[Senate Report 114-255]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                    Calendar No. 469
                                                    
114th Congress  }                                       { Report
                              SENATE                     
2d Session      }                                       { 114-255
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 2943]

                                   on

     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

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                               ----------                              

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE


                                     


                                     


                  May 18, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
                  
                  
                  

                                     

                                     

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
        
        
        
        


114th Congress }                                        {   Report
                               SENATE                         
 2d Session    }                                        {  114-255
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 469

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 2943]

                                   on

     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

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                               __________

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     



                                     


                  May 18, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
                  
                             _________ 
                             
                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                  
 20-113 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2016       
 
 
 
  

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               BILL NELSON, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa                     JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TIM KAINE, Virginia
MIKE LEE, Utah                       ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
TED CRUZ, Texas
                    Christian Brose, Staff Director
               Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)
                                  

  
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
Purpose of the Bill..............................................     1
Committee Overview...............................................     2
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations and Budget Authority 
  Implication....................................................     3
Budgetary Effects of This Act (Sec. 4)...........................     3
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.................     5
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................     5
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................     5
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)...............     5
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................     5
        Distributed Common Ground System--Army (sec. 111)........     5
        Multiyear procurement authority for UH-60M/HH-60M Black 
          Hawk helicopters (sec. 112)............................     6
        Multiyear procurement authority for AH-64E Apache 
          helicopters (sec. 113).................................     6
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................     7
        Incremental funding for detail design and construction of 
          LHA replacement ship designated LHA-8 (sec. 121).......     7
        Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 122)..........................     7
        Certification on ship deliveries (sec. 123)..............     8
        Limitation on the use of sole source shipbuilding 
          contracts (sec. 124)...................................     9
        Limitation on availability of funds for the Advanced 
          Arresting Gear program (sec. 125)......................    11
        Limitation on procurement of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) 
          and USS Enterprise (CVN-80) (sec. 126).................    13
        Limitation on availability of funds for Tactical Combat 
          Training System Increment II (sec. 127)................    14
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................    14
        Extension of prohibition on availability of funds for 
          retirement of A-10 aircraft (sec. 141).................    14
        Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of A-
          10 aircraft in storage status (sec. 142)...............    15
        Repeal of the requirement to preserve certain retired C-5 
          aircraft (sec. 143)....................................    15
        Repeal of requirement to preserve F-117 aircraft in 
          recallable condition (sec. 144)........................    16
        Limitation on availability of funds for EC-130H Compass 
          Call recapitalization program (sec. 145)...............    16
        Limitation on availability of funds for Joint 
          Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) 
          recapitalization program (sec. 146)....................    17
    Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters....    18
        Report to Congress on independent study of future mix of 
          aircraft platforms for the Armed Forces (sec. 151).....    18
        Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of 
          certain cluster munitions and report on Department of 
          Defense policy and cluster munitions (sec. 152)........    18
        Medium altitude intelligence, surveillance, and 
          reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 153).....................    19
    Budget Items.................................................    19
        Army.....................................................    19
            Survivability Counter Measures.......................    19
            Stryker Upgrades.....................................    20
            M1 Abrams Tank (Modification)........................    20
            M1 Abrams Tank (Modification)........................    20
            Army Budget request realignment M4 Carbine 
              Modification.......................................    20
            Army Budget request realignment Hand Gun.............    20
            Army ammunition reduction............................    20
            High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle..................    21
            Modification of in Service Equipment.................    21
            Warfighter Information Network-Tactical..............    21
            Distributed Common Ground System-Army (Military 
              Intelligence Program)..............................    21
            Light Weight Counter Mortar Radar....................    21
            Modification of In-Service Equipment (Lightweight 
              Laser Designator Rangefinder)......................    22
            Counterfire Radars...................................    22
            Maneuver Control System..............................    22
            Automated Data Processing Equipment..................    22
            Army Contract Writing System.........................    22
            Distribution Systems, Petroleum and Water............    22
            Mobile Maintenance Equipment Systems.................    22
            Construction Equipment Engineer Support Companies....    23
            Army Watercraft Extended Service Program.............    23
            Modification of In-Service Equipment (Other 
              Procurement, Army 3)...............................    23
        Navy.....................................................    23
            F-35B Spares.........................................    23
            Tomahawk missile.....................................    23
            AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.......    24
            Ordnance support equipment...........................    24
            Navy and Marine Corps ammunition reduction...........    24
            Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.......................    24
            Littoral Combat Ship.................................    25
            Amphibious ship replacement LX(R)....................    25
            Destroyer modernization..............................    25
            LCS common mission modules equipment.................    25
            Surveillance towed array sensor system...............    25
            Surface electronic warfare improvement program.......    25
            Minesweeping system replacement......................    26
        Air Force................................................    26
            UH-1N helicopter replacement program.................    26
            Fourth generation fighter capability upgrades........    26
            Budget request realignments..........................    27
        Defense Wide.............................................    27
            Mentor Protege reduction.............................    27
            MH-60M training loss replacement.....................    28
            MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.........................    28
            AC-130J A-kit procurement............................    28
    Items of Special Interest....................................    28
        Aegis radar improvements.................................    28
        Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload....................    29
        Army Modular Handgun System (MHS)........................    29
        B-21 supply chain........................................    30
        B-52 radar replacement program...........................    30
        C-130 engine enhancements................................    30
        Comptroller General of the United States assessment of 
          Department of Defense F-35 deployment planning efforts.    31
        DDG-51 destroyer production gap..........................    32
        Department of Defense report on improvements to the 
          munitions requirements process.........................    32
        E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleet 
          Block 40/45 upgrade....................................    32
        EA-18G Growler requirement...............................    33
        Enhanced tactical mobility for infantry brigade combat 
          teams..................................................    33
        F-16 mission training centers............................    33
        High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) 
          ambulance..............................................    34
        Munitions availability...................................    34
        Navy maritime security barriers..........................    35
        Ohio-class replacement submarine program.................    35
        Paladin Integrated Management (PIM)......................    36
        Patriot Product Improvement..............................    36
        Radiation Detection Technology...........................    36
        Report on disposition options for previously modified C-
          130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) aircraft.....    36
        Review of Army salutes, honors, and visits of courtesy in 
          relation to use of 75MM blank rounds...................    37
        Shipbuilding guarantees..................................    37
        Unmet COCOM Cruise Missile Defense Requirement...........    38
        USAF Eagle Vision program................................    38
        V-22 defensive weapon system.............................    39
        Virginia-class submarines................................    39
        Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)..........    40
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............    43
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    43
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)...............    43
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................    43
        Modification of mechanisms to provide funds for defense 
          laboratories for research and development of 
          technologies for military missions (sec. 211)..........    43
        Making permanent authority for defense research and 
          development rapid innovation program (sec. 212)........    44
        Authorization for National Defense University and Defense 
          Acquisition University to enter into cooperative 
          research and development agreements (sec. 213).........    44
        Manufacturing Universities Grant Program (sec. 214)......    44
        Increased micro-purchase threshold for basic research 
          programs and activities of the Department of Defense 
          science and technology reinvention laboratories (sec. 
          215)...................................................    45
        Directed energy weapon system programs (sec. 216)........    46
        Limitation on B-21 Engineering and Manufacturing 
          Development program funds (sec. 217)...................    47
        Pilot program on disclosure of certain sensitive 
          information to contractors performing under contracts 
          with Department of Defense federally funded research 
          and development centers (sec. 218).....................    47
        Pilot program on enhanced interaction between the Defense 
          Advanced Research Projects Agency and the service 
          academies (sec. 219)...................................    48
        Modification of authority for use of operation and 
          maintenance funds for unspecified minor construction 
          projects consisting of laboratory revitalization (sec. 
          220)...................................................    48
    Budget Items.................................................    49
        Materials technology.....................................    49
        Sensors and electronic survivability.....................    49
        Social science research..................................    49
        Army vehicle prototyping.................................    50
        Electronic warfare technology............................    50
        Advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology.    50
        Small Arms Improvement...................................    51
        Army contract writing system.............................    51
        Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army................    51
        Aircraft survivability development.......................    51
        Technical information activities.........................    51
        Aerostat joint project-COCOM exercise....................    51
        Combat vehicle improvement programs......................    52
        Army Global Combat Support System Increment 2............    52
        Distributed Common Ground/Surface System.................    52
        Undersea warfare applied research........................    52
        Power projection advanced technology.....................    52
        Capable manpower and power and energy....................    53
        Large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle...............    53
        Littoral Combat Ship mission modules.....................    53
        Amphibious ship replacement LX(R)........................    53
        Extra large unmanned underwater vehicle..................    53
        Marine Corps cyber protection team fly-away kits.........    54
        Management, technical, and international support.........    54
        Aerospace propulsion.....................................    54
        High energy laser joint technology office................    54
        Silicon carbide for aerospace power applications.........    55
        Electronic combat technology.............................    55
        Battlespace knowledge development and demonstration......    55
        B-21 long range strike bomber............................    56
        Operationally Responsive Space program...................    56
        Advanced Pilot Training Program..........................    56
        KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program...........    56
        Evolved Advanced Extremely High Frequency MILSATCOM......    56
        B-2 Defensive Management System Modernization............    57
        MQ-9 automatic takeoff and landing control system........    57
        Air Force Cost Estimating Module (CEM)...................    57
        Air Force Program Budget Enterprise Service (PBES).......    57
        Budget request realignments..............................    57
        Operational energy capability improvement increase.......    58
        Post intercept assessment acceleration...................    58
        Israeli cooperative missile defense program..............    58
        Ground based interceptor booster acceleration............    58
        Redesigned kill vehicle risk reduction...................    59
        Multiple object kill vehicle technology maturation.......    59
        High altitude long endurance solar powered unmanned 
          aircraft...............................................    59
        Corrosion control and prevention funding increase........    59
        Directed energy systems prototyping......................    59
        Development test and evaluation..........................    60
        Information Systems Security Program at the National 
          Security Agency........................................    60
        Sharkseer 2.0............................................    61
        MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.............................    62
        Sharkseer email protection...............................    62
    Items of Special Interest....................................    63
        Active protection systems................................    63
        Advanced airlift airship technology......................    63
        Advanced weapons technology..............................    65
        Assessment of status of little used research and 
          development infrastructure assets......................    65
        Bradley Fighting Vehicle Transmission Competition........    65
        Conformal phased array antennas..........................    66
        Department of Defense technology offset program to build 
          and maintain the military technological superiority of 
          the United States......................................    66
        Digital polarimetric radar development...................    68
        Expedited hiring at Department of Defense laboratories...    68
        Human augmentation technology for industrial operations..    68
        Hypersonic wind tunnel capabilities......................    69
        Immunosuppression associated with Anthrax Prophylaxis....    69
        Integration of nanoscale techniques for improved battery 
          technology.............................................    70
        Laser weapon system demonstrator.........................    70
        Littoral Combat Ship propulsion and machinery control 
          test capability........................................    70
        Long-range threat detection..............................    71
        Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio......................    71
        Military medical photonics...............................    71
        MQ-XX....................................................    71
        Night Vision Device Reset................................    72
        Night Vision Reset.......................................    73
        Plan to reduce the footprint of aged chemical and 
          biological weapons facilities at Aberdeen Proving 
          Ground.................................................    73
        Review of balance between Department of Defense 
          developmental and operational test and evaluation......    73
        Silicon Carbide Technology...............................    75
        Simulation training......................................    75
        Single appropriation for developmental test and 
          evaluation and test resources..........................    76
        Study on best practices for laboratory management 
          techniques.............................................    76
        Subsurface threat detection systems......................    78
        The improved turbine engine program (ITEP) for Army 
          rotary wing aviation...................................    78
        Third offset technology--industrial base concerns........    78
        Troposcatter Systems.....................................    79
        United States Special Operations Command, Airborne High 
          Energy Lazer...........................................    79
        Working capital fund efficiencies........................    79
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................    80
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    80
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)...............    80
    Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment.......................    80
        Modified reporting requirement related to installations 
          energy management (sec. 302)...........................    80
        Report on efforts to reduce high energy cost at military 
          installations (sec. 303)...............................    80
        Utility data management for military facilities (sec. 
          304)...................................................    80
        Linear LED lamps (sec. 305)..............................    81
    Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................    81
        Deployment prioritization and readiness of Army units 
          (sec. 311).............................................    81
        Revision of guidance related to corrosion control and 
          prevention executives (sec. 312).......................    81
        Repair, recapitalization, and certification of dry docks 
          at Naval shipyards (sec. 313)..........................    81
    Subtitle D--Reports..........................................    81
        Modifications to Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress 
          (sec. 321).............................................    81
        Report on HH-60G sustainment and Combat Rescue Helicopter 
          (CRH) program (sec. 322)...............................    82
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................    82
        Repurposing and reuse of surplus military firearms (sec. 
          331)...................................................    82
        Limitation on development and fielding of new camouflage 
          and utility uniforms (sec. 332)........................    82
        Hazard assessments related to new construction of 
          obstructions on military installations (sec. 333)......    83
        Plan for modernized Air Force dedicated adversary air 
          training enterprise (sec. 334).........................    83
        Independent study to review and assess the effectiveness 
          of the Air Force Ready Aircrew Program (sec. 335)......    84
        Mitigation of risks posed by certain window coverings 
          with accessible cords in military housing units in 
          which children reside (sec. 336).......................    84
        Tactical explosive detection dogs (sec. 337).............    85
        STARBASE Program (sec. 338)..............................    85
        Access to Department of Defense Installations for drivers 
          of vehicles of online transportation network companies 
          (sec. 339).............................................    85
        Women's military service memorials and museums (sec. 340)    85
    Budget Items.................................................    85
        Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard readiness 
          unfunded priorities increases..........................    85
        Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization 
          increases..............................................    86
        Army advertising reduction...............................    87
        Army museum reduction....................................    88
        United States Southern Command unfunded priorities 
          increase...............................................    88
        Printing reductions to active service components and 
          defense-wide...........................................    88
        Distributed Common Ground System--Army...................    88
        Foreign currency fluctuations............................    89
        Bulk fuel savings........................................    89
        Army National Guard psychological health increase........    90
        Army National Guard underexecution reduction.............    90
        Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases.............    90
        Navy enterprise information reduction....................    90
        United States Southern Command unfunded priorities 
          increase in security programs..........................    91
        Naval History and Heritage Command reduction.............    91
        Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases.....    91
        Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard 
          readiness unfunded priorities increases................    92
         Air Force advertising reduction.........................    92
        Special Operations Command civilian compensation.........    92
        Defense Logistics Agency Price Comparability Office......    92
        Defense Security Cooperation Agency foreign partner 
          engagement programs....................................    93
        Funding for impact aid...................................    93
        Office of Economic Adjustment reduction..................    93
        Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and 
          closure planning and support...........................    94
        Department of Defense rewards program reduction..........    94
        Funding for Secretary of Defense delivery unit...........    94
        National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
          Service................................................    94
        Funding for waiver of long-term temporary duty travel per 
          diem rates.............................................    94
        Modeling of an Alternative Army Design and Operational 
          Concept................................................    95
    Items of Special Interest....................................    95
        Additive manufacturing recommendations...................    95
        Addressing unacceptable conditions at al Udeid Air Base..    96
        Advertising activities among the military service 
          components.............................................    96
        Army Foundry Military Intelligence Program...............    97
        Army requirements for footwear technology................    97
        Assessment of Navy and Marine Corps training requirements    98
        Assessment on duplication and inefficiencies within the 
          Defense Logistics Agency and United States 
          Transportation Command.................................    99
        Battery standardization plan.............................   100
        Civil Air Patrol (CAP)...................................   100
        Clarification of the Department of Defense's authority to 
          perform environmental response actions on other 
          agency's lands in the case of aircraft crashes.........   101
        Clarification on the importance of operation and 
          maintenance savings....................................   101
        Comprehensive review of the Army sustainable readiness 
          model..................................................   101
        Comptroller General review of emerging contaminants on 
          military installations.................................   102
        Comptroller General review of F-22A global force posture.   103
        Cyber implementation at the combat training centers......   104
        Cybersecurity guidelines for micro-grids.................   104
        Defense Logistics Agency overhead costs..................   104
        Defining readiness and interoperability for commercial 
          carriers...............................................   105
        Demilitarization of conventional munitions...............   106
        Department of Defense transportation protective services.   107
        Department of Defense weapon system sustainment strategy.   107
        Department of Defense's use of executive agents..........   108
        Development and procurement of combat personal protective 
          equipment for different body types.....................   108
        Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training 
          (IRT) program..........................................   109
        Energy resiliency metrics................................   110
        Enhanced transparency in Department of Defense fuel rate 
          pricing................................................   110
        Examination and recommendations regarding reimbursement 
          process major range test base facilities...............   111
        Expanding the number of younger cyber security 
          professionals on Department of Defense contracts.......   112
        Expansion of Surface Warfare Officer School basic 
          division officer course................................   112
        Expeditionary equipment and forward operating bases......   113
        Flame resistant uniforms.................................   114
        Foreign language training report.........................   114
        Impacts to the defense industrial base from carryover 
          reductions.............................................   115
        Installation security....................................   116
        Item unique identification implementation and 
          verification...........................................   117
        Joint-Military Service approach to prepositioning........   117
        Modernization of emergency power generation..............   118
        National Test and Training Range Improvements............   118
        New Hampshire water contamination........................   119
        Objective training readiness reporting...................   119
        Physical security of sensitive conventional ammunition 
          items at Department of Defense and contractor locations   120
        Public shipyard funding and capital investment to support 
          defense operations.....................................   121
        Rebuilding readiness.....................................   121
        Report on equipment purchased under sole source contracts   122
        Report on M240 Sustainment and the small arms industrial 
          base...................................................   123
        Report on non-combat training requirements for Army, 
          Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps servicemembers.......   123
        Report on reset and sustainment of material handling 
          equipment..............................................   124
        Requirements model for restoration and modernization 
          funds at Department of Defense installations...........   124
        Resiliency through improved utilization of CHP and WHP...   125
        Review of Navy Coastal Riverine Forces...................   125
        Software-based foreign language training and sustainment.   126
        Study on power storage capacity requirement..............   126
        Synthetic and simulation training to enhance small arms 
          weapons skills and combat readiness....................   127
        Third party financed energy projects.....................   127
        Third party financed energy savings performance contracts   129
        Warfighter technology....................................   129
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   131
    Subtitle A--Active Personnel.................................   131
        End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)...............   131
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   131
        End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............   131
        End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of 
          the reserves (sec. 412)................................   131
        End strengths for military technicians (dual status) 
          (sec. 413).............................................   132
        Fiscal year 2017 limitation on number of non-dual status 
          technicians (sec. 414).................................   132
        Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
          active duty for operational support (sec. 415).........   132
        Technical corrections to annual authorization for 
          personnel strengths (sec. 416).........................   133
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   133
        Military personnel (sec. 421)............................   133
    Budget Items.................................................   133
        Military personnel funding changes.......................   133
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   135
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   135
        Reform of distribution and authorized strength of general 
          and flag officers (sec. 501)...........................   135
        Repeal of statutory specification of general or flag 
          officer grade for various positions in the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 502).............................................   135
        Temporary suspension of officer grade strength tables 
          (sec. 503).............................................   136
        Enhanced authority for service credit for experience or 
          advanced education upon original appointment as a 
          commissioned officer (sec. 504)........................   136
        Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of 
          particular merit be placed at the top of the promotion 
          list (sec. 505)........................................   137
        Promotion eligibility period for officers whose 
          confirmation of appointment is delayed due to 
          nonavailability to the Senate of probative information 
          under control of non-Department of Defense agencies 
          (sec. 506).............................................   137
        Length of joint duty assignments (sec. 507)..............   137
        Modification of definitions relating to joint officer 
          management (sec. 508)..................................   137
        Continuation of certain officers on Active Duty without 
          regard to requirement for retirement for years of 
          service (sec. 509).....................................   137
        Extension of force management authorities allowing 
          enhanced flexibility for officer personnel management 
          (sec. 510).............................................   138
    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   138
        Authority for temporary waiver of limitation on term of 
          service of Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
          (sec. 521).............................................   138
        Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to 
          be considered for selection for promotion (sec. 522)...   138
        Rights and protections available to military technicians 
          (sec. 523).............................................   139
        Extension of suicide prevention and resilience programs 
          for the National Guard and Reserves (sec. 524).........   139
        Inapplicability of certain laws to National Guard 
          technicians performing Active Guard and Reserve duty 
          (sec. 525).............................................   139
    Subtitle C--General Service Authorities......................   139
        Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for 
          standards and qualifications for military specialties 
          within the Armed Forces (sec. 531).....................   139
        Leave matters (sec. 532).................................   140
        Transfer of provision relating to expenses incurred in 
          connection with leave canceled due to contingency 
          operations (sec. 533)..................................   140
        Reduction of tenure on the temporary disability retired 
          list (sec. 534)........................................   140
        Prohibition on enforcement of military commission rulings 
          preventing members of the Armed Forces from carrying 
          out otherwise lawful duties based on member gender 
          (sec. 535).............................................   141
        Board for the Correction of Military Records and 
          Discharge Review Board matters (sec. 536)..............   141
        Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to 
          qualifications for enlistment in the reserve components 
          of the Armed Forces (sec. 537).........................   141
    Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters....   142
        PART I--Retaliation......................................   142
            Report to complainants of resolution of 
              investigations into retaliation (sec. 541).........   142
            Training for Department of Defense personnel on 
              sexual assault trauma in individuals claiming 
              retaliation in connection with reports of sexual 
              assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 542).............   142
            Inclusion in annual reports on sexual assault 
              prevention and response efforts of the Armed Forces 
              of information on complaints of retaliation in 
              connection with reports of sexual assault in the 
              Armed Forces (sec. 543)............................   142
            Metrics for evaluating the efforts of the Armed 
              Forces to prevent and respond to retaliation in 
              connection with reports of sexual assault in the 
              Armed Forces (sec. 544)............................   142
        PART II--Other Military Justice Matters..................   143
            Discretionary authority for military judges to 
              designate an individual to assume the rights of the 
              victim of an offense under the Uniform Code of 
              Military Justice when the victim is a minor, 
              incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased (sec. 546).   143
            Appellate standing of victims in enforcing rights of 
              victims under the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
              (sec. 547).........................................   143
            Effective prosecution and defense in courts-martial 
              (sec. 548).........................................   143
            Pilot programs on military justice career track for 
              judge advocates (sec. 549).........................   144
            Modification of definition of sexual harassment for 
              purposes of investigations of complaints of 
              harassment by commanding officers (sec. 550).......   144
            Extension and clarification of annual reports 
              regarding sexual assault involving members of the 
              armed forces (sec. 551)............................   144
            Expansion of authority to execute certain military 
              instruments (sec. 552).............................   145
            United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 
              (sec. 553).........................................   145
    Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, and Transition.......   145
        Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty training or 
          education (sec. 561)...................................   145
        Modification of program to assist members of the Armed 
          Forces in obtaining professional credentials (sec. 562)   146
        Access to Department of Defense installations of 
          institutions of higher education providing certain 
          advising and student support services (sec. 563).......   146
        Priority processing of applications for Transportation 
          Worker Identification Credentials for members 
          undergoing discharge or release from the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 564).............................................   146
    Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family 
      Readiness Matters..........................................   147
        Continuation of authority to assist local educational 
          agencies that benefit dependents of members of the 
          Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 
          employees (sec. 571)...................................   147
        Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 
          572)...................................................   147
        Impact Aid amendments (sec. 573).........................   147
        One-year extension of authorities relating to the 
          transition and support of military dependent students 
          to local educational agencies (sec. 574)...............   148
        Comptroller General of the United States analysis of 
          unsatisfactory conditions and overcrowding at public 
          schools on military installations (sec. 575)...........   148
        Enhanced flexibility in provision of relocation 
          assistance to members of the Armed Forces and their 
          families (sec. 576)....................................   148
        Reporting on allegations of child abuse in military 
          families and homes (sec. 577)..........................   148
        Background checks for employees of agencies and schools 
          providing elementary and secondary education for 
          Department of Defense dependents (sec. 578)............   149
        Support for programs providing camp experience for 
          children of military families (sec. 579)...............   149
        Comptroller General of the United States report on 
          Exceptional Family Member Program (sec. 580)...........   149
        Repeal of Advisory Council on Dependents, Education (sec. 
          581)...................................................   150
    Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards...........................   150
        Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Charles 
          S. Kettles for acts of valor during the Vietnam war 
          (sec. 586).............................................   150
        Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Gary M. 
          Rose for action of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 
          587)...................................................   150
        Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service 
          Cross to Chaplain (First Lieutenant) Joseph Verbis 
          LaFleur for acts of valor during World War II (sec. 
          588)...................................................   150
        Posthumous advancement of Colonel George E. ``Bud'' Day, 
          United States Air Force, on the retired list (sec. 589)   150
    Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters..........   150
        Applicability of Military Selective Service Act to female 
          citizens and persons (sec. 591)........................   150
        Senior Military Acquisition Advisors in the Defense 
          Acquisition Corps (sec. 592)...........................   151
        Annual reports on progress of the Army and the Marine 
          Corps in integrating women into military occupational 
          specialties and units recently opened to women (sec. 
          593)...................................................   151
        Report on career progression tracks of the Armed Forces 
          for women in combat arms units (sec. 594)..............   152
        Repeal of requirement for a chaplain at the United States 
          Air Force Academy appointed by the President (sec. 595)   152
        Extension of limitation on reduction in number of 
          military and civilian personnel assigned to duty with 
          service review agencies (sec. 596).....................   152
    Items of Special Interest....................................   153
        Assessment of Joint Professional Military Education......   153
        Comptroller General of the United States assessment of 
          Department of Navy personnel strategies for unmanned 
          systems................................................   153
        Comptroller General of the United States review of pilot 
          programs on career flexibility to enhance retention of 
          members of the armed forces............................   154
        Comptroller General report on the continuum of offenses 
          involving unwanted sexual behavior in the armed forces.   155
        CONUS Education Options Assessment.......................   155
        Department of Defense consultation with outside experts 
          to improve sexual assault prevention and response 
          programs...............................................   156
        Department of Defense identity numbers...................   156
        Disclosure of Military Sexual Trauma During Separation 
          Examinations...........................................   156
        DoD report on implementation of GAO recommendations on 
          hazing.................................................   157
        Employment of members of the National Guard, Reserves, 
          and veterans of the Armed Forces.......................   157
        Enhancing the capabilities of Army military intelligence 
          personnel..............................................   158
        Enlisted representation..................................   158
        F-35A maintainer shortage report.........................   158
        Impact of basic allowance for housing changes on the 
          Military Housing Privatization Initiative..............   159
        Military to mariner transition...........................   159
        Pilot deficiencies.......................................   160
        Process required for adjudication of suspension or 
          termination of institutions with a voluntary education 
          partnership memoranda of understanding with Department 
          of Defense.............................................   160
        Religious accommodation in the military..................   161
        Report on litigation billets.............................   161
        Sexual assault prevention strategy.......................   162
        Space available seating for veterans with service-
          connected disabilities.................................   162
        Transition Assistance Program and reserve component 
          members................................................   162
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   163
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   163
        Fiscal year 2017 increase in military basic pay (sec. 
          601)...................................................   163
        Publication by Department of Defense of actual rates of 
          basic pay payable to members of the Armed Forces by pay 
          grade for annual or other pay periods (sec. 602).......   163
        Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in 
          rates of basic allowance for housing under certain 
          circumstances (sec. 603)...............................   163
        Reform of basic allowance for housing (sec. 604).........   163
        Repeal of obsolete authority for combat-related injury 
          rehabilitation pay (sec. 605)..........................   165
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   165
        One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay 
          authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611)..............   165
        One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay 
          authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)...   165
        One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities 
          for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................   165
        One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 
          consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus 
          authorities (sec. 614).................................   165
        One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 
          other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615).....   166
        Conforming amendment to consolidation of special pay, 
          incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 616)........   166
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   166
        Maximum reimbursement amount for travel expenses of 
          Reserves to attend inactive duty training outside of 
          normal commuting distance (sec. 621)...................   166
        Period for relocation of spouses and dependents of 
          certain members of the Armed Forces undergoing a 
          permanent change of station (sec. 622).................   166
    Subtitle D--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor 
      Benefits...................................................   167
    Part I--Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay Reform.....   167
            Election period for members in the service academies 
              and inactive Reserves to participate in the 
              modernized retirement system (sec. 631)............   167
            Effect of separation of members from the uniformed 
              services on participation in the Thrift Savings 
              Plan (sec. 632)....................................   167
            Continuation pay for members who have completed 8 to 
              12 years of service (sec. 633).....................   167
            Combat-related special compensation coordinating 
              amendment (sec. 634)...............................   167
            Sense of the Congress on Roth contributions as 
