUTE SYSTEM.
137 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND 9,789 -9,789 0
CONSTRUCTION SETS.
Realign APS Unit Set [-9,789]
Requirements to Base.
138 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (ENG SPT)..... 300 -300 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-300]
Requirements to Base.
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
139 QUALITY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT.... 4,800 -4,800 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-4,800]
Requirements to Base.
140 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & 174 78,240 -20,820 174 57,420
WATER.
Realign APS Unit Set [-20,820]
Requirements to Base.
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
141 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL............ 5,763 -5,763 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-5,763]
Requirements to Base.
MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
142 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 1,609 -1,609 0
SYSTEMS.
Realign APS Unit Set [-1,609]
Requirements to Base.
143 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ).. 145 -145 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-145]
Requirements to Base.
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
144 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE). 3,047 -3,047 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-3,047]
Requirements to Base.
148 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED............. 4,426 -4,426 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-4,426]
Requirements to Base.
151 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR 2,900 -2,900 0
(HMEE).
Realign APS Unit Set [-2,900]
Requirements to Base.
155 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST 96 -96 0
EQUIP).
Realign APS Unit Set [-96]
Requirements to Base.
GENERATORS
158 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP... 21,861 -19,961 1,900
Realign APS Unit Set [-19,961]
Requirements to Base.
MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT
160 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS............... 846 -846 0
Realign APS Unit Set [-846]
Requirements to Base.
TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
168 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION 1,140 -1,140 0
(TEMOD).
Realign APS Unit Set [-1,140]
Requirements to Base.
OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
170 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT 8,500 8,500
EQUIPMENT.
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 899 1,211,110 -612,028 899 599,082
JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT
FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
001 RAPID ACQUISITION AND THREAT 232,200 -25,000 207,200
RESPONSE.
Program decrease.............. [-25,000]
STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE
002 MISSION ENABLERS.................. 62,800 62,800
TOTAL JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT 295,000 -25,000 270,000
DEFEAT FUND.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
002 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET........ 2 184,912 2 184,912
OTHER AIRCRAFT
026 STUASL0 UAV....................... 4 70,000 4 70,000
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
037 EP-3 SERIES....................... 7,505 7,505
047 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT.......... 14,869 14,869
051 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT.............. 70,780 70,780
059 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY..... 8,740 8,740
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
063 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 1,500 1,500
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP &
FACILITIES
065 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES.... 524 524
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 6 358,830 6 358,830
NAVY.
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
TACTICAL MISSILES
010 HELLFIRE.......................... 100 8,600 100 8,600
TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, 100 8,600 100 8,600
NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 40,366 40,366
002 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES....... 8,860 8,860
006 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES.... 7,060 7,060
013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION........ 1,122 1,122
014 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION... 3,495 3,495
MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION
015 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION............. 1,205 1,205
017 40 MM, ALL TYPES.................. 539 539
018 60MM, ALL TYPES................... 909 909
020 120MM, ALL TYPES.................. 530 530
022 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES................ 469 469
023 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES.............. 1,196 1,196
024 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 261 261
025 FUZE, ALL TYPES................... 217 217
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, 66,229 66,229
NAVY & MC.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
081 DCGS-N............................ 12,000 12,000
OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
116 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP. 40,000 40,000
CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
124 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT........... 630 630
SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
133 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION.. 25 25
COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
137 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT......... 10,562 10,562
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
150A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 1,660 1,660
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY 64,877 64,877
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS
006 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER 572 572
$5 MILLION.
GUIDED MISSILES
010 JAVELIN........................... 9 1,606 9 1,606
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
018 MODIFICATION KITS................. 2,600 2,600
COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-
TEL)
019 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & 2,200 2,200
ELEC).
INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
026 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.... 20,981 20,981
029 RQ-11 UAV......................... 3,817 3,817
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL)
035 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES......... 2,600 2,600
037 RADIO SYSTEMS..................... 9,563 9,563
ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
053 EOD SYSTEMS....................... 75,000 75,000
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE 9 118,939 9 118,939
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
OTHER AIRLIFT
004 C-130J............................ 1 73,000 1 73,000
OTHER AIRCRAFT
015 MQ-9.............................. 12 273,600 12 273,600
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
019 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED 135,801 135,801
COUNTERMEASURES.
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
020 A-10.............................. 23,850 23,850
OTHER AIRCRAFT
047 E-3............................... 6,600 6,600
056 HC/MC-130 MODIFICATIONS........... 13,550 13,550
057 OTHER AIRCRAFT.................... 7,500 7,500
059 MQ-9 MODS......................... 112,068 112,068
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
061 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS....... 25,600 -25,600 0
Compass Call Program [-25,600]
Restructure.
OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES
077 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES.......... 8,400 8,400
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 13 679,969 -25,600 13 654,369
AIR FORCE.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
TACTICAL
006 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE......... 1,252 145,125 1,252 145,125
CLASS IV
011 AGM-65D MAVERICK.................. 9,720 9,720
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 1,252 154,845 1,252 154,845
AIR FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
CARTRIDGES
002 CARTRIDGES........................ 9,830 9,830
BOMBS
004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 7,921 7,921
006 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION...... 6,033 140,126 6,033 140,126
FLARES
012 FLARES............................ 6,531 6,531
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 6,033 164,408 6,033 164,408
AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES
001 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES....... 2,003 2,003
CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES
002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE........... 9,066 9,066
004 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 12,264 12,264
SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES
006 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 16,789 16,789
FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT
007 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE 48,590 48,590
VEHICLES.
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
008 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 2,366 2,366
BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
009 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP 6,468 6,468
010 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 9,271 9,271
ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS
016 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS. 42,650 42,650
SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS
029 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM 7,500 7,500
033 C3 COUNTERMEASURES................ 620 620
ORGANIZATION AND BASE
052 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT............ 8,100 8,100
MODIFICATIONS
056 COMM ELECT MODS................... 3,800 3,800
BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
061 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT..... 53,900 53,900
SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS
067 DCGS-AF........................... 800 800
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
070A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 3,472,094 3,472,094
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR 3,696,281 3,696,281
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA
007 TELEPORT PROGRAM.................. 1,900 1,900
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
040A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 32,482 32,482
AVIATION PROGRAMS
041 MC-12............................. 5,000 5,000
043 UNMANNED ISR...................... 11,880 11,880
046 U-28.............................. 38,283 38,283
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
057 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M............... 52,504 52,504
OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS
058 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.............. 22,000 22,000
060 OTHER ITEMS <$5M.................. 11,580 11,580
062 SPECIAL PROGRAMS.................. 13,549 13,549
063 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 3,200 3,200
069 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.......... 42,056 42,056
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE- 234,434 234,434
WIDE.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT............ 12,502 8,226,537 -1,183,455 12,502 7,043,082
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4103. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4103. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
003 MQ-1 UAV.......................... 95,100 95,100
Army unfunded requirement..... [95,100]
ROTARY
005 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH)... 17 110,000 17 110,000
Army unfunded requirement [17] [110,000]
(ARI).
006 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN..... 4 78,040 5 190,000 9 268,040
Army unfunded requirement [5] [190,000]
(ARI).
007 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 10 72,900 10 72,900
Army unfunded requirement [10] [72,900]
(ARI).
008 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP)..... 36 440,200 36 440,200
Army unfunded requirement [36] [440,200]
(ARI).
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
017 CH-47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP). 102,000 102,000
Army unfunded requirement [102,000]
(ARI).
GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS
028 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT.. 22,000 22,000
Army unfunded requirement- [22,000]
modernized warning system
(ARI).
029 SURVIVABILITY CM.................. 28,000 28,000
Army unfunded requirement- [28,000]
assured PNT (ARI).
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 4 78,040 68 1,060,200 72 1,138,240
ARMY.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM
004 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY.............. 1,485 150,000 1,485 150,000
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS
007 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY... 591 104,200 591 104,200
Army unfunded requirement..... [591] [104,200]
010 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS)........ 1158 76,000 1,158 76,000
Army unfunded requirement..... [1,158] [76,000]
MODIFICATIONS
014 ATACMS MODS....................... 17 15,900 17 15,900
Army unfunded requirement..... [17] [15,900]
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 1,485 150,000 1,766 196,100 3,251 346,100
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY
MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
008 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 16 72,000 16 72,000
HERCULES).
Army unfunded requirement..... [16] [72,000]
013 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD).............. 140,000 140,000
Army unfunded requirement-- [60,000]
Industrial base risk
mitigation.
Army unfunded requirement-- [80,000]
Vehicle APS.
UNDISTRIBUTED
036A UNDISTRIBUTED..................... 55,100 55,100
Additional funding to support [55,100]
increase in Army end strength.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, 16 267,100 16 267,100
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION
001 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES............ 4,000 4,000
Army unfunded requirement..... [4,000]
002 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES............ 14,000 14,000
Army unfunded requirement..... [14,000]
003 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES........... 9,000 9,000
Army unfunded requirement..... [9,000]
004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES........... 21,000 21,000
Army unfunded requirement..... [21,000]
005 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES.............. 14,000 14,000
Army unfunded requirement..... [14,000]
007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES.............. 8,200 8,200
Army unfunded requirement..... [8,200]
MORTAR AMMUNITION
011 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES........... 30,000 30,000
Army unfunded requirement..... [30,000]
TANK AMMUNITION
012 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, 35,000 35,000
ALL TYPES.
Army unfunded requirement..... [35,000]
ARTILLERY AMMUNITION
015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982.... 332 23,500 332 23,500
Army unfunded requirement..... [332] [23,500]
016 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND 10,000 10,000
PRIMERS, ALL.
Army unfunded requirement..... [10,000]
ROCKETS
019 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL 30,000 30,000
TYPES.
Army unfunded requirement..... [30,000]
020 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES....... 44606 42,500 44,606 42,500
Army unfunded requirement..... [44,106] [27,500]
Army unfunded requirement- [500] [15,000]
guided hydra rockets.
UNDISTRIBUTED
034A UNDISTRIBUTED..................... 46,500 46,500
Additional funding to support [46,500]
increase in Army end strength.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 44,938 287,700 44,938 287,700
AMMUNITION, ARMY.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
008 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH 449 152,000 449 152,000
(FMTV).
COMM--JOINT COMMUNICATIONS
019 WIN-T--GROUND FORCES TACTICAL 80,000 80,000
NETWORK.
BBA Restoration--2BCTs - [80,000]
Increment 2.
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL SURV. (TAC
SURV)
080 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF 8,400 8,400
SYSTEMS.
Army unfunded requirement- [8,400]
CRAM Upgrades and MODS.
GENERATORS
158 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP... 9,900 9,900
UNDISTRIBUTED
180 UNDISTRIBUTED..................... 18,400 18,400
Additional funding to support [18,400]
increase in Army end strength.
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 449 161,900 106,800 449 268,700
JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT
FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
001 RAPID ACQUISITION AND THREAT 113,272 113,272
RESPONSE.
TOTAL JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT 113,272 113,272
DEFEAT FUND.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
002 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET........ 14 1,400,000 14 1,400,000
Navy unfunded requirement..... [14] [1,400,000]
003 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV........... 4 540,000 4 540,000
Marine Corps unfunded [2] [270,000]
requirement.
Navy unfunded requirement..... [2] [270,000]
005 JSF STOVL......................... 2 254,200 2 254,200
Marine Corps unfunded [2] [254,200]
requirement.
009 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT)................ 2 150,000 2 150,000
Marine Corps unfunded [2] [150,000]
requirement.
011 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/AH-1Z)........ 2 57,000 2 57,000
Marine Corps unfunded [2] [57,000]
requirement- AH-1Zs.
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
019A C-40A............................. 4 415,000 4 415,000
Marine Corps unfunded [2] [207,500]
requirement.
Navy unfunded requirement..... [2] [207,500]
OTHER AIRCRAFT
023 MQ-4 TRITON....................... 1 95,000 1 95,000
Additional system--ISR [1] [95,000]
shortfalls.
025 MQ-8 UAV.......................... 4 47,500 4 47,500
Scope Increase................ [4] [47,500]
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
034 H-53 SERIES....................... 16,100 16,100
Accelerate readiness [2,800]
improvement.
Marine Corps unfunded [13,300]
requirement- degraded visual
environment.
035 SH-60 SERIES...................... 3,000 3,000
036 H-1 SERIES........................ 3,740 23,400 27,140
Accelerate readiness [23,400]
improvement.
051 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT.............. 27,460 27,460
059 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY..... 39,300 39,300
Marine Corps unfunded [39,300]
requirement- SPMAGTF- C4 UUNS.
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
063 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 140,300 140,300
KC-130J spares................ [36,000]
Marine Corps unfunded [91,000]
requirement- F35 B spares.
Marine Corps unfunded [13,300]
requirement- F35 C spares.
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 34,200 33 3,177,800 33 3,212,000
NAVY.
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
STRATEGIC MISSILES
003 TOMAHAWK.......................... 98 76,000 98 76,000
Scope Increase................ [98] [76,000]
TACTICAL MISSILES
005 SIDEWINDER........................ 75 33,000 75 33,000
Navy unfunded requirement..... [75] [33,000]
015A LCS OVER-THE-HORIZON MISSILE...... 8 18,100 8 18,100
Navy unfunded requirement..... [8] [18,100]
TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, 181 127,100 181 127,100
NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 58,000 58,000
Navy unfunded requirement-- [58,000]
JDAM components.
MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION
023 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES.............. 19,200 19,200
Marine Corps unfunded [19,200]
requirement- GMLRS AW
munitions.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, 77,200 77,200
NAVY & MC.
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
OTHER WARSHIPS
003 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 263,000 263,000
Advance Procurement for CVN-81 [263,000]
005 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 0 85,000 85,000
Long-lead Time Materiel Orders [85,000]
009 DDG-51............................ 1 433,000 1 433,000
Scope Increase................ [1] [433,000]
011 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP.............. 1 384,700 1 384,700
Scope Increase................ [1] [384,700]
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
012A AMPHIBIOUS SHIP REPLACEMENT LX(R). 1 856,000 1 856,000
Procurement of LX (R)......... [1] [856,000]
AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
026 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR........... 3 165,000 3 165,000
Scope Increase................ [3] [165,000]
028 LCAC SLEP......................... 4 80,300 4 80,300
Scope Increase................ [4] [80,300]
TOTAL SHIPBUILDING AND 10 2,267,000 10 2,267,000
CONVERSION, NAVY.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT
009 DDG MOD........................... 1 65,000 1 65,000
Scope Increase................ [1] [65,000]
SMALL BOATS
032 STANDARD BOATS.................... 20,000 20,000
Program Acceleration.......... [20,000]
OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
039A LCS LAUNCHER...................... 2 24,900 2 24,900
Navy unfunded requirement..... [2] [24,900]
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
104 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT... 9,000 9,000
Navy unfunded requirement-- [9,000]
Barking Sands Tactical
Underwater Range.
OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
116 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP. 59,329 59,329
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY 59,329 3 118,900 3 178,229
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS
004 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER.. 14,000 14,000
Marine Corps unfunded [14,000]
requirement- chrome tubes.
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL)
036 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS.............. 40,800 40,800
Marine Corps unfunded [40,800]
requirement- SPMAGTF--C4 UUNS.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE 54,800 54,800
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
001 F-35.............................. 5 690,500 5 690,500
Air Force unfunded requirement [5] [690,500]
OTHER AIRLIFT
004 C-130J............................ 3 271,500 3 271,500
Scope Increase................ [3] [271,500]
HELICOPTERS
010 UUH-1N REPLACEMENT................ 80,000 80,000
Program increase to address [80,000]
urgent need.
OTHER AIRCRAFT
015 MQ-9.............................. 12 179,430 12 179,430
015A EC-130H........................... 1 103,000 1 103,000
Scope increase................ [1] [103,000]
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
020 A-10.............................. 218,500 218,500
A-10 wing upgrades............ [120,000]
Air Force unfunded requirement- [10,300]
A-10 antijam GPS.
Air Force unfunded requirement- [23,200]
A-10 situation awareness
upgrade kits.
Air Force unfunded requirement- [65,000]
ASE radar warning receiver
upgrades.
021 F-15.............................. 60,400 60,400
Air Force unfunded requirement- [60,400]
ASE radar warning receiver
upgrades.
022 F-16.............................. 187,500 187,500
Air Force unfunded requirement- [5,000]
antijam GPS.
Air Force unfunded requirement- [12,000]
missile warning system.
Air Force unfunded requirement- [170,500]
radar warning receiver
upgrades.
OTHER AIRCRAFT
049 E-8............................... 2 17,500 2 17,500
Additional 2 PME-DMS kits..... [2] [17,500]
054 H-60.............................. 70,700 70,700
Air Force unfunded requirement- [70,700]
ASE radar warning receivers.
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 12 179,430 11 1,699,600 23 1,879,030
AIR FORCE.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
TACTICAL
007 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB............... 4,195 167,800 4,195 167,800
CLASS IV
011 AGM-65D MAVERICK.................. 16,900 16,900
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 4,195 184,700 4,195 184,700
AIR FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
001 ROCKETS........................... 60,000 60,000
BOMBS
006 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION...... 12,498 263,000 12,498 263,000
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 12,498 323,000 12,498 323,000
AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA
007 TELEPORT PROGRAM.................. 2,000 2,000
016 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2,000 2,000
NETWORK.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE- 4,000 4,000
WIDE.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT............ 18,643 1,287,871 47,026 9,440,300 65,669 10,728,171
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2017 House
Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, ARMY
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 12,381 12,381
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 253,116 253,116
003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 69,166 69,166
INITIATIVES.
004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 94,280 94,280
RESEARCH CENTERS.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 428,943 428,943
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY....... 31,533 31,533
006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 36,109 36,109
SURVIVABILITY.
007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP................ 6,995 6,995
008 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY........ 65,914 65,914
009 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 25,466 25,466
TECHNOLOGY.
010 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY......... 44,313 44,313
011 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 28,803 28,803
012 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 27,688 27,688
SIMULATION.
013 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 67,959 67,959
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
014 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY...... 85,436 85,436
015 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 3,923 3,923
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,545 5,545
PROGRAM.
017 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 53,581 53,581
TECHNOLOGY.
018 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC 56,322 56,322
DEVICES.
019 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.... 36,079 36,079
020 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS........ 26,497 26,497
021 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 23,671 23,671
TECHNOLOGY.
022 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 22,151 22,151
TECHNOLOGY.
023 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 37,803 37,803
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
024 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 13,811 13,811
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 67,416 67,416
TECHNOLOGY.
026 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING 26,045 26,045
TECHNOLOGY.
027 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY...... 37,403 5,000 42,403
......................... Program Increase....... [5,000]
028 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY......... 77,111 77,111
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 907,574 5,000 912,574
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
029 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 38,831 38,831
TECHNOLOGY.
030 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 68,365 68,365
031 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 94,280 94,280
TECHNOLOGY.
032 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 68,714 68,714
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
033 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 122,132 122,132
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
034 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED 3,904 3,904
TECHNOLOGY.
035 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 14,417 14,417
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
037 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............... 8,074 13,300 21,374
......................... See classified annex... [13,300]
038 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & 18,969 18,969
SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
039 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE............... 11,910 11,910
040 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 27,686 27,686
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
041 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............... 2,340 2,340
042 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............... 2,470 2,470
043 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 27,893 27,893
TECHNOLOGY.
044 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED 52,190 52,190
TECHNOLOGY.
045 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............... 11,107 11,107
046 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING 177,190 2,000 179,190
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
......................... Program increase....... [2,000]
047 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 17,451 17,451
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
048 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,839 5,839
PROGRAM.
049 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 44,468 44,468
TECHNOLOGY.
050 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 11,137 11,137
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
051 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 20,684 20,684
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
052 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER 44,239 44,239
SCIENCE AND SENSOR
TECHNOLOGY.
053 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY..... 35,775 35,775
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 930,065 15,300 945,365
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
054 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS 9,433 9,433
INTEGRATION.
055 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 23,056 23,056
INTEGRATION.
056 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 72,117 72,117
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
057 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET 28,244 28,244
DEFEATING SYS-ADV DEV.
058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 40,096 40,096
AMMUNITION.
059 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 10,506 10,506
SURVIVABILITY.
060 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 15,730 15,730
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
061 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 10,321 10,321
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
062 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 7,785 7,785
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
063 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 2,300 2,300
DEVELOPMENT.
064 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV.......... 10,014 10,014
065 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 20,834 20,834
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
066 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV... 33,503 7,500 41,003
......................... Program increase....... [7,500]
067 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 31,120 31,120
DEVELOPMENT.
068 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES... 6,608 6,608
069 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE 35,132 35,132
DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR.
070 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 70,047 70,047
INITIATIVES.
071 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, 83,279 83,279
NAVIGATION AND TIMING
(PNT).
073 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS 40,510 40,510
FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 550,635 7,500 558,135
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
074 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS.......... 83,248 83,248
075 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 34,642 34,642
DEVELOPMENT.
077 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 12,172 12,172
VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
078 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM. 3,958 3,958
079 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............... 12,525 12,525
080 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS... 66,943 66,943
082 0604611A JAVELIN.................... 20,011 20,011
083 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 11,429 11,429
VEHICLES.
084 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL........ 3,421 3,421
085 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND 39,282 39,282
VEHICLE (TUGV).
086 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED 494 494
VEHICLES.
087 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS 9,678 9,678
MODERNIZATION (ASM)--ENG
DEV.
088 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 84,519 84,519
DEV.
089 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 2,054 2,054
AND EQUIPMENT.
090 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 30,774 30,774
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
091 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 53,332 8,000 61,332
CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE--
ENG DEV.
......................... Program increase- all [8,000]
digital radar
technology for CRAM.
092 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 17,887 17,887
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
093 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 8,813 8,813
DEVELOPMENT.
094 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 10,487 10,487
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG DEV.
095 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 15,068 15,068
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
096 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 89,716 89,716
INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION.
097 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ENG 80,365 80,365
DEV.
098 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 75,098 11,100 86,198
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
......................... Program Increase- next [11,100]
generation signature
management.
099 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 4,245 4,245
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
100 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 41,124 41,124
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
101 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 39,630 39,630
ENG DEV.
102 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 205,590 205,590
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
103 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT.......... 15,983 15,983
104 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 6,805 6,805
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
105 0604823A FIREFINDER................. 9,235 9,235
106 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 12,393 12,393
DEM/VAL.
107 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD..... 1,756 1,756
108 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 74,236 74,236
DEVELOPMENT.
109 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 155,584 155,584
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
110 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 184,221 184,221
VEHICLE (AMPV).
111 0605029A INTEGRATED GROUND SECURITY 4,980 4,980
SURVEILLANCE RESPONSE
CAPABILITY (IGSSR-C).
112 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 15,041 15,041
CENTER (JTNC).
113 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 16,014 16,014
(JTN).
114 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE............... 27,254 27,254
115 0605033A GROUND-BASED OPERATIONAL 5,032 5,032
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--
EXPEDITIONARY (GBOSS-E).
116 0605034A TACTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM 2,904 2,904
(TSS).
117 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 96,977 96,977
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
118 0605036A COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS 2,089 2,089
DESTRUCTION (CWMD).
119 0605041A DEFENSIVE CYBER TOOL 33,836 33,836
DEVELOPMENT.
120 0605042A TACTICAL NETWORK RADIO 18,824 18,824
SYSTEMS (LOW-TIER).
121 0605047A CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM.... 20,663 20,663
122 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 41,133 41,133
DEVELOPMENT.
123 0605052A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 83,995 83,995
CAPABILITY INC 2--BLOCK 1.
125 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 5,028 5,028
SYSTEM (JTRS).
126 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 42,972 42,972
(JAGM).
128 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 252,811 252,811
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
131 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 4,955 4,955
INTEGRATION (MIP).
132 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 11,530 11,530
VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING
AND MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
133 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT 2,142 2,142
EQUIPMENT.
134 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED 41,498 41,498
MANAGEMENT (PIM).
135 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............... 4,273 4,273
136 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 14,425 14,425
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 2,265,094 19,100 2,284,194
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
137 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 25,675 25,675
DEVELOPMENT.
138 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 19,122 19,122
139 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 84,777 84,777
140 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER......... 20,658 20,658
141 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL....... 236,648 236,648
142 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 25,596 25,596
PROGRAM.
144 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 293,748 293,748
FACILITIES.
145 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 52,404 52,404
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
146 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 38,571 38,571
ANALYSIS.
147 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION..... 4,665 4,665
148 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 6,925 6,925
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
149 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS.. 21,677 21,677
150 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 12,415 12,415
ITEMS.
151 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 49,684 49,684
TESTING.
152 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER..... 55,905 55,905
153 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 7,959 7,959
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
154 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES..... 51,822 51,822
155 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 33,323 33,323
ACTIVITIES.
156 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, 40,545 40,545
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
157 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 2,130 2,130
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
158 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 49,885 49,885
159 0303260A DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION 2,000 2,000
INITIATIVE.
......................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 1,136,134 1,136,134
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
161 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 9,663 9,663
PROGRAM.
162 0603813A TRACTOR PULL............... 3,960 3,960
163 0605024A ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 3,638 3,638
SUPPORT.
164 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 14,517 14,517
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
165 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE.............. 4,479 4,479
166 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES 39,275 39,275
(LRPF).
167 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 66,441 66,441
PROGRAM.
168 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT 46,765 46,765
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
169 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 91,848 91,848
PROGRAM.
170 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT 796 796
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
171 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE 126,105 126,105
PROGRAM.
172 0607140A EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FROM 2,369 2,369
NIE.
173 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION....... 4,563 4,563
174 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS....... 12,098 12,098
175 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 49,482 49,482
176 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT-- 45,482 -43,000 2,482
COCOM EXERCISE.
......................... Program reduction...... [-43,000]
178 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP 30,455 30,455
OPERATION COORDINATION
SYSTEM (JADOCS).
179 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT 316,857 316,857
PROGRAMS.
180 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.... 4,031 4,031
181 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 35,793 35,793
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
182 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 259 259
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
183 0203758A DIGITIZATION............... 6,483 6,483
184 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT 5,122 5,122
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
185 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 7,491 7,491
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
186 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............... 20,333 20,333
188 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING 124 124
EQUIPMENT.
190 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE 69,417 69,417
DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM.
191 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH 22,044 22,044
ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
192 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 12,649 12,649
SYSTEM.
194 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 11,619 11,619
ACTIVITIES.
195 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 38,280 38,280
SECURITY PROGRAM.
196 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 27,223 27,223
SYSTEM.
197 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 18,815 18,815
(SPACE).
198 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 4,718 4,718
CONTROL SYSTEM.
202 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 8,218 8,218
VEHICLES.
203 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 11,799 11,799
SYSTEMS.
204 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 32,284 32,284
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
205 0305219A MQ-1C GRAY EAGLE UAS....... 13,470 13,470
206 0305232A RQ-11 UAV.................. 1,613 1,613
207 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................... 4,597 4,597
209 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2--INITIAL 4,867 4,867
NETWORKING.
210 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 62,287 62,287
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
210A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 4,625 4,625
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 1,296,954 -43,000 1,253,954
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 7,515,399 3,900 7,519,299
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, NAVY
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 101,714 20,000 121,714
INITIATIVES.
......................... Program increase....... [20,000]
002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 18,508 18,508
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 422,748 422,748
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 542,970 20,000 562,970
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 41,371 41,371
RESEARCH.
005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 158,745 158,745
RESEARCH.
006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE 51,590 51,590
TECHNOLOGY.
007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 41,185 41,185
RESEARCH.
008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 45,467 45,467
APPLIED RESEARCH.
009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 118,941 118,941
APPLIED RESEARCH.
010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 42,618 32,000 74,618
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
......................... Service Life Extension [32,000]
Program--AGOR.
011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,327 6,327
APPLIED RESEARCH.
012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 126,313 126,313
RESEARCH.
013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 165,103 165,103
APPLIED RESEARCH.
014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 33,916 33,916
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
015 0602898N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 29,575 29,575
MANAGEMENT--ONR
HEADQUARTERS.
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 861,151 32,000 893,151
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
016 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED 96,406 10,000 106,406
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Program increase for [10,000]
common mount.
017 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 48,438 48,438
TECHNOLOGY.
018 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 26,421 26,421
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
019 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 140,416 140,416
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
020 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 13,117 13,117
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
021 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 249,092 249,092
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
022 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 56,712 56,712
PROGRAM.
023 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,789 4,789
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
024 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED 25,880 25,880
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 60,550 5,000 65,550
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
......................... Program Increase....... [5,000]
026 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 15,167 15,167
WARFARE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 736,988 15,000 751,988
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
027 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 48,536 48,536
APPLICATIONS.
028 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY..... 5,239 5,239
030 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS........... 1,519 1,519
031 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.... 7,041 7,041
032 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 3,274 3,274
RECONNAISSANCE.
033 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 57,034 15,000 72,034
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Program Increase....... [15,000]
034 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 165,775 165,775
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
035 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 87,066 87,066
DEFENSE.
036 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 7,605 7,605
037 0603525N PILOT FISH................. 132,068 132,068
038 0603527N RETRACT LARCH.............. 14,546 14,546
039 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER............ 115,435 115,435
040 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL....... 702 702
041 0603553N SURFACE ASW................ 1,081 1,081
042 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 100,565 100,565
DEVELOPMENT.
043 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 8,782 8,782
SYSTEMS.
044 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 14,590 14,590
DESIGN.
045 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 15,805 15,805
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
046 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 453,313 453,313
SYSTEMS.
047 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY 36,655 36,655
SYSTEMS.
048 0603576N CHALK EAGLE................ 367,016 367,016
049 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS). 51,630 51,630
050 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION.. 23,530 23,530
051 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT........... 700,811 700,811
052 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES........ 160,058 -30,900 129,158
......................... Program Restructure.... [-30,900]
053 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND ANALYSIS 8,000 8,000
......................... Program increase....... [8,000]
054 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT........ 84,900 84,900
055 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 8,342 8,342
056 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 158,682 158,682
VEHICLES.
057 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 1,303 1,303
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
058 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 46,911 46,911
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
060 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 4,556 4,556
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
061 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION... 20,343 20,343
062 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM........ 52,479 52,479
063 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT..... 5,458 5,458
064 0603734N CHALK CORAL................ 245,860 245,860
065 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY. 3,089 3,089
066 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE.............. 323,526 323,526
067 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA.............. 318,497 318,497
068 0603751N RETRACT ELM................ 52,834 52,834
069 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN............. 48,116 48,116
070 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES.......... 13,619 13,619
071 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 9,867 9,867
DEVELOPMENT.
072 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY..... 6,015 6,015
073 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 27,904 27,904
TESTING.
074 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 104,144 104,144
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
075 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND 32,700 32,700
ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
076 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS 70,528 70,528
NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
(CVN 78--80).
077 0604122N REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM 3,001 3,001
(RMS).
078 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 34,920 34,920
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
080 0604292N MH-XX...................... 1,620 1,620
081 0604454N LX (R)..................... 6,354 6,354
082 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA 78,589 78,589
PROTOTYPING.
084 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 9,910 9,910
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
085 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 23,971 23,971
WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/
ENGINEERING SUPPORT.
086 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 252,409 252,409
WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT.
087 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 23,197 23,197
VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING
AND MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
088 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 9,110 9,110
MIP.
089 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 437 437
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,662,867 -7,900 4,654,967
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
090 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT... 19,938 19,938
091 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT..... 6,268 6,268
092 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.... 33,664 33,664
093 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT...... 1,300 1,300
094 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 5,275 5,275
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
095 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 3,875 3,875
ENGINEERING.
096 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.. 1,909 1,909
097 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM..... 13,237 13,237
098 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.... 36,323 36,323
099 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE........... 363,792 363,792
100 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............... 27,441 27,441
101 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.... 34,525 34,525
102 0604262N V-22A...................... 174,423 174,423
103 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 13,577 13,577
DEVELOPMENT.
104 0604269N EA-18...................... 116,761 116,761
105 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 48,766 48,766
DEVELOPMENT.
106 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT. 338,357 338,357
107 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 577,822 577,822
(NGJ).
108 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 2,365 2,365
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
109 0604282N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 52,065 52,065
(NGJ) INCREMENT II.
110 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 282,764 282,764
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
111 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 580 580
INTEGRATION.
112 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB).. 97,622 97,622
113 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 120,561 120,561
IMPROVEMENTS.
114 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............... 45,622 45,622
116 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 25,750 25,750
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
118 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 85,868 85,868
SENSORS.
119 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 117,476 117,476
MODERNIZATION.
120 0604504N AIR CONTROL................ 47,404 47,404
121 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS. 112,158 112,158
122 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER 6,283 6,283
CONVERSION.
123 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 144,395 144,395
RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
124 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN............. 113,013 113,013
125 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 43,160 43,160
SYSTEM.
126 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE 65,002 20,000 85,002
FIRE T&E.
......................... CVN Design............. [20,000]
127 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 3,098 3,098
RESOURCES.
128 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE 97,920 97,920
(VPM).
129 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT........... 10,490 10,490
130 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 20,178 20,178
DEVELOPMENT.
131 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 7,369 7,369
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
132 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 4,995 4,995
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
133 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 412 412
SYSTEMS.
134 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & 134,619 134,619
CONTROL).
135 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 114,475 -9,000 105,475
HARD KILL).
......................... Program Execution...... [-9,000]
136 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 114,211 114,211
SOFT KILL/EW).
137 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING... 11,029 11,029
138 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT........ 9,220 9,220
139 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM....... 42,723 42,723
140 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 531,426 531,426
EMD.
141 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 528,716 528,716
EMD.
142 0604810M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW 74,227 74,227
ON DEVELOPMENT--MARINE
CORPS.
143 0604810N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW 63,387 63,387
ON DEVELOPMENT--NAVY.
144 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 4,856 4,856
DEVELOPMENT.
145 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 97,066 97,066
DEVELOPMENT.
146 0605024N ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 2,500 2,500
SUPPORT.
147 0605212N CH-53K RDTE................ 404,810 404,810
148 0605215N MISSION PLANNING........... 33,570 33,570
149 0605217N COMMON AVIONICS............ 51,599 51,599
150 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR 11,088 11,088
(SSC).
151 0605327N T-AO (X)................... 1,095 1,095
152 0605414N MQ-XX...................... 89,000 -12,000 77,000
......................... Excess Obligation...... [-12,000]
153 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 17,880 17,880
(JAGM).
154 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 59,126 59,126
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
155 0605504N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 182,220 182,220
(MMA) INCREMENT III.
156 0204202N DDG-1000................... 45,642 45,642
159 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM-- 676 676
MIP.
160 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 36,747 36,747
SYSTEMS.
161 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS 35,002 35,002
PROGRAM.
162 0306250M CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 4,942 4,942
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 6,025,655 -1,000 6,024,655
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
163 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 16,633 16,633
DEVELOPMENT.
164 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 36,662 36,662
165 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 42,109 42,109
166 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 2,998 2,998
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
167 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 3,931 3,931
SUPPORT--NAVY.
168 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES.. 46,634 46,634
169 0605285N NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER.... 1,200 1,200
171 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 903 903
SERVICES.
172 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 87,077 87,077
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
173 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT 3,597 3,597
174 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 62,811 62,811
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
175 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 106,093 106,093
SUPPORT.
176 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 349,146 349,146
177 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 18,160 18,160
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
178 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 9,658 9,658
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
179 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 6,500 6,500
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
180 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 22,247 22,247
SUPPORT.
181 0605898N MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 16,254 16,254
182 0606355N WARFARE INNOVATION 21,123 21,123
MANAGEMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 853,736 853,736
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
188 0607658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT 84,501 84,501
CAPABILITY (CEC).
189 0607700N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 2,970 2,970
AND CONTROL.
190 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 136,556 136,556
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
191 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 33,845 33,845
PROGRAM.
192 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE 9,329 9,329
DEVELOPMENT.
193 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 17,218 17,218
COMMUNICATIONS.
195 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS........... 189,125 189,125
196 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 48,225 48,225
(TACTICAL).
197 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT............ 21,156 21,156
198 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 71,355 71,355
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
199 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 58,542 58,542
SYSTEM.
200 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT 13,929 13,929
UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
201 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 83,538 83,538
RADAR (G/ATOR).
202 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 38,593 38,593
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
203 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT. 1,122 1,122
204 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 99,998 99,998
READINESS SUPPORT.
205 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT........... 48,635 48,635
206 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS........ 124,785 124,785
207 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 24,583 24,583
INTEGRATION.
208 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP................ 39,134 39,134
209 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS...... 120,861 120,861
210 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 101,786 101,786
SYSTEMS.
211 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS 82,159 82,159
SYSTEMS.
212 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND 11,850 11,850
CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S).
213 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 47,877 47,877
SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS.
214 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 13,194 13,194
SERVICES SUPPORT.
215 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 17,171 17,171
ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS
(MIP).
216 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE. 38,020 38,020
217 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 56,285 56,285
218 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 40,350 40,350
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
219 0219902M GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 9,128 9,128
SYSTEM--MARINE CORPS (GCSS-
MC).
223 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 37,372 37,372
(SPACE).
224 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK 23,541 23,541
ENTERPRISE SERVICES
(CANES).
225 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 38,510 38,510
SECURITY PROGRAM.
228 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 6,019 6,019
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
229 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 8,436 8,436
VEHICLES.
230 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND 36,509 36,509
INTEROPERABILITY.
231 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 2,100 2,100
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
232 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 44,571 44,571
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
233 0305220N MQ-4C TRITON............... 111,729 111,729
234 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................... 26,518 26,518
235 0305232M RQ-11 UAV.................. 418 418
236 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................... 716 716
237 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 5,071 5,071
UAS (STUASL0).
238 0305239M RQ-21A..................... 9,497 9,497
239 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 77,965 77,965
DEVELOPMENT.
240 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS 11,181 11,181
(UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
241 0305421N RQ-4 MODERNIZATION......... 181,266 181,266
242 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 4,709 4,709
SUPPORT.
243 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 49,322 5,000 54,322
......................... MH-60 Fleet Mid-Life [5,000]
Upgrades.
245 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 3,204 3,204
(MARITECH).
245A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 1,228,460 1,228,460
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 3,592,934 5,000 3,597,934
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 17,276,301 63,100 17,339,401
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, AF
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 340,812 340,812
002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 145,044 145,044
INITIATIVES.
003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH 14,168 14,168
INITIATIVES.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 500,024 500,024
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602102F MATERIALS.................. 126,152 5,000 131,152
......................... Precision measuring [5,000]
tools.
005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 122,831 5,000 127,831
TECHNOLOGIES.
......................... Reusable Hypersonic [5,000]
vehicle structures
development.
006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED 111,647 5,000 116,647
RESEARCH.
......................... Human-Machine Teaming.. [5,000]
007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION....... 185,671 185,671
008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS.......... 155,174 155,174
009 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY........... 117,915 117,915
010 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 109,649 109,649
011 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY. 127,163 127,163
012 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 161,650 161,650
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
013 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH. 42,300 42,300
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,260,152 15,000 1,275,152
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
014 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 35,137 10,000 45,137
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
......................... Metals Affordability [10,000]
Initiative.
015 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 20,636 20,636
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
016 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS. 40,945 40,945
017 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 130,950 130,950
DEMO.
018 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 94,594 5,000 99,594
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Silicon Carbide for [5,000]
aerospace power
application.
019 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 58,250 58,250
TECHNOLOGY.
020 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 61,593 61,593
TECHNOLOGY.
021 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 11,681 11,681
SYSTEM (MSSS).
022 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 26,492 26,492
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
023 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 102,009 102,009
TECHNOLOGY.
024 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 39,064 39,064
025 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 46,344 46,344
PROGRAM.
026 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 58,110 58,110
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 725,805 15,000 740,805
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
027 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 5,598 5,598
DEVELOPMENT.
028 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY... 7,534 7,534
029 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 24,418 24,418
TECHNOLOGY.
030 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 4,333 4,333
DEVELOPMENT.
032 0603830F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE 32,399 32,399
PROGRAM.
033 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC 108,663 108,663
MISSILE--DEM/VAL.
035 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE--BOMBER.. 1,358,309 1,358,309
036 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND 34,818 34,818
SENSORS.
037 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER........ 3,368 3,368
038 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 74,308 74,308
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
039 0604422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON... 118,953 -5,000 113,953
......................... Transfer Cloud [-5,000]
Characterization and
Theater Weather Imagery
to NRO.
040 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 9,901 9,901
SYSTEMS.
041 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION 25,890 25,890
ENTERPRISE R&D.
042 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 7,921 20,000 27,921
SPACE.
......................... Responsive Launch and [20,000]
Reconstitution.
043 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.... 347,304 347,304
044 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC 113,919 113,919
DETERRENT.
046 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR 20,595 -5,000 15,595
DOMINANCE.
......................... Program reduction...... [-5,000]
047 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 49,491 -10,000 39,491
RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
......................... Excess funding to need. [-10,000]
048 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING 278,147 278,147
SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT)
(SPACE).
049 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK EXECUTIVE 42,338 42,338
AGENT (CDL EA).
050 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 158,002 158,002
DEVELOPMENT.
051 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES... 15,842 15,842
052 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION 5,782 5,782
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 2,847,833 2,847,833
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
054 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 12,476 12,476
DEVELOPMENT.
055 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 82,380 82,380
ENTERPRISE.
056 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT 8,458 8,458
057 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)-- 54,838 54,838
EMD.
058 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS....... 34,394 34,394
059 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 23,945 23,945
SYSTEMS.
060 0604426F SPACE FENCE................ 168,364 168,364
061 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK. 9,187 9,187
062 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM 181,966 181,966
(SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
063 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 20,312 20,312
DEVELOPMENT.
064 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............... 2,503 2,503
065 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT....... 53,680 53,680
066 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 9,901 9,901
MUNITION.
067 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS....... 7,520 7,520
068 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES..... 77,409 77,409
069 0604800F F-35--EMD.................. 450,467 450,467
070 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 296,572 -196,572 100,000
VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
EMD.
......................... Launch System [100,000]
Investment (launch
vehicle, upper stage,
strap-on motor, or
related infrastructure).
......................... Next Generation Launch [-296,572]
System Investment.
070A 0604XXXF ROCKET PROPULSION SYSTEM... 220,000 220,000
......................... Rocket Propulsion [220,000]
System Replacement of
RD-180.
071 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON. 95,604 95,604
072 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.... 189,751 189,751
073 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 1,131 1,131
CENTER (JTNC).
074 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 70,290 70,290
INCREMENT 3.2B.
075 0605214F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE 937 937
DEVELOPMENT.
076 0605221F KC-46...................... 261,724 -140,000 121,724
......................... Scope Reduction........ [-140,000]
077 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING.... 12,377 12,377
078 0605229F CSAR HH-60 RECAPITALIZATION 319,331 319,331
080 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 259,131 259,131
(SPACE).
081 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).... 50,815 50,815
082 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 41,632 41,632
(SPACE).
083 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2 28,911 28,911
RDT&E.
084 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 315,615 -26,658 288,957
SYSTEM.
......................... Scope Reduction........ [-26,658]
085 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 137,909 137,909
MODERNIZATION.
086 0207171F F-15 EPAWSS................ 256,669 256,669
087 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 12,051 12,051
TRAINING.
088 0305176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER 29,253 29,253
LOCATOR.
089 0307581F JSTARS RECAP............... 128,019 128,019
090 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT 351,220 351,220
REPLACEMENT (PAR).
091 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS..... 19,062 19,062
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 4,075,804 -143,230 3,932,574
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
092 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 21,630 21,630
DEVELOPMENT.
093 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 66,385 66,385
094 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE..... 34,641 34,641
096 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 11,529 11,529
EVALUATION.
097 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 661,417 661,417
098 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 11,198 11,198
PROGRAM (SPACE).
099 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP)... 27,070 27,070
100 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND 134,111 134,111
MODERNIZATION--TEST AND
EVALUATION SUPPORT.
101 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 28,091 28,091
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
102 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 29,100 29,100
MATURATION.
103 0606116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING 18,528 18,528
RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
104 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 176,666 176,666
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
105 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION 4,410 4,410
SERVICES (EIS).
106 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT 14,613 14,613
SUPPORT.
107 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING..... 1,404 1,404
109 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES... 4,784 4,784
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 1,245,577 1,245,577
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
110 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 393,268 393,268
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
111 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 15,427 15,427
FLIGHT TRAINING.
112 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE..... 46,695 46,695
115 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 10,368 10,368
PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
116 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 31,952 31,952
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
117 0605117F FOREIGN MATERIEL 42,960 42,960
ACQUISITION AND
EXPLOITATION.
118 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E...... 13,987 13,987
119 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS............. 78,267 78,267
120 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE 453 453
(ALCM).
121 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS............. 5,830 5,830
122 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS.............. 152,458 152,458
123 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS........ 182,958 182,958
124 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM-- 39,148 39,148
USSTRATCOM.
126 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC 6,042 6,042
COMMUNICATIONS.
128 0102110F UH-1N REPLACEMENT PROGRAM.. 14,116 14,116
129 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 10,868 10,868
CONTROL CENTER
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
130 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 8,674 8,674
STRATCOM--SPACE ACTIVITIES.
131 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................... 151,373 49,000 200,373
......................... Auto take-off and [35,000]
landing capability.
......................... Tactical Datalink [14,000]
Integration.
133 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS............. 14,853 14,853
134 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS............. 132,795 132,795
135 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS............ 356,717 356,717
136 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 14,773 14,773
SUPPRESSION.
137 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS............ 387,564 387,564
138 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS............. 153,045 153,045
139 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 52,898 52,898
140 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 62,470 62,470
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
143 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE.. 362 362
144 0207247F AF TENCAP.................. 28,413 3,200 31,613
......................... Restore FY16 level..... [3,200]
145 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 649 649
PROCUREMENT.
146 0207253F COMPASS CALL............... 13,723 37,100 50,823
......................... Program Restructure.... [37,100]
147 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 109,859 109,859
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
148 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 30,002 30,002
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
149 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 37,621 37,621
CENTER (AOC).
150 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 13,292 13,292
CENTER (CRC).
151 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 86,644 86,644
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
152 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 2,442 2,442
SYSTEMS.
154 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 10,911 5,000 15,911
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
......................... Geospatial software [5,000]
development.
155 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY- 11,843 11,843
MOD.
156 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK... 1,515 1,515
157 0207452F DCAPES..................... 14,979 14,979
158 0207590F SEEK EAGLE................. 25,308 25,308
159 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 16,666 16,666
SIMULATION.
160 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 4,245 4,245
CENTERS.
161 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 3,886 3,886
EXERCISES.
162 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS... 71,785 71,785
164 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 25,025 25,025
OPERATIONS.
165 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 29,439 29,439
OPERATIONS.
168 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED ON 3,470 3,470
NETWORK (GSIN).
169 0301112F NUCLEAR PLANNING AND 4,060 4,060
EXECUTION SYSTEM (NPES).
175 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 13,880 13,880
INTELLIGENCE.
176 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 30,948 30,948
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
177 0303001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS 42,378 42,378
TERMINALS (FAB-T).
178 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 47,471 47,471
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
179 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 46,388 46,388
SECURITY PROGRAM.
180 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 52 52
SYSTEM.
181 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT-- 2,099 2,099
DATA INITIATIVE.
184 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE. 90,762 90,762
187 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,354 4,354
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
188 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 15,624 15,624
(SPACE).
189 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE............ 19,974 3,000 22,974
......................... Commercial Weather [3,000]
Pilot Program.
190 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 9,770 9,770
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
191 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS............. 3,051 3,051
194 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE 405 405
ACTIVITIES.
195 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION 4,844 4,844
196 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 339 339
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
199 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND 3,989 3,989
EVALUATION CENTER.
200 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, 3,070 3,070
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
201 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 8,833 8,833
SERVICE (IBS).
202 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 11,867 11,867
(SPACE).
203 0305202F DRAGON U-2................. 37,217 37,217
205 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 3,841 15,000 18,841
SYSTEMS.
......................... Wide area motion [15,000]
imagery.
206 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 20,975 20,975
SYSTEMS.
207 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 18,902 18,902
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
208 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................... 256,307 256,307
209 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 22,610 -6,300 16,310
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
......................... Program reduction...... [-6,300]
211 0305238F NATO AGS................... 38,904 38,904
212 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE. 23,084 23,084
213 0305258F ADVANCED EVALUATION PROGRAM 116,143 116,143
214 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT...... 141,888 141,888
215 0305600F INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 2,360 2,360
TECHNOLOGY AND
ARCHITECTURES.
216 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM....... 72,889 72,889
217 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.... 4,280 4,280
218 0305906F NCMC--TW/AA SYSTEM......... 4,951 4,951
219 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 21,093 21,093
(SPACE).
220 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 35,002 35,002
OPERATIONS.