              default contributions of members of the Armed 
              Forces participating in the Thrift Savings Plan 
              under retired pay reform (sec. 635)................   168
        Part II--Other Matters...................................   168
            Extension of allowance covering monthly premium for 
              Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance while in 
              certain overseas areas to cover members in any 
              combat zone or overseas direct support area (sec. 
              641)...............................................   168
            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 (sec. 642)........   168
            Permanent extension of payment of special survivor 
              indemnity allowances under the survivor benefit 
              plan (sec. 643)....................................   168
            Authority to deduct Survivor Benefit Plan premiums 
              from combat-related special compensation when 
              retired pay not sufficient (sec. 644)..............   168
            Sense of the Congress on options for members of the 
              Armed Forces to designate payment of the death 
              gratuity to a trust for a special needs individual 
              (sec. 645).........................................   169
            Independent assessment of the Survivor Benefit Plan 
              (sec. 646).........................................   169
    Subtitle E--Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund 
      Instrumentality Benefits and Operations....................   170
        Protection and enhancement of access to and savings at 
          commissaries and exchanges (sec. 661)..................   170
        Pilot program on privatization of the Defense Commissary 
          System (sec. 662)......................................   170
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   171
        Compliance with domestic source requirements for footwear 
          furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon 
          their initial entry into the Armed Forces (sec. 671)...   171
        Authority for payment of pay and allowances and retired 
          and retainer pay pursuant to power of attorney (sec. 
          672)...................................................   171
    Items of Special Interest....................................   171
        Military forty-year pay table revision advisability 
          report.................................................   171
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   173
        Military health system reform overview...................   173
    Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits...........   177
        Reform of health care plans available under the TRICARE 
          program (sec. 701).....................................   177
        Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the 
          TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program and treatment of 
          certain pharmaceutical agents (sec. 702)...............   178
        Eligibility of certain beneficiaries under the TRICARE 
          program for participation in the Federal Employees 
          Dental and Vision Insurance Program (sec. 703).........   179
        Coverage of medically necessary food and vitamins for 
          digestive and inherited metabolic disorders under the 
          TRICARE program (sec. 704).............................   179
        Enhancement of use of telehealth services in military 
          health system (sec. 705)...............................   179
        Evaluation and treatment of veterans and civilians at 
          military treatment facilities (sec. 706)...............   180
        Pilot program to provide health insurance to members of 
          the reserve components of the Armed Forces (sec. 707)..   181
        Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces 
          for post-traumatic stress disorder related to military 
          sexual trauma (sec. 708)...............................   181
    Subtitle B--Health Care Administration.......................   182
        Consolidation of the medical departments of the Army, 
          Navy, and Air Force into the Defense Health Agency 
          (sec. 721).............................................   182
        Accountability for the performance of the military health 
          care system of certain positions in the system (sec. 
          722)...................................................   183
        Selection of commanders and directors of military 
          treatment facilities and tours of duty of commanders of 
          such facilities (sec. 723).............................   184
        Authority to convert military medical and dental 
          positions to civilian medical and dental positions 
          (sec. 724).............................................   184
        Authority to realign infrastructure of and health care 
          services provided by military treatment facilities 
          (sec. 725).............................................   185
        Acquisition of medical support contracts for TRICARE 
          program (sec. 726).....................................   185
        Authority to enter into health care contracts with 
          certain entities to provide care under the TRICARE 
          program (sec. 727).....................................   187
        Improvement of health outcomes and control of costs of 
          health care under TRICARE program through programs to 
          involve covered beneficiaries (sec. 728)...............   187
        Establishment of centers of excellence for specialty care 
          in the military health system (sec. 729)...............   188
        Program to eliminate variability in health outcomes and 
          improve quality of health care services delivered in 
          military treatment facilities (sec. 730)...............   188
        Establishment of advisory committees for military 
          treatment facilities (sec. 731)........................   189
        Standardized system for scheduling medical appointments 
          at military treatment facilities (sec. 732)............   189
        Display of wait times at urgent care clinics, emergency 
          departments, and pharmacies of military treatment 
          facilities (sec. 733)..................................   190
        Improvement and maintenance of combat casualty care and 
          trauma care skills of health care providers of 
          Department of Defense (sec. 734).......................   190
        Adjustment of medical services, personnel authorized 
          strengths, and infrastructure in military health system 
          to maintain readiness and core competencies of health 
          care providers (sec. 735)..............................   190
        Establishment of high performance military-civilian 
          integrated health delivery systems (sec. 736)..........   191
        Contracts with private sector entities to provide certain 
          health care services at military treatment facilities 
          (sec. 737).............................................   192
        Modification of acquisition strategy for health care 
          professional staffing services (sec. 738)..............   192
        Reduction of administrative requirements relating to 
          automatic renewal of enrollments in TRICARE Prime (sec. 
          739)...................................................   193
    Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................   193
        Pilot program on expansion of use of physician assistants 
          to provide mental health care to members of the Armed 
          Forces (sec. 751)......................................   193
        Implementation of plan to eliminate certain graduate 
          medical education programs of Department of Defense 
          (sec. 752).............................................   193
        Modification of authority of Uniformed Services 
          University of the Health Sciences to include 
          undergraduate and other medical education and training 
          programs (sec. 753)....................................   194
        Memoranda of agreement with institutions of higher 
          education that offer degrees in allopathic or 
          osteopathic medicine (sec. 754)........................   194
        Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-
          Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
          Demonstration Fund (sec. 755)..........................   194
        Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and 
          development projects (sec. 756)........................   194
        Authorization of reimbursement by Department of Defense 
          to entities carrying out state vaccination programs for 
          costs of vaccines provided to covered beneficiaries 
          (sec. 757).............................................   195
        Maintenance of certain reimbursement rates for care and 
          services to treat autism spectrum disorder under 
          demonstration program (sec. 758).......................   195
        Incorporation into certain surveys by Department of 
          Defense of questions on service women experiences with 
          family planning services and counseling (sec. 759).....   195
        Assessment of transition to TRICARE program by families 
          of members of reserve components called to Active Duty 
          and elimination of certain charges for such families 
          (sec. 760).............................................   195
        Requirement to review and monitor prescribing practices 
          at military treatment facilities of pharmaceutical 
          agents for treatment of post-traumatic stress (sec. 
          761)...................................................   196
        Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related 
          services for children of members of the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 762).............................................   196
        Comptroller General report on health care delivery and 
          waste in military health system (sec. 763).............   197
    Items of Special Interest....................................   197
        Cancer research programs.................................   197
        Capability to transport and treat military personnel 
          exposed to highly infectious emerging diseases.........   197
        Chronic pain.............................................   197
        Collar technology........................................   198
        Comptroller General report on military health 
          professional recruitment...............................   198
        Comptroller General report on TRICARE managed care 
          support contracts acquisition strategy and program 
          administration requirements............................   199
        Dental implants..........................................   199
        Department of Defense tobacco policy.....................   200
        Expert behavioral science support for courts-martial.....   200
        Full spectrum ultraviolet technologies...................   200
        Hearing restoration research.............................   201
        Implementation of authority for provisional TRICARE 
          coverage for emerging health care services and supplies   202
        Improvement of prosthetic care outcomes..................   202
        Maternity care...........................................   202
        Medical operations in austere environments...............   202
        Online patient portal....................................   203
        Prescription Drug Abuse..................................   203
        Psychological Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing....   203
        Reduction of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in military 
          hospital and surgical environments.....................   204
        Report on provision of behavioral health and suicide 
          prevention resources to reserve component members......   205
        TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program..   205
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 
  RELATED MATTERS................................................   207
    Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................   207
        Rapid acquisition authority amendments (sec. 801)........   207
        Authority for temporary service of Principal Military 
          Deputies to the Assistant Secretaries of the military 
          departments for acquisition as acting Assistant 
          Secretaries (sec. 802).................................   207
        Conduct of independent cost estimation and cost analysis 
          (sec. 803).............................................   207
        Modernization of services acquisition (sec. 804).........   207
        Modified notification requirement for exercise of waiver 
          authority to acquire vital national security 
          capabilities (sec. 805)................................   208
        Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private 
          competitions for conversion of Department of Defense 
          functions to performance by contractors (sec. 806).....   208
    Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, 
      Procedures, and Limitations................................   208
        Defense cost accounting standards (sec. 811).............   208
        Increased micro-purchase threshold applicable to 
          Department of Defense procurements (sec. 812)..........   209
        Enhanced competition requirements (sec. 813).............   209
        Elimination of bid and proposal costs and other expenses 
          as allowable independent research and development costs 
          on certain contracts (sec. 814)........................   209
        Exception to requirement to include cost or price to the 
          Government as a factor in the evaluation of proposals 
          for certain multiple-award task or delivery order 
          contracts (sec. 815)...................................   209
        Modified restrictions on undefinitized contractual 
          actions (sec. 816).....................................   210
        Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 817).........   210
        Comprehensive small business contracting plans (sec. 818)   210
        Limitation on task and delivery order protests (sec. 819)   211
        Modified data collection requirements applicable to 
          procurement of services (sec. 820).....................   211
        Government Accountability Office bid protest reforms 
          (sec. 821).............................................   211
        Report on bid protests (sec. 822)........................   211
        Treatment of side-by-side testing of certain equipment, 
          munitions, and technologies manufactured and developed 
          under cooperative research and development agreements 
          as use of competitive procedures (sec. 823)............   212
        Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec. 824).........   212
        Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source 
          selection process (sec. 825)...........................   212
        Penalties for the use of cost-type contracts (sec. 826)..   212
        Preference for fixed-price contracts (sec. 827)..........   213
        Requirement to use firm fixed-price contracts for foreign 
          military sales (sec. 828)..............................   214
        Preference for performance-based contractual payments 
          (sec. 829).............................................   214
        Share-in-savings contracts (sec. 829A)...................   214
        Special emergency procurement authority to facilitate the 
          defense against or recovery from a cyber, nuclear, 
          biological, chemical, or radiological attack (sec. 
          829B)..................................................   214
        Limitation on the use of reverse auction and lowest price 
          technically acceptable contracting methods (sec. 829C).   215
        Avoidance of use of brand names or brand-name or 
          equivalent descriptions in solicitations (sec. 829D)...   215
        Sunset and repeal of certain contracting provisions (sec. 
          829E)..................................................   215
        Flexibility in contracting award program (sec. 829F).....   215
        Products and services purchased through contracting 
          program for firms that hire the severely disabled (sec. 
          829G)..................................................   216
        Applicability of Executive Order 13673 ``Fair Pay and 
          Safe Workplaces'' to Department of Defense contractors 
          (sec. 829H)............................................   217
        Contract closeout authority (sec. 829I)..................   217
        Closeout of old Navy contracts (sec. 829J)...............   217
    Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition 
      Programs...................................................   217
        Repeal of major automated information systems provisions 
          (sec. 831).............................................   217
        Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition 
          program (sec. 832).....................................   218
        Acquisition strategy (sec. 833)..........................   218
        Improved life cycle cost control (sec. 834)..............   218
        Modification of certain Milestone B certification 
          requirements (sec. 835)................................   219
        Disclosure of risk in cost estimates (sec. 836)..........   219
        Authority to designate increments or blocks of items 
          delivered under major defense acquisition programs as 
          major subprograms for purposes of acquisition reporting 
          (sec. 837).............................................   219
        Counting of major defense acquisition program 
          subcontracts toward small business goals (sec. 838)....   219
        Use of economy-wide inflation index to calculate 
          percentage increase in unit costs (sec. 839)...........   220
        Waiver of notification when acquiring tactical missiles 
          and munitions above the budgeted quantity (sec. 840)...   220
        Multiple program multiyear contract pilot demonstration 
          program (sec. 841).....................................   220
        Key Performance Parameter reduction pilot program (sec. 
          842)...................................................   220
        Mission and system of systems of interoperability (sec. 
          843)...................................................   221
        B-21 bomber development program baseline and cost control 
          (sec. 844).............................................   221
    Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce.....   222
        Improvement of program and project management by the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 851).......................   222
        Authority to waive tenure requirement for program 
          managers for program definition and program execution 
          periods (sec. 852).....................................   222
        Enhanced use of data analytics to improve acquisition 
          program outcomes (sec. 853)............................   222
        Purposes for which the Department of Defense Acquisition 
          Workforce Development Fund may be used (sec. 854)......   222
    Subtitle E--Provisions Related to Commercial Items...........   223
        Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the 
          acquisition of commercial items and commercially 
          available off-the-shelf items (sec. 861)...............   223
        Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations 
          (sec. 862).............................................   223
        Use of performance and commercial specifications in lieu 
          of military specifications and standards (sec. 863)....   224
        Preference for commercial services (sec. 864)............   224
        Treatment of items purchased by prospective contractors 
          prior to release of prime contract requests for 
          proposals as commercial items (sec. 865)...............   224
        Treatment of services provided by nontraditional 
          contractors as commercial items (sec. 866).............   225
        Use of non-cost contracts to acquire commercial items 
          (sec. 867).............................................   225
        Pilot program for authority to acquire innovative 
          commercial items, technologies, and services using 
          general solicitation competitive procedures (sec. 868).   226
    Subtitle F--Industrial Base Matters..........................   226
        Greater integration of the national technical industrial 
          base (sec. 871)........................................   226
        Integration of civil and military roles in attaining 
          national technology and industrial base objectives 
          (sec. 872).............................................   226
        Distribution support and services for weapon systems 
          contractors (sec. 873).................................   227
        Permanency of Department of Defense SBIR and STTR 
          programs (sec. 874)....................................   227
        Modified requirements for distribution of assistance 
          under procurement technical assistance cooperative 
          agreements (sec. 875)..................................   227
        Nontraditional and small disruptive innovation 
          prototyping program (sec. 876).........................   227
    Subtitle G--International Contracting Matters................   227
        International sales process improvements (sec. 881)......   227
        Working capital fund for precision guided munitions 
          exports in support of contingency operations (sec. 882)   228
        Extension of authority to acquire products and services 
          produced in countries along major route of supply to 
          Afghanistan (sec. 883).................................   229
        Clarification of treatment of contracts performed outside 
          the United States (sec. 884)...........................   229
        Enhanced authority to acquire products and services 
          produced in Africa in support of covered activities 
          (sec. 885).............................................   229
        Maintenance of prohibition on procurement by Department 
          of Defense of People's Republic of China-origin items 
          that meet the definition of goods and services 
          controlled as munitions items when moved to the ``600 
          series'' of the Commerce Control List (sec. 886).......   229
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   230
        Contractor business system requirements (sec. 891).......   230
        Authority to provide reimbursable auditing services to 
          certain non-defense agencies (sec. 892)................   231
        Improved management practices to reduce cost and improve 
          performance of certain Department Of Defense by Defense 
          organizations (sec. 893)...............................   232
        Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation (sec. 894).   232
        Exemption from requirement for capital planning and 
          investment control for information technology equipment 
          included as integral part of a weapon or weapon system 
          (sec. 895).............................................   232
        Modifications to pilot program for streamlining awards 
          for innovative technology projects (sec. 896)..........   232
        Enhancement of electronic warfare capabilities (sec. 897)   233
        Improved transparency and oversight over Department of 
          Defense research, development, test, and evaluation 
          efforts and procurement activities related to medical 
          research (sec. 898)....................................   233
        Extension of enhanced transfer authority for technology 
          developed at Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 
          899)...................................................   233
        Rapid prototyping funds for the military services (sec. 
          899A)..................................................   233
        Defense Modernization Account (sec. 899B)................   233
    Items of Special Interest....................................   234
        Defense industrial supply chain security.................   234
        Expansion of eligible small business concerns............   234
        Modification of commercial items definition..............   234
        Preserving competition in the defense industry...........   235
        Small business contract bundling.........................   235
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   237
    Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related 
      Matters....................................................   237
        Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 
          and related acquisition position in the Office of the 
          Secretary of Defense (sec. 901)........................   237
        Qualifications for appointment of the Secretaries of the 
          military departments (sec. 902)........................   239
        Establishment of Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
          Information (Chief Information Officer) in Office of 
          Secretary of Defense (sec. 903)........................   239
        Reduction in maximum number of personnel in Office of the 
          Secretary of Defense and other Department of Defense 
          headquarters offices (sec. 904)........................   239
        Limitations on funds used for staff augmentation 
          contracts at management headquarters of the Department 
          of Defense and the military departments (sec. 905).....   240
        Unit within the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
          supporting achievement of results in Department of 
          Defense management reform and business transformation 
          efforts (sec. 906).....................................   240
    Subtitle B--Combatant Command Matters........................   241
        Joint Chiefs of Staff and related combatant command 
          matters (sec. 921).....................................   241
        Delegation to Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff of 
          authority to direct transfer of forces (sec. 922)......   242
        Organization of the Department of Defense for management 
          of special operations forces and special operations 
          (sec. 923).............................................   243
        Pilot program on organization of subordinate commands of 
          a unified combatant command as joint task forces (sec. 
          924)...................................................   244
        Expansion of eligibility for deputy commander of 
          combatant command having United States among geographic 
          area of responsibility to include officers of the 
          Reserves (sec. 925)....................................   244
    Subtitle C--Organization and Management of Other Department 
      of Defense Offices and Elements............................   245
        Organizational strategy for the Department of Defense 
          (sec. 941).............................................   245
        Department of Defense management overview by the 
          Secretary of Defense (sec. 942)........................   253
        Modification of composition and mission of Joint 
          Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 943)..............   255
        Enhanced personnel management authorities for the Chief 
          of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 944)................   255
        Management of Defense clandestine human intelligence 
          collection (sec. 945)..................................   256
        Repeal of Financial Management Modernization Executive 
          Committee (sec. 946)...................................   256
        Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family 
          Policy and Office of Community Support for Military 
          Families with Special Needs (sec. 947).................   257
        Pilot programs on waiver of applicability of rules and 
          regulations to Department of Defense science and 
          technology reinvention laboratories and DARPA to 
          improve operations and personnel management (sec. 948).   257
    Subtitle D--Whistleblower Protections for Members of the 
      Armed Forces...............................................   257
        Improvements to whistleblower protection procedures (sec. 
          961)...................................................   257
        Modification of whistleblower protection authorities to 
          restrict contrary findings of prohibited personnel 
          action by the Secretary concerned (sec. 962)...........   258
        Improvements to authorities and procedures for the 
          correction of military records (sec. 963)..............   258
        Comptroller General of the United States review of 
          integrity of Department of Defense whistleblower 
          program (sec. 964).....................................   259
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   259
        Modification of requirements for accounting for members 
          of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 
          employees listed as missing (sec. 971).................   259
        Modification of authority of the Secretary of Defense 
          relating to protection of the Pentagon Reservation and 
          other Department of Defense facilities in the National 
          Capitol Region (sec. 972)..............................   259
        Enhanced security programs for Department of Defense 
          personnel and innovation initiatives (sec. 973)........   260
    Items of Special Interest....................................
        4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry 
          Division...............................................   260
        Amendment on National Guard Apache recommendations.......   261
        Enhancing Army Military Intelligence Support to the 
          Warfighter.............................................   261
        Unjustified expansion of the Army Reserve Military 
          Intelligence Readiness Command.........................   261
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   263
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   263
        General transfer authority (sec. 1001)...................   263
        Increased use of commercial data integration and analysis 
          products for the purpose of preparing financial 
          statement audits (sec. 1002)...........................   263
        Sense of the Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003).........   263
    Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   264
        Codification and modification of authority to provide 
          support for counter-drug activities and activities to 
          counter transnational organized crime of civilian law 
          enforcement agencies (sec. 1006).......................   264
        Extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and 
          counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1007)......   264
    Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   264
        Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of 
          cruisers or dock landing ships (sec. 1011).............   264
        Prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy 
          maritime mine countermeasures platforms (sec. 1012)....   265
    Subtitle D--Counterterrorism.................................   266
        Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or 
          release of individuals detained at United States Naval 
          Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States 
          (sec. 1021)............................................   266
        Extension on prohibition on use of funds to construct or 
          modify facilities in the United State to house 
          detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, 
          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1022).......................   266
        Designing and planning related to construction of certain 
          facilities in the United States (sec. 1023)............   266
        Authority to transfer individuals detained at United 
          States Naval station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the 
          United States temporarily for emergency or critical 
          medical treatment (sec. 1024)..........................   266
        Authority for article III judges to take certain actions 
          relating to individuals detained at United States Naval 
          Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1025)..............   267
        Extension on prohibition on use of funds for transfer or 
          release to certain countries of individuals detained at 
          United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 
          1026)..................................................   267
        Matters on memorandum of understanding between the United 
          States and governments of receiving foreign countries 
          and entities in certifications on transfer of detainees 
          at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
          (sec. 1027)............................................   267
        Limitation on transfer of detainees at United States 
          Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending a report 
          on their terrorist actions and affiliations (sec. 1028)   267
        Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of 
          individuals detained at United States Naval Station, 
          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to countries covered by 
          Department of State travel warnings (sec. 1029)........   267
        Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment 
          of forces at or closure of United States Naval Station, 
          Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1030).......................   268
    Subtitle E--Assured Access to Space Matters..................   268
        Restrictions on use of rocket engines from the Russian 
          Federation for space launch of national security 
          satellites (sec. 1036).................................   268
        Limitations on use of rocket engines from the Russian 
          Federation to achieve assured access to space (sec. 
          1037)..................................................   268
        Repeal of provision permitting the use of rocket engines 
          from the Russian Federation for the evolved expendable 
          launch vehicle program (sec. 1038).....................   269
    Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........   269
        Assigned forces of the combatant commands (sec. 1041)....   269
        Quadrennial independent review of United Sates military 
          strategy and force posture in the United States Pacific 
          Command area of responsibility (sec. 1042).............   269
        Designation of a Department of Defense Strategic Arctic 
          Port (sec. 1043).......................................   270
        Modification of requirements regarding notifications to 
          Congress on sensitive military operations (sec. 1044)..   270
        Reconnaissance Strike Group matters (sec. 1045)..........   270
        Transition of Air Force to operation of remotely piloted 
          aircraft by enlisted personnel (sec. 1046).............   271
        Prohibition on divestment of Marine Corps Search and 
          Rescue Units (sec. 1047)...............................   272
        Modification of requirements relating to management of 
          military technicians (sec. 1048).......................   272
        Support for the Associate Director of the Central 
          Intelligence Agency for Military Affairs (sec. 1049)...   273
        Enhancement of interagency support during contingency 
          operations and transition periods (sec. 1050)..........   273
        Enhancement of information sharing and coordination of 
          military training between Department of Homeland 
          Security and Department of Defense (sec. 1051).........   273
        Notification on the provision of defense sensitive 
          support (sec. 1052)....................................   274
        Modification of authority to transfer Department of 
          Defense property for law enforcement activities (sec. 
          1053)..................................................   274
        Exemption of information on military tactics, techniques, 
          and procedures from release under Freedom of 
          Information Act (sec. 1054)............................   274
        Treatment of certain sensitive information by State and 
          local governments (sec. 1055)..........................   275
        Recovery of excess firearms, ammunition, and parts 
          granted to foreign countries and transfer to certain 
          persons (sec. 1056)....................................   275
        Sense of the Senate on development and fielding of fifth 
          generation airborne systems (sec. 1057)................   275
        Technical and conforming amendments (sec. 1058)..........   275
    Subtitle G--National Commission on Military, National, and 
      Public Service.............................................   275
        Purpose and scope (sec. 1066)............................   275
        National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
          Service (sec. 1067)....................................   276
        Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1068).............   276
        Principles and procedure for Commission recommendations 
          (sec. 1069)............................................   276
        Executive Director and staff (sec. 1070).................   277
        Judicial review precluded (sec. 1071)....................   277
        Termination (sec. 1072)..................................   277
        Funding (sec. 1073)......................................   277
    Subtitle H--Studies and Reports..............................   277
        Annual reports on unfunded priorities of the Armed Forces 
          and the combatant commands (sec. 1076).................   277
        Assessment of the joint ground forces of the Armed Forces 
          (sec. 1077)............................................   278
        Report on independent assessment of the force structure 
          of the Armed Forces to meet the national defense 
          strategy (sec. 1078)...................................   279
        Annual report on observation flights over the United 
          States under the Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1079).........   279
        Reports on programs managed under alternative 
          compensatory control measures in the Department of 
          Defense (sec. 1080)....................................   279
        Requirement for notice and reporting to Committees on 
          Armed Services of certain expenditures of funds by 
          Defense Intelligence Agency (sec. 1081)................   280
        Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements 
          for which statutory requirement is from an amendment 
          made by an annual national defense authorization Act 
          (sec. 1082)............................................   280
        Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements 
          for which statutory requirement is specified in an 
          annual national defense authorization Act (sec. 1083)..   280
        Repeal of requirements relating to efficiencies plan for 
          the civilian personnel workforce and service contractor 
          workforce of the Department of Defense (sec. 1084).....   280
    Subtitle I--Other Matters....................................   280
        Military service management of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
          program (sec. 1086)....................................   280
        Treatment of follow-on modernization for the F-35 joint 
          strike fighter as a major defense acquisition program 
          (sec. 1087)............................................   281
        Reduction in minimum number of Navy carrier air wings and 
          carrier air wing headquarters required to be maintained 
          (sec. 1088)............................................   282
        Streamlining of the National Security Council (sec. 1089)   282
        Form of annual national security strategy report (sec. 
          1090)..................................................   283
        Border security metrics (sec. 1091)......................   283
        Consolidation of marketing of the Army within the Army 
          Marketing Research Group (sec. 1092)...................   283
        Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare 
          Command insignia (sec. 1093)...........................   284
        Program to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Tomb 
          of the Unknown Soldier (sec. 1094).....................   284
        Sense of Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the KC-
          46A aircraft (sec. 1095)...............................   284
        Replacement of quadrennial defense review with national 
          defense strategy (sec. 1096)...........................   284
    Items of Special Interest....................................   285
        Air Force training with partner nations..................   285
        Arctic Search and Rescue.................................   285
        Army Modernization Strategy..............................   286
        Army Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS).......................   287
        Comptroller General assessment of national defense 
          implications of the next generation air traffic 
          management system......................................   287
        Comptroller General assessment of priorities and 
          processes for operational support airlift and executive 
          airlift by Department of Defense aircraft..............   288
        Domain awareness in the Arctic...........................   289
        Night vision technology for the southern border..........   289
        Predictable Funding for the National Guard Counterdrug 
          Program................................................   290
        Study on Article III trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.   290
        Total Army End Strength..................................   290
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   293
    Subtitle A--Department of Defense Matters Generally..........   293
        Civilian personnel management (sec. 1101)................   293
        Repeal of requirement for annual strategic workforce plan 
          for the Department of Defense (sec. 1102)..............   293
        Temporary and term appointments in the competitive 
          service in the Department of Defense (sec. 1103).......   293
        Personnel authorities related to the defense acquisition 
          workforce (sec. 1104)..................................   293
        Direct hire authority for financial management experts 
          into the Department of Defense workforce (sec. 1105)...   294
        Direct hire authority for the Department of Defense for 
          post-secondary students and recent graduates (sec. 
          1106)..................................................   294
        Public-private talent exchange (sec. 1107)...............   295
        Training for employment personnel of Department of 
          Defense on matters relating to authorities for 
          recruitment and retention at United States Cyber 
          Command (sec. 1108)....................................   295
        Increase in maximum amount of voluntary separation 
          incentive pay authorized for civilian employees of the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 1109)......................   295
        Repeal of certain basis for appointment of a retired 
          member of the Armed Forces to Department of Defense 
          position within 180 days of retirement (sec. 1110).....   296
        Pilot programs on career sabbaticals for Department of 
          Defense civilian employees (sec. 1111).................   297
        Limitation on number of SES employees (sec. 1112)........   297
        No time limitation for appointment of relocating military 
          spouses (sec. 1113)....................................   297
    Subtitle B--Department of Defense Science and Technology 
      Laboratories and Related Matters...........................   297
        Permanent personnel management authority for the 
          Department of Defense for experts in science and 
          engineering (sec. 1121)................................   297
        Permanent extension and modification of temporary 
          authorities for certain positions at Department of 
          Defense research and engineering laboratories (sec. 
          1122)..................................................   298
        Direct hire authority for scientific and engineering 
          positions for test and evaluation facilities of the 
          Major Range and Test Facility Base (sec. 1123).........   299
        Permanent authority for the temporary exchange of 
          information technology personnel (sec. 1124)...........   300
        Pilot program on enhanced pay authority for certain 
          research and technology positions in the science and 
          technology reinvention laboratories of the Department 
          of Defense (sec. 1125).................................   300
        Discharge of certain authorities to conduct personnel 
          demonstration projects (sec. 1126).....................   301
    Subtitle C--Government-Wide Matters..........................   302
        Expansion of personnel flexibilities relating to land 
          management agencies to include all agencies (sec. 1131)   302
        Direct hiring for Federal wage schedule employees (sec. 
          1132)..................................................   302
        Appointment authority for uniquely qualified prevailing 
          rate employees (sec. 1133).............................   302
        Limitation on preference eligible hiring preferences for 
          permanent employees in the competitive service (sec. 
          1134)..................................................   302
        Authority for advancement of pay for certain employees 
          relocating within the United States and its territories 
          (sec. 1135)............................................   302
        Elimination of the foreign exemption provision in regard 
          to overtime for federal civilian employees temporarily 
          assigned to a foreign area (sec. 1136).................   302
        One-year extension of authority to waive annual 
          limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on 
          pay for federal civilian employees working overseas 
          (sec. 1137)............................................   303
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   303
        Modification of flat rate per diem requirement for 
          personnel on long-term temporary duty assignments (sec. 
          1151)..................................................   303
        One-year extension of temporary authority to grant 
          allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian 
          personnel on official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1152)   304
    Items of Special Interest....................................   304
        Furlough of Department of Defense civilian employees.....   304
        Performance metrics relative to procedures for reduction 
          in force of Department of Defense civilian personnel...   305
        Report on automatic step increases for Department of 
          Defense civilians......................................   305
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS...................   307
    Subtitle A--Assistance and Training..........................   307
        Three-Year Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response 
          Program (sec. 1201)....................................   307
        Increase in size of the Special Defense Acquisition Fund 
          (sec. 1202)............................................   307
        Codification of authority for support of special 
          operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1203).............   307
        Prohibition on use of funds to invite, assist, or 
          otherwise assure the participation of Cuba in certain 
          joint or multilateral exercises (sec. 1204)............   307
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan.....   308
        Extension and modification of authority to transfer 
          defense articles and provide defense services to the 
          military and security forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1211)   308
        Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain 
          coalition nations for support (sec. 1212)..............   308
        Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and 
          projects of the Department of Defense in Afghanistan 
          that cannot be safely accessed by United States 
          Government Personnel (sec. 1213).......................   308
        Reimbursement of Pakistan for security enhancement 
          activities (sec. 1214).................................   308
        Improvement of oversight of United States Government 
          efforts in Afghanistan. (sec. 1215)....................   309
    Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iraq and Syria...............   310
        Extension and modification of authority to provide 
          assistance to the vetted Syrian Opposition (sec. 1221).   310
        Extension of authority to provide assistance to counter 
          the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (sec. 1222)...   310
        Extension of authority to support operations and 
          activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in 
          Iraq (sec. 1223).......................................   310
    Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Iran.........................   311
        Additional elements in the annual report on the military 
          power of Iran (sec. 1226)..............................   311
    Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation.......   311
        Extension and enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance 
          Initiative (sec. 1231).................................   311
        Extension and modification of authority on training for 
          Eastern European national military forces in the course 
          of multilateral exercises (sec. 1232)..................   312
        Additional matters in annual report on military and 
          security developments involving the Russian Federation 
          (sec. 1233)............................................   312
        European investment in security and stability (sec. 1234)   312
        Sense of Senate on the European Deterrence Initiative 
          (sec. 1235)............................................   313
    Subtitle F--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region......   313
        Annual update on Department of Defense Freedom of 
          Navigation Report (sec. 1241)..........................   313
        Inclusion of the Philippines among allied countries with 
          whom United States may enter into cooperative military 
          airlift agreements (sec. 1242).........................   314
        Military exchanges between the United States and Taiwan 
          (sec. 1243)............................................   314
        Sense of Senate on Taiwan (sec. 1244)....................   314
        Sense of Senate on enhancement of the military 
          relationship between the United States and Vietnam 
          (sec. 1245)............................................   315
        Redesignation of South China Sea Initiative (sec. 1246)..   315
    Subtitle G--Reform of Department of Defense Security 
      Cooperation................................................   315
        Sense of Congress on security sector assistance (sec. 
          1251)..................................................   315
        Enactment of new chapter for defense security cooperation 
          (sec. 1252)............................................   316
        Military-to-military exchanges (sec. 1253)...............   317
        Consolidation and revision of authorities for payment of 
          personnel expenses necessary for theater security 
          cooperation (sec. 1254)................................   317
        Transfer and revision of authority on payment of expenses 
          in connection with training and exercises with friendly 
          foreign forces (sec. 1255).............................   317
        Transfer and revision of authority to provide operational 
          support to forces of friendly foreign countries (sec. 
          1256)..................................................   317
        Department of Defense State Partnership Program (sec. 
          1257)..................................................   318
        Modification of regional defense combating terrorism 
          fellowship program (sec. 1258).........................   318
        Consolidation of authorities for service academy 
          international engagement (sec. 1259)...................   318
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1260)........   318
        Consolidation and standardization of reporting 
          requirements relating to security cooperation 
          authorities (sec. 1261)................................   319
        Requirement for submittal of consolidated annual budget 
          for security cooperation programs and activities of the 
          Department of Defense (sec. 1262)......................   319
        Department of Defense security cooperation workforce 
          development (sec. 1263)................................   320
        Coordination between the Department of Defense and 
          Department of State on certain security cooperation and 
          security assistance programs and activities (sec. 1264)   320
        Repeal of superseded, obsolete, or duplicative statutes 
          relating to security cooperation authorities (sec. 
          1265)..................................................   321
    Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters..........   321
        Free trade agreements with Sub-Saharan African countries 
          (sec. 1271)............................................   321
        Extension and expansion of authority to support border 
          security operations of certain foreign countries (sec. 
          1272)..................................................   321
        Modification and clarification of United States-Israel 
          anti-tunnel cooperation authority (sec. 1273)..........   321
        Modification and extension of authorization for non-
          conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1274)   322
        Assessment of proliferation of certain remotely piloted 
          aircraft systems (sec. 1275)...........................   322
        Efforts to end modern slavery (sec. 1276)................   322
    Items of Special Interest....................................   322
        Asia-Pacific force posture resiliency....................   322
        People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) participation in Rim 
          of the Pacific exercise................................   324
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.........................   325
        Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 
          1301)..................................................   325
        Funding allocations (sec. 1302)..........................   325
    Items of Special Interest....................................   325
        Long term threat outlook for the Cooperative Threat 
          Reduction program......................................   325
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   327
    Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   327
        Working capital funds (sec. 1401)........................   327
        Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 
          1402)..................................................   327
        Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
          Wide (sec. 1403).......................................   327
        Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404)....................   327
        Defense Health Program (sec. 1405).......................   327
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1406)........   327
    Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile.......................   327
        National Defense Stockpile matters (sec. 1411)...........   327
        Authority to dispose of certain materials from and to 
          acquire additional materials for the National Defense 
          Stockpile (sec. 1412)..................................   328
    Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters................   329
        Authority to destroy certain specified World War II-era 
          United States-origin chemical munitions located on San 
          Jose Island, Republic of Panama (sec. 1421)............   329
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   329
        Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of 
          Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 
          Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health 
          Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1431)......................   329
        Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces 
          Retirement Home (sec. 1432)............................   329
    Budget Items.................................................   330
        Defense Health Program...................................   330
        Foreign currency fluctuation.............................   330
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund....................   330
        Department of Defense Inspector General Financial 
          Statement Audit Support................................   331
    Items of Special Interest....................................   331
        Rare earth elements critical to national security........   331
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
  CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.........................................   333
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations.......   333
        Purpose (sec. 1501)......................................   333
        Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502)..............   333
        Procurement (sec. 1503)..................................   333
        Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (sec. 1504)..   333
        Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1505)....................   333
        Military Personnel (sec. 1506)...........................   333
        Working capital funds (sec. 1507)........................   333
        Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
          Wide (sec. 1508).......................................   333
        Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)....................   334
        Defense Health Program (sec. 1510).......................   334
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1511)........   334
    Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................   334
        Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521).......   334
        Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)...................   334
    Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters..........   334
        Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531)   334
        Extension and modification of authorities on 
          Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1532).........   334
        Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533).............   335
    Budget Items.................................................   335
        Spider network munitions reduction.......................   335
        Coalition Support Funds..................................   335
        Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund.......................   335
        Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund........   336
        Office of Security Cooperation--Iraq.....................   336
        Syria Train and Equip Fund...............................   336
        Nuclear force readiness in Europe........................   336
        Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund....................   337
        Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities............   338
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS...   339
    Subtitle A--Space Activities.................................   339
        Requirement that pilot program for acquisition of 
          commercial satellite communications services 
          demonstrate order-of-magnitude improvements in 
          satellite communication capabilities (sec. 1601).......   339
        Plan for use of allied launch vehicles (sec. 1602).......   339
        Long-term strategy on electromagnetic spectrum for 
          warfare (sec. 1603)....................................   340
        Five-year plan for Joint Interagency Combined Space 
          Operations Center (sec. 1604)..........................   340
        Independent assessment of global positioning system next 
          generation operational control system (sec. 1605)......   340
        Government Accountability Office assessment of satellite 
          acquisition by National Reconnaissance Office (sec. 
          1606)..................................................   340
        Cost-benefit analysis of commercial use of excess 
          ballistic missile solid rocket motors (sec. 1607)......   340
        Assessment of cost-benefit analysis by Department of 
          Defense of use of KA-band commercial satellite 
          communications (sec. 1608).............................   341
        Limitation on use of funds for Joint Space Operations 
          Center Mission System (sec. 1609)......................   341
        Limitation on availability of fiscal year 2017 funds for 
          the global positioning system next generation 
          operational control system (sec. 1610).................   341
        Availability of certain amounts to meet requirements in 
          connection with United States policy on assured access 
          to space (sec. 1611)...................................   343
        Availability of funds for certain secure voice 
          conferencing capabilities (sec. 1612)..................   343
    Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related 
      Activities.................................................   344
        Department of Defense-wide requirements for security 
          clearances for military intelligence officers (sec. 
          1621)..................................................   344
    Subtitle C--Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related Matters   344
        Cyber Protection Support for Department of Defense 
          Personnel in Positions Highly Vulnerable to Cyber 
          Attack (sec. 1631).....................................   344
        Cyber mission forces matters (sec. 1632 )................   344
        Limitation on ending of arrangement in which the 
          commander of the United States Cyber Command is also 
          Director of the National Security Agency (sec. 1633)...   345
        Pilot program on application of consequence-driven, 
          cyber-informed engineering to mitigate against cyber-
          security threats (sec. 1634)...........................   345
        Evaluation of Cyber Vulnerabilities of F-35 Aircraft and 
          Support Systems (sec. 1635)............................   346
        Review and assessment of technology strategy and 
          development at Defense Information Systems Agency (sec. 
          1636)..................................................   346
        Evaluation of Cyber Vulnerabilities of Department of 
          Defense Critical Infrastructure (sec. 1637)............   347
        Plan for information security continuous monitoring 
          capability and comply-to-connect policy (sec. 1638)....   347
        Report on Authority Delegated to Secretary of Defense to 
          Conduct Cyber Operations (sec. 1639)...................   348
        Deterrence of Adversaries in Cyberspace (sec. 1640)......   348
    Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces...................................   349
        Procurement authority for certain parts of 
          intercontinental ballistic missile fuzes (sec. 1651)...   349
        Modification of report on activities of the council on 
          oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control 
          and Communications System (sec. 1652)..................   350
        Review by the Comptroller General of the United States of 
          recommendations relating to nuclear enterprise of 
          Department of Defense (sec. 1653)......................   350
        Sense of Congress on nuclear deterrence (sec. 1654)......   350
    Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs.........................   350
        Required testing by Missile Defense Agency of ground-
          based mid-course defense element of ballistic missile 
          defense system (sec. 1661).............................   350
        Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system codevelopment 
          and coproduction (sec. 1662)...........................   351
        Non-terrestrial missile defense intercept and defeat 
          capability for the ballistic missile defense system 
          (sec. 1663)............................................   351
        Review of pre-launch missile defense strategy (sec. 1664)   351
        Modification of National Missile Defense policy (sec. 
          1665)..................................................   351
        Extension of prohibitions on providing certain missile 
          defense information to the Russian Federation (sec. 
          1666)..................................................   352
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   352
        Survey and review of Defense Intelligence Enterprise 
          (sec. 1671)............................................   352
        Milestone A decision for Conventional Prompt Global 
          Strike (sec. 1672).....................................   352
        Cyber Center for Education and Innovation and National 
          Cryptologic Museum (sec. 1673).........................   352
    Items of Special Interest....................................   352
        Additional Atlantic radar capability.....................   352
        Air Force Global Strike Command's management of the 
          National Airborne Operations Center....................   353
         Air Force Seismic Technologies Program..................   354
        Ballistic Missile Defense System.........................   354
        Commercial cloud implementation in the Department of 
          Defense................................................   354
        Commercial off the shelf procurement for ICBM launch 
          control centers........................................   355
        Comptroller General Review of the ground based strategic 
          deterrent system.......................................   355
        Conventional prompt global strike........................   356
        Cyber protection for the ballistic missile defense system   356
        Cyber security on military installations.................   357
        Department of Defense report on nuclear enterprise 
          funding and management.................................   357
        E-4B Recapitalization Plan...............................   358
        Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.........................   358
        Inclusion of the Army National Guard Cyber Protection 
          Teams in the Department of Defense Cyber Mission Force.   359
        Space situational awareness technologies.................   359
        Space system software review.............................   360
        Strategic missile commonality............................   360
        The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports...   361
        Training for cyber mission forces........................   361
        Weather imagery for U.S. Central Command.................   362
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   363
        Summary and explanation of funding tables................   363
        Short title (sec. 2001)..................................   363
        Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 
          specified by law (sec. 2002)...........................   363
        Effective date (sec. 2003)...............................   363
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................   365
        Summary..................................................   365
        Authorized Army construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2101)...................................   365
        Family housing (sec. 2102)...............................   365
        Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........   365
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2014 project (sec. 2104)..........................   366
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 
          projects (sec. 2105)...................................   366
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2106)...................................   366
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...........................   367
        Summary..................................................   367
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2201)...................................   367
        Family housing (sec. 2202)...............................   367
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)   367
        Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........   367
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2014 project (sec. 2205)..........................   368
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 
          projects (sec. 2206)...................................   368
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2207)...................................   368
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.....................   369
        Summary..................................................   369
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2301)...................................   369
        Family housing (sec. 2302)...............................   369
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)   369
        Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)...   370
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2016 project (sec. 2305)..........................   370
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2306)...................................   370
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...............   371
        Summary..................................................   371
        Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2401).......................   371
        Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)......   371
        Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 
          2403)..................................................   371
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2014 project (sec. 2404)..........................   372
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 
          projects (sec. 2405)...................................   372
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2406)...................................   372
TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS................................   373
        Summary..................................................   373
    Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 
      Investment Program.........................................   373
        Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2501)...................................   373
        Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........   373
    Subtitle B--Host Country In-kind Contributions...............   373
        Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 
          2511)..................................................   373
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   375
        Summary..................................................   375
    Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorizations of 
      Appropriations.............................................   375
        Authorized Army National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2601).......................   375
        Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2602)...................................   375
        Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve 
          construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603).   375
        Authorized Air National Guard construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2604).......................   376
        Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land 
          acquisition projects (sec. 2605).......................   376
        Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and 
          Reserve (sec. 2606)....................................   376
    Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   376
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2014 project (sec. 2611)..........................   376
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
          year 2015 project (sec. 2612)..........................   376
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 
          project (sec. 2613)....................................   376
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 
          projects (sec. 2614)...................................   377
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES.............   379
        Summary and explanation of tables........................   379
        Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 
          closure activities funded through Department of Defense 
          Base Closure Account (sec. 2701).......................   379
        Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and 
          closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702).......................   379
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   381
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
      Housing Changes............................................   381
        Extension of temporary, limited authority to use 
          operation and maintenance funds for construction 
          projects in certain areas outside the United States 
          (sec. 2801)............................................   381
        Limited authority for scope of work increase (sec. 2802).   381
        Permanent 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 (sec. 
          2803)..................................................   381
    Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   381
        Authority to carry out military construction projects for 
          energy resiliency and security projects not previously 
          authorized (sec. 2811).................................   381
        Authority of the Secretary concerned to accept lessee 
          improvements at government-owned/contractor-operated 
          industrial plants or facilities (sec. 2812)............   382
        Treatment of insured depository institutions operating on 
          land leased from military installations (sec. 2813)....   382
    Subtitle C--Land Conveyances.................................   383
        Land acquisitions, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2821)   383
        Land conveyance, Campion Air Force Radar Station, Galena, 
          Alaska (sec. 2822).....................................   383
        Land conveyances, High Frequency Active Auroral Research 
          Program facility and adjacent property, Gakona, Alaska 
          (sec. 2823)............................................   383
        Transfer of Fort Belvoir Mark Center Campus from the 
          Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Defense and 
          applicability of certain provisions of law relating to 
          the Pentagon Reservation (sec. 2824)...................   383
        Transfer of Administrative Jurisdictions, Navajo Army 
          Depot, Arizona (sec. 2825).............................   383
    Subtitle D--Utah Land Withdrawals and Exchanges..............   383
        PART I--Authorization for Temporary Closure of Certain 
          Public Land Adjacent to the Utah Test and Training 
          Range..................................................   383
            Short Title (sec. 2831)..............................   383
            Definitions (sec. 2832)..............................   384
            Memorandum of agreement (sec. 2833)..................   384
            Temporary closures (sec. 2834).......................   384
            Liability (sec. 2835)................................   384
            Community resource advisory group (sec. 2836)........   384
            Savings clauses (sec. 2837)..........................   384
        PART II--Bureau of Land Management Land Exchange with 
          State of Utah..........................................   384
            Definitions (sec. 2841)..............................   384
            Exchange of federal land and non-federal land (sec. 
              2842)..............................................   384
            Status and management of non-federal land acquired by 
              the United States (sec. 2843)......................   385
            Hazardous materials (sec. 2844)......................   385
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   385
        Certification of optimal location for 4th and 5th 
          generation combat aircraft basing and for rotation of 
          forces at Naval Air Station El Centro or Marine Corps 
          Air Station Kaneohe Bay (sec. 2851)....................   385
        Replenishment of Sierra Vista Subwatershed regional 
          aquifer, Arizona (sec. 2852)...........................   385
    Items of Special Interest....................................   385
        Concurrent use of repair and new construction............   385
        Cybersecurity risk to Department of Defense facilities...   386
        Extension of the runway at Pope Army Airfield............   387
        Military Ocean Terminal, Concord infrastructure impacts 
          on readiness...........................................   387
        Ordnance Plant Recapitalization..........................   388
        Treatment of stormwater as wastewater....................   388
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION   389
        Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2901)...................................   389
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 
          projects (sec. 2902)...................................   389
        Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2903)..............   389
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS 
  AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................................   391
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   391
    Overview.....................................................   391
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   391
        National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101).....   391
        Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102)...............   392
        Other defense activities (sec. 3103).....................   392
        Nuclear energy (sec. 3104)...............................   392
    Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   392
        Common financial systems for the nuclear security 
          enterprise (sec. 3111).................................   392
        Industry best practices in operations at National Nuclear 
          Security Administration facilities and sites (sec. 
          3112)..................................................   393
        Limitation on acceleration of dismantlement of retired 
          nuclear weapons (sec. 3113)............................   393
        Contract for Mixed-Oxide fuel fabrication facility 
          construction project (sec. 3114).......................   393
        Unavailability for general and administrative overhead 
          costs of amounts specified for certain laboratories for 
          laboratory-directed research and development (sec. 
          3115)..................................................   395
        Increase in certain limitations applicable to funds for 
          conceptual and construction design of the Department of 
          Energy (sec. 3116).....................................   395
    Subtitle C--Plans and Reports................................   395
        Estimate of total life cycle cost of tank waste cleanup 
          at Hanford Reservation (sec. 3121).....................   395
        Analysis of approaches for supplemental treatment of low-
          activity waste at Hanford Nuclear Reservation (sec. 
          3122)..................................................   396
        Analyses of options for disposal of high-level 
          radioactive waste (sec. 3123)..........................   398
        Elimination of duplication in reviews by the Comptroller 
          General of the United States (sec. 3124)...............   399
        Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the 
          United States report on the program on scientific 
          engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3125)............   400
    Budget Items.................................................   400
        Environmental management at Los Alamos National 
          Laboratory.............................................   400
        Stockpile Responsiveness Program.........................   400
        Defense uranium enrichment decontamination and 
          decommissioning........................................   400
        Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..............................   400
        Weapons dismantlement and disposition....................   400
        MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility............................   401
    Items of Special Interest....................................   401
        Comptroller General review of the National Nuclear 
          Security Administration's depleted uranium management 
          program................................................   401
        Long term planning for H-Canyon..........................   402
        Management of the project design phase at the National 
          Nuclear Security Administration........................   402
        Microlab implementation..................................   403
        Plutonium strategy.......................................   404
        Report on future-year funding needs......................   405
        Report on high-level risks to the B61-12 Life extension 
          program................................................   406
        Report on interoperable warhead-1........................   406
        Responsive capabilities program..........................   407
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   409
        Authorization (sec. 3201)................................   409
TITLE XXXIII--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION THIRD CLASS MEDICAL 
  REFORM AND GENERAL AVIATION PILOT PROTECTIONS..................   411
        Short title (sec. 3301)..................................   411
        Medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots 
          (sec. 3302)............................................   411
        Expansion of Pilot's Bill of Rights (sec. 3303)..........   411
        Limitations on reexamination of certificate holders (sec. 
          3304)..................................................   411
        Expediting updates to NOTAM program (sec. 3305)..........   412
        Accessibility of certain flight data (sec. 3306).........   412
        Authority for legal counsel to issue certain notices 
          (sec. 3307)............................................   412
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION..............................   413
        Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)......................   413
        National security floating dry docks (sec. 3502).........   413
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES.......................................   415
        Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)...   415
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT...........................................   423
        Procurement (sec. 4101)..................................   424
        Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 
          4102)..................................................   459
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION..........   471
        Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201)..   472
        Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas 
          contingency operations (sec. 4202).....................   506
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...........................   509
        Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301)....................   510
        Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency 
          operations (sec. 4302).................................   531
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL...................................   543
        Military personnel (sec. 4401)...........................   544
        Military personnel for overseas contingency operations 
          (sec. 4402)............................................   545
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   547
        Other authorizations (sec. 4501).........................   548
        Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations 
          (sec. 4502)............................................   553
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................   557
        Military construction (sec. 4601)........................   558
        Military construction for overseas contingency operations 
          (sec. 4602)............................................   574
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.....   577
        Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 
          4701)..................................................   578
DIVISION E--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE REFORM..............   589
        Short title (Sec. 5001)..................................   589
TITLE LI--GENERAL PROVISIONS.....................................   589
        Definitions (sec. 5101)..................................   589
        Clarification of persons subject to UCMJ while on 
          inactive-duty training (sec. 5102).....................   589
        Staff judge advocate disqualification due to prior 
          involvement in case (sec. 5103)........................   589
        Conforming amendment relating to military magistrates 
          (sec. 5104)............................................   589
        Rights of victim (sec. 5105).............................   590
TITLE LII--APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT............................   591
        Restraint of persons charged (sec. 5121).................   591
        Modification of prohibition of confinement of members of 
          the Armed Forces with enemy prisoners and certain 
          others (sec. 5122).....................................   591
TITLE LIII--NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT..............................   593
        Modification of confinement as non-judicial punishment 
          (sec. 5141)............................................   593
TITLE LIV--COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION............................   595
        Courts-martial classified (sec. 5161)....................   595
        Jurisdiction of general courts-martial (sec. 5162).......   595
        Jurisdiction of special courts-martial (sec. 5163).......   595
        Summary courts-martial as non-criminal forum (sec. 5164).   595
TITLE LV--COMPOSITION OF COURTS-MARTIAL..........................   597
        Technical amendment relating to persons authorized to 
          convene general courts-martial (sec. 5181).............   597
        Who may serve on courts-martial and related matters (sec. 
          5182)..................................................   597
        Number of court-martial members in capital cases (sec. 
          5183)..................................................   597
        Detailing, qualifications, and other matters relating to 
          military judges (sec. 5184)............................   597
        Qualifications of trial counsel and defense counsel (sec. 
          5185)..................................................   598
        Assembly and impaneling of members and related matters 
          (sec. 5186)............................................   598
        Military magistrates (sec. 5187).........................   598
TITLE LVI--PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE...................................   599
        Charges and specifications (sec. 5201)...................   599
        Proceedings conducted before referral (sec. 5202)........   599
        Preliminary hearing required before referral to general 
          court-martial (sec. 5203)..............................   599
        Disposition guidance (sec. 5204).........................   599
        Advice to convening authority before referral for trial 
          (sec. 5205)............................................   600
        Service of charges and commencement of trial (sec. 5206).   600
TITLE LVII--TRIAL PROCEDURE......................................   601
        Duties of assistant defense counsel (sec. 5221)..........   601
        Sessions (sec. 5222).....................................   601
        Technical amendment relating to continuances (sec. 5223).   601
        Conforming amendments relating to challenges (sec. 5224).   601
        Statute of limitations (sec. 5225).......................   601
        Former jeopardy (sec. 5226)..............................   602
        Pleas of the accused (sec. 5227).........................   602
        Subpoena and other process (sec. 5228)...................   602
        Refusal of person not subject to UCMJ to appear, testify, 
          or produce evidence (sec. 5229)........................   602
        Contempt (sec. 5230).....................................   602
        Depositions (sec. 5231)..................................   603
        Admissibility of sworn testimony by audiotape or 
          videotape from records of courts of inquiry (sec. 5232)   603
        Conforming amendment relating to defense of lack of 
          mental responsibility (sec. 5233)......................   603
        Voting and rulings (sec. 5234)...........................   603
        Votes required for conviction, sentencing, and other 
          matters (sec. 5235)....................................   604
        Findings and sentencing (sec. 5236)......................   604
        Plea agreements (sec. 5237)..............................   604
        Record of trial (sec. 5238)..............................   604
TITLE LVIII--SENTENCES...........................................   605
        Sentencing (sec. 5261)...................................   605
        Effective date of sentences (sec. 5262)..................   605
        Sentence of reduction in enlisted grade (sec. 5263)......   605
        Repeal of sentence reduction provision when interim 
          guidance takes effect (sec. 5264)......................   605
TITLE LIX--POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL.....   607
        Post-trial processing in general and special courts-
          martial (sec. 5281)....................................   607
        Limited authority to act on sentence in specified post-
          trial circumstances (sec. 5282)........................   607
        Post-trial actions in summary courts-martial and certain 
          general and special courts-martial (sec. 5283).........   608
        Entry of judgment (sec. 5284)............................   608
        Waiver of right to appeal and withdrawal of appeal (sec. 
          5285)..................................................   609
        Appeal by the United States (sec. 5286)..................   609
        Rehearings (sec. 5287)...................................   609
        Judge advocate review of finding of guilty in summary 
          court-martial (sec. 5288)..............................   609
        Transmittal and review of records (sec. 5289)............   609
        Courts of Criminal Appeals (sec. 5290)...................   610
        Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 
          5291)..................................................   610
        Supreme Court review (sec. 5292).........................   610
        Review by Judge Advocate General (sec. 5293).............   610
        Appellate defense counsel in death penalty cases (sec. 
          5294)..................................................   610
        Authority for hearing on vacation of suspension of 
          sentence to be conducted by qualified judge advocate 
          (sec. 5295)............................................   611
        Extension of time for petition for new trial (sec. 5296).   611
        Restoration (sec. 5297)..................................   611
        Leave requirements pending review of certain court-
          martial convictions (sec. 5298)........................   611
TITLE LX--PUNITIVE ARTICLES......................................   613
        Reorganization of punitive articles (sec. 5301)..........   613
        Conviction of offense charged, lesser included offenses, 
          and attempts (sec. 5302)...............................   613
        Soliciting commission of offenses (sec. 5303)............   613
        Malingering (sec. 5304)..................................   613
        Breach of medical quarantine (sec. 5305).................   613
        Missing movement; jumping from vessel (sec. 5306)........   613
        Offenses against correctional custody and restriction 
          (sec. 5307)............................................   613
        Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer; assault 
          of superior commissioned officer (sec. 5308)...........   614
        Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer (sec. 
          5309)..................................................   614
        Prohibited activities with military recruit or trainee by 
          person in position of special trust (sec. 5310)........   614
        Offenses by sentinel or lookout (sec. 5311)..............   614
        Disrespect toward sentinel or lookout (sec. 5312)........   614
        Release of prisoner without authority; drinking with 
          prisoner (sec. 5313)...................................   614
        Penalty for acting as a spy (sec. 5314)..................   615
        Public records offenses (sec. 5315)......................   615
        False or unauthorized pass offenses (sec. 5316)..........   615
        Impersonation offenses (sec. 5317).......................   615
        Insignia offenses (sec. 5318)............................   615
        False official statements; false swearing (sec. 5319)....   615
        Parole violation (sec. 5320).............................   615
        Wrongful taking, opening, etc. of mail matter (sec. 5321)   616
        Improper hazarding of vessel or aircraft (sec. 5322).....   616
        Leaving scene of vehicle accident (sec. 5323)............   616
        Drunkenness and other incapacitation offenses (sec. 5324)   616
        Lower blood alcohol content limits for conviction of 
          drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, 
          or vessel (sec. 5325)..................................   616
        Endangerment offenses (sec. 5326)........................   616
        Communicating threats (sec. 5327)........................   616
        Technical amendment relating to murder (sec. 5328).......   616
        Child endangerment (sec. 5329)...........................   617
        Rape and sexual assault offenses (sec. 5330).............   617
        Deposit of obscene matter in the mail (sec. 5331)........   617
        Fraudulent use of credit cards, debit cards, and other 
          access devices (sec. 5332).............................   617
        False pretenses to obtain services (sec. 5333)...........   617
        Robbery (sec. 5334)......................................   617
        Receiving stolen property (sec. 5335)....................   618
        Offenses concerning Government computers (sec. 5336).....   618
        Bribery (sec. 5337)......................................   618
        Graft (sec. 5338)........................................   618
        Kidnapping (sec. 5339)...................................   618
        Arson; burning property with intent to defraud (sec. 
          5340)..................................................   618
        Assault (sec. 5341)......................................   618
        Burglary and unlawful entry (sec. 5342)..................   618
        Stalking (sec. 5343).....................................   619
        Subornation of perjury (sec. 5344).......................   619
        Obstructing justice (sec. 5345)..........................   619
        Misprision of serious offense (sec. 5346)................   619
        Wrongful refusal to testify (sec. 5347)..................   619
        Prevention of authorized seizure of property (sec. 5348).   619
        Wrongful interference with adverse administrative 
          proceeding (sec. 5349).................................   620
        Retaliation (sec. 5350)..................................   620
        Extraterritorial application of certain offenses (sec. 
          5351)..................................................   620
    Subtitle LXI--Miscellaneous Provisions.......................   620
        Technical amendments relating to courts of inquiry (sec. 
          5401)..................................................   620
        Technical amendment to Article 136 (sec. 5402)...........   621
        Articles of Uniform Code of Military Justice to be 
          explained to officers upon commissioning (sec. 5403)...   621
        Military justice case management; data collection and 
          accessibility (sec. 5404)..............................   621
    Subtitle LXII--Military Justice Review Panel and Annual 
      Reports....................................................   622
        Military Justice Review Panel (sec. 5421)................   622
        Annual reports (sec. 5422)...............................   623
    Subtitle LXIII--Conforming Amendments and Effective Dates....   623
        Amendments to UCMJ subchapter tables of sections (sec. 
          5441)..................................................   623
        Effective dates (sec. 5442)..............................   623
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS.........................................   623
        Departmental Recommendations.............................   623
        Committee Action.........................................   623
        Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................   628
        Regulatory Impact........................................   628
        Changes in Existing Law..................................   628
ADDITIONAL VIEWS.................................................   629
        Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe...........................   629
        Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte...........................   631
        Additional Views of Mr. Kaine............................   637
        Additional Views of Mr. Heinrich.........................   640
MINORITY VIEWS...................................................   641
        Minority Views of Mr. Lee and Mr. Cruz...................   641
        