222 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW). 6,366 6,366
223 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON..... 15,599 15,599
224 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF). 66,146 66,146
225 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)......... 12,430 12,430
226 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM............. 16,776 16,776
227 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 5,166 5,166
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
229 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT 13,817 13,817
230 0401318F CV-22...................... 16,702 16,702
231 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 7,164 7,164
CONTROL.
232 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 1,518 1,518
233 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 61,676 61,676
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
234 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 9,128 9,128
235 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING...... 1,653 1,653
236 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES. 57 57
237 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 3,663 3,663
AGENCY.
238 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 3,735 3,735
PROGRAM.
239 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION... 5,157 5,157
240 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,523 1,523
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
242 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 10,581 10,581
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
242A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 13,091,557 13,091,557
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 17,457,056 106,000 17,563,056
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 28,112,251 -7,230 28,105,021
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, DW
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH 35,436 35,436
INITIATIVE.
002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 362,297 -10,000 352,297
......................... Program reduction...... [-10,000]
003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES. 36,654 36,654
004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 57,791 57,791
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION 69,345 10,000 79,345
PROGRAM.
......................... K-12 STEM program [10,000]
increase.
006 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES 23,572 10,000 33,572
AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
INSTITUTIONS.
......................... Program increase....... [10,000]
007 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 44,800 44,800
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 629,895 10,000 639,895
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
008 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY. 17,745 17,745
009 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 115,213 -10,000 105,213
......................... Program reduction...... [-10,000]
010 0602230D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 30,000 -30,000
INNOVATION.
......................... Program decrease....... [-30,000]
011 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH 48,269 48,269
PROGRAM.
012 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 42,206 42,206
ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
PRIORITIES.
013 0602303E INFORMATION & 353,635 -5,000 348,635
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Program reduction...... [-5,000]
014 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE. 21,250 21,250
015 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 188,715 188,715
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
016 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.... 12,183 12,183
017 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY........ 313,843 313,843
018 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 220,456 -10,000 210,456
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Program reduction...... [-10,000]
019 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY..... 221,911 221,911
020 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 154,857 154,857
DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES.
021 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 8,420 8,420
INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
022 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 37,820 37,820
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,786,523 -55,000 1,731,523
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
023 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 23,902 23,902
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 73,002 27,000 100,002
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
......................... Additional EOD [12,000]
equipment for
Conventional Units.
......................... Program increase for [15,000]
DOD CT and C-UAS.
026 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING 19,343 10,000 29,343
......................... Anti-tunnel defense [10,000]
systems.
027 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION 266,444 266,444
INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATION
PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
028 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 17,880 17,880
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
030 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY......... 71,843 71,843
031 0603179C ADVANCED C4ISR............. 3,626 3,626
032 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH.......... 23,433 23,433
033 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 17,256 17,256
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
035 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA 83,745 25,000 108,745
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Classified Annex....... [25,000]
036 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS. 182,327 -5,000 177,327
......................... Program reduction...... [-5,000]
037 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 175,240 -10,000 165,240
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Program reduction...... [-10,000]
038 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS....... 12,048 12,048
039 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 57,020 57,020
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
041 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION...... 39,923 -20,000 19,923
......................... Program decrease....... [-20,000]
042 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 127,941 127,941
DEFENSE PROGRAM--ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENT.
043 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH.............. 181,977 181,977
044 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 22,030 22,030
TECHNOLOGY.
045 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY 148,184 10,000 158,184
DEMONSTRATIONS.
......................... Social Medial Analysis [10,000]
Cell.
046 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 9,331 9,331
CAPABILITIES.
047 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING 158,398 -10,000 148,398
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM.
......................... Program decrease....... [-10,000]
048 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 31,259 31,259
PROGRAM.
049 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 49,895 49,895
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
050 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 11,011 11,011
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
052 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 65,078 65,078
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
053 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY 97,826 97,826
DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT.
054 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM.. 7,848 7,848
055 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 49,807 49,807
TECHNOLOGIES.
056 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 155,081 155,081
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
057 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 428,894 428,894
TECHNOLOGY.
058 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.......... 241,288 241,288
060 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 14,264 14,264
INSTITUTE.
061 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 74,943 -2,000 72,943
PROJECTS.
......................... QRSP................... [-2,000]
063 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & 17,659 17,659
TECHNOLOGY.
064 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & 87,135 87,135
TECHNOLOGY.
065 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 37,329 37,329
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
066 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............... 44,836 -23,600 21,236
......................... Constellation program [-23,600]
reduction.
067 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 61,620 61,620
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,190,666 1,400 3,192,066
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES
068 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 28,498 28,498
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
069 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................... 89,643 89,643
071 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE DATA 2,136 2,136
& INFORMATION SERVICES.
072 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 52,491 52,491
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
073 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 206,834 206,834
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
074 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 862,080 862,080
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT.
075 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 138,187 138,187
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
076 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 230,077 230,077
SENSORS.
077 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS...... 401,594 401,594
078 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA...... 321,607 321,607
079 0603892C AEGIS BMD.................. 959,066 959,066
080 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & 32,129 32,129
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
081 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 20,690 20,690
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
082 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 439,617 439,617
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATI.
083 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 47,776 47,776
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
084 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION 54,750 54,750
& OPERATIONS CENTER
(MDIOC).
085 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH........... 8,785 8,785
086 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 68,787 68,787
(SBX).
087 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 103,835 190,000 293,835
PROGRAMS.
......................... Directed Energy [25,000]
Cooperation through MDA.
......................... Increase for [165,000]
Cooperative Development
Programs subject to
Title XVI.
088 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 293,441 293,441
TEST.
089 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 563,576 563,576
TARGETS.
090 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING...... 10,007 10,007
091 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE.......... 10,126 10,126
092 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,893 3,893
CORROSION PROGRAM.
093 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 90,266 15,000 105,266
INITIATIVES.
......................... Directed Energy [15,000]
Acceleration--Low Power
Laser Demonstrator - to
reclaim schdule
slippage.
094 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT..... 45,000 45,000
095 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 844,870 -40,000 804,870
TECHNOLOGIES.
......................... SCO.................... [-40,000]
097 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) 3,320 3,320
UNMANNED SYSTEM COMMON
DEVELOPMENT.
099 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR 4,000 4,000
STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA).
102 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY 23,642 23,642
DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION
AND INTEROPERABILITY
ASSESSMENTS.
104 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION 162,012 162,012
RADAR (LRDR).
105 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE 274,148 274,148
INTERCEPTORS.
106 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 63,444 63,444
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT
TEST.
107 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST............. 95,012 95,012
108 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 83,250 83,250
SENSOR TEST.
109 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).... 43,293 43,293
110 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 106,038 106,038
DEVELOPMENT.
111 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 56,481 56,481
MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST.
112 0604894C MULTI-OBJECT KILL VEHICLE.. 71,513 71,513
114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 2,636 2,636
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 969 969
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 6,919,519 170,000 7,089,519
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTOTYPES.
115A 0604XXXD WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON... 5,000 5,000
......................... Transfer Cloud [5,000]
Characterization and
Theater Weather Imagery
from USAF.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 170,000 170,000
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
116 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 10,324 10,324
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
117 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 181,303 5,000 186,303
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Examination of Army [5,000]
land-attack and anti-
ship capability.
118 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 266,231 266,231
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT 15,000 15,000
PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO).
......................... Commercial IT Eval [15,000]
Program.
120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION 16,288 16,288
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
(JTIDS).
121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 4,568 4,568
DEFEAT CAPABILITIES.
122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 11,505 11,505
DEVELOPMENT.
123 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY 1,658 1,658
INITIATIVE.
124 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 2,920 2,920
PROGRAM.
126 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 12,631 12,631
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
128 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES 26,657 26,657
(DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
129 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND 4,949 4,949
ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
(DRAS).
130 0605140D8Z TRUSTED FOUNDRY............ 69,000 69,000
131 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 9,881 9,881
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
132 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 7,600 7,600
SYSTEM.
133 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 2,703 2,703
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 628,218 20,000 648,218
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
134 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING 4,678 4,678
SYSTEM (DRRS).
135 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE 4,499 4,499
DEVELOPMENT.
136 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION 219,199 219,199
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT
(CTEIP).
137 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 28,706 28,706
138 0605001E MISSION SUPPORT............ 69,244 69,244
139 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 87,080 87,080
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
140 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT 23,069 23,069
AND ANALYSIS.
142 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 32,759 32,759
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
144 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING........ 32,429 32,429
145 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 3,797 3,797
SUPPORT--OSD.
146 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 5,302 5,302
SECURITY.
147 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 7,246 7,246
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
148 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 1,874 1,874
(INTELLIGENCE).
149 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 85,754 85,754
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
158 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 2,187 2,187
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER.
159 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS 22,650 22,650
160 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 43,834 43,834
INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC).
161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 22,240 22,240
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 19,541 4,000 23,541
EVALUATION.
......................... DASD(DT&E)............. [4,000]
163 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 4,759 4,759
164 0605998KA MANAGEMENT HQ--DEFENSE 4,400 4,400
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
CENTER (DTIC).
165 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 4,014 4,014
ASSESSMENTS.
166 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY 2,072 2,072
INITIATIVE (DOSI).
167 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 7,464 7,464
SUPPORT.
170 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 857 857
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
171 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION 916 916
PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO).
172 0305172K COMBINED ADVANCED 15,336 15,336
APPLICATIONS.
173 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE......... 18,523 18,523
175 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 34,384 34,384
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)--
MHA.
176 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA......... 31,160 25,000 56,160
......................... Cyber Improvements [25,000]
Acceleration.
179 0903235D8W JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER 827 827
(JSP).
180A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 56,799 56,799
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 897,599 29,000 926,599
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
181 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM 4,241 4,241
(ESS).
182 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 1,424 1,424
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MANA.
183 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 287 287
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
184 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 16,195 16,195
AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
185 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL 4,194 4,194
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
186 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 7,861 7,861
COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
TSCMIS).
187 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 33,361 33,361
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
189 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,038 3,038
SYSTEM (PDAS).
190 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY....... 57,501 57,501
192 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 5,935 5,935
INFORMATION SHARING.
196 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 575 575
SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
197 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 18,041 18,041
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
198 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 13,994 5,000 18,994
DCS.
......................... Secure cellular [5,000]
communications for
senior leaders.
199 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 12,206 12,206
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
200 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 34,314 34,314
(PKI).
201 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 36,602 36,602
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
202 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 8,876 8,876
SECURITY PROGRAM.
203 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 159,068 2,000 161,068
SECURITY PROGRAM.
......................... SHARKSEER Program [2,000]
Increase.
204 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL 24,438 24,438
SYSTEM.
205 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 13,197 13,197
ORGANIZATION.
207 0303228K JOINT INFORMATION 2,789 2,789
ENVIRONMENT (JIE).
209 0303430K FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE 75,000 75,000
SERVICES INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
210 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM........... 657 657
215 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 1,553 1,553
220 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS........ 6,204 -2,000 4,204
......................... Program decrease....... [-2,000]
221 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY............. 17,971 17,971
223 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,415 5,415
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
226 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,030 3,030
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
229 0305327V INSIDER THREAT............. 5,034 5,034
230 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 2,037 2,037
TRANSFER PROGRAM.
236 0307577D8Z INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA 13,800 13,800
(IMD).
238 0708012S PACIFIC DISASTER CENTERS... 1,754 1,754
239 0708047S DEFENSE PROPERTY 2,154 2,154
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.
240 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ--OJCS........ 826 826
241 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................... 17,804 17,804
244 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS........... 159,143 -12,100 147,043
......................... AC-130 Precision Strike [-12,100]
245 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 7,958 7,958
DEVELOPMENT.
246 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS... 64,895 64,895
247 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS............ 44,885 44,885
248 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS........... 1,949 1,949
249 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR............... 22,117 22,117
250 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES...... 3,316 3,316
251 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS........... 54,577 54,577
252 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 3,841 3,841
ACTIVITIES.
253 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 11,834 11,834
INTELLIGENCE.
253A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 3,270,515 3,270,515
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 4,256,406 -7,100 4,249,306
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 18,308,826 168,300 18,477,126
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 78,047 10,000 88,047
EVALUATION.
......................... DOT&E Cybersecurity [10,000]
Exercises.
002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 48,316 48,316
EVALUATION.
003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES 52,631 52,631
AND ANALYSES.
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 178,994 10,000 188,994
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST 178,994 10,000 188,994
& EVAL, DEFENSE.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RDT&E........... 71,391,771 238,070 71,629,841
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2017 House
Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................ RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, ARMY
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
055 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 9,375 9,375
INTEGRATION.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 9,375 9,375
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
117 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 10,900 10,900
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
122 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 73,110 73,110
DEVELOPMENT.
........................ SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 84,010 84,010
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
208 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 7,104 7,104
INTELLIGENCE.
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 7,104 7,104
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 100,489 100,489
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
........................
........................ RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, NAVY
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
038 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............... 3,907 3,907
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,907 3,907
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
245A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 36,426 36,426
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 36,426 36,426
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 40,333 40,333
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
........................
........................ RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, AF
........................ SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
058 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS........ 425 425
........................ SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 425 425
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
200 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, 4,715 4,715
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
242A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 27,765 27,765
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 32,480 32,480
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 32,905 32,905
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
........................
........................ RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, DW
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
253A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 162,419 162,419
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 162,419 162,419
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 162,419 162,419
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
........................
........................ TOTAL RDT&E............ 336,146 336,146
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4203. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4203. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS
(In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 House
Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................ SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
090 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES-- 33 33
ENG DEV.
122 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 10,000 10,000
DEVELOPMENT.
........................ Army unfunded [10,000]
requirement- modernized
warning system.
........................ SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 33 10,000 10,033
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
161 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 16,000 16,000
PROGRAM.
........................ Army unfunded [16,000]
requirement- GMLRS M-
code upgrade.
166 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES 27,700 27,700
(LRPF).
........................ Army unfunded [27,700]
requirement.
179 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT 10,000 10,000
PROGRAMS.
........................ Army unfunded [10,000]
requirement- Vehicle APS.
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 53,700 53,700
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 33 63,700 63,733
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
........................
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
078 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 37,990 37,990
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
081 0604454N LX (R)...................... 19,000 19,000
........................ LX (R) Design........... [19,000]
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 37,990 19,000 56,990
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
102 0604262N V-22A....................... 11,400 11,400
........................ Accelerate Readiness [11,400]
Improvement- Swashplate
actuator re-design.
118 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS 20,000 20,000
........................ Aegis Radar Solid State [20,000]
Improvements.
........................ SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 31,400 31,400
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 37,990 50,400 88,390
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
........................
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES
074 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 65,000 65,000
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT.
........................ Ground System [65,000]
Communications
Modernization & Upgrades
to Enable Full RKV
Capabilities.
076 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 45,000 45,000
SENSORS.
........................ Electronic Protection [25,000]
Acceleration for Sensors.
........................ RFPs for Hawaii & East [20,000]
Coast Radars.
077 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS....... 10,000 10,000
........................ Modeling and Simulation [10,000]
Improvements.
079 0603892C AEGIS BMD................... 10,000 10,000
........................ Aegis BMD Integration [10,000]
with AMDR.
082 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 30,000 30,000
COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE
MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATI.
........................ C2BMC Acceleration...... [20,000]
........................ Post-Intercept [10,000]
Assessment Acceleration.
088 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 10,000 10,000
TEST.
........................ Test Infrastructure..... [10,000]
105 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE 75,000 75,000
INTERCEPTORS.
........................ Modernized Booster [50,000]
Acceleration.
........................ RKV risk reduction...... [25,000]
112 0604894C MULTI-OBJECT KILL VEHICLE... 55,000 55,000
........................ MOKV Technology [55,000]
Maturation.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 300,000 300,000
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 300,000 300,000
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 300,000 300,000
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
........................
........................ TOTAL RDT&E............ 38,023 414,100 452,123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 791,450 791,450
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 68,373 68,373
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 438,823 438,823
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 660,258 660,258
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 863,928 334,900 1,198,828
Realign APS Unit Set Requirements from OCO.. [334,900]
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 1,360,597 1,360,597
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 3,086,443 8,000 3,094,443
Additional cyber protection teams........... [3,000]
Public-private cyber training partnership... [5,000]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 439,488 439,488
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 1,013,452 12,600 1,026,052
Realign APS Unit Set Requirements from OCO.. [12,600]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 7,816,343 15,000 7,831,343
Realign APS Unit Set Requirements from OCO.. [15,000]
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 2,234,546 2,234,546
MODERNIZATION..................................
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 452,105 452,105
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 155,658 155,658
170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT....... 441,143 441,143
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 19,822,607 370,500 20,193,107
MOBILIZATION
180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.............................. 336,329 336,329
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS....................... 390,848 184,000 574,848
Realign APS Unit Set Requirements from OCO.. [184,000]
200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS......................... 7,401 7,401
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 734,578 184,000 918,578
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
210 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 131,942 131,942
220 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 47,846 47,846
230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING....................... 45,419 45,419
240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.......... 482,747 482,747
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 921,025 6,500 927,525
Defense Foreign Language Program............ [6,500]
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 902,845 902,845
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 216,583 216,583
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 607,534 607,534
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 550,599 550,599
300 EXAMINING....................................... 187,263 187,263
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 189,556 189,556
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 182,835 182,835
330 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS........... 171,167 171,167
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 4,637,361 6,500 4,643,861
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 230,739 120,000 350,739
Realign APS Unit Set Requirements from OCO.. [120,000]
360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 850,060 850,060
370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..................... 778,757 778,757
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 370,010 370,010
390 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 451,556 451,556
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 1,888,123 1,888,123
410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 276,403 276,403
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 369,443 369,443
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 1,096,074 1,096,074
440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.......................... 207,800 207,800
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 240,641 240,641
460 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS........ 250,612 250,612
470 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS............. 416,587 416,587
480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS.................. 36,666 36,666
530 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,151,023 1,151,023
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 8,614,494 120,000 8,734,494
UNDISTRIBUTED
540 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -654,600 -654,600
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-56,100]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-229,900]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-376,300]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [7,700]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -654,600 -654,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 33,809,040 26,400 33,835,440
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 11,435 11,435
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 491,772 491,772
030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 116,163 116,163
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 563,524 563,524
050 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 91,162 91,162
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 347,459 200 347,659
Defense Language Program.................... [200]
070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 101,926 101,926
080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 56,219 56,219
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 573,843 573,843
100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 214,955 214,955
MODERNIZATION..................................
110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 37,620 37,620
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,606,078 200 2,606,278
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
120 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 11,027 11,027
130 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 16,749 16,749
140 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 17,825 17,825
150 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 6,177 6,177
160 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 54,475 54,475
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 106,253 106,253
UNDISTRIBUTED
180 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -6,800 -6,800
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-6,800]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -6,800 -6,800
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 2,712,331 -6,600 2,705,731
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 708,251 708,251
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 197,251 197,251
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 792,271 792,271
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 80,341 80,341
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 37,138 37,138
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 887,625 887,625
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 696,267 200 696,467
Defense Language Program.................... [200]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 61,240 61,240
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 219,948 219,948
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 1,040,012 1,040,012
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 676,715 676,715
MODERNIZATION..................................
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 1,021,144 1,021,144
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,418,203 200 6,418,403
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 6,396 6,396
140 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 68,528 2,524 71,052
National Guard State Partnership Program.... [2,524]
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 76,524 76,524
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 7,712 7,712
170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 245,046 245,046
180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 2,961 2,961
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 407,167 2,524 409,691
UNDISTRIBUTED
190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -29,000 -29,000
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-29,000]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -29,000 -29,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 6,825,370 -26,276 6,799,094
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 4,094,765 4,094,765
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.............................. 1,722,473 1,722,473
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 52,670 52,670
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 97,584 97,584
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 446,733 446,733
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 1,007,681 1,007,681
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 38,248 38,248
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 564,720 564,720
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 3,513,083 3,513,083
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 743,765 743,765
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 5,168,273 9,500 5,177,773
Ship Repair Capability in the Western [9,500]
Pacific.....................................
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 1,575,578 1,575,578
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 558,727 558,727
140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE.............................. 105,680 105,680
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE.................. 180,406 180,406
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 470,032 470,032
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 346,703 346,703
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 1,158,688 1,158,688
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 113,692 113,692
200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT........................ 2,509 2,509
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 91,019 91,019
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 74,780 74,780
230 CRUISE MISSILE.................................. 106,030 106,030
240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE......................... 1,233,805 7,500 1,241,305
Engineering and Technical Services, Project [7,500]
934.........................................
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 163,025 163,025
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 553,269 -1,800 551,469
Heavy Weight Torpedo Program Execution...... [-1,500]
Light Weight Torpedo Program Execution...... [-300]
270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................... 350,010 350,010
280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 790,685 790,685
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 1,642,742 1,642,742
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 4,206,136 4,206,136
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 31,173,511 15,200 31,188,711
MOBILIZATION
310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE................... 893,517 893,517
320 READY RESERVE FORCE............................. 274,524 274,524
330 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.............. 6,727 6,727
340 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 288,154 288,154
350 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 95,720 95,720
360 INDUSTRIAL READINESS............................ 2,109 2,109
370 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 21,114 21,114
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 1,581,865 1,581,865
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
380 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 143,815 143,815
390 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 8,519 8,519
400 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS................. 143,445 143,445
410 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 699,214 699,214
420 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 5,310 5,310
430 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 172,852 1,200 174,052
Naval Sea Cadets............................ [1,200]
440 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 222,728 222,728
450 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 225,647 225,647
460 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 130,569 130,569
470 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 73,730 73,730
480 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 50,400 50,400
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 1,876,229 1,200 1,877,429
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
490 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 917,453 917,453
500 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 14,570 14,570
510 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 124,070 124,070
520 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 369,767 369,767
530 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 285,927 285,927
540 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 319,908 319,908
570 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 171,659 171,659
590 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN................ 270,863 270,863
600 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 1,112,766 1,112,766
610 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT......... 49,078 49,078
620 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS.......................... 24,989 24,989
630 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS............ 72,966 72,966
640 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 595,711 595,711
700 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES......... 4,809 4,809
730 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 517,440 517,440
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 4,851,976 4,851,976
UNDISTRIBUTED
740 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -585,600 -585,600
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-390,500]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-26,400]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-174,100]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [5,400]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -585,600 -585,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 39,483,581 -569,200 38,914,381
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 674,613 674,613
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 947,424 947,424
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 206,783 206,783
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING......................... 85,276 85,276
050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........ 632,673 632,673
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 2,136,626 2,136,626
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 4,683,395 4,683,395
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
070 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 15,946 15,946
080 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 935 935
090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 99,305 99,305
100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 45,495 500 45,995
MOS-to-Degree Program....................... [500]
110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 369,979 369,979
120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 165,566 165,566
130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 35,133 35,133
140 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 23,622 23,622
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 755,981 500 756,481
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 34,534 34,534
160 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 355,932 355,932
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 76,896 76,896
200 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 47,520 47,520
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 514,882 514,882
UNDISTRIBUTED
210 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -37,700 -37,700
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-4,900]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-1,500]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-33,100]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [1,800]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -37,700 -37,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 5,954,258 -37,200 5,917,058
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 526,190 526,190
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 6,714 6,714
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 86,209 86,209
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 389 389
050 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 10,189 10,189
070 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 560 560
090 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 13,173 13,173
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 109,053 109,053
120 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 27,226 27,226
130 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 27,571 27,571
140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 99,166 99,166
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 906,440 906,440
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 1,351 1,351
160 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 13,251 13,251
170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 3,445 3,445
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 3,169 3,169
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 21,216 21,216
UNDISTRIBUTED
200 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -26,600 -26,600
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-26,600]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -26,600 -26,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 927,656 -26,600 901,056
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 94,154 94,154
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 18,594 18,594
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 25,470 25,470
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 111,550 111,550
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 249,768 249,768
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 902 902
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 11,130 11,130
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 8,833 8,833
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 20,865 20,865
UNDISTRIBUTED
090 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -800 -800
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-800]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -800 -800
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 270,633 -800 269,833
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 3,294,124 3,294,124
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 1,682,045 1,682,045
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 1,730,757 1,730,757
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 7,042,988 -56,500 6,986,488
Compass Call Program Restructure............ [-56,500]
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 1,657,019 1,657,019
MODERNIZATION..................................