        
        
        
        
                                                       Calendar No. 469
                                                       
114th Congress   }                                            {   Report
                                  SENATE
 2d Session      }                                            {  114-255

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

 
     TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND 
   FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE 
   MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

                  May 18, 2016.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 2943]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends 
that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    This bill would:
          (1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) 
        research, development, test and evaluation, (c) 
        operation and maintenance and the revolving and 
        management funds of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2017;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each 
        military active duty component of the Armed Forces for 
        fiscal year 2017;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2017;
          (4) impose certain reporting requirements;
          (5) impose certain limitations with regard to 
        specific procurement and research, development, test 
        and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide 
        certain additional legislative authority, and make 
        certain changes to existing law;
          (6) authorize appropriations for military 
        construction programs of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2017; and
          (7) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        2017.

                           COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

    For 54 consecutive years, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee has fulfilled its duty of producing the National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This vital piece of 
legislation authorizes the necessary funding and provides 
authorities for our military to defend the nation. And it is a 
reflection of its critical importance to our national security 
that the NDAA is one of few bills in Congress that continues to 
enjoy bipartisan support year after year.
    The men and women of our Armed Forces--as well as the 
civilians and contractors who support them--have worked 
honorably and courageously to address the diverse and complex 
array of challenges to our national security, often at great 
personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and their 
families. The committee, Congress, and the American people owe 
them a debt of gratitude for this service.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 
continues the committee's commitment to defense reforms that 
enable our military to rise to the challenges of a more 
dangerous world both today and in the future. The NDAA:
           Ensures the long-term viability of the All-
        Volunteer force by sustaining the quality of life of 
        the men and women of the total force (Active Duty, 
        National Guard, and Reserves) and their families, as 
        well as Department of Defense civilian personnel, 
        through fair pay, policies, and comprehensive reform of 
        the military health system.
           Ensures that our men and women in uniform 
        have the advanced equipment they need to succeed in 
        future combat against technologically sophisticated 
        adversaries, in the most efficient and effective manner 
        that provides best value to the taxpayers.
           Reduces strategic risk to the nation and our 
        military servicemembers by prioritizing the restoration 
        the military's readiness to conduct the full range of 
        its assigned missions as soon as possible.
           Addresses shortfalls in strategic 
        integration at the Department of Defense identified by 
        the committee's review of the Goldwater-Nichols Act by 
        improving and sustaining the alignment of effort and 
        resources across different regions, functions, and 
        domains.
           Continues a comprehensive reform of the 
        defense acquisition system designed to drive innovation 
        and ensure accountability for delivering military 
        capabilities to our warfighters on time, on budget, and 
        as promised.
           Reduces excessive and wasteful spending to 
        ensure every defense dollar is spent wisely.
           Enhances the capability of the U.S. Armed 
        Forces and the security forces of allied and friendly 
        nations to defeat ISIL, al Qaeda, and other violent 
        extremist organizations.
           Advances our ability to establish deterrence 
        and defend our allies and partners in Eastern Europe 
        and the Asia-Pacific.
           Improves the ability of the Armed Forces to 
        counter emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing 
        on terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of 
        weapons of mass destruction and their means of 
        delivery.

     SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND BUDGET AUTHORITY 
                              IMPLICATION

    The administration's budget request for national defense 
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2017 was $602.0 
billion. Of this amount, $524.0 billion was requested for base 
Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $19.2 billion was 
requested for national security programs in the Department of 
Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
(DNFSB), and $58.8 billion was requested for Overseas 
Contingency Operations (OCO).
    The committee recommends an overall discretionary 
authorization of $602.0 billion in fiscal year 2017, including 
$523.9 billion for base DOD programs, $19.2 billion for 
national security programs in the DOE and the DNFSB, and $58.9 
billion for OCO.
    The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments 
in Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary 
authorizations in the committee recommendation and the 
equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2017 defense 
programs. The first table summarizes the committee's 
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation 
account for fiscal year 2017 and compares these amounts to the 
request.
    The second table summarizes the total budget authority 
implication for national defense by including national defense 
funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the 
defense committees or are already authorized.

                 BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4)

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

            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

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

                       Subtitle B--Army Programs

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (sec. 111)
    The committee is aware that the Distributed Common Ground 
System (DCGS) is a multi-service program that is intended to 
provide a family of fixed and deployable multi-source ground 
processing systems that support a range of United States Air 
Force, United States Navy and United States Army intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. The United States 
Army system, DCGS-A, is the primary system for posting of data, 
processing of information, and disseminating intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance information about the threat, 
weather, and terrain. The system contributes to visualization 
and situational awareness, thereby enhancing tactical maneuver, 
maximizing combat power and enhancing soldiers' ability to 
operate in an unpredictable and changing environment. DCGS-A is 
fielded at echelons that range from fixed sites, corps, 
division, brigade combat team (BCT), and battalion levels. 
Since 2007 the total program cost is in excess of $3.0 billion 
dollars. Costs to complete the program are estimated to be in 
excess of an additional $7.0 billion dollars. DCGS-A, Increment 
2, intended to correct many identified problems, is in source 
selection.
    The committee notes that DCGS-A is operationally suitable 
and effective when operating from fixed sites and providing 
direct support to operational and strategic forces. However, 
the committee also notes that DCGS-A is not suitable or 
effective in providing a reliable capability to tactical forces 
operating in the field. Army BCTs and battalions are required 
to improvise to overcome unreliable hardware and complex 
software. Operator knowledge and proficiency is low because of 
this complexity. Unit readiness is adversely impacted.
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Army to take action to improve training of 
DCGS-A operators and their leaders at division and below 
echelons. Secondly, the Secretary of the Army should rapidly 
identify and field an effective, suitable and survivable 
solution for division and below tactical units. The Secretary 
of the Army shall acquire a commercially available off the 
shelf, non-developmental capability that: meets essential 
tactical operational requirements for processing, analyzing and 
displaying intelligence information; is substantially easier 
for personnel in tactical units to use; and requires less 
training. The Secretary of the Army may not award any contract 
or expend any funds for the design, development, procurement, 
or operation and maintenance of any data architecture, data 
integration, ``cloud'' capability, data analysis, or data 
visualization and workflow capabilities, including various 
warfighting function-related tools under or contributing to any 
increment of the distributed common ground system of the Army 
for tactical units at division or below unless the contract is 
awarded not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act and uses procedures relating to the acquisition of 
commercial items pursuant to part 12 of the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations (48 CFR 12.000 et seq.), and the contract uses firm 
fixed-price procedures. In addition, the technology to be 
acquired will begin initial fielding rapidly after the contract 
award; achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) within 9 
months of the contract award; and achieve Full Operating 
Capability (FOC) within 18 months of the contract award.
Multiyear procurement authority for UH-60M/HH-60M Black Hawk 
        helicopters (sec. 112)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear contract for 
UH-60M/HH-60M Black Hawk helicopters for fiscal years 2017 
through 2021. The proposed multiyear procurement will produce 
significant savings and facilitate industrial base stability.
    The UH-60M/HH-60M Black Hawk is a core aviation program and 
is approved for full-rate production through the future years 
defense program. If the proposal is approved, the Army buy will 
consist of 193 UH-60M aircraft and 75 HH-60M aircraft between 
fiscal years 2017 and 2021. The Navy is not expected to 
participate in this multiyear procurement. The request for 
proposal solicitation was released with a minimum quantity of 
36 helicopters per year and a base quantity of 50 helicopters 
per year with options to increase the maximum quantity to 72 
helicopters per year.
Multiyear procurement authority for AH-64E Apache helicopters (sec. 
        113)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear contract for 
AH-64E Apache helicopters for fiscal years 2017 through 2021. 
The proposed multiyear procurement will produce significant 
savings and facilitate industrial stability.
    The AH-64E is a core aviation program and is approved for 
full-rate production through the current future years defense 
program. The minimum need for the AH-64E is not expected to 
decrease during the contemplated multiyear procurement period.
    If the proposal is approved, the Army buy will consist of 
275 AH-64E Apache helicopters between fiscal years 2017 and 
2021. The request for proposal (RFP) was released with a 
minimum quantity of 46 per year, with options for 
remanufactured quantities up to 75 per year. The RFP included 
new build quantities, as a contract option, of up to 30 per 
year. In no year would total quantities of remanufactured and 
new build aircraft exceed 90 per year.

                       Subtitle C--Navy Programs

Incremental funding for detail design and construction of LHA 
        replacement ship designated LHA-8 (sec. 121)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Navy to enter into and incrementally fund a 
contract for detail design and construction of the LHA 
Replacement ship, designated LHA-8. Subject to the availability 
of appropriations, funds for payments under the contract may be 
provided from amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 
Department of Defense for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
for fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 122)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require an 
annual report on Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mission packages, a 
certification on the acquisition inventory objective of LCS 
mission packages, a limitation on the use of funds to revise or 
deviate from revision three of the LCS acquisition strategy, 
and a repeal of a reporting requirement related to LCS mission 
modules.
    The committee is concerned with the volume and complexity 
of LCS mission package testing that remains to be completed. 
Since 2009, the surface package has been delayed by 2 years, 
the anti-submarine package by 3 years, and the mine 
countermeasures package by at least 8 years. Significant 
design, testing, integration, and deployment challenges must be 
overcome before the promised LCS warfighting capability is 
realized.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report on LCS mission packages, annually, with the 
President's budget request. For each mission package and 
increment therein, the report would include: (1) a description 
of the current status of and plans for development, production, 
and sustainment; (2) a description, including dates, for each 
developmental test, operational test, integrated test, and 
follow-on test event completed in the preceding fiscal year, 
forecast to be conducted in the current fiscal year, and in 
each of the next 5 fiscal years; (3) the planned initial 
operational capability (IOC) date and a description of the 
performance level criteria that must be demonstrated to declare 
IOC; (4) a description of systems that reached IOC in the 
preceding fiscal year and the performance level demonstrated 
versus the performance level required; (5) the acquisition 
inventory objective listed by system; (6) the current locations 
and quantities of the individual systems listed by city, state, 
and country; and (7) the planned locations and quantities of 
systems listed by city, state, and country in each of the next 
5 fiscal years.
    Since 2007, the committee notes the program of record has 
required 64 LCS mission packages, including 16 for anti-
submarine warfare (ASW), 24 for mine countermeasures (MCM), and 
24 for surface warfare (SUW). Several major program changes 
have occurred since this program of record quantity was 
established to support 52 LCS, including: a revised acquisition 
strategy that reduces procurement to 40 ships, the decision to 
modify at least 12 LCS to a frigate design that includes LCS 
ASW and SUW mission package systems permanently installed, and 
a Remote Minehunting System Independent Review Team 
recommendation to exercise MCM capability from platforms other 
than LCS. Therefore, the committee recommends the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics recertify the LCS mission package program of record 
and submit this certification with the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2018.
    The committee also notes that on March 29, 2016 revision 
three of the LCS acquisition strategy was approved by Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
Frank Kendall. This revision was approved on February 19, 2016 
by Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development & 
Acquisition) Sean Stackley and supports the President's fiscal 
year 2017 budget request. This revision plans to continue the 
procurement of both LCS designs in fiscal year 2017 in 
preparation for the down select to a single variant and 
transition to the frigate as early fiscal year 2018, but no 
later than fiscal year 2019. It also plans to procure LCS/
frigate ships through fiscal year 2025 for a total inventory of 
40 ships. As the Secretary of Defense testified on March 17, 
2016, ``. . . we're investing in LCS and frigates because we 
need the capability they provide, and for missions like 
minesweeping and anti-submarine warfare, they're expected to be 
very capable. The department's warfighting analysis called for 
40 small surface combatants, so that's how many we're buying . 
. . While this will somewhat reduce the number of LCS available 
for presence operations, that need will be met by higher-end 
ships . . . Under this rebalanced plan, we will still achieve 
our 308-ship goal within the next five years, and we will be 
better positioned as a force to effectively deter, and if 
necessary defeat, even the most advanced potential 
adversaries.'' Therefore, the committee requires, should the 
Secretary of Defense deem changes necessary, that the Secretary 
submit a waiver justification prior to revising or deviating 
from revision three of the LCS acquisition strategy. The waiver 
would be required to include the following related to such 
revision or deviation: the rationale, a determination that it 
is in the national security interest, a description of the 
changes, the resulting acquisition strategy, and independent 
cost estimates that compare the changes to revision three of 
the LCS acquisition strategy.
    The committee notes section 126(b) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 
requires a quarterly report on LCS mission modules. This 
reporting requirement is addressed in subsection (a) of this 
provision. Therefore, the committee recommends striking 
subsection (b) of section 126 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
    Additionally, the committee recommends initiating or 
continuing the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 
System analysis necessary for future surface combatants, 
including the LCS replacement. It is essential that a follow-on 
small combatant be developed and procured starting in the 2020s 
to replace LCS, which begins retiring in the early-2030s. The 
committee believes the analytical assumptions for the follow-on 
small surface combatant must address the capability and 
survivability shortfalls of LCS in a high threat environment, 
including the ability to: attack enemy surface ships at over-
the-horizon ranges with multiple salvos, defend nearby 
noncombatant ships from air and missile threats as an escort, 
conduct long-duration escort or patrol missions without 
frequent refueling, and be built to Navy level one 
survivability design standards.
Certification on ship deliveries (sec. 123)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Navy to deem ship delivery to occur at the 
completion of the final phase of construction. The Secretary 
would be required to submit a certification to the 
congressional defense committees not later than January 1, 2017 
that certifies ship delivery dates have been adjusted, 
including the ship hull numbers and delivery date adjustments. 
The adjustments would be reflected in the budget of the 
President submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
States Code, as well as Department of Defense Selected 
Acquisition Reports.
    The committee notes that justification materials, which 
accompanied the President's fiscal year 2016 and 2017 budgets, 
as well as Department of Defense Selected Acquisition Reports 
for the CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program, list the 
delivery date of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) as June 2022. 
However, the Navy plans to deliver this ship in two phases. 
Phase I delivery, scheduled to complete in June 2022, will 
deliver the ship with full propulsion capability, aircraft 
launch and recovery systems, and safe to sail navigation 
systems. Phase II delivery, scheduled to complete in September 
2024, will add the remaining electronics and ordnance 
equipment, including the Ship Self-Defense System, weapons 
systems, and Enterprise Air Search Radar. The committee 
believes CVN-79 delivery should be deemed to occur at the end 
of Phase II delivery.
    Similarly, the committee understands all three ships in the 
Zumwalt-class will employ a dual delivery approach with hull, 
mechanical, and electrical (HM&E) systems delivery at the 
shipbuilder in Maine and combat systems activation in 
California. In the case of USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000), HM&E 
delivery is scheduled for 2016 and combat systems activation is 
scheduled for 2018. The committee notes the President's fiscal 
year 2017 budget lists April 2016 as the delivery date. The 
committee believes Zumwalt-class delivery should be deemed to 
occur at the completion of the dual delivery approach, 
following combat systems activation.
    The committee is concerned the variance in the Navy's 
definition of ship delivery may obscure oversight of the 
program's schedule, including whether or not a project has 
breached its threshold delivery date. The committee is also 
concerned Navy ships are being delivered in various degrees of 
completion and then, after a period of availabilities and 
shakedowns, possibly several years later, the ship is delivered 
to the fleet for operations. CVN-79 and the Zumwalt-class 
programs illustrate this practice.
    Therefore, the committee also directs the Comptroller 
General of the United States to submit a report, not later than 
March 1, 2017, that includes analysis and recommendations 
regarding the Navy's process for fully delivering ships from 
the time the Navy takes custody of the vessel until the vessels 
are fully complete and ready for operations. This review should 
examine the Navy's cost and schedule milestones throughout this 
process and how these milestones are reported to decision 
makers and oversight agencies. The review should also propose a 
common definition and criteria for Navy ship deliveries, 
including the associated dates.
Limitation on the use of sole source shipbuilding contracts (sec. 124)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
funds from being used to enter into or prepare to enter into 
sole source contracts for one or more Joint High Speed Vessels 
(JHSV) or Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPF) unless the 
Secretary of the Navy submits to the congressional defense 
committees a certification and a report.
    The committee notes appropriations have been made in the 
past 2 years for JHSVs (now called EPFs) that were not 
requested by the President's budget or authorized by a National 
Defense Authorization Act. Since 2011, the Navy requirement for 
EPFs has been 10 ships. In 2013, this requirement was met with 
the procurement of the tenth EPF and the Navy planned to shut 
down the production line. Without an authorization or request 
in the President's budget, procurement of an eleventh EPF at a 
cost of $200.0 million was inserted in the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 
113-235). Again without an authorization or request in the 
President's budget, a twelfth EPF was inserted at a cost of 
$225.0 million in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-113). Both of these EPFs 
were awarded to a single shipbuilder with no competition on a 
sole source contract.
    Therefore, this provision would require the Secretary of 
the Navy to submit a certification that, beginning with the EPF 
designated EPF 11, a sole source contract for one or more EPFs: 
(1) is in the national security interest of the United States; 
(2) will not result in exceeding the requirement for the ship 
class, as delineated in the most recent Navy Force Structure 
Assessment that currently stands at 308 ships, including 10 
EPFs; (3) will use a fixed price contract; (4) will include a 
fair and reasonable contract price as determined at the 
discretion of the Service Acquisition Executive; and (5) will 
provide for government purpose data rights of the ship design.
    In addition, the Secretary of the Navy would also be 
required to submit a report that includes: (1) the basis for 
awarding a non-competitive sole source contract and (2) a 
description of courses of action to achieve competitive ship or 
component-level contract awards in the future, should 
additional ships in the class be procured, including for each 
such course of action, a notional implementation schedule and 
associated cost savings, as compared to a sole source award.
Limitation on availability of funds for the Advanced Arresting Gear 
        program (sec. 125)
    The committee recommends a provision that would restrict 
the obligation or expenditure of amounts authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal 
year 2017 for research and development, design, procurement, or 
advanced procurement of materials for the Advanced Arresting 
Gear (AAG) to be installed on USS Enterprise (CVN-80) until the 
Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense 
committees the report required under section 2433a(c)(2) of 
title 10, United States Code, commonly referred to as a Nunn-
McCurdy certification, for the AAG program.
    The provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense to 
deem the 2009 AAG acquisition program baseline as the original 
baseline estimate and to execute the requirements of sections 
2433 and 2433a of title 10, United States Code, as though the 
Department had submitted a Selected Acquisition Report with 
this baseline estimate included. This subsection provides 
clarity on the original baseline estimate, which is a necessary 
element of a Nunn-McCurdy review.
    The committee remains concerned with the current cost, 
schedule, and performance of the AAG program, which is on the 
critical path for the Navy's newest aircraft carrier, USS 
Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). The committee finds the AAG program 
has exceeded the program acquisition unit cost (PAUC) critical 
cost growth thresholds as prescribed in section 2433 of title 
10, United States Code.
    In 2009, the Navy reported what the committee understands 
to have been the last AAG acquisition program baseline (APB), 
which estimated AAG costs of: $331.0 million for development, 
$145.0 million for procurement, and a program acquisition unit 
cost of $123.0 million.
    In 2013, the program breached the major defense acquisition 
program (MDAP) threshold at which time the program should have 
been re-designated as an MDAP with a new APB. However, the 
Department did not take these actions. According to the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO), AAG breached the MDAP 
development threshold by November 2013 with estimated costs of: 
at least $480.0 million for development, $503 million for 
procurement, and a program acquisition unit cost of $246.0 
million. Although the Navy re-designated AAG as an MDAP (ACAT 
1C) in July 2015, the Navy still has not updated the APB or 
begun submitting Selected Acquisition Reports.
    In February 2016, the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2017 estimated AAG costs of: $927.0 million for 
development, and $483.0 million for procurement, from which the 
committee calculated a program acquisition unit cost of $353.0 
million.
    In April 2016, Navy officials provided the committee with 
an update, estimating AAG costs of: $1.3 billion for 
development, from which the committee calculated a program 
acquisition unit cost of $446.0 million.
    For the purposes of this provision, the committee considers 
the 2009 APB to constitute the original baseline estimate and 
the November 2013 GAO reporting to constitute the current 
baseline estimate. As a result, through February 2016, the 
committee finds the program acquisition unit cost has risen 
$230.0 million, or 186 percent compared to the original 
baseline estimate, and $107.0 million, or 43 percent, compared 
to the current baseline estimate. Based on both percentage 
increases, the committee finds the AAG program has exceeded the 
PAUC critical cost growth thresholds as prescribed in section 
2433 of title 10, United States Code, warranting a Nunn-McCurdy 
review.
    The committee is also concerned by other elements of the 
AAG program.
    First, the system development and demonstration contract 
schedule for delivery has more than quadrupled in length, while 
the AAG promised capability has yet to materialize.
    Second, a critical element of the Navy's business case for 
AAG was an ability to land the next generation of aircraft, 
both heavier and lighter than those in service today. A more 
sensitive braking system--featuring a water twister to absorb 
70 percent of the force--would recover these new aircraft 
safely and with less unnecessary stress. Facing persistent 
delays in software development, the committee notes that in 
February 2016, the Navy authorized an easing of these 
requirements to: (1) meet just the legacy Mark 7 operating 
envelope, (2) eliminate the requirement to backfit Nimitz-class 
carriers with AAG, and (3) redefine what constitutes initial 
operational capability for AAG.
    Third, the committee understands a fatigue life review of 
the water twister is on-going and may result in the need for a 
significant re-design of components in order to meet the 
requirement for a service life of 25 years, which Navy 
officials acknowledge it cannot currently meet. The Navy has 
already procured AAG systems for the first two Ford-class 
ships, which will require additional effort and cost to re-
design and fix.
    Fourth, the committee is concerned by the 18-month delay to 
re-designate AAG as an MDAP and the continued delay updating 
the APB and issuing Selected Acquisition Reports.
    Fifth, delays at the AAG land-based test site and with 
software development for recovering the full range of carrier 
air wing aircraft are unacceptable. In September 2015, Navy 
officials informed the committee that aircraft would be landing 
at the test site by the end of 2015. As of April 2016, this 
event has yet to occur.
    Sixth, as the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
has noted in his annual reports, the reliability data the Navy 
is collecting is still not sufficient to determine if the mean 
time between failures will be acceptable. Additionally, the 
committee is concerned that high cycle testing--which is 
necessary to understand system performance under more realistic 
operational tempo--will not occur at the land-based test site 
until fiscal year 2018.
    Seventh, the committee understands that in January 2015 the 
Navy considered using the legacy Mark 7 arresting gear for USS 
John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) instead of AAG, but decided to 
continue with AAG, in part because the installation of the Mark 
7 was estimated to cost $87.0 million more than AAG. This 
appears to be a shortsighted decision given the extraordinary 
and continuing development delays and cost growth, including 
more than $500.0 million since this decision was made in 
February 2015.
    The committee believes the Navy must pause and reconsider 
the way ahead, including the best business case, for the 
arresting gear on CVN-79 and CVN-80, and notes the Navy has 
already begun such a review. The committee believes returning 
to a variant of the Mark 7 arresting gear is a viable option 
that should be considered. The committee encourages the Navy to 
maximize competition and ensure government data rights of AAG, 
as well as of any other arresting gear that may be pursued.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a reassessment of the AAG program, in accordance 
with sections 2433 and 2433a of title 10, United States Code.

Limitation on procurement of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) and USS 
        Enterprise (CVN-80) (sec. 126)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit more 
than 25 percent of funds authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for 
advance procurement or procurement of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-
79) or USS Enterprise (CVN-80) from being obligated or expended 
until the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees.
    The committee notes the progress that has been made in 
controlling the cost of the Ford-class aircraft carrier 
program. In fiscal year 2008, the cost estimate of CVN-78 was 
$10.5 billion, CVN-79 was $9.2 billion, and CVN-80 was $10.7 
billion. In fiscal year 2015, these estimates had risen to 
$12.9 billion, $11.5 billion, and $13.9 billion, respectively. 
In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the estimates stood at 
$12.9 billion, $11.4 billion, and $12.9 billion, respectively.
    The Navy has largely attributed the progress made in 
arresting cost growth to ``design for affordability'' 
initiatives, which will improve efficiency and cost 
effectiveness in aircraft carrier construction. These 
initiatives require an investment of tens of millions of 
dollars to yield savings in excess of one billion dollars. The 
committee expects these initiatives to yield the projected 
savings and believes the Navy and industrial base are capable 
of achieving greater savings through these initiatives coupled 
with increased savings from: the Ford-class learning curve, 
CVN-80 repeating the design of CVN-79, and increased 
competition. To this end, the committee supported a series of 
provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) that required reports on cost 
reduction opportunities for CVN-79 and CVN-80 (sec. 128), 
alternatives for the future development of aircraft carriers 
(sec. 128), and independent studies of fleet platform 
architectures (sec. 1067). The committee expects the Navy to 
leverage these reports in identifying further cost reduction 
options for aircraft carriers.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
and Chief of Naval Operations to submit a report no later than 
December 1, 2016 that provides alternatives to achieve a CVN-80 
procurement end cost of $12.0 billion. In addition, the report 
shall describe all applicable CVN-80 alternatives that could be 
applied to CVN-79 to enable an $11.0 billion procurement end 
cost. The provision also requires the Secretary of the Navy and 
Chief of Naval Operations to provide annual progress reports 
compared to these end cost goals with the President's budget 
request.

Limitation on availability of funds for Tactical Combat Training System 
        Increment II (sec. 127)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
obligation or expenditure of 25 percent of the funds for the 
Tactical Combat Training System (TCTS) Increment II program 
until 60 days after the Secretary of the Navy submits the 
report on the TCTS II program required by section 235 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92).

                     Subtitle D--Air Force Programs


Extension of prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of A-
        10 aircraft (sec. 141)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 142 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) by extending the 
prohibition on obligation or expenditure of funds to retire or 
prepare to retire A-10 aircraft until the Secretary of the Air 
Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees describing their views on 
the results of the F-35A initial operational test and 
evaluation (IOT&E). The provision would direct the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees that includes the results and 
findings of the F-35A IOT&E, and also ensures the inclusion of 
comparison tests and evaluation of the F-35A and A-10C in 
conducting close air support, combat search and rescue, and 
airborne forward air controller missions. The provision would 
also require submission of a plan by the Secretary and Chief of 
Staff for addressing deficiencies and corrective actions 
identified in the report, and short- and long-term strategies 
for preserving the Air Force's capability to conduct the close 
air support, combat search and rescue, and airborne forward air 
controller missions. Finally, the provision would direct the 
Comptroller General of the United States to assess the 
conclusions and assertions contained in the Secretary's and 
Chief of Staff's report on the F-35A IOT&E.
    The committee understands the F-35A is scheduled to 
complete IOT&E by fiscal year 2019. The committee is concerned 
that while the Secretary of Defense announced on February 2, 
2016, that the A-10 would be replaced ``with F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighters on a squadron-by-squadron basis,'' the Air Force has 
announced its intention to start retiring A-10 aircraft in 
fiscal year 2018 even before the F-35A would complete IOT&E, 
and certainly before the F-35A could be certified as a viable 
replacement capability for the A-10 in its assigned missions.
    To ensure realism under combat conditions, the committee 
directs the A-10C and F-35A comparative testing required under 
this provision to include, as a minimum, both pre-planned and 
emergency divert missions to address effectiveness in 
realistic, complex ground firefight scenarios. These scenarios 
must include simulated enemy forces 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, 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 or degraded; scenarios conducted without joint tactical 
air controller or higher headquarters control to test close air 
support aircraft suitability for airborne forward air 
controller de-confliction 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 de-confliction.
    Combat search and rescue missions must compare 
effectiveness in the rescue mission commander role, 
coordinating all aspects of an extended combat search and 
rescue mission, and including as a minimum: locating, 
identifying, and protecting isolated personnel with continuous 
firepower, controlling other fighters as airborne forward air 
controller, coordinating electronic attack, intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial refueling, command and 
control, and rescue platform escort.
    Additionally, the committee expects the Secretary of the 
Air Force to provide the report required by section 142 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92), due by September 30, 2016, and based on that 
report, the committee may take further action on options for 
authorizing an A-10 replacement program.

Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of A-10 aircraft in 
        storage status (sec. 142)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of fiscal year 2017 funds for the purpose of 
scrapping, destroying, or otherwise disposing of any A-10 
aircraft in any storage status in the Aerospace Maintenance and 
Regeneration Group (AMARG) that have serviceable wings or other 
components that could be used to prevent total active inventory 
A-10 aircraft from being permanently removed from flyable 
status due to unserviceable wings or other components.
    The provision would also specify a notification 
requirement, and would require the Secretary of the Air Force 
to submit, with the fiscal year 2018 budget submission, and 
implement, a plan to prevent any total active inventory A-10 
aircraft from being permanently removed from flyable status for 
unserviceable wings or any other required component over the 
course of the future years defense plan.

Repeal of the requirement to preserve certain retired C-5 aircraft 
        (sec. 143)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement in Section 141 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) for 
the Secretary of the Air Force to continue to preserve C-5 
aircraft, which were retired by the Air Force during a period 
in which the total inventory of strategic airlift aircraft was 
less than 301, in a storage condition that would allow recall 
of such aircraft to future service in the Air Force Reserve, 
Air National Guard, or active force structure.
    The committee recognizes that 27 C-5A aircraft are being 
inducted into or currently maintained in Type 1000 recallable 
storage. This type of preservation is costly and prevents the 
cost-effective reuse of needed C-5 parts, especially parts with 
diminishing manufacturing sources, necessary to sustain the 
total active inventory C-5 fleet.