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 2,787,216 2,787,216
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 887,831 887,831
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 1,070,178 1,070,178
100 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 208,582 208,582
110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 362,250 362,250
120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 907,245 907,245
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 199,171 199,171
135 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 930,757 930,757
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 22,760,163 -56,500 22,703,663
MOBILIZATION
140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 1,703,059 1,703,059
150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 138,899 138,899
160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,553,439 1,553,439
170 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 258,328 258,328
MODERNIZATION..................................
180 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 722,756 722,756
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 4,376,481 4,376,481
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
190 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 120,886 120,886
200 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 23,782 23,782
210 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).......... 77,692 77,692
220 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 236,254 236,254
MODERNIZATION..................................
230 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 819,915 819,915
240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 387,446 387,446
250 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 725,134 725,134
260 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 264,213 264,213
270 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 86,681 86,681
280 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 305,004 305,004
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 104,754 104,754
300 EXAMINING....................................... 3,944 3,944
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 184,841 184,841
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 173,583 173,583
330 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 58,877 58,877
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 3,573,006 3,573,006
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 1,107,846 1,107,846
350 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................... 924,185 924,185
360 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 48,778 48,778
370 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 321,013 321,013
MODERNIZATION..................................
380 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,115,910 1,115,910
390 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 811,650 811,650
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 269,809 269,809
410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 961,304 961,304
420 CIVIL AIR PATROL................................ 25,735 4,765 30,500
Civil Air Patrol O&M Support................ [4,765]
450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 90,573 90,573
460 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,131,603 1,131,603
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 6,808,406 4,765 6,813,171
UNDISTRIBUTED
470 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -765,900 -765,900
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-368,000]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-116,700]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-288,000]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [6,800]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -765,900 -765,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 37,518,056 -817,635 36,700,421
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,707,882 1,707,882
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 230,016 230,016
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 541,743 541,743
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 113,470 113,470
MODERNIZATION..................................
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 384,832 384,832
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,977,943 2,977,943
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 54,939 54,939
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 14,754 14,754
080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).......... 12,707 12,707
090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)............ 7,210 7,210
100 AUDIOVISUAL..................................... 376 376
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 89,986 89,986
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
110 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -59,700 -59,700
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-59,700]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -59,700 -59,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 3,067,929 -59,700 3,008,229
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS............................. 3,282,238 3,282,238
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 723,062 723,062
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,824,329 1,824,329
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 245,840 245,840
MODERNIZATION..................................
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 575,548 575,548
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,651,017 6,651,017
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 23,715 2,524 26,239
National Guard State Partnership Program.... [2,524]
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 28,846 28,846
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE 52,561 2,524 55,085
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
080 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -117,700 -117,700
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-117,700]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -117,700 -117,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 6,703,578 -115,176 6,588,402
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 506,113 506,113
020 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 524,439 -5,000 519,439
Program decrease............................ [-5,000]
030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES..... 4,898,159 4,898,159
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,928,711 -5,000 5,923,711
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY.................. 138,658 138,658
050 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 85,701 85,701
070 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND 365,349 365,349
RECRUITING.....................................
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 589,708 589,708
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
080 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS......................... 160,480 20,000 180,480
STARBASE.................................... [20,000]
100 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 630,925 630,925
110 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 1,356,380 1,356,380
120 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................ 683,620 683,620
130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 1,439,891 1,439,891
150 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 24,984 24,984
160 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY........................ 357,964 357,964
170 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 223,422 -10,000 213,422
Program decrease............................. [-10,000]
180 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY............. 112,681 112,681
190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 496,754 496,754
200 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE........................ 538,711 538,711
230 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...... 35,417 35,417
240 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY................. 448,146 448,146
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 2,671,143 30,000 2,701,143
Impact Aid.................................. [30,000]
270 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.......................... 446,975 446,975
290 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT................... 155,399 155,399
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 1,481,643 -74,930 1,406,713
Alcohol Abuse Prevention Program............ [1,000]
BRAC 2017 Round Planning and Analyses....... [-3,530]
CWMD Sustainment: Constellation program [-3,800]
reduction...................................
Program decrease............................ [-84,428]
Readiness environmental protection [15,828]
initiative..................................
310 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE 89,429 -18,600 70,829
ACTIVITIES.....................................
SOCOM MH-60 Block Upgrades / MH-60M [-18,600]
Replacement.................................
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................ 629,874 -10,000 619,874
Program decrease............................ [-10,000]
330 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 14,069,333 2,000 14,071,333
Classified adjustment....................... [2,000]
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 26,053,171 -61,530 25,991,641
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
340 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -293,900 -293,900
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-17,800]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-34,300]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-248,100]
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction. [6,300]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -293,900 -293,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 32,571,590 -360,430 32,211,160
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 14,194 14,194
DEFENSE........................................
020 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID... 105,125 105,125
030 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.................... 325,604 325,604
050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY................. 170,167 170,167
060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY................. 281,762 281,762
070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE............ 371,521 371,521
080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.............. 9,009 9,009
090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES... 197,084 197,084
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....... 1,474,466 1,474,466
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS......... 1,474,466 1,474,466
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 171,318,488 -1,993,217 169,325,271
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 406,852 -10,800 396,052
Army requested realignment (ERI)............ [-10,800]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 1,643,456 70,100 1,713,556
Operational support for deployed end [70,100]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 556,066 -399,700 156,366
Army requested realignment (ERI)............ [-132,000]
Operational support for deployed end [67,200]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
Realign APS Unit Set Requirements to Base... [-334,900]
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 58,620 31,500 90,120
Operational support for deployed end [31,500]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 1,502,845 173,500 1,676,345
Army requested realignment (ERI)............ [-2,000]
Operational support for deployed end [175,500]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 348,174 10,000 358,174
Operational support for deployed end [10,000]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 40,000 -15,000 25,000
Realign APS Unit Set Requirements to Base... [-15,000]
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 5,979,678 1,080,600 7,060,278
Operational support for deployed end [1,093,200]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
Realign APS Unit Set Requirements to Base... [-12,600]
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM........... 5,000 5,000
160 RESET........................................... 1,092,542 1,092,542
170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT....... 79,568 79,568
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 11,712,801 940,200 12,653,001
MOBILIZATION
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS....................... 350,200 -220,200 130,000
Army requested realignment (ERI)............ [-220,200]
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 350,200 -220,200 130,000
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 540,400 19,100 559,500
Army requested realignment (ERI)............ [120,000]
Operational support for deployed end [203,100]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
Realign APS Unit Set Requirements to Base... [-304,000]
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 13,974 35,100 49,074
Operational support for deployed end [35,100]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 105,508 105,508
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 165,678 97,500 263,178
Operational support for deployed end [97,500]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
530 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 835,551 14,300 849,851
Operational support for deployed end [14,300]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 1,661,111 166,000 1,827,111
UNDISTRIBUTED
540 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -6,083,330 -6,083,330
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-138,600]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-188,500]
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-5,756,230]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -6,083,330 -6,083,330
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 13,724,112 -5,197,330 8,526,782
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 6,252 3,000 9,252
Operational support for deployed end [3,000]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 2,075 1,000 3,075
Operational support for deployed end [1,000]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 1,140 300 1,440
Operational support for deployed end [300]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 14,653 500 15,153
Operational support for deployed end [500]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 24,120 4,800 28,920
UNDISTRIBUTED
180 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -11,394 -11,394
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-11,394]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -11,394 -11,394
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 24,120 -6,594 17,526
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 10,564 6,000 16,564
Operational support for deployed end [6,000]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 748 748
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 5,751 1,700 7,451
Operational support for deployed end [1,700]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 200 200
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 27,183 3,800 30,983
Operational support for deployed end [3,800]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 2,741 2,741
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 18,800 18,800
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 920 920
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 66,907 11,500 78,407
UNDISTRIBUTED
190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -30,892 -30,892
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-30,892]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -30,892 -30,892
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 66,907 -19,392 47,515
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
010 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 2,173,341 2,173,341
020 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................. 48,262 48,262
030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 76,216 99,831 176,047
Maintain security forces at fiscal year 2016 [99,831]
levels......................................
040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 220,139 61,416 281,555
Maintain security forces at fiscal year 2016 [61,416]
levels......................................
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE................ 2,517,958 161,247 2,679,205
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
050 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 860,441 19,859 880,300
Maintain security forces at fiscal year 2016 [19,859]
levels......................................
060 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................. 20,837 20,837
070 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 8,153 108,420 116,573
Maintain security forces at fiscal year 2016 [108,420]
levels......................................
080 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 41,326 24,016 65,342
Maintain security forces at fiscal year 2016 [24,016]
levels......................................
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR............... 930,757 152,295 1,083,052
UNDISTRIBUTED
110 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -1,482,289 -1,482,289
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-1,482,289]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -1,482,289 -1,482,289
TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND..... 3,448,715 -1,168,747 2,279,968
IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
010 IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND....................... 630,000 50,000 680,000
Support to Kurdish and Sunni tribal security [50,000]
forces for operations in Mosul, Iraq........
SUBTOTAL IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.......... 630,000 50,000 680,000
UNDISTRIBUTED
020 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -267,913 -267,913
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-267,913]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -267,913 -267,913
TOTAL IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND............ 630,000 -217,913 412,087
SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
010 SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND...................... 250,000 250,000
SUBTOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND......... 250,000 250,000
UNDISTRIBUTED
020 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -98,497 -98,497
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-98,497]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -98,497 -98,497
TOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND........... 250,000 -98,497 151,503
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 360,621 360,621
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 4,603 4,603
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 159,049 159,049
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 113,994 113,994
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 1,840 1,840
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 35,529 35,529
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 1,073,080 1,073,080
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 17,306 17,306
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 2,128,431 2,128,431
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 21,257 21,257
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 22,603 22,603
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 22,934 22,934
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 568,511 568,511
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE........................... 11,358 11,358
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.............. 61,000 61,000
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 289,045 289,045
270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................... 8,000 8,000
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 7,819 7,819
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 61,493 61,493
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 4,968,473 4,968,473
MOBILIZATION
330 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.............. 1,530 1,530
350 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 5,307 5,307
370 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 162,692 162,692
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 169,529 169,529
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
410 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 43,365 43,365
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 43,365 43,365
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
490 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 3,764 3,764
500 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.............................. 515 515
520 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 5,409 5,409
530 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 1,578 1,578
570 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 126,700 126,700
600 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 9,261 9,261
640 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE..................... 1,501 1,501
730 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 15,780 15,780
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 164,508 164,508
UNDISTRIBUTED
740 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -2,226,518 -2,226,518
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-120,300]
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-2,106,218]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -2,226,518 -2,226,518
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 5,345,875 -2,226,518 3,119,357
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 403,489 66,300 469,789
Operational support for deployed end [66,300]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 266,094 266,094
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 147,000 147,000
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 18,576 18,576
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 835,159 66,300 901,459
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
110 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 31,750 31,750
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 31,750 31,750
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 73,800 16,000 89,800
Operational support for deployed end [16,000]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
200 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 3,650 3,650
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 77,450 16,000 93,450
UNDISTRIBUTED
210 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -413,593 -413,593
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-9,100]
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-404,493]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -413,593 -413,593
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 944,359 -331,293 613,066
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 16,500 16,500
050 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 2,522 2,522
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 7,243 7,243
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 26,265 26,265
UNDISTRIBUTED
200 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -10,448 -10,448
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-100]
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-10,348]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -10,448 -10,448
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 26,265 -10,448 15,817
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 2,500 2,500
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 804 804
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,304 3,304
UNDISTRIBUTED
090 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -1,302 -1,302
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-1,302]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -1,302 -1,302
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 3,304 -1,302 2,002
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,339,461 30,900 1,370,361
Enahncing readiness levels of DCA aircraft.. [10,000]
Operational support for deployed end [20,900]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 1,096,021 20,900 1,116,921
Operational support for deployed end [20,900]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 152,278 152,278
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 1,061,506 25,600 1,087,106
Compass Call Program Restructure............ [25,600]
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 56,700 56,700
MODERNIZATION..................................
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 941,714 941,714
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 30,219 30,219
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 207,696 10,000 217,696
Promoting additional DCA burden sharing..... [5,000]
Supporting DCA dispersal CONOP development.. [5,000]
100 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 869 869
110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 5,008 5,008
120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 100,081 100,081
135 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 79,893 79,893
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,071,446 87,400 5,158,846
MOBILIZATION
140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 2,774,729 97,700 2,872,429
Operational support for deployed end [97,700]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 108,163 108,163
160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 891,102 891,102
180 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 3,686 3,686
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 3,777,680 97,700 3,875,380
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
230 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 52,740 52,740
240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 4,500 4,500
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 57,240 57,240
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 86,716 86,716
380 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 59,133 59,133
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 165,348 165,348
410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 141,883 141,883
450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 61 61
460 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 15,323 15,323
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 468,464 468,464
UNDISTRIBUTED
470 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -3,868,111 -3,868,111
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-101,600]
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-3,766,511]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -3,868,111 -3,868,111
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 9,374,830 -3,683,011 5,691,819
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 51,086 51,086
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 6,500 6,500
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 57,586 57,586
UNDISTRIBUTED
110 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -22,788 -22,788
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-100]
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-22,688]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -22,788 -22,788
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 57,586 -22,788 34,798
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 3,400 3,400
050 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 16,600 16,600
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 20,000 20,000
UNDISTRIBUTED
080 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -7,880 -7,880
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-7,880]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -7,880 -7,880
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 20,000 -7,880 12,120
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 10,000 10,000
Enhancing exercise of DCA aircraft.......... [10,000]
030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES..... 2,636,307 169,600 2,805,907
Operational support for deployed end [169,600]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,636,307 179,600 2,815,907
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
100 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 13,436 13,436
110 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 13,564 13,564
130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 32,879 32,879
150 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 111,986 111,986
170 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 13,317 13,317
190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 1,412,000 1,412,000
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 67,000 67,000
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 31,106 31,106
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................ 3,137 3,137
330 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,609,397 1,000 1,610,397
Operational support for deployed end [1,000]
strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan............
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 3,307,822 1,000 3,308,822
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
340 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -2,419,878 -2,419,878
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-6,800]
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-2,413,078]
readiness requirements......................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -2,419,878 -2,419,878
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 5,944,129 -2,239,278 3,704,851
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 39,860,202 -15,230,991 24,629,211
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2017 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 317,093 50,000 367,093
Army unfunded requirement--Improve training [50,000]
from BN+ to BCT-............................
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 5,904 5,904
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 38,614 38,614
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 8,361 8,361
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 279,072 279,072
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 106,424 100,500 206,924
Army unfunded requirement--Meet air [68,000]
readiness targets...........................
Increase to support ARI--Eleventh CAB....... [32,500]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 253,533 253,533
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 350,000 350,000
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 22,100 22,100
Increase to support ARI--Eleventh CAB....... [22,100]
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 922,000 922,000
MODERNIZATION..................................
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [494,900]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [427,100]
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 11,200 11,200
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 1,370,201 1,094,600 2,464,801
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 3,565 3,565
260 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 42,934 42,934
Army unfunded requirement--Ensure AVN [5,405]
restructure initiative execution............
Army unfunded requirement--Increase student [31,125]
workload for additional warrant officers....
Army unfunded requirement--Train full ARPINT [6,404]
load of 990.................................
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 9,021 31,600 40,621
Military Training and PME................... [31,600]
280 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 2,434 2,434
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 356,500 356,500
Recruiting and Advertising Add.............. [356,500]
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 1,254 1,254
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 16,274 431,034 447,308
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 200,000 65,000 265,000
Army unfunded requirement--Restore cricital [65,000]
shortfalls..................................
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 200,000 65,000 265,000
UNDISTRIBUTED
540 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... 704,300 704,300
Additional funding to support increase in [704,300]
Army end strength...........................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... 704,300 704,300
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 1,586,475 2,294,934 3,881,409
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 708 708
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 8,570 20,000 28,570
Army unfunded requirement--Improve training [20,000]
from PLT to CO proficiency..................
030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 375 375
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 13 13
050 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 608 608
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 4,285 4,285
100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 97,500 97,500
MODERNIZATION..................................
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [57,100]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [40,400]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 14,559 117,500 132,059
UNDISTRIBUTED
180 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... 103,400 103,400
Additional funding to support increase in [103,400]
Army Reserve end strength...................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... 103,400 103,400
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 14,559 220,900 235,459
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 5,585 5,585
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 28,956 28,956
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 10,272 10,272
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 5,621 46,000 51,621
Increase to support ARI..................... [46,000]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 9,694 9,694
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 121,000 121,000
MODERNIZATION..................................
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [16,800]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [104,200]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 60,128 167,000 227,128
UNDISTRIBUTED
190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... 159,100 159,100
Additional funding to support increase in [159,100]
Army National Guard end strength............
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... 159,100 159,100
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 60,128 326,100 386,228
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 500,000 56,520 556,520
Carrier Air Wing Restoration................ [56,520]
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.............................. 23,020 23,020
Carrier Air Wing Restoration................ [23,020]
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 6,500 6,500
Marine Corps unfunded requirement-- [5,300]
accelerate readiness - H-1..................
Marine Corps unfunded requirement-- [1,200]
accelerate readiness - MV-22B...............
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 36,000 36,000
Carrier Air Wing Restoration................ [6,000]
Navy unfunded requirement--Improve Afloat [30,000]
Readiness...................................
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 33,500 33,500
Marine Corps unfunded requirement-- [6,800]
accelerate readiness - KC-130J..............
Marine Corps unfunded requirement-- [10,700]
accelerate readiness - MV-22B...............
Navy unfunded requirement--Improve Afloat [16,000]
Readiness...................................
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 348,200 348,200
Cruiser Modernization....................... [90,200]
Navy unfunded requirement--Improve Afloat [158,000]
Readiness...................................
Navy unfunded requirement--Restore 3 CG [41,000]
Deployments.................................
Navy unfunded requirement--Reverse PONCE [59,000]
(LPD-15) Inactivation.......................
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 19,700 19,700
Navy unfunded requirement--Restore Fleet [19,700]
Training....................................
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 775,000 309,100 1,084,100
Cruiser Modernization....................... [71,100]
Navy unfunded requirement--Ship Depot [238,000]
Wholeness...................................
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 79,000 79,000
Navy unfunded requirement--Increase Alfoat [79,000]
Readiness...................................
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 19,270 389,200 408,470
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [113,600]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [275,600]
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 158,032 158,032
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 1,452,302 1,300,740 2,753,042
MOBILIZATION
350 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 3,597 3,597
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 3,597 3,597
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
540 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 25,617 25,617
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 25,617 25,617
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 1,481,516 1,300,740 2,782,256
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 300,000 22,000 322,000
Marine Corps unfunded requirement- enhanced [22,000]
combat helmets..............................
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 21,450 21,450
Marine Corps unfunded requirement- rifle [13,200]
combat optic modernization..................
Marine Corps unfunded requirement- SPMAGTF-- [8,250]
C4 UUNS.....................................
050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........ 145,600 145,600
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [31,400]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [114,200]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 300,000 189,050 489,050
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 300,000 189,050 489,050
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 4,000 4,000
Navy unfunded requirement--Improve Afloat [4,000]
Readiness...................................
070 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 300 300
Navy unfunded requirement--Restore Fleet [300]
Training....................................
130 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 7,800 7,800
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [2,100]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [5,700]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 12,100 12,100
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 12,100 12,100
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 7,700 7,700
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [4,300]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [3,400]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 7,700 7,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 7,700 7,700
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 124,000 323,576 447,576
Air Force unfunded requirement--Weapons [323,576]
System Sustainment..........................
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 407,900 407,900
MODERNIZATION..................................
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [142,900]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [265,000]
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 40,000 40,000
Air Force unfunded requirement--Ground Based [40,000]
Radars......................................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 124,000 771,476 895,476
MOBILIZATION
160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 66,424 66,424
Air Force unfunded requirement--Weapons [66,424]
System Sustainment..........................
170 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 63,600 63,600
MODERNIZATION..................................
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [22,300]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [41,300]
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 130,024 130,024
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
220 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 58,200 58,200
MODERNIZATION..................................
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [20,400]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [37,800]
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 58,200 58,200
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
370 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 79,000 79,000
MODERNIZATION..................................
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [27,700]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [51,300]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 79,000 79,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 124,000 1,038,700 1,162,700
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 20,500 20,500
MODERNIZATION..................................
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [7,100]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [13,400]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 20,500 20,500
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 20,500 20,500
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 40,000 40,000
Air Force unfunded requirement--Weapons [40,000]
System Sustainment..........................
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 64,500 64,500
MODERNIZATION..................................
Increase Restoration & Modernization funding [18,900]
Restore Sustainment shortfalls.............. [45,600]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 104,500 104,500
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 67,000 67,000
Air Force unfunded requirement.............. [67,000]
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE 67,000 67,000
ACTIVITIES..................................
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 171,500 171,500
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES..... 14,344 14,344
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 14,344 14,344
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 14,700 14,700
330 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 9,000 9,000
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 23,700 23,700
ACTIVITIES..................................
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE 38,044 38,044
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 3,604,722 5,582,224 9,186,946
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2017 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations................... 128,902,332 -419,418 128,482,914
Foreign Currency adjustments................... [-200,400]
Historical unobligated balances................ [-248,700]
National Guard State Partnership Program, Air [841]
Force, Special Training........................
National Guard State Partnership Program, Army, [841]
Special Training...............................
Prohibition on Per Diem Allowance Reduction.... [28,000]
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions. 6,366,908 6,366,908
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2017 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations................... 3,499,293 -1,299,721 2,199,572
Maintain end strength of 9,800 in Afghanistan.. [130,300]
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-1,430,021]
readiness requirements.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4403. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4403. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS. (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2017 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations................... 62,965 2,509,750 2,572,715
Fund active Air Force end strength to 321k..... [145,000]
Fund active Army end strength to 480k.......... [1,123,500]
Fund active Marine Corps end strengthto 185k... [300,000]
Fund active Navy end strength.................. [65,300]
Fund Army National Guard end strength to 350k.. [303,700]
Fund Army Reserves end strength to 205k........ [166,650]
Marine Corps--Bonus Pay/PCS Resotral/Foreign [75,600]
Language Bonus.................................
Military Personnel Pay Raise................... [330,000]
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions. 49,900 49,900
Increase associated with additional end [49,900]
strength.......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2017 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY............................. 56,469 56,469
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 56,469 56,469
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
FUEL COSTS
SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS.............................. 63,967 63,967
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 63,967 63,967
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
ENERGY MANAGEMENT--DEF
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT--DEF........................ 37,132 37,132
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 37,132 37,132
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA.......................... 1,214,045 1,214,045
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............. 1,214,045 1,214,045
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING
NATIONAL DEF SEALIFT VESSEL......................... 85,000 85,000
National Security Multi-Mission Vehicle........ [85,000]
TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND.......... 85,000 85,000
NATIONAL SEA-BASED DETERRENCE FUND
DEVELOPMENT......................................... 773,138 773,138
Realignment of funds to the National Sea-Based [773,138]
Deterrence Fund................................
TOTAL NATIONAL SEA-BASED DETERRENCE FUND..... 773,138 773,138
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............................. 147,282 147,282
RDT&E............................................... 388,609 388,609
PROCUREMENT......................................... 15,132 15,132
TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.... 551,023 551,023
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 730,087 30,000 760,087
DEFENSE............................................
SOUTHCOM Operational Support................... [30,000]
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM....................... 114,713 114,713
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 844,800 30,000 874,800
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 318,882 318,882
RDT&E............................................... 3,153 3,153
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 322,035 322,035
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 9,240,160 9,240,160
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 15,738,759 15,738,759
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 2,367,759 2,367,759
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.............................. 1,743,749 1,743,749
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................... 311,380 311,380
EDUCATION AND TRAINING.............................. 743,231 743,231
BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS...................... 2,086,352 2,086,352
SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............. 32,231,390 32,231,390
RDT&E
RESEARCH............................................ 9,097 9,097
EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT.............................. 58,517 58,517
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT................................ 221,226 221,226
DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION............................ 96,602 96,602
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT............................. 364,057 364,057
MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT.............................. 58,410 58,410
CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT............................ 14,998 14,998
SUBTOTAL RDT&E............................... 822,907 822,907
PROCUREMENT
INITIAL OUTFITTING.................................. 20,611 20,611
REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION......................... 360,727 360,727
JOINT OPERATIONAL MEDICINE INFORMATION SYSTEM....... 2,413 2,413
DOD HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MODERNIZATION...... 29,468 29,468
SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT......................... 413,219 413,219
UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... -419,500 -419,500
Foreign Currency adjustments................... [-20,400]
Historical unobligated balances................ [-399,100]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED....................... -419,500 -419,500
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 33,467,516 -419,500 33,048,016
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 36,556,987 468,638 37,025,625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2017 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY............................. 46,833 46,833
UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... -18,452 -18,452
Reduction to sustain minimal readiness levels.. [-18,452]
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 46,833 -18,452 28,381
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT--DEF
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)...................... 93,800 93,800
UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... -36,956 -36,956
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-36,956]
readiness requirements.........................