Repeal of requirement to preserve F-117 aircraft in recallable 
        condition (sec. 144)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement in section 136 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to 
maintain F-117A aircraft in a condition that would allow recall 
of that aircraft to future service.
    The committee recognizes that since this legislation was 
originally enacted, all F-22A program of record aircraft have 
been fielded, the Marine Corps has declared initial operational 
capability (IOC) of the F-35B fighter, and the Air Force is 
expected to declare IOC of the F-35A aircraft within its 
planned window of August to December 2016.

Limitation on availability of funds for EC-130H Compass Call 
        recapitalization program (sec. 145)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of funds for an EC-130H Compass Call 
recapitalization program unless the Air Force conducts a full 
and open competition for the replacement aircraft.
    The Senate report accompanying S. 2410 (S. Rpt. 113-176) of 
the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015 (S. 2410) required the Secretary of the Air Force to 
develop and submit a plan to replace, modernize, or rehost the 
current Compass Call capabilities. Subsequently, section 143 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) required a plan for how the Air Force would 
recapitalize the capability requirement of the EC-130H Compass 
Call mission in the future, whether through a replacement 
program or by integrating such capabilities onto an existing 
platform.
    The committee is encouraged that the Air Force has 
submitted a plan. The plan appears to support the Air Force's 
conclusions, as well as provide aircraft mission availability 
to the combatant commanders at rates at least equal to the 
current capability.
    However, the committee is concerned by a significant shift 
in policy direction. In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Air 
Force felt compelled to quickly divest half of the EC-130H 
fleet with no plan for replacing that lost capability. This 
year, the Air Force proposed a plan that assumes replacing EC-
130H capability is urgent, and that urgency does not allow 
enough time to conduct a full and open competition for the 
replacement platform.
    The committee believes the Air Force's proposal to 
recapitalize the EC-130H Compass Call aircraft using a sole 
source purchase of ten business class aircraft would not give 
us any confidence that the Air Force is achieving the maximum 
value for the American taxpayer. Additionally, allowing this 
sole source award to proceed could potentially prejudice source 
selections for other Air Force recapitalization programs, such 
as the program to replace the Joint Surveillance and Target 
Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft.

Limitation on availability of funds for Joint Surveillance Target 
        Attack Radar System (JSTARS) recapitalization program (sec. 
        146)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of fiscal year 2017 and beyond funds for the Joint 
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) 
recapitalization program unless the contract for engineering 
and manufacturing development (EMD) uses a firm fixed price 
contract structure.
    The committee believes a fixed price development and 
production contract structure is more appropriate for this 
program than a cost plus/incentive fee contract, as the 
program's aim is to integrate mission systems onto a commercial 
derivative aircraft, similarly to the KC-46A tanker 
recapitalization program.
    The committee recognizes the JSTARS recapitalization 
program offers significant advantages: decreased logistics 
footprint, reduced sustainment costs, increased operational 
flexibility, and extended operations into anti-access/area 
denial environments. However, the committee does not believe 
the divestment of any E-8C aircraft prior to the JSTARS 
recapitalization program entering into low rate initial 
production is a prudent course of action toward meeting 
combatant commander warfighting requirements. The committee 
understands the Air Force is currently conducting a study, 
expected to be completed in March 2017, to determine the extent 
of fatigue damage or other structural integrity issues with the 
E-8C fleet.
    The committee is also concerned with the ambiguity of the 
Acquisition Decision Memorandum, published on March 23, 2016, 
that states the Air Force should maintain a goal of 20 percent 
space, weight, power, and cooling (SWAP-C) margin through 
Milestone B to mitigate technical risk. This ambiguous 
requirement could have the effect of limiting industry 
competition and reducing the number of eligible aircraft 
solutions prior to a down-select decision for the EMD phase.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force, not later than December 1, 2016, to provide a report to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
Representatives that includes options to accelerate the JSTARS 
recapitalization program initial operational capability (IOC) 
to (1) fiscal year 2022, and (2) fiscal year 2023; and full 
operational capability (FOC) by fiscal years 2024 and 2025 
respectively, along with the funding plan needed to support 
accelerating the program for both IOC and FOC options; an 
analysis concerning the option of transferring the JSTARS 
recapitalization program to an Air Force program office that 
can execute a rapid acquisition program; a clarification of the 
20 percent SWAP-C margin and how it will be applied to source 
selection criteria; and an interim update on the study 
examining E-8C fatigue damage and structural integrity.

       Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters


Report to Congress on independent study of future mix of aircraft 
        platforms for the Armed Forces (sec. 151)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to obtain an independent study on the 
future mix of aircraft platforms for the Armed Forces.
    The committee is concerned that with many significant 
defense modernization programs scheduled to peak simultaneously 
in the middle of the next decade, informed strategic choices 
must be made on how the nation's resources will be applied to 
meet 21st century challenges. These strategic choices will 
include decisions on an optimized force mix of long-range 
versus medium/short-range intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance and/or strike platforms; manned versus unmanned 
platforms; observability characteristics; land-based versus 
sea-based; advanced or upgraded fourth-generation platforms of 
proven design; next generation air superiority capabilities; 
and promising, game-changing, advanced technology innovations.

Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of certain cluster 
        munitions and report on Department of Defense policy and 
        cluster munitions (sec. 152)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
funds available for the destruction of cluster munitions until 
the Secretary of Defense submits a report on the Department's 
policy on and plan for cluster munitions. The committee notes 
that pursuant to the Department of Defense 2008 Policy on 
Cluster Munitions and Unintended Harm to Civilians, the 
military services and combatant commands, after December 31, 
2018 will no longer use cluster munitions which result in more 
than one percent unexploded ordnance. Additionally, cluster 
munitions sold or transferred by the Department after 2018 must 
meet this requirement. As a result, the Department is facing a 
situation that if not addressed immediately, will have 
significant--and negative--operational and budgetary 
consequences. The committee is aware that the Department of 
Defense is demilitarizing its legacy mechanical and contact-
fuzed weapons while relying on policy compliant sensor-fuzed 
munitions to meet specific requirements within Pacific Command, 
European Command, and Central Command areas of operation. The 
committee has learned that certain munitions that must be 
removed from DOD inventories can be refurbished and upgraded to 
comply with policy requirements at a significant cost savings 
compared to the procurement of new systems.
    The committee has received testimony from multiple senior 
military leaders that critical munitions shortfalls are a top 
priority and of concern. The committee strongly supports 
efforts to limit harm to innocent civilians from area 
munitions, and is concerned that approximately one-half of the 
U.S. Air Force's inventory of available area weapons will not 
meet the Department's standard of less than one percent failure 
rate once the 2008 policy comes into effect on January 1, 2019. 
The committee directs the Department to make all necessary 
efforts to ensure that our warfighters are not deprived of a 
critical combat capability on January 1, 2019.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
not later than March 1, 2017, to provide the congressional 
defense committees a report on the Department's policy and 
plans for cluster munitions.

Medium altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft 
        (sec. 153)

    The committee notes that U.S. Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM) is currently funding operations for a total of eight 
service-provided, but contractor-operated (also known as 
``GOCO'') manned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
(ISR) aircraft that are currently supporting counterterrorism 
operations overseas. The committee understands that two of 
these aircraft have reached the end of their service life and 
are scheduled to be replaced by two similar DHC-8 contractor-
owned, contractor-operated (COCO) Medium Altitude Intelligence, 
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (MAISR) aircraft during fiscal 
year 2016. The fiscal year 2017 budget request for SOCOM 
includes $22.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, Overseas 
Contingency Operations, for the acquisition of these two MAISR 
aircraft to enable them to be operated as GOCO aircraft. The 
committee also understands that a SOCOM analysis has determined 
that the cost avoidance of acquiring versus leasing the 
aircraft is approximately $1.3 million per month with a break 
even return on investment of approximately 11 months.
    The committee recognizes the continuing shortfall in the 
availability of ISR aircraft to support counterterrorism 
operations overseas. However, the committee is concerned with 
the piecemeal acquisition of ISR aircraft that do not clearly 
align with the SOCOM's ISR Roadmap and do not contribute to the 
fielding of a long-term manned MAISR solution to meet 
requirements. The committee believes that acquisition of manned 
ISR aircraft should be based upon the results of the SOCOM 
``Next Generation Manned ISR Analysis of Alternatives'' study 
scheduled to begin in July 2016.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
prohibit the obligation or expenditure of MAISR funds for the 
acquisition of MAISR aircraft in fiscal year 2017 until the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low 
Intensity Conflict, in consultation with the Commander of 
SOCOM, provides the congressional defense committees with a 
report on the manned ISR requirements of the command and how 
such an acquisition aligns with the SOCOM ISR Roadmap.

                              Budget Items


                                  ARMY


Survivability Counter Measures

    The budget request included $9.6 million in line item 
AZ3507 of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for Survivability 
Counter Measures. The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 
million in APA for aircraft Survivability Counter Measures. 
Additional funding for APS was included in the Chief of Staff 
of the Army's unfunded priority list.

Stryker upgrades

    The budget request included $444.6 million in line item 
G85200 of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army (W&TCV) for Stryker upgrades. The committee notes some 
funds are early to need for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $11.0 million in W&TCV for Stryker 
upgrades.

M1 Abrams Tank (Modification)

    The budget request included $480.2 million in line item 
GA0700 of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army (W&TCV) for M1 Abrams Tank (Modification). The committee 
recommends an increase of $82.0 million in W&TCV for the 
procurement and integration of active protection systems (APS). 
Additional funding for APS was included in the Chief of Staff 
of the Army's unfunded priority list.

M1 Abrams Tank (Modification)

    The budget request included $480.2 million in line item 
GA0700 of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
Army (W&TCV) for M1 Abrams Tank (Modification). The committee 
recommends an increase of $58.0 million in W&TCV for the M1 
Abrams Tank industrial base improvement.

Army Budget request realignment M4 Carbine Modification

    The budget request included $29.8 million in Procurement of 
Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV). The 
committee notes other priorities in the FY 2017 budget. The 
committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 million in W&TCV.

Army Budget request realignment Hand Gun

    The budget request included $0.0 million in Procurement of 
Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV) for the Hand 
Gun. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in 
W&TCV.

Army ammunition reduction

    The budget request included $1.5 billion for Procurement of 
Ammunition, Army (PAA). Within that amount, $40.3 million was 
for LIN 0132E00700 CTG, 5.56MM, All Types; $39.2 million was 
for LIN 0612E02000 CTG, 7.62MM, All Types; $5.1 million was for 
LIN 1450EA3000 CTG, Handgun, All Types; $46.6 million was for 
LIN 1722E08000 CTG, .50 Cal, All Types; $7.7 million was for 
LIN 2650E08200 CTG, 25MM, All Types; $118.1 million was for LIN 
3222ER8001 CTG, 40MM, All Types; $120.6 million was for LIN 
1120E22203 Cartridges, Tank, 105MM and 120MM, All Types; $64.8 
million was for LIN 0530E1510 Artillery Cartridges, 75MM & 
105MM, All Types; $6.1 million was for LIN 1430E91901 Non-
Lethal Ammunition, All Types; $10.0 million was for LIN 
2624EA0055 Items Less Than $5.0 Million (AMMO); and $17.2 
million was for LIN 4370EA0575 Ammunition Peculiar Equipment.
    The committee understands portions of these requests are 
ahead of need based on analysis by the Government 
Accountability Office. The committee believes these funds can 
be better aligned for other readiness priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends decreases to the 
following: $2.6 million to LIN 0132E00700 CTG, 5.56MM, All 
Types; $0.3 million to LIN 0612E02000 CTG, 7.62MM, All Types; 
$1.3 million to LIN 1450EA3000 CTG, Handgun, All Types; $4.7 
million to 1722E08000 CTG, .50 Cal, All Types; $1.3 million to 
LIN 2650E08200 CTG, 25MM, All Types; $6.3 million to LIN 
3222ER8001 CTG, 40MM, All Types; $2.8 million to LIN 1120E22203 
Cartridges, Tank, 105MM and 120MM, All Types; $4.0 million to 
LIN 0530E1510 Artillery Cartridges, 75MM & 105MM, All Types; 
$0.2 million to LIN 1430E91901 Non-Lethal Ammunition, All 
Types; $0.5 million to LIN 2624EA0055 Items Less Than $5.0 
Million (AMMO); and $3.7 million to LIN 4370EA0575 Ammunition 
Peculiar Equipment.

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle

    The budget request included $00.0 million in Procurement of 
Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV) for the High 
Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle. The committee recommends an 
increase of $21 million in OPA for the High Mobility Multi-
Purpose Vehicle.

Modification of in Service Equipment

    The budget request included $219.5 million in line item 
number DA0924 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for 
Modification of In-Service Equipment. The committee notes other 
priorities in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $12.0 million in OPA for Modification 
of In-Service Equipment.

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical

    The budget request included $437.2 million in line item 
number BW7100 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Warfighter 
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T). The committee notes an 
early to need requirement in the budget for fiscal year 2017. 
The committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in OPA 
for WIN-T.

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (Military Intelligence Program)

    The budget request included $275.5 million in line item 
BZ7316 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Distributed Common 
Ground System-Army (DCGS-A). The committee notes the program 
has changing tactical requirements for fiscal year 2017. 
Therefore the committee recommends a decrease of $93.0 million 
in OPA for DCGS-A.

Light Weight Counter Mortar Radar

    The budget request included $99.9 million in line item 
B05201 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Light Weight 
Counter Mortar Radar (LCMR). The committee notes unjustified 
growth in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $12.5 million in OPA for LCMR.

Modification of In-Service Equipment (Lightweight Laser Designator 
        Rangefinder)

    The budget request included $28.1 million in line item 
KA3100 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Modification of 
In-Service Equipment (Lightweight Laser Designator 
Rangefinder). The committee notes unjustified growth in the 
budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a 
decrease of $6.5 million in OPA for Modification of In-Service 
Equipment (Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder).

Counterfire Radars

    The budget request included $314.5 million in line item 
BA5500 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Counterfire 
Radars. The committee recommends smoothing the production 
profile in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $36.0 million in OPA for Counterfire 
Radars.

Maneuver Control System

    The budget request included $151.3 million in line item 
BA9320 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Maneuver Control 
System (MCS). The committee notes an unjustified increase in 
the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a 
decrease of $27.0 million in OPA for MCSs.

Automated Data Processing Equipment

    The budget request included $108.0 in Other Procurement, 
Army (CPA) for automated data processing equipment. The 
committee notes higher priorities in the budget for fiscal year 
2017. The committee recommends a reduction of $9.4 million in 
OPA for automated data processing equipment.

Army Contract Writing System

    The budget request included $1.0 million in Other 
Procurement Army (OPA) for Army Contract Writing System. The 
committee is concerned that the Army is planning to spend over 
$200.0 million on software to write contracts.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million in OPA 
for Army Contract Writing System. The committee urges the Army 
to analyze lower cost alternatives for this business function.

Distribution Systems, Petroleum and Water

    The budget request included $42.7 million in line item 
MA6000 in Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Distribution 
Systems, Petroleum and Water. The committee notes higher 
priorities in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 
recommends a decrease of $10 million in OPA for Distribution 
Systems, Petroleum and Water.

Mobile Maintenance Equipment Systems

    The budget request included $37.3 million in line item 
G05301 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Mobile Maintenance 
Equipment Systems. The committee notes an unjustified increase 
in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a 
decrease of $5.0 million in OPA for Mobile Maintenance 
Equipment Systems.

Construction Equipment Engineer Support Companies

    The budget request included $26.7 million in line item 
M05500 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Construction 
Equipment Engineer Support Companies (ESP). The committee notes 
an unjustified increase in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The 
committee recommends a decrease of $4.5 million in OPA for 
Engineer Support Equipment ESP.

Army Watercraft Extended Service Program

    The budget request included $21.9 million in Other 
Procurement, Army (OPA), for Army Watercraft Extended Service 
Program. The committee notes higher priorities in the budget 
for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a decrease of 
$11 million in Army Watercraft Extended Service Program

Modification of In-Service Equipment (Other Procurement, Army 3)

    The budget request included $67.4 million in line item 
MA4500 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Modification of 
In-Service Equipment (Other Procurement, Army 3). The committee 
notes unjustified growth in the budget for fiscal year 2017. 
The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in OPA for 
Modification of In-Service Equipment (Other Procurement, Army 
3).

                                  Navy


F-35B Spares

    The budget request included $1.4 billion in line item 
number 605 of Aviation Procurement, Navy (APN) for Spares and 
Repair Parts. The committee notes the Marine Corps is planning 
on the first operational shipboard deployments of the F-35B in 
2018. Adequate spare parts are vital to maintain aircraft 
readiness and operational availability, particularly while 
operating at sea. Additional funding is necessary to ensure the 
deploying L-class ships have sufficient Afloat Spares Packages 
to support their F-35B detachments. This is a Commandant of the 
Marine Corps unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $50.8 million to APN, Spares and 
Repair Parts.

Tomahawk missile

    The budget request included $186.9 million in line item 
2101 of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) for procurement of 100 
Tomahawk missiles. The Tomahawk remains a vital element of the 
nation's long range strike capability and will remain so for 
the foreseeable future. The committee supports the Navy's 
efforts to modernize the Tomahawk's navigation, communications, 
and seeker to maintain its advanced capability, but remains 
concerned about the path forward. The Tomahawk's replacement 
remains in the earliest of planning stages and its initial 
operating capability has been pushed back a further 4 to 6 
years from 2024 to the 2028-2030 timeframe. Nevertheless, the 
budget request funds production below the minimum sustaining 
rate and seeks to end production of new Tomahawks after fiscal 
year 2017. The committee is concerned that the Navy's plan 
presents significant risk in Tomahawk inventory levels and 
risks an unstable industrial base for the beginning of the 
recertification and modernization of existing Block IV missiles 
in 2019.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $84.2 
million in line item 2101 of WPN to maintain production at the 
minimum sustaining rate of 196 missiles.

AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile

    The budget request included $178.2 million in line item 
2327 of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) for the AGM-88E 
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM). The committee 
supports the need for a capable anti-radiation guided missile 
to counter modern integrated air defense systems. However, the 
committee is concerned with the continued troubles experienced 
by the AARGM in operational testing. The committee is also 
concerned about problems with production processes, which led 
to a recent partial production shutdown.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 
million for this program to restore program accountability.

Ordnance support equipment

    The budget request included $59.1 million in line item 2500 
of Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN). The committee recommends an 
increase of $7.0 million.

Navy and Marine Corps ammunition reduction

    The budget request included $1.5 billion for Procurement of 
Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps (PANMC) of which $16.7 million 
was for LIN 1121 120mm, All Types and $8.5 million was for LIN 
1660 Items Less Than $5 million.
    The committee understands portions of these requests are 
ahead of need based on analysis by the Government 
Accountability Office. The committee believes these funds can 
be better aligned for other readiness priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends decreases to the 
following in PANMC: $4.0 million to LIN 1121 120mm, All Types 
and $2.5 million was for LIN 1660 Items Less Than $5 million.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers

    The budget request included $3.2 billion in line item 9 of 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for procurement of Arleigh 
Burke-class destroyers (DDG-51). The committee notes an 
additional destroyer was provided for in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), 
which included incremental funding authority, and the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-113), which included $1.0 billion in funding. 
The committee further notes an additional $433.0 million is 
required to fully fund this additional destroyer. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an increase of $49.8 million to this 
program to provide the next increment of funding for the 
additional fiscal year 2016 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Littoral Combat Ship

    The budget request included $1.1 billion in line item 11 of 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for procurement of two 
Littoral Combat Ships. The committee notes unjustified unit 
cost growth in the other cost ($24.0 million) and other 
electronics ($4.0 million) categories, which increased without 
justification despite a quantity reduction compared to fiscal 
year 2016. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 
$28.0 million in procurement for this program.

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R)

    The budget request included no funding in line item 13 of 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of 
the amphibious ship replacement LX(R), which is expected to 
functionally replace LSD-41 and LSD-49 class ships. The 
committee supports accelerating the construction of LX(R) class 
ships, provided the ships are competitively awarded. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million for this 
program.

Destroyer modernization

    The budget request included $367.8 million in line item 9 
of Other Procurement, Navy for DDG modernization. The committee 
notes the Navy's DDG modernization program increases the 
fleet's Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Naval Integrated 
Fire Control--Counter Air (NIFC-CA) capacity, which improves 
the U.S. ability to pace high-end adversary weapons systems. 
One additional BMD/NIFC-CA modernization was a Chief of Naval 
Operations' unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $65.0 million to this program.

LCS common mission modules equipment

    The budget request included $27.8 million in line item 36 
of Other Procurement, Navy for LCS common mission modules 
equipment. This line item contains $12.2 million for mission 
bay training devices--MCM, which includes $3.7 million for 
training and support items associated with the remote 
minehunting system that was cancelled in 2016. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $3.7 million for this 
program.

Surveillance towed array sensor system

    The budget request included $36.1 million in line item 51 
of Other Procurement, Navy for the surveillance towed array 
sensor system (SURTASS). The committee notes an additional 
SURTASS array will increase operational availability of ready 
spares to outfit Pacific Fleet assets. This was a Chief of 
Naval Operations' unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to this program.

Surface electronic warfare improvement program

    The budget request included $274.9 million in line item 53 
of Other Procurement, Navy for AN/SLQ-32. The committee notes 
the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) 
Block III provides for upgraded electromagnetic sensing and 
electronic attack capabilities for surface ships. Procuring one 
additional unit will increase fiscal year 2017 procurement from 
two to three systems, providing increased shipborne electronic 
attack and counter-targeting capabilities. This was a Chief of 
Naval Operations' unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $23.0 million to this program.

Minesweeping system replacement

    The budget request included $56.7 million in line item 62 
of Other Procurement, Navy for the minesweeping system 
replacement. Navy officials have stated systems procured in 
this line item are used for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 
training. In fiscal year 2017, the request for this line item 
includes $20.5 million for two Knifefish systems and $4.0 
million for two Unmanned Influence Sweep System trainers. The 
committee notes fiscal year 2017 is the first year of 
procurement for Knifefish and the Unmanned Influence Sweep 
System in LCS mine countermeasures mission modules line item 
1601, and that the system will undergo developmental test and 
evaluation to verify it meets all technical requirements in 
fiscal year 2017. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $24.5 million for this program due to procurement 
ahead of need.

                               Air Force


UH-1N helicopter replacement program

    The budget request included $18.3 million in Aircraft 
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the UH-1N helicopter 
replacement program. This program is intended to replace the 
over four decade-old helicopters currently in use for rapid 
security response team missions on the Air Force's 
intercontinental ballistic missile fields. These aircraft are 
growing increasingly unreliable due to approaching the end of 
their service lives, are more costly to maintain, and do not 
meet the minimum requirements necessary for the missile field 
security mission.
    The committee believes the Air Force's proposed approach to 
procure HH-60 helicopters from the U.S. Army's current multi-
year procurement contract, under The Economy Act of 1932, Title 
31, United States Code, sections 1535 and 1536, represents the 
most prudent method to rapidly field the necessary capability, 
leverages the Air Force's existing organic depot maintenance 
and supply chain for their current HH-60 and future Combat 
Rescue Helicopter fleets, avoids costly and lengthy development 
and testing of a completely new and different aircraft, and 
decreases both Army and Air Force aircraft procurement unit 
costs through economic order of quantity.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $302.3 
million in APAF for the procurement of eight HH-60 Blackhawk 
aircraft and initial spares and support equipment.

Fourth generation fighter capability upgrades

    The budget request included $97.3 million in Line Item 
F01600 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for F-16 
capability upgrades. Due to Air Force plans to field fourth 
generation fighters for a longer than expected period of time 
while awaiting deliveries in significant numbers of F-35A 
replacements, these aircraft must be upgraded with systems that 
will make them more operationally effective and survivable in 
the threat environments of the early to mid-2020 decade.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $48.3 
million for F-16 multi-mission computer and Multi-functional 
Information Distribution System--Joint Tactical Radio System 
(MIDS-JTRS), an increase of $12.0 million for F-16 active 
missile warning system, an increase of $23.0 million for F-16 
digital radar warning system, and an increase of $5.0 million 
for F-16 anti-jam global positioning system (GPS) upgrades. The 
committee recommends a total increase of $88.3 million in Line 
Item F01600 of APAF for these Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
fiscal year 2017 unfunded requirement list items.

Budget request realignments

    The Air Force requested that the committee make several 
realignments in their budget to correct various errors in their 
submission of the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) and 
Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF) documentation. The table 
below reflects these adjustments:

                  Changes to Correct Submission Errors
                              (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Amount
              Item                  Account     Line  Item    Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC-130J........................          APAF            6            +1
MQ-9...........................          APAF           15        -$87.0
Initial Spares (MQ-9)..........          APAF           61        +$87.0
Initial Spares (EC-130H).......          APAF           61        -$25.6
Compass Call Mods..............          APAF           45        +$25.6
AFNET..........................          OPAF           40         -$5.1
Intel Comm Equipment...........          OPAF           15         +$5.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Defense Wide


Mentor Protege reduction

    The budget request included $4.6 billion in LIN 30 
Procurement, Defense-Wide, (PDW) of which $29.2 million was for 
Major Equipment, OSD.
    The committee understands that within this request was 
$23.1 million for the Mentor Protege program. The committee's 
analysis of this program indicates that a number of firms 
participating in the program as Proteges have received, in some 
cases significant, federal contract awards prior to the 
establishment of their Mentor-Protege agreements.
    The committee notes that in the Joint Explanatory Statement 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), the conferees required the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than February 
23, 2016 on changes to program policy and metrics that would 
ensure the program meets the goal of enhancing the defense 
supplier base in the most effective and efficient manner. The 
committee notes this report has not been submitted in 
accordance with the law, leaving concerns to the ongoing 
validity of this program.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $23.1 
million in LIN 30 PDW for Major Equipment, OSD.

MH-60M training loss replacement

    The budget request included $150.4 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW), Line 42, for rotary wing upgrades and 
sustainment. In August 2015, a U.S. Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM) MH-60M helicopter sustained heavy damage during an 
overseas training exercise and the aircraft was subsequently 
designated as a training loss. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends an increase of $18.6 million for special operations-
peculiar modifications to one UH-60 provided to SOCOM by the 
Department of the Army for the replacement of the overseas 
training loss.

MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

    The budget request included $10.6 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW), Line 51, for the acquisition and support of 
special operations-unique mission kits for the Medium Altitude 
Long Endurance Tactical (MALET) MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
(UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible 
for the rapid development and acquisition of special operations 
capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out 
operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral 
damage.
    The committee understands that the budget request only 
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its 
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $14.8 million in PDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
    The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to 
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging 
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. The committee has 
authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of 
the last 4 years to enhance these efforts and understands that 
SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new 
capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target 
location and tracking, image resolution, and video transmission 
during that time. The committee expects SOCOM to update the 
committee periodically on its procurement efforts under the 
MALET MQ-9 UAV program.

AC-130J A-kit procurement

    The budget request included $213.1 million in Procurement, 
Defense-wide (PDW), Line 53, to field precision strike package 
kits for AC-130J aircraft. As a result of a decision to 
integrate the 105mm gun on the AC-130J, U.S. Special Operations 
Command has requested a transfer of $13.1 million designated 
for precision strike package kits to PDW, Line 54, for AC-130J 
A-kit procurement. Accordingly, the committee recommends a 
transfer of this amount.

                       Items of Special Interest


Aegis radar improvements

    The U.S. Navy has 84 destroyers and cruisers in the fleet 
equipped with the Aegis Weapon System, which includes the AN/
SPY-1 multifunction phased-array radar. The AN/SPY-1 is based 
on vacuum electronic device components, such as cross-field 
amplifiers, travelling wave tube transmitters, and microwave 
vacuum tubes.
    The committee understands newer, more efficient 
transmitters may be available that provide significant 
performance advantages, including: very low out-of-band 
emission, very low phase noise, reduced clutter, increased 
range, and greater electronic warfare capabilities.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
House of Representatives not later than 120 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, a report on AN/SPY-1 operational 
availability and sustainment challenges across the DDG-51 and 
CG-47 classes. The report shall also include the cost and 
benefits of options to address AN/SPY-1 obsolescence 
challenges, including the potential use of newer, more 
efficient transmitters.

Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload

    The committee is concerned the Air Force is not fully 
implementing the tenets of the Department of Defense's Better 
Buying Power and the acquisition reform principles enacted in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) with regard to the Airborne Signals 
Intelligence Payload (ASIP) program.
    The committee is concerned the Air Force may be overstating 
integration risks which result in excessive life cycle costs in 
pursuing an ASIP program design, resulting in late-to-need 
upgrades in response to user requirements, and may not fully 
capitalize on commercially available, mature technology that an 
open competition would deliver.
    The committee expects the Air Force to engage in a full and 
open competition for ASIP Increment 2B to achieve improved 
capability for combatant commanders at a lower cost.

Army Modular Handgun System (MHS)

    The committee is concerned that the Army's effort to buy a 
new modular handgun system has taken more than 10 years and 
produced a more than 350-page requirements document.
    The committee is pleased that the Army finally released a 
request for proposal on August 28, 2015, and has now received 
multiple proposals from industry.
    The committee supports an effort to accelerate the 
procurement of a low cost weapon system that meets Army 
requirements and that is potentially a commercial off-the shelf 
and non-developmental item.
    The committee recommends the Army rapidly and competitively 
acquire a handgun by leveraging new acquisition authorities as 
detailed in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). The committee further recommends 
pursuing a firm fixed price contract in accordance with the 
Federal Acquisition Regulations part 12.

B-21 supply chain

    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
provide a classified report to the congressional defense 
committees on foreign supply chain risk in the B-21 program. 
The report must be submitted with the President's Fiscal Year 
2018 budget request and shall include, at a minimum:
          (1) a description of any engineering or design 
        activities performed outside the United States;
          (2) a comprehensive list of sub-assemblies, 
        components, or parts that are being built, or will be 
        built or assembled outside the United States;
          (3) an assessment of supply chain risk related to 
        work performed on the B-21 outside the United States, 
        including, but not limited to, risks associated with 
        supply interruption; counterfeit, suspect-counterfeit 
        or nonconforming parts or quality assurance; and
          (4) a description of actions taken by the Air Force 
        to mitigate supply chain risks posed by work performed 
        on the B-21 outside the United States.

B-52 radar replacement program

    In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the Air Force is 
proposing to replace the B-52 mechanically-steered radar 
system, which dates to the 1960s, with a program considered a 
new start. In prior years, in reports directed by the Senate 
report accompanying S. 3254 (S. Rept. 112-173) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and the Senate 
report accompanying S. 1197 (S. Rept. 113-44) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the Air Force 
continued to maintain such mechanically steered radars could be 
sustained through 2040.
    While the committee is pleased the Air Force is considering 
a replacement for the B-52 radar system, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional 
defense committees, not later than February 28, 2017, on the 
outcome of the analysis of alternatives that will be conducted 
to initiate this program, and how it differs from the prior 
analysis of alternatives conducted in 2011.
    In addition, as part of this report the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional 
defense committees on the system degradation of the existing B-
52 radar system and the AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile in 
terms of weapon accuracy throughout the expected service life 
of the AGM-86.

C-130 engine enhancements

    The committee recognizes energy usage, specifically fuel 
consumption by the Air Force, continues to represent an 
overwhelming portion of Air Force operations and maintenance 
costs. To find ways to reduce fuel costs, the Air Force 
commissioned a study in 2006, funded industry research and 
development, and began an Engine Enhancement Program. These 
efforts result in increased service life and fuel economy of 
the T56 engine, and improved operational performance of the C-
130H aircraft, to include increased cargo capacity and range, 
as well as reduced takeoff distances. Congress authorized and 
appropriated funding to procure and install T56 3.5 engine 
upgrades in previous fiscal years. The committee notes the T56 
3.5 Engine Enhancement Program is included in the Air National 
Guard's 2015 Weapons Systems Modernization Priorities as a 
``significant major item shortage.''
    The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to continue 
ongoing testing of the T56 3.5 engine upgrade and other C-130 
propulsion system improvements to demonstrate capability 
improvements and fuel savings, and ultimately achieve reduced 
operations and sustainment costs.

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department of 
        Defense F-35 deployment planning efforts

    The committee recognizes the importance of the F-35 
Lightning II program to our national defense. The F-35 will 
replace a variety of combat aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, 
and Marine Corps, representing the future of tactical air for 
the Department of Defense (DOD). In July 2015, the Marine Corps 
declared initial operating capability for the F-35B. The Marine 
Corps plans to deploy its first squadron of aircraft to Marine 
Corps Air Station Iwakuni (Japan) in 2017 as a permanent change 
of station for VMFA-121. This will signal the first operational 
deployment of both the F-35B aircraft platform and its 
associated Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and 
will provide an opportunity to prove operational concepts not 
only for the Marine Corps, but for the Air Force and Navy as 
well. Additionally, VMFA-121 is due to deploy aboard ship in 
2018, the F-35's first operational shipboard deployment. As the 
Marine Corps prepares to deploy the F-35B, opportunities also 
exist for DOD and the services to reexamine aircraft 
affordability and make adjustments as needed. The F-35 program 
is critical to the future of tactical air for the Armed Forces 
and DOD will need to operate and deploy the F-35 on a 
widespread basis in the coming years while managing costs.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
forth the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller 
General with preliminary observations due no later than March 
1, 2017 and a final report to follow, to review the DOD's 
ongoing F-35B deployment planning efforts. This review should 
include:
          (1) The extent to which DOD has developed plans to 
        support its initial F-35 deployment to Marine Corps Air 
        Station Iwakuni, including those related to personnel, 
        aircraft support equipment, base infrastructure, ALIS 
        integration, logistics, and spare parts;
          (2) The extent to which the Marine Corps' initial F-
        35B deployment to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni will 
        enable U.S. Pacific Command to meet its operational 
        requirements;
          (3) The challenges the F-35B program faces with its 
        initial deployment to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, 
        and the extent to which DOD plans to measure success, 
        challenges, and share lessons learned with the Air 
        Force and Navy; and
          (4) The extent to which DOD has developed plans to 
        support its initial F-35 deployment aboard ship, 
        including those related to personnel, aircraft support 
        equipment, ship modifications (including communication 
        and data links), ALIS integration, logistics, and spare 
        parts.

DDG-51 destroyer production gap

    The committee is concerned a production gap may occur 
between the current DDG-51 multi-year procurement contract, 
which concludes with the procurement of two ships in fiscal 
year 2017, and the follow-on contract scheduled to begin in 
fiscal year 2018. The committee notes a previous production gap 
in this program resulted in increased costs for both 
construction shipyards, as well as the broader vendor base. The 
committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to prevent a DDG-51 
production gap to the maximum extent practicable.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives with the fiscal year 2018 
budget request that provides a plan to prevent a DDG-51 
production gap or, should the Secretary be unable to prevent a 
gap, provide mitigation options.

Department of Defense report on improvements to the munitions 
        requirements process

    The committee remains concerned about the state of the 
Department of Defense's munitions inventories. Years of 
budgetary neglect and high levels of operational use have 
stretched inventories in some critical munitions to dangerously 
low levels. While the committee supports the Department's 
renewed focus on procuring munitions in higher quantities, the 
committee remains concerned the Department's munitions 
requirements process remains inadequate to ensure inventories 
are managed without repeated descents into crisis. The 
committee understands the Department has made changes to the 
requirements process, improving the frequency and fidelity of 
required asset estimates. However, the committee remains 
concerned the process still does not adequately account for 
either activities short of major combat operations, such as 
current actions against Islamic State, nor transfers of 
munitions to our allies, which is an important element in 
support of our national military and diplomatic efforts.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Armed Services Committees of the 
Senate and House of Representatives, within 180 days of the 
enactment of this Act, on ways to improve the munitions 
requirements process, with particular emphasis on better 
accounting for actions short of major combat operations and 
transfers of munitions to our allied partners.
    The required report should be classified but shall include 
an unclassified executive summary.

E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleet Block 40/45 
        upgrade

    The committee fully supports the ongoing efforts by the Air 
Force to upgrade its fleet of E-3 Airborne Warning and Control 
System (AWACS) aircraft and strongly encourages the Air Force 
to fully fund the Block 40/45 upgrade on its entire fleet of 
AWACS.

EA-18G Growler requirement

    As electronic warfare technologies and capabilities 
proliferate throughout the globe, to allies, partners, and 
potential adversaries alike, the committee believes airborne 
electronic attack will be increasingly vital to our joint 
warfighting force. Currently, the EA-18G Growler is the 
nation's premier airborne electronic attack (AEA) aircraft and 
will soon be the only tactical AEA aircraft platform. During a 
March 2016 hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson, stated that 
the current buy of 160 EA-18G Growlers was sufficient to do 
``the Navy's part'' of electronic warfare, but the Department 
was undergoing a process to study the need for Growlers to 
support the entire joint force. The committee believes the 
requirement for Growlers will not diminish, and will likely 
increase, as the Growler community continues to expand the 
tactics and concepts of operations of the aircraft's electronic 
surveillance and electronic attack capabilities and the Next 
Generation Jammer begins to enter the fleet in the early 2020s.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report, within 180 days following the enactment of 
this Act, to either revalidate the current requirement for the 
EA-18G Growler total program of record quantity or identify a 
new requirement for the total number of EA-18G aircraft the 
Department would ultimately procure. The report should include 
the relevant portions of the defense strategy, critical 
assumptions, priorities, and force sizing construct used to 
revalidate the current requirement. If a new requirement is 
identified, the report should include the overarching plan for 
fielding complementary weapons systems to meet combatant 
commander objectives.
    The required report may be classified, but must include an 
unclassified executive summary.

Enhanced tactical mobility for infantry brigade combat teams

    The committee is concerned about the 82nd Airborne 
Division's urgent need for enhanced tactical mobility for 
infantry brigade combat teams outlined in the operational needs 
statement of March 2014. This statement was approved by XVIII 
(Airborne) Corps and subsequently by U.S. Army Forces Command. 
The committee strongly encourages the Army to rapidly acquire 
these vehicles using new authorities granted in the National 
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92).

F-16 mission training centers

    The committee recognizes the ability to execute decisive 
air warfare requires realistic training. Various types of 
required real-world training activities are seldom conducted at 
Air National Guard bases due to limited availability of assets 
(i.e., lack of availability of dedicated adversary aircraft, 
realistic low level airspace for low altitude intercepts or 
engagements, and supersonic ranges). This lack of real-world 
training capability can be offset with modem and up to-date 
live, virtual, and constructive technologies available today.
    The committee fully supports and encourages Air Force and 
Air National Guard efforts to field additional F-16 block 40/50 
Mission Training Centers (MTC) that remotely connect to virtual 
networks to perform enterprise-wide training and mission 
rehearsal across diverse geographical locations. Additional MTC 
locations would provide Air National Guard aircrews the 
necessary continuity of training between live and virtual 
scenarios required to attain and sustain full combat mission 
readiness while reducing operations tempo, flying hour, and 
travel costs.

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ambulance

    The committee recognizes the critical medical ground 
evacuation mission role filled by the High Mobility 
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ambulance. The committee 
is concerned that the Army's current fleet of HMMWV ambulances 
in the active component is exceeding the expected useful life 
of the vehicle. Therefore, the committee directs the Army to 
develop a plan to deliver the next generation M997 A3 HMMWV 
ambulances focused on enhanced reliability and crew protection 
to accomplish their lifesaving mission.
    The committee supports the Army's ongoing requirement to 
maintain a HMMWV ambulance fleet capable of meeting the 
continued and varied mission roles for both the active and 
reserve components. The committee is aware of the successful 
effort underway to modernize the HMMWV ambulance fleet for the 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve through the procurement of 
state-of-the-art HMMWV ambulances. The committee believes this 
model warrants consideration in order to field the maximum 
quantity of vehicles as expeditiously as possible.

Munitions availability

    The committee notes that from August 2014 to December 2015, 
the U.S. military dropped $1.3 billion in smart bombs and other 
guided munitions on ISIL targets in Iraq and Syria. The Air 
Force alone has fired more than 20,000 missiles and bombs 
against ISIL. This has resulted in a shortage of precision 
guided munitions. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have all 
voiced concerns about having insufficient munitions to meet 
requirements. In testimony before the House Armed Services 
Committee earlier this year, the Commander of U.S. Forces Korea 
confirmed that ``[W]e must maintain an adequate quantity of 
critical munitions to ensure alliance supremacy in the early 
days of conflict on the Peninsula. This requirement is further 
amplified by the approaching loss of cluster munitions due to 
shelf life expiration and the impending ban.'' High operational 
tempo has exacerbated what was already a critical situation. 
The committee is concerned by the fact the munitions industrial 
base has been strained to replenish previously depleted stocks, 
let alone keep up with current demand.
    Therefore, prior to submission of the Fiscal Year 2018 
budget, the Department of Defense will submit a written plan 
and provide a report to the congressional defense committees in 
the House and Senate on their plan to ensure sufficient 
munitions are funded, sustained and procured to meet planned 
Combat Commander requirements as well as existing and emerging 
contingency operational requirements. This plan should take 
into consideration emerging weapon systems, new technologies, 
replenishment of expended munition stockpiles, and the required 
removal of munitions due to age or capability, and upgrade and 
refurbishment of existing munitions.

Navy maritime security barriers

    As noted in the Senate report (S. Rept. 114-49) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 (S. 1376), the committee believes that the department 
must seek to continually improve force protection measures and 
that security at Navy shipyards and bases depends not only on 
land-based security measures, but also on effective maritime 
barriers.
    As the Commander of Navy Installations Command, Vice 
Admiral Dixon Smith, testified on April 5, 2016, current Navy 
maritime security barriers do ``not meet the requirement for 
high-speed boats that could be used for a terrorist attack.''
    The committee understands the Navy is testing next 
generation maritime security barriers and notes Admiral Smith 
testified these barriers will have a better ability to stop 
vessels.
    The committee further understands that next generation 
maritime barriers may also provide improved protection against 
low profile surface threats, better ability to withstand 
multiple coordinated attacks, and better ability to endure 
environmental extremes.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives with the department's 
fiscal year 2018 budget request containing options to improve 
protection for Navy ships, shipyards, bases, equipment, and 
personnel, including the role that next generation maritime 
barriers could play in improving that protection.

Ohio-class replacement submarine program

    The committee understands the Navy plans to use a cost-plus 
contracting strategy for the design of the Ohio-class 
replacement program and potentially for procurement of the lead 
submarine in the class. The committee believes the Navy and 
contractors will have sufficient time between the first 
contract award of procurement funds in fiscal year 2017 and the 
fiscal year 2028 delivery of the lead submarine to reassess the 
lead submarine contracting strategy. The committee recommends 
the Navy transition to fixed price contracts for this program 
as quickly as possible, including modifying the lead submarine 
contract, because maintaining cost and schedule are vital to 
ensuring the first Ohio-class replacement submarine meets its 
U.S. Strategic Command requirement to conduct its first patrol 
in 2031.
    Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit 
a report with the President's budget for fiscal year 2018 to 
the congressional defense committees on how and when the Navy 
plans to transition to fixed price contracts for this program, 
including options to modify the lead submarine procurement 
contract.

Paladin Integrated Management (PIM)

    The committee continues to support the Paladin Integrated 
Management (PIM) upgrade to the M109A6 Paladin, the primary 
indirect fire weapons platform in the US Army's Armored Brigade 
Combat Teams (ABCT). The PIM program upgrades both the M109A6 
Paladin howitzer and its companion ammunition resupply vehicle, 
the M992 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle (FAASV). 
PIM incorporates many new survivability enhancements to greatly 
increase the force protection levels of the crewmembers. The 
PIM program is critical to the US Army. It significantly 
improves force protection and survivability and reduces 
logistics burden for the Armored Brigade Combat team field 
artillery Soldiers.

Patriot Product Improvement

    The committee notes that the Army has requested $49.5 
million for the Patriot Product Improvement program. On July 
21, 2015, General Mark A. Milley, USA, Chief of Staff of the 
Army, testified that, ``Patriot plays a key role in not only 
acquiring and then destroying incoming fixed-wing aircraft, but 
also in intercepting and destroying incoming missiles. So 
Patriot is a very, very key system to the air defense of our 
allies and our own soldiers on the ground.'' The committee 
believes that our service members should have the best 
available air and missile defense capabilities. The committee 
understands that the Patriot Product Improvement program would 
provide required material upgrades to incorporate lessons 
learned, enhance joint force interoperability, and improve 
performance to address emerging threats. The committee supports 
the Army's request for Patriot Product Improvement funding.

Radiation detection technology

    The Committee is encouraged that the Army National Guard 
recently placed an order to help fill a shortfall in modern 
radiation detection devices. The committee is concerned, 
however, that shortfalls in fielding the most current radiation 
detection devices, specifically personal dosimeters, continue 
to exist, and most notably within the Army. 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 Department to 
expedite and complete the fielding of modern radiation 
detection equipment, specifically personal dosimeters, across 
the force.

Report on disposition options for previously modified C-130H Avionics 
        Modernization Program (AMP) aircraft

    The committee is encouraged by the Air Force's progress in 
the restructured C-130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) 
Increments 1 and 2. The Air Force appears to have a solid path 
forward for AMP Increment 1 to upgrade all C-130H aircraft with 
safety upgrades, as well as airspace access compliance 
modifications by the deadline of January 1, 2020. The committee 
is also encouraged by the planned acceleration of the AMP 
Increment 2 phase well before the previously anticipated fiscal 
year 2042 completion date, moving estimated fleet completion 
forward to fiscal year 2028.
    The committee is concerned with the funding and manpower 
resources required to maintain the five previously modified C-
130H AMP aircraft at their current location. The committee 
understands that again modifying the previously modified C-130H 
AMP aircraft into the restructured AMP Increments 1 and 2 
configuration is likely cost-prohibitive.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 
December 1, 2016, on:
          (1) The anticipated annual resource requirements for 
        fiscal year 2017 and beyond to maintain the aircraft in 
        their current status and location;
          (2) Potential options, including feasibility and 
        costs, for declaring the five aircraft as excess to 
        military requirements and;
                  (a) opportunities for transfer to other 
                government agencies;
                  (b) foreign military sales;
                  (c) sales to private entities; or (d) any 
                combination of the options in subparagraphs 
                (2)(a), (2)(b), and (2)(c);
          (3) Other disposition options.

Review of Army salutes, honors, and visits of courtesy in relation to 
        use of 75MM blank rounds

    The committee strongly concurs with the Chief of Staff of 
the Army's readiness guidance for calendar year 2016-2017 that, 
``readiness is #1 . . . and there is no other #1.'' The 
committee is also concerned that in the current fiscal 
environment, the Army may be expending and stockpiling 75MM 
blank rounds for ceremonial purposes, when those resources 
could be used to fund more urgent readiness priorities. The 
committee recognizes and understands that this policy is in 
accordance with Army Regulation 600-25 ``Salutes, Honors, and 
Visits of Courtesy'' issued on September 24, 2004.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to review Army Regulation 600-25 in regard to the use of 
75MM blanks and provide an assessment and any recommended 
changes to that regulation to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives by February 1, 
2017.