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 93,800 -36,956 56,844
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 191,533 191,533
DEFENSE............................................
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 191,533 191,533
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 22,062 22,062
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 22,062 22,062
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 95,366 95,366
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 233,073 233,073
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 3,325 3,325
SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............. 331,764 331,764
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... -130,711 -130,711
Prorated OCO allocation in support of base [-130,711]
readiness requirements.........................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED....................... -130,711 -130,711
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 331,764 -130,711 201,053
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE......................... 150,000 150,000
Program increase............................... [150,000]
TOTAL UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE............ 150,000 150,000
COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND.................. 1,000,000 -250,000 750,000
Program decrease............................... [-250,000]
TOTAL COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND..... 1,000,000 -250,000 750,000
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 1,685,992 -286,119 1,399,873
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4503. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4503. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2017 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 23,800 23,800
DEFENSE............................................
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 23,800 23,800
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 23,800 23,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army ALASKA Fort Wainwright Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 47,000 47,000
Hangar.
Army CALIFORNIA Concord Access Control Point... 12,600 12,600
Army COLORADO Fort Carson Automated Infantry 8,100 8,100
Platoon Battle Course.
Army COLORADO Fort Carson Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 5,000 5,000
Hangar.
Army GEORGIA Fort Gordon Access Control Point... 0 29,000 29,000
Army GEORGIA Fort Gordon Company Operations 0 10,600 10,600
Facility.
Army GEORGIA Fort Gordon Cyber Protection Team 90,000 90,000
Ops Facility.
Army GEORGIA Fort Stewart Automated Qualification/ 14,800 14,800
Training Range.
Army GERMANY East Camp Grafenwoehr Training Support Center 22,000 22,000
Army GERMANY Garmisch Dining Facility........ 9,600 9,600
Army GERMANY Wiesbaden Army Airfield Controlled Humidity 16,500 16,500
Warehouse.
Army GERMANY Wiesbaden Army Airfield Hazardous Material 2,700 2,700
Storage Building.
Army GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Guantanamo Bay Naval 33,000 33,000
Station Migration
Complex.
Army HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control 40,000 40,000
Facility, Incr 2.
Army MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood Fire Station........... 0 6,900 6,900
Army TEXAS Fort Hood Automated Infantry 7,600 7,600
Platoon Battle Course.
Army UTAH Camp Williams Live Fire Exercise 7,400 7,400
Shoothouse.
Army VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Secure Admin/Operations 64,000 64,000
Facility, Incr 2.
Army VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Vehicle Maintenance 0 23,000 23,000
Shop.
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Host Nation Support 18,000 18,000
Locations FY17.
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Minor Construction FY17 25,000 25,000
Locations
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design 80,159 80,159
Locations FY17.
Military Construction, Army Total 503,459 69,500 572,959
.................................. ........................
Navy ARIZONA Yuma VMX-22 Maintenance 48,355 48,355
Hangar.
Navy CALIFORNIA Coronado Coastal Campus Entry 13,044 13,044
Control Point.
Navy CALIFORNIA Coronado Coastal Campus 81,104 81,104
Utilities
Infrastructure.
Navy CALIFORNIA Coronado Grace Hopper Data 10,353 10,353
Center Power Upgrades.
Navy CALIFORNIA Lemoore F-35C Engine Repair 26,723 26,723
Facility.
Navy CALIFORNIA Miramar Aircraft Maintenance 0 79,399 79,399
Hangar, Incr 1.
Navy CALIFORNIA Miramar Communications Complex 0 34,700 34,700
& Infrastructure
Upgrade.
Navy CALIFORNIA Miramar F-35 Aircraft Parking 0 40,000 40,000
Apron.
Navy CALIFORNIA San Diego Energy Security 6,183 -6,183 0
Hospital Microgrid.
Navy CALIFORNIA Seal Beach Missile Magazines...... 21,007 21,007
Navy FLORIDA Eglin AFB WMD Field Training 20,489 20,489
Facilities.
Navy FLORIDA Mayport Advanced Wastewater 0 66,000 66,000
Treatment Plant.
Navy FLORIDA Pensacola A-School Dormitory..... 0 53,000 53,000
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Hardening of Guam POL 26,975 26,975
Infrastructure.
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas Power Upgrade--Harmon.. 62,210 62,210
Navy HAWAII Barking Sands Upgrade Power Plant & 43,384 43,384
Electrical Distrib Sys.
Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Regimental Consolidated 72,565 72,565
Comm/Elec Facility.
Navy JAPAN Kadena AB Aircraft Maintenance 26,489 26,489
Complex.
Navy JAPAN Sasebo Shore Power (Juliet 16,420 16,420
Pier).
Navy MAINE Kittery Unaccompanied Housing.. 17,773 17,773
Navy MAINE Kittery Utility Improvements 30,119 30,119
for Nuclear Platforms.
Navy MARYLAND Patuxent River UCLASS RDT&E Hangar.... 40,576 40,576
Navy NEVADA Fallon Air Wing Simulator 13,523 13,523
Facility.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Range Facilities Safety 18,482 18,482
Improvements.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Central Heating Plant 12,515 12,515
Conversion.
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA Beaufort Aircraft Maintenance 83,490 83,490
Hangar.
Navy SOUTH CAROLINA Parris Island Recruit Reconditioning 29,882 29,882
Center & Barracks.
Navy SPAIN Rota Communication Station.. 23,607 23,607
Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk Chambers Field Magazine 0 27,000 27,000
Recap PH I.
Navy WASHINGTON Bangor SEAWOLF Class Service 0 73,000 73,000
Pier.
Navy WASHINGTON Bangor Service Pier Electrical 18,939 18,939
Upgrades.
Navy WASHINGTON Bangor Submarine Refit Maint 21,476 21,476
Support Facility.
Navy WASHINGTON Bremerton Nuclear Repair Facility 6,704 6,704
Navy WASHINGTON Whidbey Island EA-18G Maintenance 45,501 45,501
Hangar.
Navy WASHINGTON Whidbey Island Triton Mission Control 30,475 30,475
Facility.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 88,230 88,230
Locations
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 29,790 29,790
Locations Construction.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Triton Forward 41,380 41,380
Locations Operating Base Hangar.
Military Construction, Navy Total 1,027,763 366,916 1,394,679
.................................. ........................
AF ALASKA Clear AFS Fire Station........... 20,000 20,000
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A ADAL Field 22,100 22,100
Training Detachment
Fac.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Aircraft Weather 82,300 -82,300 0
Shelter (Sqd 2).
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Aircraft Weather 79,500 79,500
Shelters (Sqd 1).
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Earth Covered 11,300 11,300
Magazines.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Hangar/Propulsion 44,900 44,900
MX/Dispatch.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Hangar/Squad Ops/ 42,700 42,700
AMU Sq #2.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Missile 12,800 12,800
Maintenance Facility.
AF ALASKA Joint Base Elmendorf- Add/Alter AWACS Alert 29,000 29,000
Richardson Hangar.
AF ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A Squad Ops/ 20,000 20,000
Aircraft Maint Unit #5.
AF AUSTRALIA Darwin APR--Aircraft MX 1,800 1,800
Support Facility.
AF AUSTRALIA Darwin APR--Expand Parking 28,600 28,600
Apron.
AF CALIFORNIA Edwards AFB Flightline Fire Station 24,000 24,000
AF COLORADO Buckley AFB Small Arms Range 13,500 13,500
Complex.
AF DELAWARE Dover AFB Aircraft Maintenance 39,000 39,000
Hangar.
AF FLORIDA Eglin AFB Advanced Munitions 75,000 75,000
Technology Complex.
AF FLORIDA Eglin AFB Flightline Fire Station 13,600 13,600
AF FLORIDA Patrick AFB Fire/Crash Rescue 13,500 13,500
Station.
AF GEORGIA Moody AFB Personnel Recovery 4- 30,900 30,900
Bay Hangar/Helo Mx
Unit.
AF GERMANY Ramstein AB 37 AS Squadron 13,437 13,437
Operations/Aircraft
Maint Unit.
AF GERMANY Spangdahlem AB EIC--Site Development 43,465 43,465
and Infrastructure.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR--Munitions Storage 35,300 35,300
Igloos, Ph 2.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR--SATCOM C4I 14,200 14,200
Facility.
AF GUAM Joint Region Marianas Block 40 Maintenance 31,158 31,158
Hangar.
AF JAPAN Kadena AB APR--Replace Munitions 19,815 19,815
Structures.
AF JAPAN Yokota AB C-130J Corrosion 23,777 23,777
Control Hangar.
AF JAPAN Yokota AB Construct Combat Arms 8,243 8,243
Training & Maint Fac.
AF KANSAS McConnell AFB Air Traffic Control 11,200 11,200
Tower.
AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A ADAL Taxiway 5,600 5,600
Delta.
AF KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A Alter Flight 3,000 3,000
Simulator Bldgs.
AF LOUISIANA Barksdale AFB Consolidated 21,000 21,000
Communication Facility.
AF MARIANA ISLANDS Unspecified Location APR--Land Acquisition.. 9,000 9,000
AF MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews 21 Points Enclosed 13,000 13,000
Firing Range.
AF MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Consolidated 0 50,000 50,000
Communications Center.
AF MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews PAR Relocate JADOC 3,500 3,500
Satellite Site.
AF MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB Construct Vandenberg 0 10,965 10,965
Gate Complex.
AF MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB System Management 20,000 20,000
Engineering Facility.
AF MONTANA Malmstrom AFB Missile Maintenance 14,600 14,600
Facility.
AF NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35A POL Fill Stand 10,600 10,600
Addition.
AF NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB North Fitness Center... 21,000 21,000
AF NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Hazardous Cargo Pad and 10,600 10,600
Taxiway.
AF NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Combat Rescue 7,300 7,300
Helicopter (CRH)
Simulator.
AF OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB Relocated Entry Control 12,600 12,600
Facility 26A.
AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU/FTC 11,600 11,600
Simulator Facility Ph
2.
AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB E-3G Mission and Flight 0 26,000 26,000
Simulator Training
Facility.
AF OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC-46A Depot System 17,000 17,000
Integration Laboratory.
AF SOUTH CAROLINA Joint Base Charleston Fire & Rescue Station.. 0 17,000 17,000
AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Recruit Dormitory 6 67,300 67,300
AF TURKEY Incirlik AB Airfield Fire/Crash 13,449 13,449
Rescue Station.
AF UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Al Dhafra Large Aircraft 35,400 35,400
Maintenance Hangar.
AF UNITED KINGDOM RAF Croughton JIAC Consolidation--Ph 53,082 -53,082 0
3.
AF UNITED KINGDOM RAF Croughton Main Gate Complex...... 16,500 16,500
AF UTAH Hill AFB 649 MUNS Munitions 6,600 6,600
Storage Magazines.
AF UTAH Hill AFB 649 MUNS Precision 8,700 8,700
Guided Missile MX
Facility.
AF UTAH Hill AFB 649 MUNS STAMP/Maint & 12,000 12,000
Inspection Facility.
AF UTAH Hill AFB Composite Aircraft 7,100 7,100
Antenna Calibration
Fac.
AF UTAH Hill AFB F-35A Munitions 10,100 10,100
Maintenance Complex.
AF VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- Air Force Targeting 45,000 45,000
Eustis Center.
AF VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- Fuel System Maintenance 14,200 14,200
Eustis Dock.
AF WASHINGTON Fairchild AFB Pipeline Dorm, USAF 27,000 27,000
SERE School (150 RM).
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning & Design...... 143,582 20,000 163,582
Locations
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 30,000 33,082 63,082
Locations Military Construction.
AF WYOMING F. E. Warren AFB Missile Transfer 5,550 5,550
Facility Bldg 4331.
Military Construction, Air Force Total 1,481,058 21,665 1,502,723
.................................. ........................
Def-Wide ALASKA Clear AFS Long Range Discrim 155,000 -55,000 100,000
Radar Sys Complex Ph1,
Incr 1.
Def-Wide ALASKA Fort Greely Missile Defense Complex 9,560 9,560
Switchgear Facility.
Def-Wide ALASKA Joint Base Elmendorf- Construct Truck Offload 4,900 4,900
Richardson Facility.
Def-Wide ARIZONA Fort Huachuca JITC Building 52110 4,493 4,493
Renovation.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Human Performance 15,578 15,578
Training Center.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Seal Team Ops 47,290 47,290
Facility.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Seal Team Ops 47,290 47,290
Facility.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Special RECON Team 20,949 20,949
ONE Operations Fac.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Training Detachment 44,305 44,305
ONE Ops Facility.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Travis AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel 26,500 26,500
System.
Def-Wide DELAWARE Dover AFB Welch ES/Dover MS 44,115 44,115
Replacement.
Def-Wide DIEGO GARCIA Diego Garcia Improve Wharf Refueling 30,000 30,000
Capability.
Def-Wide FLORIDA Patrick AFB Replace Fuel Tanks..... 10,100 10,100
Def-Wide GEORGIA Fort Benning SOF Tactical Unmanned 4,820 4,820
Aerial Vehicle Hangar.
Def-Wide GEORGIA Fort Gordon Medical Clinic 25,000 25,000
Replacement.
Def-Wide GERMANY Kaiserlautern AB Sembach Elementary/ 45,221 45,221
Middle School
Replacement.
Def-Wide GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center 58,063 58,063
Replacement Incr 6.
Def-Wide JAPAN Iwakuni Construct Truck Offload 6,664 6,664
& Loading Facilities.
Def-Wide JAPAN Kadena AB Kadena Elementary 84,918 84,918
School Replacement.
Def-Wide JAPAN Kadena AB Medical Materiel 20,881 20,881
Warehouse.
Def-Wide JAPAN Kadena AB SOF Maintenance Hangar. 42,823 42,823
Def-Wide JAPAN Kadena AB SOF Simulator Facility 12,602 12,602
(MC-130).
Def-Wide JAPAN Yokota AB Airfield Apron......... 41,294 41,294
Def-Wide JAPAN Yokota AB Hangar/AMU............. 39,466 39,466
Def-Wide JAPAN Yokota AB Operations and 26,710 26,710
Warehouse Facilities.
Def-Wide JAPAN Yokota AB Simulator Facility..... 6,261 6,261
Def-Wide KWAJALEIN Kwajalein Atoll Replace Fuel Storage 85,500 85,500
Tanks.
Def-Wide MAINE Kittery Medical/Dental Clinic 27,100 27,100
Replacement.
Def-Wide MARYLAND Bethesda Naval Hospital MEDCEN Addition/ 50,000 50,000
Alteration Incr 1.
Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade Access Control Facility 21,000 21,000
Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Campus Feeders 17,000 17,000
Phase 3.
Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize 195,000 -50,000 145,000
Building #2 Incr 2.
Def-Wide MISSOURI St. Louis Land Acquisition-Next 801 -801 0
NGA West (N2W) Campus.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Dental Clinic 31,000 31,000
Replacement.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Combat Medic 10,905 10,905
Training Facility.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Parachute Rigging 21,420 21,420
Facility.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Special Tactics 30,670 30,670
Facility (PH3).
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Tactical Equipment 23,598 23,598
Maintenance Facility.
Def-Wide SOUTH CAROLINA Joint Base Charleston Construct Hydrant Fuel 17,000 17,000
System.
Def-Wide TEXAS Red River Army Depot Construct Warehouse & 44,700 44,700
Open Storage.
Def-Wide TEXAS Sheppard AFB Medical/Dental Clinic 91,910 91,910
Replacement.
Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM RAF Croughton Croughton Elem/Middle/ 71,424 71,424
High School
Replacement.
Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM RAF Lakenheath Construct Hydrant Fuel 13,500 13,500
System.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Pentagon Metro Entrance 12,111 12,111
Facility.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon Upgrade IT Facilities 8,105 8,105
Infrastructure--RRMC.
Def-Wide WAKE ISLAND Wake Island Test Support Facility.. 11,670 11,670
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Contingency 10,000 10,000
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ECIP Design............ 10,000 -10,000 0
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 8,631 8,631
Locations Construction.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design, 13,450 10,000 23,450
Locations Defense Wide.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design, 23,585 23,585
Locations DODEA.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design, 71,647 -35,647 36,000
Locations NGA.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design, 24,000 24,000
Locations NSA.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design, 3,427 3,427
Locations WHS.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 8,500 8,500
Locations Construction, DHA.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
Locations Construction, DODEA.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
Locations Construction, Defense
Wide.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 5,994 5,994
Locations Construction, SOCOM.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,913 3,913
Locations MILCON, NSA.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Worldwide Unspecified 2,414 2,414
Locations Minor Construction,
MDA.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning & Design, DLA. 27,660 27,660
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design, 27,653 27,653
Locations SOCOM.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED LOCATIONS Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design, MDA. 0 15,000 15,000
Locations
Military Construction, Defense-Wide Total 2,056,091 -126,448 1,929,643
.................................. ........................
NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO Security Investment NATO Security 177,932 177,932
Program Investment Program.
NATO Security Investment Program Total 177,932 0 177,932
.................................. ........................
Army NG COLORADO Fort Carson National Guard 0 16,500 16,500
Readiness Center.
Army NG HAWAII Hilo Combined Support 31,000 31,000
Maintenance Shop.
Army NG IOWA Davenport National Guard 23,000 23,000
Readiness Center.
Army NG KANSAS Fort Leavenworth National Guard 29,000 29,000
Readiness Center.
Army NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Hooksett National Guard Vehicle 11,000 11,000
Maintenance Shop.
Army NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Rochester National Guard Vehicle 8,900 8,900
Maintenance Shop.
Army NG OKLAHOMA Ardmore National Guard 22,000 22,000
Readiness Center.
Army NG PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap Access Control 0 20,000 20,000
Buildings.
Army NG PENNSYLVANIA York National Guard 9,300 9,300
Readiness Center.
Army NG RHODE ISLAND East Greenwich National Guard/Reserve 20,000 20,000
Center Building (JFHQ).
Army NG UTAH Camp Williams National Guard 37,000 37,000
Readiness Center.
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 8,729 8,729
Locations
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 12,001 12,001
Locations Construction.
Army NG WYOMING Camp Guernsey General Instruction 0 31,000 31,000
Building.
Army NG WYOMING Laramie National Guard 21,000 21,000
Readiness Center.
Military Construction, Army National Guard Total 232,930 67,500 300,430
.................................. ........................
Army Res ARIZONA Phoenix Army Reserve Center.... 0 30,000 30,000
Army Res CALIFORNIA Camp Parks Transient Training 19,000 19,000
Barracks.
Army Res CALIFORNIA Fort Hunter Liggett Emergency Services 21,500 21,500
Center.
Army Res CALIFORNIA Barstow Equipment Concentration 0 29,000 29,000
Site.
Army Res VIRGINIA Dublin Organizational 6,000 6,000
Maintenance Shop/AMSA.
Army Res WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-McChord Army Reserve Center.... 0 27,500 27,500
Army Res WISCONSIN Fort McCoy AT/MOB Dining Facility. 11,400 11,400
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design.... 7,500 7,500
Locations
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 2,830 2,830
Locations Construction.
Military Construction, Army Reserve Total 68,230 86,500 154,730
.................................. ........................
N/MC Res LOUISIANA New Orleans Joint Reserve 11,207 11,207
Intelligence Center.
N/MC Res NEW YORK Brooklyn Electric Feeder 1,964 1,964
Ductbank.
N/MC Res NEW YORK Syracuse Marine Corps Reserve 13,229 13,229
Center.
N/MC Res TEXAS Galveston Reserve Center Annex... 8,414 8,414
N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR Planning & Design. 3,783 3,783
Locations
Military Construction, Naval Reserve Total 38,597 0 38,597
.................................. ........................
Air NG CONNECTICUT Bradley IAP Construct Small Air 6,300 6,300
Terminal.
Air NG FLORIDA Jacksonville IAP Replace Fire Crash/ 9,000 9,000
Rescue Station.
Air NG HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- F-22 Composite Repair 11,000 11,000
Hickam Facility.
Air NG IOWA Sioux Gateway Airport Construct Consolidated 12,600 12,600
Support Functions.
Air NG MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Munitions Load Crew 0 5,000 5,000
Trng/Corrosion Cnrtl
Facility.
Air NG MINNESOTA Duluth IAP Load Crew Training/ 7,600 7,600
Weapon Shops.
Air NG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International KC-46A Install Fuselage 1,500 1,500
Trade Port Trainer Bldg 251.
Air NG NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte/Douglas IAP C-17 Corrosion Control/ 29,600 29,600
Fuel Cell Hangar.
Air NG NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte/Douglas IAP C-17 Type III Hydrant 21,000 21,000
Refueling System.
Air NG OHIO Toledo Express Airport Indoor Small Arms Range 0 6,000 6,000
Air NG SOUTH CAROLINA McEntire ANGS Replace Operations and 8,400 8,400
Training Facility.
Air NG TEXAS Ellington Field Consolidate Crew 4,500 4,500
Readiness Facility.
Air NG VERMONT Burlington IAP F-35 Beddown 4-Bay 4,500 4,500
Flight Simulator.
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 17,495 12,000 29,495
Locations Construction.
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design.... 10,462 10,462
Locations
Military Construction, Air National Guard Total 143,957 23,000 166,957
.................................. ........................
AF Res GUAM Andersen AFB Reserve Medical 0 5,200 5,200
Training Facility.
AF Res MASSACHUSETTS Westover ARB Indoor Small Arms Range 0 9,200 9,200
AF Res NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC-46A ADAL Bldg for 5,700 5,700
AGE/Fuselage Training.
AF Res NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC-46A ADAL Squadron 2,250 2,250
Operations Facilities.
AF Res NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC-46A Two-Bay 90,000 90,000
Corrosion/Fuel Cell
Hangar.
AF Res PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh IAP C-17 ADAL Fuel Hydrant 22,800 22,800
System.
AF Res PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh IAP C-17 Const/ 8,200 8,200
OverlayTaxiway and
Apron.
AF Res PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh IAP C-17 Construct Two-Bay 54,000 54,000
Corrosion/Fuel Hangar.
AF Res UTAH Hill AFB ADAL Life Support 0 3,050 3,050
Facility.
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design...... 4,500 4,500
Locations
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 1,500 1,500
Locations Construction.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve Total 188,950 17,450 206,400
.................................. ........................
FH Con Army KOREA Camp Humphreys Family Housing New 143,563 -43,563 100,000
Construction, Incr 1.
FH Con Army KOREA Camp Walker Family Housing New 54,554 54,554
Construction.
FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design...... 2,618 2,618
Locations
Family Housing Construction, Army Total 200,735 -43,563 157,172
.................................. ........................
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............ 10,178 10,178
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privitization 19,146 19,146
Locations Support.
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................ 131,761 131,761
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............ 60,745 60,745
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management............. 40,344 40,344
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous.......... 400 400
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services............... 7,993 7,993
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities.............. 55,428 55,428
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Army Total 325,995 0 325,995
.................................. ........................
FH Con Navy MARIANA ISLANDS Guam Replace Andersen 78,815 78,815
Housing PH I.
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Construction 11,047 11,047
Locations Improvements.
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design...... 4,149 4,149
Locations
Family Housing Construction, Navy And Marine Corps Total 94,011 0 94,011
.................................. ........................
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............ 17,457 17,457
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization 26,320 26,320
Locations Support.
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................ 54,689 54,689
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............ 81,254 81,254
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management............. 51,291 51,291
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous.......... 364 364
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services............... 12,855 12,855
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities.............. 56,685 56,685
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Navy And Marine Corps Total 300,915 0 300,915
.................................. ........................
FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Construction 56,984 56,984
Locations Improvements.
FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design...... 4,368 4,368
Locations
Family Housing Construction, Air Force Total 61,352 0 61,352
.................................. ........................
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............ 31,690 31,690
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization 41,809 41,809
Locations Support.
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................ 20,530 20,530
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............ 85,469 85,469
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management............. 42,919 42,919
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous.......... 1,745 1,745
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services............... 13,026 13,026
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities.............. 37,241 37,241
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Air Force Total 274,429 0 274,429
.................................. ........................
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............ 399 399
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............ 20 20
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............ 500 500
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................ 11,044 11,044
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................ 40,984 40,984
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............ 800 800
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............ 349 349
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management............. 388 388
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services............... 32 32
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities.............. 174 174
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities.............. 367 367
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities.............. 4,100 4,100
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Defense-Wide Total 59,157 0 59,157
.................................. ........................
FHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Program Expenses....... 3,258 3,258
Locations
DoD Family Housing Improvement Fund Total 3,258 0 3,258
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Base Realignment and 14,499 10,000 24,499
Closure, Army Closure.
Base Realignment and Closure--Army Total 14,499 10,000 24,499
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Base Realignment & 110,606 15,000 125,606
Closure, Navy Closure.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-100: Planning, 4,604 4,604
Locations Design and Management.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-101: Various 10,461 10,461
Locations Locations.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-138: NAS Brunswick, 557 557
Locations ME.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-157: MCSA Kansas 100 100
Locations City, MO.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-172: NWS Seal 4,648 4,648
Locations Beach, Concord, CA.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-84: JRB Willow 3,397 3,397
Locations Grove & Cambria Reg AP.
Base Realignment and Closure--Navy Total 134,373 15,000 149,373
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DoD BRAC Activities-- 56,365 56,365
Locations Air Force.
Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force Total 56,365 0 56,365
.................................. ........................
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Worldwide Air Force.............. 0 -29,300 -29,300
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Worldwide Army................... 0 -25,000 -25,000
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Worldwide Defense-Wide........... 0 -60,577 -60,577
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Worldwide Navy................... 0 -87,699 -87,699
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Worldwide HAP.................... 0 -25,000 -25,000
PYS WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Worldwide NSIP................... 0 -30,000 -30,000
Prior Year Savings Total 0 -257,576 -257,576
.................................. ........................
Total, Military Construction 7,444,056 249,944 7,694,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design... 18,900 18,900
Locations
Military Construction, Army Total 18,900 0 18,900
........................... ...........................
Navy ICELAND Keflavik ERI: P-8A Aircraft Rinse 5,000 5,000
Rack.
Navy ICELAND Keflavik ERI: P-8A Hangar Upgrade... 14,600 14,600
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design... 1,800 1,800
Locations
Military Construction, Navy Total 21,400 0 21,400
........................... ...........................
AF BULGARIA Graf Ignatievo ERI: Construct Sq Ops/ 3,800 3,800
Operational Alert Fac.
AF BULGARIA Graf Ignatievo ERI: Fighter Ramp Extension 7,000 7,000
AF BULGARIA Graf Ignatievo ERI: Upgrade Munitions 2,600 2,600
Storage Area.
AF DJIBOUTI Chabelley Airfield OCO: Construct Chabelley 3,600 3,600
Access Road.
AF DJIBOUTI Chabelley Airfield OCO: Construct Parking 6,900 6,900
Apron and Taxiway.
AF ESTONIA Amari AB ERI: Construct Bulk Fuel 6,500 6,500
Storage.
AF GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: Construct High Cap 1,000 1,000
Trim Pad & Hush House.
AF GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: F/A-22 Low Observable/ 12,000 12,000
Comp Repair Fac.
AF GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: F/A-22 Upgrade 1,600 1,600
Infrastructure/Comm/Util.
AF GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: Upgrade Hardened 2,700 2,700
Aircraft Shelters.
AF GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: Upgrade Munitions 1,400 1,400
Storage Doors.
AF LITHUANIA Siauliai ERI: Munitions Storage..... 3,000 3,000
AF POLAND Lask AB ERI: Construct Squadron 4,100 4,100
Operations Facility.
AF POLAND Powidz AB ERI: Construct Squadron 4,100 4,100
Operations Facility.
AF ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Construct Munitions 3,000 3,000
Storage Area.
AF ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Construct Squadron 3,400 3,400
Operations Facility.
AF ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Construct Two-Bay 6,100 6,100
Hangar.
AF ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Extend Parking Aprons. 6,000 6,000
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide CTP: Planning and Design... 9,000 -449 8,551
Locations
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide OCO: Planning and Design... 940 940
Locations
Military Construction, Air Force Total 88,740 -449 88,291
........................... ...........................
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Unspecified Minor 5,000 5,000
Locations Construction.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide Total 5,000 0 5,000
........................... ...........................
Total, Military Construction 134,040 -449 133,591
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4603. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4603. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier OCO: Medical/Dental 37,409 37,409
Facility.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 1,000 1,000
Locations
Military Construction, Navy Total 38,409 0 38,409
........................... ...........................
Total, Military Construction 38,409 0 38,409
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2017 Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Nuclear Energy...................................... 151,876 -15,260 136,616
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Weapons activities................................ 9,243,147 316,000 9,559,147
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 1,807,916 94,000 1,901,916
Naval reactors.................................... 1,420,120 0 1,420,120
Federal salaries and expenses..................... 412,817 -40,000 372,817
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 12,884,000 370,000 13,254,000
Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,382,050 -92,100 5,289,950
Other defense activities.......................... 791,552 9,000 800,552
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,173,602 -83,100 6,090,502
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 19,057,602 286,900 19,344,502
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 19,209,478 271,640 19,481,118
Nuclear Energy
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................. 129,303 129,303
Idaho operations and maintenance........................ 7,313 7,313
Consent Based Siting.................................... 15,260 -15,260 0
Denial of funds for defense-only repository........... [-15,260]
Total, Nuclear Energy..................................... 151,876 -15,260 136,616
Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs
B61 Life extension program.......................... 616,079 616,079
W76 Life extension program.......................... 222,880 222,880
W88 Alt 370......................................... 281,129 281,129
W80-4 Life extension program........................ 220,253 21,000 241,253
Mitigation of schedule risk....................... [21,000]
Total, Life extension programs........................ 1,340,341 21,000 1,361,341
Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 57,313 57,313
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 38,604 38,604
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 56,413 56,413
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 64,631 64,631
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 41,659 41,659
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 81,982 81,982
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 103,074 103,074
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 443,676 0 443,676
Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 68,984 -14,000 54,984
Denial of dismantlement acceleration.............. [-14,000]
Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 457,043 457,043
Research and development support.................... 34,187 34,187
R&D certification and safety........................ 156,481 46,000 202,481
Stockpile Responsiveness Program and technology [46,000]
maturation efforts...............................
Management, technology, and production.............. 251,978 251,978
Total, Stockpile services............................. 899,689 46,000 945,689
Nuclear material commodities
Uranium sustainment................................. 20,988 20,988
Plutonium sustainment............................... 184,970 6,000 190,970
Mitigation of schedule risk for meeting statutory [6,000]
pit production requirements......................
Tritium sustainment................................. 109,787 109,787
Domestic uranium enrichment......................... 50,000 50,000
Strategic materials sustainment..................... 212,092 212,092
Total, Nuclear material commodities................... 577,837 6,000 583,837
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 3,330,527 59,000 3,389,527
Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
Science
Advanced certification.............................. 58,000 58,000
Primary assessment technologies..................... 99,000 12,000 111,000
Support to Prototype Nuclear Weapons for [12,000]
Intelligence Estimates program...................
Dynamic materials properties........................ 106,000 106,000
Advanced radiography................................ 50,500 50,500
Secondary assessment technologies................... 76,000 76,000
Academic alliances and partnerships................. 52,484 52,484
Total, Science........................................ 441,984 12,000 453,984
Engineering
Enhanced surety..................................... 37,196 16,000 53,196
Stockpile Responsiveness Program and technology [16,000]
maturation efforts...............................
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 16,958 16,958
Nuclear survivability............................... 43,105 4,000 47,105
Improve planning and coordination on strategic [4,000]
radiation-hardened microsystems..................
Enhanced surveillance............................... 42,228 42,228
Total, Engineering ................................... 139,487 20,000 159,487
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
Ignition............................................ 75,432 -5,000 70,432
Program decrease.................................. [-5,000]
Support of other stockpile programs................. 23,363 23,363
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 68,696 68,696
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 5,616 5,616
Joint program in high energy density laboratory 9,492 9,492
plasmas............................................
Facility operations and target production........... 340,360 -4,000 336,360
Program decrease.................................. [-4,000]
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield..... 522,959 -9,000 513,959
Advanced simulation and computing..................... 663,184 -7,000 656,184
Program decrease.................................... [-7,000]
Advanced manufacturing
Additive manufacturing.............................. 12,000 12,000
Component manufacturing development................. 46,583 31,000 77,583
Stockpile Responsiveness Program and technology [31,000]
maturation efforts...............................
Processing technology development................... 28,522 28,522
Total, Advanced manufacturing......................... 87,105 31,000 118,105
Total, RDT&E............................................ 1,854,719 47,000 1,901,719
Infrastructure and operations (formerly RTBF)
Operating
Operations of facilities
Kansas City Plant................................. 101,000 101,000
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory............ 70,500 70,500
Los Alamos National Laboratory.................... 196,500 196,500
Nevada Test Site.................................. 92,500 92,500
Pantex............................................ 55,000 55,000
Sandia National Laboratory........................ 118,000 118,000
Savannah River Site............................... 83,500 83,500
Y-12 National security complex.................... 107,000 107,000
Total, Operations of facilities..................... 824,000 0 824,000
Safety and environmental operations................... 110,000 110,000
Maintenance and repair of facilities.................. 294,000 30,000 324,000
Address high-priority preventative maintenance...... [30,000]
Recapitalization:
Infrastructure and safety........................... 554,643 120,000 674,643
Address high-priority deferred maintenance........ [120,000]
Capability based investment......................... 112,639 112,639
Total, Recapitalization............................... 667,282 120,000 787,282
Construction:
17-D-640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS.... 11,500 11,500
17-D-630 Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades, LLNL... 25,000 25,000
16-D-515 Albuquerque complex upgrades project....... 15,047 15,047
15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12.......... 2,000 2,000
15-D-302, TA-55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL. 21,455 21,455
07-D-220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL. 17,053 17,053
06-D-141 PED/Construction, UPF Y-12, Oak Ridge, TN.. 575,000 575,000
04-D-125--04 RLUOB equipment installation........... 159,615 159,615
Total, Construction................................... 826,670 0 826,670
Total, Infrastructure and operations.................... 2,721,952 150,000 2,871,952
Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 179,132 179,132
Program direction..................................... 103,600 103,600
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 282,732 0 282,732
Defense nuclear security
Operations and maintenance............................ 657,133 60,000 717,133
Support to physical security infrastructure [60,000]
recapitalization and CSTART........................
Construction:
14-D-710 Device assembly facility argus installation 13,000 13,000
project, NV........................................
Total, Defense nuclear security......................... 670,133 60,000 730,133
Information technology and cybersecurity................ 176,592 176,592
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 248,492 248,492
Rescission of prior year balances....................... -42,000 -42,000
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 9,243,147 316,000 9,559,147
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
Global material security............................ 337,108 -5,000 332,108
Program decrease.................................. [-5,000]
Material management and minimization................ 341,094 341,094
Nonproliferation and arms control................... 124,703 124,703
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D................ 393,922 24,000 417,922
Acceleration of low-yield detection experiments... [4,000]
Nuclear detection technology and new challenges [20,000]
such as 3D printing..............................
Low Enriched Uranium R&D for Naval Reactors......... 0 5,000 5,000
Low Enriched Uranium R&D for Naval Reactors....... [5,000]
Nonproliferation Construction:
99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 270,000 70,000 340,000
Facility, SRS....................................
Increase to support construction................ [70,000]
Total, Nonproliferation construction................ 270,000 70,000 340,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs...... 1,466,827 94,000 1,560,827
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 83,208 83,208
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program.. 271,881 271,881
Rescission of prior year balances....................... -14,000 -14,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,807,916 94,000 1,901,916
Naval Reactors
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 449,682 449,682
Naval reactors development.............................. 437,338 437,338
Ohio replacement reactor systems development............ 213,700 213,700
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 124,000 124,000
Program direction....................................... 47,100 47,100
Construction:
17-D-911, BL Fire System Upgrade...................... 1,400 1,400
15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3............. 700 700
15-D-902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility.......... 33,300 33,300
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, 100,000 100,000
NRF..................................................
10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL..................... 12,900 12,900
Total, Construction..................................... 148,300 0 148,300
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,420,120 0 1,420,120
Federal Salaries And Expenses
Program direction....................................... 412,817 -40,000 372,817
Program decrease...................................... [-40,000]
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................ 412,817 -40,000 372,817
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure sites:
Closure sites administration.......................... 9,389 9,389
Hanford site:
River corridor and other cleanup operations........... 69,755 45,000 114,755
Acceleration of priority programs................... [45,000]
Central plateau remediation........................... 620,869 8,000 628,869
Acceleration of priority programs................... [8,000]
Richland community and regulatory support............. 14,701 14,701
Construction:
15-D-401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL..... 11,486 11,486
Total, Hanford site..................................... 716,811 53,000 769,811
Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition................... 359,088 359,088
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 3,000 3,000
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 362,088 0 362,088
Los Alamos National Laboratory
EMLA cleanup activities............................... 185,606 185,606
EMLA community and regulatory support................. 3,394 3,394
Total, Los Alamos National Laboratory................... 189,000 0 189,000
NNSA sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,396 1,396
Separations Process Research Unit..................... 3,685 3,685
Nevada................................................ 62,176 62,176
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 4,130 4,130
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 71,387 0 71,387
Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D & D
OR Nuclear facility D & D........................... 93,851 93,851
Construction:
14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility... 5,100 5,100
Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D...................... 98,951 0 98,951
U233 Disposition Program.............................. 37,311 37,311
OR cleanup and disposition............................ 54,557 54,557
OR reservation community and regulatory support....... 4,400 4,400
Oak Ridge technology development...................... 3,000 3,000
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 198,219 0 198,219
Office of River Protection:
Waste treatment and immobilization plant
WTP operations...................................... 3,000 3,000
15-D-409 Low activity waste pretreatment system, ORP 73,000 73,000
01-D-416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction.......... 690,000 690,000
Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant....... 766,000 0 766,000
Tank farm activities
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. 721,456 721,456
Total, Tank farm activities........................... 721,456 0 721,456
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,487,456 0 1,487,456
Savannah River sites:
Nuclear Material Management........................... 311,062 311,062
Environmental Cleanup................................. 152,504 152,504
SR community and regulatory support................... 11,249 11,249
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 645,332 645,332
disposition........................................
Construction:
15-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #6, SRS......... 7,577 7,577
17-D-401--Saltstone Disposal Unit #7.............. 9,729 9,729
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 160,000 160,000
River Site.......................................
Total, Construction................................. 177,306 0 177,306
Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 822,638 0 822,638
Total, Savannah River site.............................. 1,297,453 0 1,297,453
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Operations and maintenance............................ 257,188 257,188
Construction:
15-D-411 Safety significant confinement ventilation 2,532 2,532
system, WIPP.......................................
15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP........................ 2,533 2,533
Total, Construction................................... 5,065 0 5,065
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...................... 262,253 0 262,253
Program direction....................................... 290,050 290,050
Program support......................................... 14,979 14,979
Safeguards and Security................................. 255,973 255,973
Technology development.................................. 30,000 10,000 40,000
NAS study on technology development, acceleration of [10,000]
priority efforts.....................................
Infrastructure recapitalization......................... 41,892 41,892
Defense Uranium enrichment D&D.......................... 155,100 -155,100 0
Ahead of need......................................... [-155,100]
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup................... 5,382,050 -92,100 5,289,950
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,382,050 -92,100 5,289,950
Other Defense Activities
Environment, health, safety and security
Environment, health, safety and security.............. 130,693 130,693
Program direction..................................... 66,519 66,519
Total, Environment, Health, safety and security......... 197,212 0 197,212
Independent enterprise assessments
Independent enterprise assessments.................... 24,580 24,580
Program direction..................................... 51,893 51,893
Total, Independent enterprise assessments............... 76,473 0 76,473
Specialized security activities......................... 237,912 9,000 246,912
IT infrastructure and red teaming..................... [9,000]
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 140,306 140,306
Program direction..................................... 14,014 14,014
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 154,320 0 154,320
Defense-related activities
Defense related administrative support
Chief financial officer............................... 23,642 23,642
Chief information officer............................. 93,074 93,074
Project management oversight and assessments.......... 3,000 3,000
Total, Defense related administrative support........... 119,716 0 119,716
Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 5,919 5,919
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 791,552 9,000 800,552
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 791,552 9,000 800,552
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION E--MILITARY JUSTICE
OVERVIEW
The committee remains dedicated to ensuring the military
justice system is a just, efficient and effective system that
helps maintain good order and discipline in the Armed Forces.
The committee recognizes the significant changes that have been
made to individual segments of the military justice system over
the past 5 years. However, the provisions contained in this
Act, informed by the valuable work of the Military Justice
Working Group, represent the first comprehensive revision of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice in decades. The committee
believes these revisions would promote fairness, improve
efficiency, and increase the functionality of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice.
The committee recognizes the importance of maintaining a
military justice system that is fair to both service members
and victims. To that end, provisions are included that would
clarify the procedures for appointment of individuals to assume
the rights of certain victims; create the opportunity for all
parties, including victims, to provide additional input on
disposition decisions at the preliminary hearing stage; and
allow all victims access to records of trial. In addition,
provisions are included that would promote fairness by
standardizing court-martial panel sizes and the number required
to convict or sentence an accused; requiring defense counsel in
capital cases to be learned in the law applicable to capital
cases; and expanding the types of cases eligible for automatic
appeal. Transparency would be enhanced by providing for public
access to court documents. Finally, unitary sentencing in favor
of offense-based sentencing would be eliminated, a change which
will improve visibility over sentencing data.
The committee is also committed to improving the efficiency
of the military justice system. Therefore, provisions are
included that would establish a military judge-alone special
court-martial, an additional disposition option with
confinement limited to 6 months and no punitive discharge. In
addition, the military departments would be authorized to
establish a military magistrates program, with magistrates
authorized to preside over certain pre-referral matters and,
with the consent of the parties, at the proposed judge-alone
special court-martials. Finally, the post-trial process would
be streamlined by provisions that would eliminate redundant
post-trial paperwork and require an entry of judgment by the
military judge to mark the end of a general or special court-
martial.
Finally, the committee recognizes the need to improve the
functionality of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Several
of the provisions would help enhance functionality by
consolidating several forms of misconduct currently addressed
by Executive Order into specific punitive articles; authorizing
the President to designate lesser included offenses within
certain statutory criteria; and amending the statute of
limitations for child-abuse offenses, fraudulent enlistment,
and cases in which DNA testing implicates an individual.
Finally, new enumerated offenses would be established,
including offenses concerning retaliation; fraudulent use of
credit and debit cards; prohibited activities with a military
recruit or trainee by a person in a position of special trust;
and an offense concerning Government computers.
TITLE LX--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 6001--Definitions
This section would make technical amendments to article 1
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice concerning the
definitions of ``military judge'' and ``judge advocate''.
Section 6002--Clarification of Persons Subject to UCMJ While on
Inactive-Duty Training
This section would amend section 802 of title 10, United
States Code (article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to clarify jurisdiction over Reserve Component
members performing periods of inactive-duty training. The
amendment would provide commanders clearer authority to address
misconduct that takes place during periods incident to
inactive-duty training, and during intervals between inactive-
duty training on consecutive days.
Section 6003--Staff Judge Advocate Disqualification Due to Prior
Involvement in Case
This section would amend section 806 of title 10, United
States Code (article 6 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), which concerns the assignment for duty of judge
advocates and the role of staff judge advocates and legal
officers in military justice matters. Article 6(c) currently
disqualifies military judges, trial and defense counsel,
investigating officers, and panel members from later acting as
a staff judge advocate or legal officer to any reviewing
authority in a case in which they previously participated. The
proposed amendments would expressly cover military magistrates
when presiding, with the parties' consent, over cases referred
to judge-alone special courts-martial, under article 19. The
amendment also would revise the disqualification provision
under article 6(c) to include appellate judges and counsel
(including victims' counsel) who have participated previously
in the same case or in any proceeding before a military judge
(to include a military magistrate designated under article 19),
preliminary hearing officer, or appellate court in the same
case.
Section 6004--Conforming Amendment Relating to Military Magistrates
This section would amend section 806a of title 10, United
States Code (article 6a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to align the statute with the changes proposed in
article 19 and the proposed new article 26a, concerning
military magistrates. The amendment would add ``military
magistrate'' to the list of officials whose fitness to perform
duties shall be subject to investigation and disposition under
regulations prescribed by the President, consistent with
Federal law concerning the investigation and disposition of
matters relating to the fitness of Federal magistrate judges in
the performance of their judicial duties.
Section 6005--Rights of Victim
This section would make amendments to the rights of victims
under section 806b of title 10, United States Code (article 6b
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), that: clarify
the procedure for appointment of individuals to assume the
rights of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent,
incapacitated, or deceased; clarify the relationship between
the rights provided to victims under the UCMJ and the exercise
of disposition discretion under articles 30 and 34; and move
the recently enacted provisions concerning defense counsel
interviews of victims of sex-related offenses from article
46(b) into article 6b and would extend those provisions to
victims of all offenses.
TITLE LXI--APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT
Section 6101--Restraint of Persons Charged
This section would amend section 810 of title 10, United
States Code (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ)), concerning restraint of persons charged with offenses
and the actions that must be taken by military commanders and
convening authorities when persons subject to the UCMJ are held
for trial by court-martial. This section would clarify the
general provisions concerning restraint under article 10, and
would incorporate into article 10, the requirement under
article 33, for prompt forwarding of charges in cases involving
pretrial confinement. This section would also expand the
requirement for prompt forwarding to cover special courts-
martial as well as general courts-martial, and would require
the establishment of prompt processing time-frames in the
Manual for Courts-Martial.
Section 6102--Modification of Prohibition of Confinement of Armed
Forces Members With Enemy Prisoners and Certain Others
This section would amend section 812 of title 10, United
States Code (article 12 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice) to clarify that no member of the Armed Forces may be
placed in confinement in immediate association with: (1) enemy
prisoners of war; or (2) other individuals who are detained
under the law of war, are foreign nationals, and are not
members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
TITLE LXII--NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT
Section 6201--Modification of Confinement as Non-Judicial Punishment
This section would amend non-judicial punishment under
section 815 of title 10, United States Code (article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice), to eliminate punishment in
the form of a diet consisting only of bread and water as an
option, while retaining the remaining range of disciplinary
measures.
TITLE LXIII--COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION
Section 6301--Courts-Martial Classified
This section would amend courts-martial classifications
under section 816 of title 10, United States Code (article 16
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice). This section would
establish standard panel sizes: 12 members in capital general
courts-martial, 8 members in non-capital general courts-
martial, and 4 members in special courts-martial. As amended,
article 16 would include references to article 25a (addressing
panel size in capital cases), article 25(d) (addressing the
initial detailing of members by the convening authority), and
article 29 (addressing the impaneling of members and the impact
of excusals on panel composition). Article 16(c) would be
amended to require a military judge to be detailed to all
special courts-martial, in accordance with current practice.
This section also would add the option of referral to a non-
jury (judge-alone) special court-martial.
Section 6302--Jurisdiction of General Courts-Martial
This section would make conforming changes to section 818
of title 10, United States Code (article 18 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice), to align the statute with the revised
descriptions of types of courts-martial under article 16. The
amendments would also modify article 18 to specify the sexual
offenses over which general courts-martial have exclusive
jurisdiction.
Section 6303--Jurisdiction of Special Courts-Martial
This section would amend section 819 of title 10, United
States Code (article 19 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to align the statute with proposed changes in article
16 regarding the composition of special courts-martial.
Section 6304--Summary Court-Martial as Non-Criminal Forum
This section would amend section 820 of title 10, United
States Code (article 20 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to clarify the status of the summary court-martial as
a non-criminal forum. This section would clarify that, because
of its non-judicial nature, a summary court-martial is not a
``criminal prosecution,'' within the traditional due process
understanding of a criminal prosecution (i.e., presided over by
a judicial officer, and where the accused has a right to
counsel) and that a finding of guilty at a summary court-
martial does not constitute a ``criminal conviction.''
TITLE LXIV--COMPOSITION OF COURTS-MARTIAL
Section 6401--Technical Amendment Relating to Persons Authorized To
Convene General Courts-Martial
This section would make a technical amendment to section
822 of title 10, United States Code (article 22 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), to reflect the current terminology
for the title of an officer commanding a naval fleet.
Section 6402--Who May Serve on Courts-Martial; Detail of Members
This section would amend section 825 of title 10, United
States Code (article 25 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to expand the opportunity for service on a court-
martial panel by permitting the detail of enlisted personnel as
panel members without requiring a specific request from the
accused. This section would also require that the convening
authority detail a sufficient number of members for
impanelment.
Section 6403--Number of Court-Martial Members in Capital Cases
This section would amend section 825a of title 10, United
States Code (article 25a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to establish a standard panel size of 12 members in
capital cases.
Section 6404--Detailing, Qualifications, etc. of Military Judges
This section would amend section 826 of title 10, United
States Code (article 26 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to conform to the proposed amendments to article 16
to ensure a military judge is detailed to every general and
special court-martial; require the Judge Advocates General
select military judges based on statutory criteria and an
evaluation of their individual education, training, experience,
and judicial temperament; provide for minimum tour length for
military judges; expressly authorize cross-service detailing of
military judges; codify the position of chief trial judge; and
remove the phrase ``or his designee'' from article 26.
Section 6405--Qualifications of Trial Counsel and Defense Counsel
This section would modify section 827 of title 10, United
States Code (article 27 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to broaden the disqualification provision to include
appellate judges who have participated previously in the same
case; extend the qualification requirement to any assistant
defense counsel detailed to a general court-martial; require
any defense counsel or assistant defense counsel detailed to a
special court-martial to be qualified under article 27(b); and
require at least one defense counsel detailed to a capital case
to be learned in such cases.
Section 6406--Assembly and Impaneling of Members; Detail of New Members
and Military Judges
This section would modify section 829 of title 10, United
States Code (article 29 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to clarify the function of assembly in general and
special courts-martial and describe the limited situations in
which a member may be absent or excused after assembly; require
the military judge to impanel the number of members required;
provide for the detail on new members if the membership on the
panel is reduced below stated thresholds; address the detailing
of a new military judge when the military judge is unable to
proceed as a result of disability; and establish the procedure
for presenting the prior trial proceedings to the newly
detailed members or judge.
Section 6407--Military Magistrates
This section would create a new section, section 826a of
title 10, United States Code (article 26a of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice), that would set forth minimum
qualifications under which the Judge Advocates General could,
if so authorized under regulations of the Secretary concerned,
certify military magistrates who could preside over proceedings
when designated by a military judge.
TITLE LXV--PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE
Section 6501--Charges and Specifications
This section would amend section 830 of title 10, United
States Code (article 30 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to improve the functionality of the statute by
restructuring it into three subsections and removing the
requirement to take ``immediate steps'' to dispose of charges
and specifications, instead requiring the proper authority to,
as soon as practicable, determine what disposition should be
made.
Section 6502--Preliminary Hearing Required Before Referral to General
Court-Martial
This section would amend section 832 of title 10, United
States Code (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice). This section would be restructured to clarify the
current law concerning the requirement for and the conduct of
preliminary hearings before referral of charges and
specifications to general courts-martial for trial.
Section 6503--Disposition Guidance
This section would amend section 833 of title 10, United
States Code (article 33 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ)) to require the establishment and maintenance of non-
binding guidance regarding factors that commanders, convening
authorities, staff judge advocates, and judge advocates should
take into account when exercising their duties with respect to
disposition of charges and specifications in the interest of
justice and discipline under articles 30 and 34 of the UCMJ.
Section 6504--Advice to Convening Authority Before Referral for Trial
This section would amend section 834 of title 10, United
States Code, (article 34 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to clarify ambiguities in the existing language, to
require judge advocate consultation before referral of charges
to special courts-martial, and to expressly tie the staff judge
advocate's pre-referral disposition recommendation in general
courts-martial to the ``in the interest of justice and
discipline'' standard for disposition of charges and
specifications under article 30.
Section 6505--Service of Charges and Commencement of Trial
This section would amend section 835 of title 10, United
States Code (article 35 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to clarify the accused's right to object, in
peacetime, to the commencement of trial before the completion
of a statutory period following service of charges; 3 days for
special courts-martial and 5 days for general courts-martial.
TITLE LXVI--TRIAL PROCEDURE
Section 6601--Duties of Assistant Defense Counsel
This section would amend section 838 of title 10, United
States Code (article 38 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to conform it to the amendments to article 27
concerning the requirement for all defense counsel in general
and special courts-martial to be qualified under article 27(b).
Section 6602--Sessions
This section would amend section 839 of title 10, United
States Code (article 39 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to clarify that military judges preside at
arraignments.
Section 6603--Technical Amendments Relating to Continuances
This section would amend section 840 of title 10, United
States Code (article 40 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to clarify that a summary court-martial is the only
exception to the general rule that the authority to grant
continuances is vested solely in the military judge.
Section 6604--Conforming Amendments Relating to Challenges
This section would amend section 841 of title 10, United
States Code, (article 41 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to conform the section to the amendments made to
article 16 regarding standard panel sizes in general and
special courts-martial.
Section 6605--Statute of Limitations
This section would amend section 843 of title 10, United
States Code (article 43 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to extend the statute of limitations applicable to
child abuse offenses from the current 5 years or the life of
the child, whichever is longer, to 10 years or the life of the
child, whichever is longer; extend the statute of limitations
on fraudulent enlistment under article 83 from the current 5
years to length of enlistment/appointment, or 5 years,
whichever is longer; and extend the statute of limitations if
DNA testing implicates an identified person in the commission
of an offense punishable by confinement for more than 1 year.
Section 6606--Former Jeopardy
This section would amend section 844 of title 10, United
States Code (article 44 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), by clarifying the circumstances under which jeopardy
attaches, and to align it with Federal civilian standards
concerning double jeopardy.
Section 6607--Pleas of the Accused
This section would amend section 845 of title 10, United
States Code (article 45 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to permit an accused to plead guilty in a capital
case when the death penalty is not a mandatorily prescribed
punishment and establish a harmless error rule if the variance
does not materially prejudice the substantial rights of the
accused.
Section 6608--Contempt
This section would amend section 848 of title 10, United
States Code (article 48 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to clarify those who may exercise contempt authority;
transfer the review function for contempt punishment from the
convening authority to the appropriate appellate court; and
clarify the appeal process.
Section 6609--Depositions
This section would amend section 849 of title 10, United
States Code (article 49 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to better align deposition practice with the
authority to issue and enforce subpoenas for witnesses; ensure
parties at a deposition are represented by detailed counsel;
and clarify the prohibition on the use of depositions in
capital cases by the Government.
Section 6610--Admissibility of Sworn Testimony by Audiotape or
Videotape from Records of Courts of Inquiry
This section would amend section 850 of title 10, United
States Code (article 50 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to permit sworn testimony from a court of inquiry to
be played from audiovisual recording if the deposed witness is
unavailable at trial and the evidence is otherwise admissible
under the rules of evidence.
Section 6611--Conforming Amendment Relating to Defense of Lack of
Mental Responsibility
This section would amend section 850a of title 10, United
States Code (article 50a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to conform to the proposed changes in article 16 to
eliminate special courts-martial without a military judge.
Section 6612--Voting and Rulings
This section would amend section 851 of title 10, United
States Code (article 51 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to remove reference to courts-martial without a
military judge to conform with the amended language in article
16.
Section 6613--Votes Required for Conviction, Sentencing, and Other
Matters
This section would amend section 852 of title 10, United
States Code (article 52 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ)), to standardize the percentage of votes required by a
court-martial panel for conviction and for a specific sentence
at 75 percent for non-capital cases. In conjunction with
standard panel sizes under article 16 of the UCMJ, this would
standardize the percentage of votes required in all non-capital
cases, and continue to require a unanimous vote on both
findings and sentence in capital cases.
Section 6614--Plea Agreements
This section would create section 853a of title 10, United
States Code (article 53a of the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ)). The new section would contain the statutory
authority for plea agreements, which was previously contained
in article 60 of the UCMJ. The section would provide rules for
the construction and negotiation of plea agreements, allowing
the convening authority and the accused to enter into binding
agreements regarding the sentence that may be adjudged at a
court-martial.
Section 6615--Record of Trial
This section would amend section 854 of title 10, United
States Code (article 54 of the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice), to require the court reporter, instead of the
military judge or prosecutor, to certify the record of trial;
require a complete record of trial in any general or special
court-martial if the sentence includes death, dismissal,
discharge, or confinement or forfeitures for more than 6
months; and provide all victims who testify at a court-martial
with access to records of trial, eliminating the distinction in
the statute that currently provides such access only to victims
of sex-related offenses under article 120.
TITLE LXVII--SENTENCES
Section 6701--Sentencing
This section would amend section 856 of title 10, United
States Code (article 56 of the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice), to: clarify the factors that must be taken into
consideration by a court-martial when fashioning an appropriate
sentence; require offense-based sentencing for confinement and
fines, rather than unitary sentencing, in all general and
special courts-martial; incorporate article 56a (Sentence of
confinement for life without eligibility for parole) into
article 56 without substantive change; and allow the U.S.
Government to appeal a sentence if it violates the law or the
sentence is plainly unreasonable.
Section 6701A--Minimum Confinement Period Required for Conviction of
Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by Members of the Armed Forces
This section would further amend subsection (b)(1) of
section 856 of title 10, United States Code (article 56 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice), as amended by section 6701,
to establish a minimum period of confinement for those
convicted of certain sex-related offenses.
Section 6702--Effective Date of Sentences
This section would amend section 857 of title 10, United
States Code (article 57 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to consolidate portions of articles 57, 57a, and 71,
so that the effective date for all punishments that could be
adjudged at a court-martial are addressed in a single article.
In addition, this section would remove the distinction between
when a sentence becomes effective and when it is ordered
executed. With the exception of death and punitive discharges,
sentences would be effective by operation of law, without any
additional approval, upon entry of judgment.
Section 6703--Sentence of Reduction in Enlisted Grade
This section would amend section 858a of title 10, United
States Code (article 58a of the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice), to conform the section to the proposed changes to
post-trial procedure under article 60 and the entry of judgment
under the proposed article 60c.
TITLE LXVIII--POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL
Section 6801--Post-Trial Processing in General and Special Courts-
Martial
This section would amend section 860 of title 10, United
States Code (article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to provide for the distribution of the trial results
and to authorize the filing of post-trial motions with the
military judge in general and special courts-martial. The
convening authority's role in post-trial processing would be
moved to new article 60a and 60b.
Section 6802--Limited Authority To Act on Sentence in Specified Post-
Trial Circumstances
This section would create a new section 860a of title 10,
United States Code (article 60a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), which would retain current limitations on the
convening authority's post-trial actions in most general and
special courts-martial, subject to a limited suspension
authority that would be permissible only if specifically
recommended by the military judge. In addition, this section
would contain a revised authority related to accused who
provide substantial assistance to the Government; would allow
the accused and a victim of the offense to submit matters to
the convening authority for consideration; and would require
the decision of the convening authority to be forwarded to the
military judge so that the entry of judgment can be updated to
reflect any changes to the sentence.
Section 6803--Post-Trial Actions in Summary Courts-Martial and Certain
General and Special Courts-Martial
This section would create a new section 860b of title 10,
United States Code (article 60b of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), that would retain and clarify the convening
authority's post-trial authorities and responsibilities with
respect to the findings and sentence of those courts-martial
not covered by the new article 60a, namely summary courts-
martial and certain general and special courts-martial which,
because of the offenses charged and the sentence adjudged,
would not be covered under article 60a.
Section 6804--Entry of Judgment
This section would create a new section 860c of title 10,
United States Code (article 60c of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), that would establish the entry of judgment, which
would require the military judge to enter the judgment of the
court-martial into the record in all general and special
courts-martial, and would mark the conclusion of trial
proceedings.
Section 6805--Waiver of Right To Appeal and Withdrawal of Appeal
This section would amend section 861 of title 10, United
States Code (article 61 of the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice), to conform the section to the changes proposed in
articles 60, 65, and 69 concerning post-trial processing.
Section 6806--Appeal by the United States
This section would amend section 862 of title 10, United
States Code (article 62 of the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice), to authorize an appeal by the Government when, upon
defense motion, the military judge sets aside a panel's finding
of guilty because of legally insufficient evidence. In
addition, this section would extend interlocutory appeals to
all general and special courts-martial.
Section 6807--Rehearings
This section would amend section 863 of title 10, United
States Code (article 63 of the Uniformed Code of Military
Justice), to remove the sentence limitation at a rehearing in
cases in which an accused changes the plea from guilty to not
guilty, or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of a pre-
trial agreement; or a sentence is set aside based on a
Government appeal.
Section 6808--Judge Advocate Review of Finding of Guilty in Summary
Court-Martial
This section would amend section 864 of title 10, United
States Code (article 64 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to make the provision apply only to the initial
review of summary courts-martial.
Section 6809--Transmittal and Review of Records
This section would amend section 865 of title 10, United
States Code (article 65 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to: require the record of trial in all general and
special courts-martial in which there is a finding of guilty to
be transmitted to the Office of the Judge Advocate General;
outline the processing of reviews conducted by the Office of
the Judge Advocate General, including those cases not eligible
for appellate review by the Court of Criminal Appeals; and
outline review procedures if the accused waives the right to
appellate review or withdraws an appeal.
Section 6810--Courts of Criminal Appeals
This section would amend section 866 of title 10, United
States Code (article 66 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to: require the President to establish minimum tour
lengths for appellate military judges; establish discretionary
review by the Court of Criminal Appeals in cases that are not
eligible for an appeal as of right; provide standards of review
for appeals; and codify the authority of Courts of criminal
Appeals to remand cases and order rehearings.
Section 6811--Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
This section would amend section 867 of title 10, United
States Code (article 67 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to conform the section to proposed changes in article
60 and article 66. In addition, the amendment would provide for
notification by a Judge Advocate General to the other Judge
Advocates General prior to certifying a case for review by the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Section 6812--Supreme Court Review
This section would make a technical amendment to section
867 of title 10, United States Code (article 67 of the
Uniformed Code of Military Justice) to add ``United States'''
before ``Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces'''.
Section 6813--Review by Judge Advocate General
This section would amend section 869 of title 10, United
States Code (article 69 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to allow the accused a 1-year period in which to file
for review under article 69 in the Office of the Judge Advocate
General, extendable to 3 years for good cause. A review under
this provision could consider issues of newly discovered
evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the
accused or the offense, error prejudicial to the substantial
rights of the accused, or the appropriateness of the sentence.
Section 6814--Appellate Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases
This section would amend section 870 of title 10, United
States Code (article 70 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to require, to the greatest extent practicable, at
least one appellate defense counsel to be learned in the law
applicable to capital cases in which the death penalty was
adjudged at trial.
Section 6815--Authority for Hearing on Vacation of Suspension of
Sentence to be Conducted by Qualified Judge Advocate
This section would amend section 872 of title 10, United
States Code (article 72 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to authorize a special court-martial convening
authority to detail a judge advocate qualified under article
27(b) to preside at the vacation hearing, which must be held
before a suspended sentence can be vacated.
Section 6816--Extension of Time for Petition for New Trial
This section would amend section 873 of title 10, United
States Code (article 73 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to increase the time period for an accused to
petition for a new trial from 2 years to 3 years.
Section 6817--Restoration
This section would amend section 875 of title 10, United
States Code (article 75 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to require the President to establish regulations
governing when an accused may receive pay and allowances while
pending a rehearing.
Section 6818--Leave Requirements Pending Review of Certain Court-
Martial Convictions
This section would amend section 876a of title 10, United
States Code (article 76a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to conform to the proposed changes to article 60
(actions by the convening authority) and article 60c (entry of
judgment).
TITLE LXIX--PUNITIVE ARTICLES
Section 6901--Reorganization of Punitive Articles
This section would reorganize the punitive articles by
transferring and re-designating 14 articles within subchapter X
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to more closely group
related offenses.
Section 6902--Conviction of Offense Charged, Lesser Included Offenses,
and Attempts
This section would amend section 879 of title 10, United
States Code (article 79 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ)), to authorize the President to designate an
authoritative, but non-exhaustive, list of lesser included
offenses for each punitive article of the UCMJ in addition to
judicially determined lesser included offenses.
Section 6903--Soliciting Commission of Offenses
This section would amend title 882 of section 10, United
States Code (article 82 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to consolidate the general solicitation offense under
article 134 into article 82.
Section 6904--Malingering
This section would amend section 883 of title 10, United
States Code (article 83 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to relocate article 115 (malingering) to this
section, and make a technical correction.
Section 6905--Breach of Medical Quarantine
This section would amend section 884 of title 10, United
States Code (article 84 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move the offense of ``Quarantine: medical,
breaking'' from article 134 to this section.
Section 6906--Missing Movement; Jumping From Vessel
This section will amend section 887 of title 10, United
States Code (article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to incorporate the current article 134 offense of
``Jumping from vessel into the water'' into the existing
article 87 offense of ``Missing movement''.
Section 6907--Offenses Against Correctional Custody and Restriction
This section would create a new section 887b of title 10,
United States Code (article 87b of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move and consolidate the offenses of
``Restriction, breaking'' and ``Correctional custody-offenses
against'' from article 134 to this section.
Section 6908--Disrespect Toward Superior Commissioned Officer; Assault
of Superior Commissioned Officer
This section would amend section 889 of title 10, United
States Code (article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move and consolidate the closely related offense
of ``Assaulting a superior commissioned officer'' under article
90 to the existing article 89 ``Disrespect toward a superior
commissioned officer''.
Section 6909--Willfully Disobeying Superior Commissioned Officer
This section would amend section 890 of title 10, United
States Code (article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to transfer the offense of ``Assaulting a superior
commissioned officer'' to article 89 and focus the article as
amended on the willful disobedience of a lawful command of a
superior commissioned officer.
Section 6910--Prohibited Activities With Military Recruit or Trainee by
Person in Position of Special Trust
This section would create a new section 893a of title 10,
United States Code (article 93a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), that would specifically address accountability for
sexual misconduct committed by recruiters and trainers during
the various phases within the recruiting and basic military
training environments.
Section 6911--Offenses by Sentinel or Lookout
This section would amend section 895 of title 10 of the
United States Code (article 95 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move the loitering portion of the offense of
``Sentinel or lookout: offenses against or by'' from article
134 to this section.
Section 6912--Disrespect Toward Sentinel or Lookout
This section would create a new section 895a of title 10,
United States Code (article 95a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move the disrespect portion of the offense of
``Sentinel or lookout: offenses against or by'' from article
134 to this section.
Section 6913--Release of Prisoner Without Authority; Drinking With
Prisoner
This section would amend section 896 of title 10, United
States Code (article 96 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move the separate offense of ``Drinking liquor
with prisoner'' currently under article 134 to this section.
Section 6914--Penalty for Acting as a Spy
This section would amend section 903 of title 10, United
States Code (article 103 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ)), as transferred and re-designated elsewhere in
this Act, by replacing the mandatory death penalty currently
required with a discretionary death penalty similar to that
authorized under existing article 106a ``Espionage'' and for
all other capital offenses under the UCMJ.
Section 6915--Public Records Offenses
This section would amend section 904 of title 10, United
States Code (article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move the offense of ``Public record: altering,
concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying''
from article 134 to this section and re-designating it ``Public
records offenses''.
Section 6916--False or Unauthorized Pass Offenses
This section would create a new section 905a of title 10,
United States Code (article 105a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), to move the offense of ``False or
unauthorized pass offenses'' from article 134 to this section.
Section 6917--Impersonation Offenses
This section would amend section 906 of title 10, United
States Code (article 106 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move the offense of ``Impersonating a
commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, petty officer or agent
or official'' from article 134 to this section.
Section 6918--Insignia Offenses
This section would create a new section 906a of title 10,
United States Code (article 106a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), to move the offense of ``Wearing
unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or
lapel button'' from article 134 to this section.
Section 6919--False Official Statements; False Swearing
This section would amend section 907 of title 10, United
States Code (article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move the offense of ``False swearing'' from
article 134 to this section.
Section 6920--Parole Violation
This section would create a new section 907a of title 10,
United States Code (article 107a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and would move the offense of ``Parole,
violation of'' from article 134 to this new section.
Section 6921--Wrongful Taking, Opening, Etc. of Mail Matter
This section would create a new section 909a of title 10,
United States Code (article 109a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Mail: taking,
opening, secreting, destroying, or stealing'' from article 134
to this new section.
Section 6922--Improper Hazarding of Vessel or Aircraft
This section would amend section 910 of title 10, United
States Code (article 110 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to prohibit improper hazarding of an aircraft in
addition to the existing ``Improper hazarding of vessel''.
Section 6923--Leaving Scene of Vehicle Accident
This section would amend section 911 of title 10, United
States Code (article 111 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice) and re-title the section ``Leaving scene of
accident''. The amended section would move the offense of
``Fleeing the scene of an accident'' from article 134 to this
section.
Section 6924--Drunkenness and Other Incapacitation Offenses
This section would amend section 912 of title 10, United
States Code (article 112 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), and re-title the section as ``Drunkenness and other
incapacitation offenses''. This section would move the offenses
of ``Drunkenness-incapacitation for performance of duties
through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any
drug'' and ``Drunk prisoner'' from article 134 to this section.
Section 6925--Lower Blood Alcohol Content Limits for Conviction of
Drunken or Reckless Operation of Vehicle, Aircraft, or Vessel
This section would amend section 913 of title 10, United
States Code (article 113 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to align the blood alcohol limits in the offense to
the prevailing legal standard in the United States.
Section 6926--Endangerment Offenses
This section would amend section 914 of title 10, United
States Code (article 114 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to move three related offenses from article 134 to
this section and re-designating the section ``Endangerment
offenses''.
Section 6927--Communicating Threats
This section would amend section 915 of title 10, United
States Code (article 115 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), and move the offenses of ``threat, communicating,''
and ``Threat or hoax designed or intended to cause panic or
public fear'' from article 134 to this re-designated section.
Section 6928--Technical Amendment Relating to Murder
This section would make a technical amendment to section
918 of title 10, United States Code (article 118 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), removing the term ``forcible
sodomy'' because the crime of forcible sodomy is already
contained in article 120 ``Rape and sexual assault generally.''
Section 6929--Child Endangerment
This section would create a new section 919b of title 10,
United States Code (article 119b of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Child
endangerment'' from article 134 to this new section.
Section 6930--Deposit of Obscene Matter in the Mail
This section would amend section 920a of title 10, United
States Code (article 120a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), and move the offense of ``Mails: depositing or
causing to be deposited obscene materials in'' from article 134
to this re-designated section.
Section 6931--Fraudulent Use of Credit Cards, Debit Cards, and Other
Access Devices
This section would create a new section 921a of title 10,
United States Code (article 121a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), to specifically address the misuse of credit
cards, debit cards, and other electronic payment technology,
also known as ``access devices.''
Section 6932--False Pretenses To Obtain Services
This section would create a new section 921b of title 10,
United States Code (article 121b of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``False pretenses,
obtaining services under'' from article 134 to this new
section.
Section 6933--Robbery
This section would amend section 922 of title 10, United
States Code (article 122 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to remove the words ``with the intent to steal'' from
the section, thereby eliminating the requirement to show that
the accused intended to permanently deprive the victim of his
property.
Section 6934--Receiving Stolen Property
This section would amend section 922a of title 10, United
States Code (article 122a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), and move the offense of ``Stolen property: knowingly
receiving, buying, concealing'' from article 134 to this
section.
Section 6935--Offenses Concerning Government Computers
This section would amend section 923 of title 10, United
States Code (article 123 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), and re-designate it ``Offenses concerning government
computers.'' This section would create a new punitive article
to address computer-related offenses where the gravity of the
offense may make punishment under other offenses
inappropriately low.
Section 6936--Bribery
This section would create a new section 924a of title 10,
United States Code (article 124a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Bribery'' from
article 134 to this new section.
Section 6937--Graft
This section would create a new section 924b of title 10,
United States Code (article 124b of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Graft'' from
article 134 to this new section.
Section 6938--Kidnapping
This section would amend section 925 of title 10, United
States Code (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), and move the offense of ``Kidnapping'' from article
134 to this section.
Section 6939--Arson; Burning Property with Intent to Defraud
This section would amend section 926 of title 10, United
States Code (article 126 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), and move the offense of ``Burning with intent to
defraud'' from article 134 to this section.
Section 6940--Assault
This section would amend section 928 of title 10, United
States Code (article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to establish a standard focused on the intent of the
accused to commit bodily harm. This amended section would also
move the offense of ``Assault-with intent to commit murder,
voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary,
or housebreaking'' from article 134 to this section.
Section 6941--Burglary and Unlawful Entry
This section would amend section 929 of title 10, United
States Code (article 129 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), and re-title the section ``Burglary; unlawful
entry''. The amended section would remove the common-law
``personal dwelling'' and ``nighttime'' elements; the offense
of ``Housebreaking'' would be incorporated into article 129;
and the offense of ``Unlawful entry'' would move from article
134 to this section.
Section 6942--Stalking
This section would amend section 930 of title 10, United
States Code (article 130 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), and re-designate the section as ``Stalking''. The
amended section would update current law to address
cyberstalking and threats to intimate partners.
Section 6943--Subornation of Perjury
This section would create a new section 931a of title 10,
United States Code (article 131a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Perjury:
subornation of'' from article 134 to this new section.
Section 6944--Obstructing Justice
This section would create a new section 931b of title 10,
United States Code (article 131b of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Obstructing
justice'' from article 134 to this new section.
Section 6945--Misprision of Serious Offense
This section would create a new section 931c of title 10,
United States Code (article 131c of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Misprision of
serious offense'' from article 134 to this new section.
Section 6946--Wrongful Refusal To Testify
This section would create a new section 931d of title 10,
United States Code (article 131d of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Testify: wrongful
refusal'' from article 134 to this new section.
Section 6947--Prevention of Authorized Seizure of Property
This section would create a new section 931e of title 10,
United States Code (article 131e of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Seizure:
destruction, removal, or disposal of property to prevent'' from
article 134 to this new section.
Section 6948--Wrongful Interference With Adverse Administrative
Proceeding
This section would create a new section 931g of title 10,
United States Code (article 131g of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), and move the offense of ``Wrongful
interference with an adverse administrative proceeding'' from
article 134 to this new section.
Section 6949--Retaliation
This section would amend section 932 of title 10, United
States Code (article 132 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to establish a new offense that prohibits
retaliation.
Section 6950--Extraterritorial Application of Certain Offenses
This section would amend section 934 of title 10, United
States Code (article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (the general article)), to cover all non-capital
Federal crimes of general applicability under clause 3,
regardless of where the Federal crime is committed.
Section 6951--Table of Sections
This section would amend the table of sections for the
beginning of subchapter X of title 10, United States Code, to
reflect all proposed new sections and proposed amendments to
section headings.
TITLE LXX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 7001--Technical Amendment Relating to Courts of Inquiry
This section would amend section 935 of title 10, United
States Code (article 135 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), to provide individuals employed by the Department of
Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast Guard when it is
not operating as a service in the Navy, the right to be
designated as parties in interest when they have a direct
interest in the subject of a court of inquiry convened under
article 135, aligning their rights with those of Department of
Defense employees.
Section 7002--Technical Amendment to Article 136
This section would make a technical amendment to section
936 of title 10, United States Code (article 136 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), to remove from the section heading
the authority to act as a notary, which is not provided for in
the text of the statute.
Section 7003--Articles of Uniform Code of Military Justice To Be
Explained to Officers Upon Commissioning
This section would amend section 937 of title 10, United
States Code (article 137 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ)), to require that officers, in addition to
enlisted personnel, receive training on the UCMJ upon entry to
service, and periodically thereafter. The amendment would also
require specific military justice training for military
commanders and convening authorities; require the Secretary of
Defense to prescribe regulations for additional specialized
training on the UCMJ for combatant commanders and commanders of
combined commands; and require the Secretary of Defense to
maintain an electronic version of the UCMJ and Manual for
Court-Martial that would be updated periodically and made
available on the Internet for review by service members and the
public.
Section 7004--Military Justice Case Management; Data Collection and
Accessibility
This section would create a new section 940a of title 10,
United States Code (article 140a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), which would require the Secretary of Defense
to prescribe uniform standards and criteria for case processing
and management, military justice data collection, production
and distribution of records of trial, and access to case
information.
TITLE LXXI--MILITARY JUSTICE REVIEW PANEL AND ANNUAL REPORTS
Section 7101--Military Justice Review Panel
This section would amend section 946 of title 10, United
States Code (article 146 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ)), and re-title the section as ``Military Justice
Review Panel''. The amended section would establish an
independent panel of experts tasked to conduct a periodic
evaluation of military justice practices and procedures on a
regular basis that would replace the current UCMJ Panel.
Section 7102--Annual Reports
This section would create a new section 946a of title 10,
United States Code (article 146a of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), to compile the annual reports issued
individually by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the
Judge Advocates General, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps into a single volume.
TITLE LXXII--CONFORMING AMENDMENTS AND EFFECTIVE DATES
Section 7201--Amendments to UCMJ Subchapter Tables of Sections
This section would make conforming amendments to the tables
of sections for several subchapters of title 10, United States
Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Section 7202--Effective Dates
This section would establish the effective date of
amendments contained in this division as 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
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 10, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
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 2017'', which the Department of Defense
requests be enacted during the second session of the 114th
Congress.
The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is
stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis.
Included is a new Base Realignment and Closure legislative
proposal, which responds to Congressional concerns regarding
cost. The changes include requiring the Secretary to certify
that BRAC will have the primary objective of eliminating excess
capacity and reducing costs; emphasizing recommendations that
yield net savings within five years; and limiting
recommendations that take longer than 20 years to pay back.
These and other revisions reflect discussions with Members and
amendments to the legislation introduced in previous sessions
of Congress.
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,
Stephen C. Hedger.
Enclosure: As Stated
------
March 21, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
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 second 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 2017.''
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,
Stephen C. Hedger.
Enclosure: As Stated
------
March 29, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals relating to acquisition matters that the
Department of Defense requests be enacted during the second
session of the 114th Congress. An executive summary outlines
the overarching purposes of these proposals; the purpose of
each proposal is also 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 2017''.
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,
Stephen C. Hedger.
Enclosure: As Stated
------
April 1, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
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 second 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 2017''.
Two of the proposals would allow the Secretary of the Army
to enter into a multiyear contract for AH-64E Apache
helicopters and a multiyear contract for UH-60M/HH-60M Black
Hawk helicopters, respectively, for fiscal years 2017 through
2021. As required by section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, we have attached (1) reports containing preliminary
findings of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), together with the basis
for such findings, and (2) confirmation by the USD(AT&L) that
the preliminary findings were made after the completion of a
cost analysis performed by the Director of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation, and that the analysis supports those
preliminary findings.
The Department estimates one of the proposals (Authority
for Use of Amounts Recovered for Damage to Government Property)
would generate annual savings of up to $2 million across the
Department. It al so would generate an annual PA YGO cost of $2
million because recoveries are no longer deposited into the
Treasury, but are made available for obligation by the
Department, increasing net outlays.
$millions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY FY
2015 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 5-year 10-year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary.................. ...... ...... -$2m -$2m -$2m -$2m -$2m -$10m -$20m
Mandatory...................... ...... ...... $2m $2m $2m $2m $2m $10m $20m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
Tressa Guenov.
Enclosure: As Stated
------
April 12, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
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 second 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 2017.''
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,
Stephen C. Hedger.
Enclosure: As Stated
------
April 14, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
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 second session of the 114th Congress. The
purpose of these proposals is to effectuate the
Administration's plan to close the detention facilities at the
U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 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 2017''.
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,
Stephen C. Hedger.
Enclosure: As Stated
------
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, April 29, 2016.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing concerning H.R. 4909, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
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 3, 2016.
Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. I agree that the Committee on Agriculture 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 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 3, 2016.
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. 4909, the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.'' 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. 4909 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2016.
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.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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, April 29, 2016.
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 with respect to H.R. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Thank you for
consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce
with regard to H.R. 4909 on those matters within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of
H.R. 4909, 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. 4909 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 3, 2016.
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.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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, April 29, 2016.
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. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 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.
4909 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Royce,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2016.
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.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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 2, 2016.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to you concerning H.R. 4909,
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which
contains provisions within the Rule X jurisdiction of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (``the Committee'').
The Committee recognizes the need for proceeding expeditiously
to floor consideration of this important bill. Therefore, I do
not intend to request a sequential referral.
This waiver is conditional on our mutual understanding that
my decision to forego Committee consideration of this
legislation does not diminish or otherwise affect any future
claim over the matters in the bill which fall within the
Committee's jurisdiction, and that a copy of this letter and
your response acknowledging the Committee's jurisdictional
interest will be placed into the committee report on H.R. 4909
and into the Congressional Record during consideration of this
measure on the House floor.
I also intend to seek appointment of Committee members to
any House-Senate conference on this legislation and request
your support if such a request is made. Thank you for the
cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this and
other matters between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Devin Nunes,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2016.
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.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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 Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, April 29, 2016.
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 Homeland Security
in matters being considered in H.R. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
I recognize the importance of H.R. 4909 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 Homeland
Security, 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 Homeland Security also asks that you
support our request to be conferees on the provisions over
which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference
on this or any related bill.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2016.
Hon. Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. I agree that the Committee on Homeland Security 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 Homeland Security 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 29, 2016.
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. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. 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 placing this letter in the
committee report on H.R. 4909 and in the Congressional Record
during consideration of H.R. 4909 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 3, 2016.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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, April 29, 2016.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 4909, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. That
bill, as ordered reported, contains provisions within the Rule
X jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, including
those affecting public lands, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Corps, the Endangered Species Act,
and historic preservation.
In the interest of permitting you to proceed expeditiously
to floor consideration of this very important bill, I 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.
4909 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 3, 2016.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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, April 28, 2016.
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. 4909, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4909 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 3, 2016.
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.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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, April 28, 2016.
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. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017. 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. 4909 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. If you have any questions, please contact Jan
Oliver, Chief Counsel to the Committee, at 202-225-3924.
Sincerely,
Steve Chabot,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2016.
Hon. Steve Chabot,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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, April 28, 2016.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing concerning H.R. 4909, the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,''
which your Committee ordered reported on April 28, 2016.
H.R. 4909 contains provisions within the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology'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
Science, Space, and Technology 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 Science, Space, and Technology 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 Congressional Record
during the floor consideration of this bill.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Lamar Smith,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2016.
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.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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, April 28, 2016.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write concerning H.R. 4909, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 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. 4909 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 3, 2016.
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.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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, May 2, 2016.
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. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. However, in order to expedite
floor consideration of this important legislation, the
committee waives consideration of the bill.
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. 4909 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 3, 2016.
Hon. Jeff Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. 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, April 29, 2016.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing to you concerning H.R.
4909, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017.'' This legislation contains provisions that fall within
the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I
am willing to waive my committee's right to sequential
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving formal
consideration of the bill, the Committee on Ways and Means does
not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject
matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X
jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name
members of my committee to any conference committee that is
convened to consider such provisions.
Please include this letter and your response confirming our
understanding in the committee report on H.R. 4909, and in the
Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the
House floor.
Sincerely,
Kevin Brady,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2016.
Hon. Kevin Brady,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has a valid
jurisdictional claim 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 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.
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, 2016.
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 and
revenue effects of H.R. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, as ordered reported by
the House Committee on Armed Services on April 28, 2016. This
preliminary estimate is based on legislative language for H.R.
4909 that was provided to CBO on May 2, 2016. CBO's complete
cost estimate for H.R. 4909, including discretionary costs,
will be provided shortly.
H.R. 4909 would make several changes to military retirement
and health care benefits. The bill also would make changes to
the national defense stockpile, reduce unobligated balances in
the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund, and require women to register with the Selective Service.
Several other provisions would change direct spending by an
insignificant amount over the 2017-2026 period. On a
preliminary basis, CBO estimates that in total enacting H.R.
4909 would reduce net direct spending by $206 million over the
2017-2026 period (see attached table).
The bill also would make numerous changes to the military
justice system that CBO expects would increase the amount of
fines and forfeitures of pay that are assessed at military
courts-martial by less than $500,000 over the next 10 years.
Those fines are classified as revenues. Because enacting the
bill would affect direct spending and revenues, pay-as-you-go
procedures apply.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is David Newman.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Attachment.
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT OF H.R. 4909 ON DIRECT SPENDING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2017-2021 2017-2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquisition Workforce Fund
Budget Authority.......................... -475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -475 -475
Estimated Outlays......................... -113 -120 14 36 20 5 0 0 0 0 -163 -158
Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance
Estimated Budget Authority................ 0 240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 240
Estimated Outlays......................... 0 220 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 240
Stockpile Disposal/Purchases
Estimated Budget Authority................ -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -75 -150
Estimated Outlays......................... -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -15 -75 -150
Combat Related Special Compensation
Estimated Budget Authority................ 0 -1 -3 -6 -8 -11 -14 -17 -20 -23 -18 -103
Estimated Outlays......................... 0 -1 -3 -5 -8 -12 -14 -16 -20 -23 -17 -102
Selective Service Registration
Estimated Budget Authority................ 0 -2 -3 -4 -5 -7 -7 -9 -9 -10 -15 -56
Estimated Outlays......................... 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -7 -8 -9 -9 -11 -50
Survivor Benefit Plan
Estimated Budget Authority................ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 13
Estimated Outlays......................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 13
Tricare Reform
Estimated Budget Authority................ 0 * * * -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -12
Estimated Outlays......................... 0 * * * -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -12
Stockpile Recycling/Qualifying
Estimated Budget Authority................ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 10
Estimated Outlays......................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 10
Medals of Honor
Estimated Budget Authority................ 1 1 * * 1 * * * * * 3 3
Estimated Outlays......................... 1 1 * * 1 * * * * * 3 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Changes in Direct Spending
Estimated Budget Authority............ -487 225 -19 -23 -27 -33 -36 -40 -43 -47 -332 -530
Estimated Outlays..................... -125 86 16 15 -6 -27 -36 -38 -43 -46 -15 -206
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Several other provisions of H.R. 4909 would affect direct spending by an insignificant amount. Provisions to modify the military justice system
would increase revenues by an insignificant amount.
Details may not sum to totals because of rounding; * = less than $500,000.
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 2017 and for the ensuing 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. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 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. 4909 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 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 committee notes with concern that the disparity between
declining resources and proliferating threats has forced
military commanders to make difficult decisions that have
weakened the force. Often commanders have been forced to defer
maintenance, reduce training, and delay procurement of
replacement systems in order to provide those deployed with the
training and capabilities they need. The committee recognizes
and concurs that the military is obligated to support forward
deployed forces; however, doing so at the expense of training
and equipping forces that are preparing to deploy is a
dangerous and ultimately unsustainable strategy. The committee
believes that our service men and women should not be sent out
on missions for which they are not fully prepared. Cuts in
personnel, training, maintenance, and procurement are leading
to that result.
In an attempt to reverse this trend, the bill would provide
$566.50 billion to support core Department of Defense
requirements, an increase of $18.00 billion over the budget
request. The bill further provides Overseas Contingency
Operations funding for ongoing operations of nearly $35.70
billion, which will support contingency operations at the
current operational tempo until April 2017. The total funding
authorized for national defense in the bill is the same as the
level proposed by the budget request. The Chairman's
expectation is that a new President will assess the national
security landscape and submit a supplemental budget request for
Overseas Contingency Operations for the remainder of fiscal
year 2017.
While readiness shortfalls will take many years to correct,
the bill halts and begins to reverse the drawdown of military
end strength. The bill also fully funds over $2.50 billion in
unfunded training and maintenance. The committee recognizes
that military readiness cannot be improved solely through
personnel and maintenance. Platforms deployed well beyond their
intended useful life, inadequate supplies of high-demand
assets, outdated technology, and equipment that is too
expensive to maintain all exacerbate the readiness crisis. The
bill makes key investments to accelerate the transition to new,
more effective, and more reliable platforms, and provides
additional high-demand assets to reduce the stress on the
force. The fourth area of investment to improve readiness is
facilities. The bill supports 90 percent of requirements for
facilities sustainment and 88 percent of requirements for
facilities restoration and modernization. This is an increase
of 19 percent above the budget request in each category. This
funding will be used to restore and maintain real property,
ranging from barracks to hangars, and runways to hospitals.
Each of these investments was identified as a critical
requirement by the military services for which the services
have been accepting risk.
Where possible, the bill also cuts excessive or wasteful
expenditures and rededicates those resources to urgent needs.
Even with a vigorous re-prioritization of programs, the
committee was unable to address the readiness crisis and
simultaneously provide a full year of contingency funding. The
committee intends other reforms contained in this bill to
incrementally restore strength to the force and agility over
the long term, while providing a solid foundation for future
administrations to address national security needs. Indeed, the
committee took steps to reform the acquisition system, military
healthcare system, the commissary system, the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, defense strategic planning, joint duty
assignments, and the structure of the military leadership 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.
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. 4909 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. 4909 requires seven
instances of 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. 4909. The
record of these votes is contained in the following pages.
The committee ordered H.R. 4909 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. 4909
On Duckworth Log 057
Description: Treat F-35 Block 4 modernization as an MDAP.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................... ........ ........ .......... 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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 20 41 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 2
h.r. 4909
On Fleming Log 181
Description: Prohibits funds for executive order mandates
from 2013 and 2015 related to green energy benchmarks, climate
change boards, councils, and working groups and inclusion of
climate change review throughout DOD operations, acquisition,
logistics, and planning.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ ........ .......... 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................... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. MacArthur................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 29 30 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 3
h.r. 4909
On Conaway Log 279
Description: Prohibits DOD from using FY17 funding for the
construction or refurbishment of a biofuels facility, subject
to a national security waiver.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.... ........ ........ ..........
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 29 32 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 4
h.r. 4909
On Rogers Log 188
Description: Requires the Army to transfer excess .45
caliber M1911A1 pistols to the Civilian Marksmanship Program
(CMP).
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.... ........ ........ ..........
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 40 21 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 5
h.r. 4909
On Bridenstine Log 25r1
Description: Prohibits housing unaccompanied alien children
on US military installations located inside the US.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.... ........ ........ ..........
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 35 26 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 6
h.r. 4909
On Bishop Log 248
Description: Strikes section 2841 that standardizes
expirations dates for military land withdrawals and adds new
section that makes withdrawals of public lands for military
ranges in several states permanent.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.... ........ ........ ..........
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 28 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 7
h.r. 4909
On Bishop Log 184
Description: Provides limited authority for Air Force to
control public access to certain parcels of public lands on
Utah Test and Training Range for next generation weapons
testing; provides for federal-state land exchange and clarifies
rights of way on certain roads.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.... ........ ........ ..........
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 35 26 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 8
h.r. 4909
On Bridenstine Log 028
Description: Delists the Lesser Prairie Chicken from the
Endangered Species Act for a period of 5 years to allow states
to implement range-wide conservation plan. Delists the American
Burying Beetle from the ESA.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 29 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 9
h.r. 4909
On Coffman Log 194
Description: Amendment to include the Military LAND Act.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 28 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 10
h.r. 4909
On Hunter Log 224
Description: Expands the military selective service
requirements to female citizens and residents of the U.S.
between the ages of 18 and 26.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 32 30 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 11
h.r. 4909
On Speier Log 99
Description: Enables service members to receive abortion
services at defense medical facilities if they personally
provide funding.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 25 37 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 12
h.r. 4909
On Larsen Log 158.
Description: Strikes section 1656, which relates to the
development of a space-based missile defense layer.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 35 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 13
h.r. 4909
On Langevin Log 249
Description: Requires MDA to successfully test the
redesigned kill vehicle before a final production decision is
made (except for limited long-lead items).
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 35 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 14
h.r. 4909
On Aguilar Log 006
Description: Modification of CBO review of cost estimates
for nuclear weapons.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 26 36 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 15
h.r. 4909
On Garamendi Log 204r1
Description: Amends the report required in section 1612.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 37 25 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 16
h.r. 4909
On Conaway Log 221r2
Description: Substitute to Walz Log 262 to strike section
311. This amendment says no USDA CCC funds shall be spent on
biofuels.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 31 31 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 17
h.r. 4909
On Thornberry Log 337
Description: Perfecting amendment to Smith Log 301.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 34 28 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 18
h.r. 4909
On Russell Log 232r2
Description: Addresses protection of civil rights and
disabilities.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 29 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 19
h.r. 4909
On Kline Log 013
Description: Exempt DOD and NNSA from EO 13673, ``Fair Pay
and Safe Workplaces'' Rule.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 34 28 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 20
h.r. 4909
On Gabbard Log 282r2
Description: This amendment strikes the language in section
1221, which modifies and extends the authority to provide
assistance to vetted Syrian opposition.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Ms. Sanchez ........ ........ ..........
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 9 52 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 21
h.r. 4909
On Tsongas Log 069
Description: Strikes section 2864 in the underlying bill
related to the Greater Sage Grouse.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 27 35 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 22
h.r. 4909
On Walz Log 262
Description: Strikes section 311, to prohibit DOD from
using Department of Agriculture funds for alternative fuel
procurement.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 33 29 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
114th Congress
roll call vote no. 23
h.r. 4909
On Final Passage
Description: On motion by Mr. Forbes to report the bill
H.R. 4909 as amended, favorably to the House, with a
recommendation that it do pass.
April 27, 2016.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................. ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
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 ADDITIONAL VIEWS FOR H.R. 4909, THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
I congratulate Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith
on the passage of the committee mark for the 55th National
Defense Authorization Act. I deeply appreciate the effort my
colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee put into
preparing a committee mark that aims to ensure that the United
States has a smart and strong national defense, and I believe
it helps advance our ability to defend this nation. However,
there are several areas of concern that I have with this bill,
and I look forward to our continued work to improve this
critically important legislation.
Despite some significant reservations, I supported the
overall bill because of the bipartisan effort of this committee
to address a number of issues vital to national security. I
commend the committee's decision to fully fund the maintenance
and modernization programs that sustain our nation's essential
Air Mobility and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
missions, as well as the robust investment in Department of
Defense's cyber operations and programs. In addition, I am
pleased that the committee acknowledged the need for specific
justifications and estimated costs for a number of upcoming
nuclear weapons programs, including the Long Range Standoff
Weapon (LRSO), Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD), and the
modification of various aircraft to carry the B61-12 gravity
bomb. I also applaud the committee for adopting my amendment
that provides DOD with the authority to quickly acquire
innovative commercial items from non-traditional sources and
stay ahead of cybersecurity threats. Finally, I am pleased that
the committee voted in favor of my amendment to advance efforts
to establish a nationwide backup to GPS. GPS represents a
single point of failure for both military and civilian users,
putting our telecommunication, financial, energy, and
navigation systems at risk. We must address this vulnerability
as quickly as possible.
However, I have deep concerns about the way this bill's
funding is structured. By transferring $18 billion of Overseas
Contingency Operations to base budget requirements, it
circumvents the Bipartisan Budget Act that was negotiated in
good faith last year. As currently structured, funding for our
overseas operations will run out of money halfway through the
fiscal year, forcing the next president and the next Congress
to produce a high-stakes supplemental funding bill next spring
to keep our troops funded. This is not a responsible approach.
I am also deeply troubled by the nearly $10 billion this
bill spends on nuclear weapons activities--$317 million above
the President's request. By doing so, we are setting ourselves
on a path to spend a trillion dollars over the next 25 to 30
years to upgrade our nuclear arsenal and accelerate a new
nuclear arms race. The new weapons systems we are developing,
including the LRSO and GBSD, are incredibly expensive and
destabilizing. While I am pleased that this bill requires DOD
to fully justify why it believes these weapons are needed and
explain to the public how they enhance, rather than jeopardize,
our national security, I also believe that this $317 million is
better spent on improving our troops' readiness with equipment
and training.
Beyond the excessive spending on nuclear weapons, I remain
concerned by the bill's reauthorization of the Iraq and Syria
Train & Equip programs without proper oversight. Despite the
billions of dollars we've spent on these two programs, they
have proven to have limited effectiveness and their legality is
questionable without an updated Authorization for Use of
Military Force. We've been conducting nearly two years of
fighting against ISIL, and it's time we do our Constitutional
duty to vote on an appropriate new AUMF that authorizes
extended military action in Syria and Iraq.
Our job is about choices. As members of the House Armed
Services Committee, these choices determine whether or not our
men and women in uniform have the support and resources they
need to defend this nation. Are we willing to sacrifice our
troops' readiness for programs that are wasteful at best and
dangerously destabilizing at worst? These are the questions we
must ask ourselves as we move the NDAA to the floor and through
the conference process. 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
look forward to working with my colleagues to shape an NDAA
that provides for a smart and strong defense.
John Garamendi.
CONGRESSMEN STEVE RUSSELL'S ADDITIONAL VIEWS FOR H.R. 4909, THE FISCAL
YEAR 2017 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
As a combat veteran, I am concerned regarding the adoption
of an amendment in the committee markup that would require
females to register for the Selective Service. There have been
no studies on this issue, or any research into possible
implications to the welfare of our American warfighters,
American families, and our nation. As such, I am against such a
policy and also have serious moral reservations about such a
policy.
It is my view that prior to adoption of such a major policy
change with enormous impact to our readiness and the defense of
our republic, we must have at least the most basic of research
into this matter conducted. This is a major shift in policy,
and it must be done in a measured, standards-based process. As
a combat veteran, I understand the sacrifices of service, and I
hope that this, along with a broader discussion on Selective
Service and mobilization in general, will get the close study
they deserve prior to becoming law.
Steve Russell.
[all]