Shipbuilding guarantees

    The committee is concerned with the efficacy of the Navy's 
use of guarantees in its shipbuilding contracts. In March 2016, 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that as a 
result of the Navy's contract type and terms, the government is 
paying shipbuilders profit to repair defects that were 
determined to be the shipbuilders' responsibility. The GAO 
recommended several actions aimed at improving the use of 
guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, including limiting profit for 
the correction of shipbuilder responsible defects.
    The committee understands the Navy agreed to study the 
issues in the GAO report and publish a complete response 
coordinated with the Office of the Secretary of Defense by 
September 30, 2016. The committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to provide the congressional defense committees the 
complete response at the same time this study is provided to 
the GAO. Further, as recommend by the GAO, in arrangements 
where the shipbuilder is paid to correct defects, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Navy to structure contract terms 
such that shipbuilders do not earn profit for correcting 
construction deficiencies following delivery that are 
determined to be the shipbuilder's responsibility.

Unmet COCOM Cruise Missile Defense Requirement

    On March 10, 2016, Commander of U.S. Northern Command and 
North American Aerospace Defense Command Admiral William 
Gortney testified before the committee that the operational 
exercise of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense 
Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) ``has been an opportunity 
for us to see how well JLENS can fit into the existing 
Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) of the National Capitol 
Region (NCR).'' Furthermore, he stated that, ``the JLENS system 
shows great promise in defense of the NCR,'' particularly in 
detecting cruise missile threats.
    The committee notes that certain adversaries are advancing 
their capability to deploy cruise missiles against the United 
States. The committee believes that technologies should be 
employed above the horizon to detect such cruise missile 
threats to the homeland. The committee is aware that the JLENS 
system could fill a sensitive capability gap within a layered 
missile defense architecture.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
in coordination with the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, to 
submit to the congressional defense committees no later than 
September 30, 2016, a plan for meeting this capability gap for 
the NCR. This plan should consider such options as restarting 
and completing the JLENS operational exercise, including at 
alternative sites.

USAF Eagle Vision program

    The committee is aware the Air Force's Eagle Vision program 
is a deployable ground station for collecting commercial, 
unclassified and releasable satellite imagery. It provides 
timely, flexible, and tailored products and services to 
warfighters and our domestic first responders. Eagle Vision 
excels in military operations, contingency operations, foreign 
humanitarian assistance, operational planning, and exercise 
support as well as playing a major role in disaster response 
world-wide, with a particular focus on responses here in the 
United States for events such as hurricanes and floods. In 2014 
and 2015, the Eagle Vision program directly supported more than 
85 disaster relief efforts, and since its inception has 
deployed over 40 times in support of major operations. However, 
the committee is concerned the Air Force has continually failed 
to address Eagle Vision program funding shortfalls, putting the 
system's critical operational capabilities at risk year after 
year.
    Therefore, not later than 60 days following the enactment 
of this Act, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to submit a report to the congressional defense 
committees on the current funding status of the Eagle Vision 
program, the effects decreased funding levels will have on the 
Eagle Vision System's capabilities to support domestic disaster 
relief operations, the funding plans for the future, as well as 
the long-term plan for the continued use of the Eagle Vision 
system.

V-22 defensive weapon system

    The capabilities of the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft has led to 
significant demand for the aircraft within the U.S. military. 
The V-22 may be limited in certain circumstances where a lack 
of on-board defensive weapons and the absence of armed escorts 
could result in situations with too much risk resulting from 
employing the aircraft.
    At various times, Marine Corps and Special Operations 
Command officials have expressed a desire for providing better 
armament for their respective versions of the V-22. However, 
the committee is unaware of any formal requirement for such a 
capability. With the increasing usage of these aircraft, it is 
important for the committee to understand whether there is such 
a need, and, if there is, how the Department of Defense intends 
to fill that need.
    To support this effort, the committee directs the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps and Commander, U.S. Special 
Operations Command (USSOCOM) to report to the congressional 
defense committees on: (1) requirements that may be identified 
by the Marine Corps and USSOCOM; and (2) how the Department of 
Defense intends to meet those requirements. The Commandant and 
Commander, USSOCOM should submit that report no later than the 
submission of the President's budget request for fiscal year 
2018.

Virginia-class submarines

    The committee recognizes the need for more fast attack 
submarines and supports Navy's plan to build two Virginia-class 
submarines per year with inclusion of the Virginia Payload 
Module beginning in fiscal year 2019. The committee is 
concerned that the President's fiscal year 2017 budget request 
includes only one Virginia- class submarine procurement in 
fiscal year 2021.
    The committee commends the performance of the Virginia-
class submarine program and supports the Navy's budget request 
for $3.2 billion in procurement and $1.8 billion in advanced 
procurement for this program in fiscal year 2017. The committee 
notes that on April 6, 2016, Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
for Research, Development, and Acquisition Sean Stackley 
testified, ``The Virginia-class submarine program has delivered 
the last eight ships on budget and ahead of schedule.''
    The Navy currently has a validated requirement for 48 
attack submarines, which was established in 2006. The committee 
believes that much has changed in the global security 
environment since 2006 and supports the Navy's effort to 
develop an updated requirement for attack submarines.
    While the Navy currently has a fleet of 53 attack 
submarines, as Admiral John Richardson testified on March 15, 
2016, the Navy is only ``able to meet about 50 to 60 percent of 
combatant commander demands right now'' for attack submarines. 
During the committee's hearing on the posture of U.S. Pacific 
Command, Admiral Harry Harris, Jr. affirmed that fact when he 
observed that Virginia-class ships are ``the best thing we 
have'' and that he ``cannot get enough of them fast enough'' 
for his theater of operations.
    Due to the retirement of Los Angeles-class submarines, the 
committee notes that the number of attack submarines in the 
fleet will decline by 23 percent to 41 submarines in 2029. The 
committee is concerned that the declining size of the attack 
submarine fleet, combined with a more challenging security 
environment and growing demand for the unique capabilities that 
attack submarines provide, will create additional national 
security risks.
    The committee was encouraged by the March 15, 2016 
testimony of the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval 
Operations, as well as the April 6, 2016 testimony of Secretary 
Stackley and Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy, who expressed a desire 
to procure two Virginia-class submarines in 2021 to mitigate 
the future attack submarine shortfall and highlighted an 
ongoing review into whether or not the Navy will accrue 
sufficient savings in the Ohio-class replacement and Virginia-
class submarine programs to enable procurement of a second 
Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2021.
    The committee supports the efforts of Navy officials to 
pursue procurement of a second Virginia-class submarine in 
fiscal year 2021, if the Navy can demonstrate the submarine 
industrial base will have the production and workforce capacity 
necessary to procure a second attack submarine in fiscal year 
2021 without negatively impacting the Ohio-class replacement 
and Virginia-class submarine programs.
    The committee believes that it is important to provide the 
industrial base with advance notice of changes in the Virginia-
class submarine procurement profile, which enables the Navy and 
industrial base to maximize efficiencies, increase savings, and 
provide the lead time necessary to ensure workforce and 
production capacity are sufficient for the additional workload.

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

    The committee is aware that the Army's Warfighter 
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) is intended to be the 
foundation for the Army's tactical network modernization 
strategy and a critical component of the suite of tactical 
mission command systems currently being fielded. The Army 
assesses this program as essential to warfighter communications 
capabilities and will continue to deliver incremental 
improvements in command and control superiority over time. WIN-
T is to introduce a mobile, self-forming/self-healing network 
using satellite and terrestrial on-the-move capabilities and 
high-bandwidth radio systems to keep mobile forces connected, 
communicating, and synchronized. It has two increments.
    WIN-T Increment 1 (Inc 1) provides Networking ``At the 
Halt.'' It is the Army's current tactical network, originally 
fielded to 222 brigades, division/corps headquarters, and 
signal battalions. Initial fielding was from 2004-2012. The Inc 
1 capability was upgraded to use military satellites, reducing 
costs to commercial satellite leases. A subsequent upgrade to 
improve the efficiency of satellite communications and 
interoperability with other units will be completed in fiscal 
year 2016.
    WIN-T Inc 2 is intended to provide the Army with on-the-
move networking capability. The WIN-T Inc 2 network retains 
capabilities delivered by WIN-T Inc 1.WIN-T Inc 2 employs 
satellite communications while on-the-move to extend the 
network in maneuver brigade down to the Company level for the 
first time. The program is in full rate production. Total WIN-T 
costs to date are over $5.7 billion. The current program is 
intended to spend an additional $9.0 billion. The total program 
cost is estimated to be over $14.0 billion.
    Currently the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation (CAPE) has contracted with an independent entity to 
conduct a comprehensive assessment of the WIN-T program. CAPE 
is assessing current and future requirements and capabilities 
to determine the technological feasibility, achievability, 
suitability, and survivability of a tactical communications and 
data network.
    The committee has observed many problems with WIN-T, 
especially in regard to Inc 2. Many problems have been observed 
in integrating the ``upper tactical network'' with the ``lower 
tactical network.'' These problems disrupt connectivity between 
brigade combat teams and battalions with companies. Integrating 
WIN-T hardware with armored vehicles has yet to be conclusively 
determined. It is unclear if the Army has fully defined the 
requirements for tactical close combat forces at company level. 
The committee understands that the Army is reassessing the 
total requirement and determining a new course of action in 
light of the above noted problems.
    The committee encourages the Army in its efforts to repair 
identified problems and to more carefully redefine its 
requirements for the WIN-T program.

         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

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

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Modification of mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories 
        for research and development of technologies for military 
        missions (sec. 211)
    Since its establishment in section 219 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417), the availability of funding for defense 
laboratories for the research and development of technologies 
for military missions has been extremely beneficial for 
Department of Defense laboratories. Among other things, 
laboratory directors have been able to use section 219 funding 
to carry out basic and applied research, transition promising 
technologies, and perform minor military construction of 
laboratory infrastructure. To expand the potential and the 
benefits of this funding mechanism even further, the committee 
recommends a provision that would raise the limit of section 
219 funds authorized to 4 percent of all funds available to a 
laboratory.
    Through various discussions with the Department of Defense, 
the committee has become aware that while laboratory directors 
welcome the provision and expenditure of section 219 funds, 
several have been hampered in using these authorities by 
policies or regulations of their respective service 
enterprises. Not only do such policies and regulations, which 
often restrict the amount of section 219 funds a lab can spend, 
undermine the purpose of providing this authority, but they 
also ignore the clear intent of the committee and of Congress 
as established in this statute. The committee directs all 
military services to examine policies and regulations impacting 
the expenditure of section 219 funds and to eliminate any 
restrictions on their use within 180 days of enactment of this 
Act.
    In addition, the recommended provision would remove the 
sunset date that is currently imposed on the section 219 
provision. After 7 years of implementation, the committee is 
satisfied that the section 219 program has been used 
effectively and has led to improvements in the operations of 
defense laboratories. The committee believes that the sunset 
provision is no longer necessary.
Making permanent authority for defense research and development rapid 
        innovation program (sec. 212)
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
established a Rapid Innovation Program to accelerate the 
fielding of innovative technologies, as authorized in the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(Public Law 111-383). The committee further notes that the 
Department has established a competitive, merit-based process 
to solicit proposals from interested contractors, review and 
select projects based on military needs and standardized 
evaluation criteria, and award contracts to execute program 
projects. The committee is encouraged that the military 
services and other defense entities participating in the 
program have practices and tools in place to manage and monitor 
the execution of projects. In recognition of the success of the 
program, the committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to repeal the 
sunset provision of the Rapid Innovation Program and make the 
authorization of the program permanent.
Authorization for National Defense University and Defense Acquisition 
        University to enter into cooperative research and development 
        agreements (sec. 213)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2165 and 1746 of title 10, United States Code, to 
authorize the Defense Acquisition University and the National 
Defense University to enter into cooperative agreements, which 
involve the provision of grant money, and cooperative research 
and development agreements with universities, not-for-profit 
institutions, and other entities to support their designated 
missions. The committee notes that this kind of engagement can 
support efforts to promote the rapid transfer of technology 
from defense research activities to commercial development or 
deployment in military systems, as well as to develop new 
acquisition practices, models, and tools to support efforts at 
continuous acquisition reform.
    The committee also recognizes that the National Security 
Technology Accelerator is an important pilot program making 
vital contributions in the field of technology innovation. The 
committee urges the National Defense University to continue to 
give priority to the work of the National Security Technology 
Accelerator and, using the authority in the recommended 
provision, enable it to work through university partners for 
the execution of its mission.
Manufacturing Universities Grant Program (sec. 214)
    The committee recommends a provision that would spur the 
Department of Defense to provide grants to institutions of 
higher education, including technical and community colleges, 
for the purposes of enhancing education in manufacturing 
engineering. The provision would help institutions of higher 
education strengthen their engineering programs, bolster their 
efforts to focus on manufacturing engineering and curricula, 
and meet the growing demands of the 21st century manufacturing.
Increased micro-purchase threshold for basic research programs and 
        activities of the Department of Defense science and technology 
        reinvention laboratories (sec. 215)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the 
micro-purchase threshold (MPT) in Department of Defense basic 
research and laboratories activities from $3,000 to $10,000. In 
raising this limit, this provision would allow appropriate 
organizations, such as universities, defense labs, and other 
performers, to authorize personnel, as appropriate, to have 
higher limits on their government purchase cards to facilitate 
easy and administratively efficient purchasing of small dollar 
items. This increase provided in the provision would affect 
less than one percent of federal contract spending, but could 
allow hundreds of thousands of transactions to be conducted 
more efficiently. This proposal would not make changes to the 
thresholds in the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (Public Law 71-798) 
or the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 
351-358). Nor would it change the threshold levels that are 
authorized during contingency operations or certain other types 
of emergencies.
    The committee believes that government purchase cards give 
agency end users an efficient tool to make simple purchases 
themselves and, at the same time, offer a number of additional 
benefits for both the agency and its vendors. In the two 
decades since the MPT was established, purchase cards have 
reduced transaction costs for government payment offices by 
lowering the number of budgetary/accounting entries that need 
to be processed in financial management systems, allowed 
agencies to earn rebates, and helped vendors receive timely 
payment without the burden of having to process government 
invoices. Equally important, by putting purchase cards into the 
hands of properly trained end users to make purchase directly, 
the burden of making micro-purchases has largely been lifted 
from the shoulders of contracting officers, allowing them to 
instead give greater attention to larger, more complex 
procurements, where their acquisition training and expertise 
can be put to better use and have greater impact.
    The committee notes that the MPT was adjusted for inflation 
in 2010 from $2,500 to $3,000 and that it would be adjusted 
again this year to $3,500, pursuant to authority provided in 41 
United States Code 1908. While these adjustments will help 
agencies to leverage the efficiencies of the purchase card for 
additional small dollar transactions, the committee understands 
that there are many needs in the defense research enterprise 
between $3,000 and $10,000 that can be more efficiently 
acquired with a purchase card in the hands of a trained end 
user. Some of these routine needs did not exist in the 1990s or 
2000s and therefore were not envisioned when the MPT level was 
first established. Such needs include digital services, web 
applications, application program interfaces, simple cloud 
services, scalable web hosting services, case management, 
platforms to support on-line interactive dialogues, IT systems 
monitoring, and tools to measure and improve digital customer 
experiences. All of these could be purchased easily by program 
and IT technical experts through existing government-wide and 
multi-agency contracts that include pre-negotiated terms and 
conditions which are well suited for small dollar purchases.
    The committee notes that data from the Council on 
Governmental Relations show that raising the MPT to $10,000 
will be a fair and safe harbor. In addition, a survey by the 
Association of Independent Research Institutes showed that 
setting the MPT at $10,000 provides coverage for approximately 
70 percent of total dollar expenditures while requiring only 3 
percent of total transactions to be individually examined, 
which is highly effective.
    The committee notes that purchase card activity must be 
conducted in accordance with strong financial management 
controls that help agencies detect and prevent fraud, waste and 
abuse. In the past 10 years, federal agencies have deployed a 
number of systems and internal controls to reduce the risk of 
fraud, waste, abuse, and misuse associated with the purchase 
card. Also for the Department of Defense, the Office of Defense 
Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) maintains a robust 
website on the purchase card, which includes current policy 
documents and guides whose purpose is to help department 
officials establish and manage charge card programs. As 
required, DPAP publishes policies and procedures used by the 
department to ensure that the objectives of the purchase card 
program are realized and that an effective system of internal 
controls is in place to mitigate the potential for fraud, 
misuse, and abuse. Additionally, Defense policy requires all 
cardholders, approving officials, and certifying officials to 
complete basic purchase card training prior to assuming their 
official purchase card program roles and responsibilities. 
Purchase card refresher training is required every two years 
thereafter. The committee is encouraged that the department has 
implemented automated oversight systems to provide managers 
visibility of internal control effectiveness in mitigating the 
risk of improper purchases.
    Finally, the committee encourages the General Services 
Administration to continue to ensure there is appropriate 
transparency of purchase card activity so information on use of 
the purchase card below the micro-purchase threshold is 
available to the public, consistent with agency security 
requirements.
Directed energy weapon system programs (sec. 216)
    The committee remains concerned about the Department of 
Defense's inability to field an operational directed energy 
system. The committee is aware that the military services and 
industry partners have developed sufficient directed energy 
weapon capabilities for specific scenarios--like the High 
Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL-MD) to counter rocket, 
artillery and mortar for base protection purposes and the 
Counter Electronics High Powered Microwave Advanced Missile 
Project (CHAMP) for disabling an adversary's electronics while 
avoiding collateral damage. These programs, as well as other 
high energy laser weapon systems, have been tested and 
demonstrated, but have failed to transition to acquisition 
programs of record.
    The committee notes that directed energy capabilities have 
the potential to support many operational missions in cost 
effective and efficient manners. In response to these factors, 
the committee recommends a provision that would amend section 
806 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) to grant rapid 
acquisition authorities for directed energy weapon systems to 
accelerate the development and fielding of this technology and 
to help offset the gains of potential adversaries.
    The committee notes that since 1960, the Department of 
Defense has invested more than $6.0 billion in directed energy 
science and technology initiatives. However, the committee 
remains concerned that, despite this significant investment, 
the Department's directed energy initiatives are not resourced 
at levels necessary to transition them to full-scale 
acquisition programs. The committee notes with concern that 
years of investment have not to date resulted in any 
operational systems with high energy laser capability.
    The committee highlights that the Defense Science Board 
Task Force on Directed Energy Weapon Systems and Technology 
Applications found that ``directed energy offers promise as a 
transformational `game changer' in military operations, able to 
augment and improve operational capabilities in many areas.'' 
The task force further concluded that the range of potential 
applications is sufficient to warrant significantly increased 
attention to the scope and direction of efforts to assess, 
develop, and field appropriate laser, microwave, and millimeter 
wave weapons. Consistent with the findings of the task force, 
the committee believes that directed energy weapons systems 
offer significant benefits in terms of cost effectiveness, 
sustainability, magazine capabilities, and precision targeting.
Limitation on B-21 Engineering and Manufacturing Development program 
        funds (sec. 217)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation or expenditure of any fiscal year 2017 funds for 
the B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber engineering and manufacturing 
development (EMD) program until the Air Force discloses the 
value of the B-21 EMD contract award made on October 27, 2015, 
to the congressional defense committees.
Pilot program on disclosure of certain sensitive information to 
        contractors performing under contracts with Department of 
        Defense federally funded research and development centers (sec. 
        218)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
pilot program to permit the Department of Defense to provide 
Defense contractors performing under a Defense federally-funded 
research and development center contract with access to 
sensitive information necessary to carry out their assigned 
functions and duties.
    The committee notes that the contractors at such centers 
are currently prohibited from acquiring timely access to 
sensitive information, even in instances when performance and 
advancement could be negatively impacted. The committee also 
notes that because such contractors are not federal employees, 
they are not subject to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), 
and therefore are required to enact non-disclosure agreements 
with each individual entity responsible for the provision of 
sensitive information. However, the committee is concerned that 
non-disclosure agreements with private sector entities are 
often not feasible in a timely manner because such entities 
often do not respond to requests or may no longer exist. 
Particularly in cases where the federally-funded research and 
development center is maintaining a large database of sensitive 
information from many different entities, the committee is 
concerned that preventing contractors from accessing such 
information could be hugely detrimental to the work of the 
center.
    The committee notes that the recommended provision would 
enable the Department to more efficiently and effectively give 
contractors at such centers access to confidential commercial, 
financial, or proprietary information; technical data; or other 
privileged information owned by other defense contractors that 
is needed to perform mission critical work. The committee also 
notes that the Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 35 
recognizes that to discharge responsibilities to the sponsoring 
agency, a Defense contractor performing under a federally-
funded research and development center contract must have 
access to government and supplier data, including sensitive and 
proprietary data, beyond that which is common to a normal 
contractual relationship.
    The committee notes that such contractors are considered 
``trusted agents'' and have the highly-valued ability to 
provide cutting-edge and objective expert advice. These 
contractors provide the government with special long-term 
research and development assistance that cannot be met by 
either existing in-house or other contractor resources. 
Additionally, the committee notes that the acquisition 
regulations make clear that it is not the government's intent 
for such contractors to use their status or access to 
information to compete with the private sector.
    The recommended provision would allow such contractors, 
upon agreement to protect such data, access to sensitive 
information necessary to carry out their function of providing 
long-term engineering, research, development, and other 
analytical needs that cannot be met by other employees or 
contractors. The provision would also make clear that such 
contractors are barred from using the information to gain a 
potential competitive advantage over other contractors.
Pilot program on enhanced interaction between the Defense Advanced 
        Research Projects Agency and the service academies (sec. 219)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program to assess 
the feasibility and advisability of enhanced interaction 
between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the 
service academies.
Modification of authority for use of operation and maintenance funds 
        for unspecified minor construction projects consisting of 
        laboratory revitalization (sec. 220)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authority to use minor military construction to revitalize 
antiquated laboratories and to increase the scope of the 
projects that are allowed under this provision to $6.0 million. 
Additionally, this provision would extend the authorization to 
2025.

                              Budget Items

Materials technology
    The budget request included $122.1 million in PE 0602105A 
for materials technology. The committee encourages the Army to 
continue to develop and rapidly field the Ground Vehicle 
Coating System (GVCS) that was developed by the Army Tank-
Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) 
and the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) as an affordable, 
infrared signature management coating for ground vehicles that 
is a drop-in enhancement to the current Chemical Agent 
Resistant Coating (CARC) coating system used on all Army and 
U.S. Marine Corps assets. GVCS has been evaluated in field 
trials and provided significant survivability benefits. At less 
than $10,000 per vehicle, GVCS provides project managers with 
an affordable means of improving signature while having zero 
impact to vehicle space, weight, and power. The committee 
recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 0602105A to fund 
the Department of Defense chemical agent resistant coating 
commodity manager requirements to field ground vehicle coating 
system material.
Sensors and electronic survivability
    The budget request included $36.1 million in PE 62120A for 
sensors and electronic survivability. The committee notes that 
a major thrust within the Department's Third Offset Initiative 
is the development and deployment of advanced robotic systems 
that can work in partnership with warfighters to enhance combat 
effectiveness. To support continued development of advanced 
human-robotics interaction capabilities, the committee 
recommends a general program increase of $2.0 million in PE 
62120A.
Social science research
    The budget request included $26.0 million in PE 62785A for 
the manpower, personnel, and training technology program. The 
committee notes that this program element conducts applied 
behavioral and social science research to enhance the overall 
military experience for soldiers. While the committee agrees 
that understanding performance, behavior, attitudes, and 
resilience is important for maintaining a strong fighting 
force, it recognizes that this work is not unique to the Army 
and furthermore that other organizations both in and out of 
government are better equipped to carry out social science 
research. In particular, the committee notes that research into 
leadership and culture, as well as research on personnel, is 
duplicative of other efforts. The committee is not convinced 
that such work is a high priority for the Army. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a program decrease of $5.0 million in PE 
62785A to reduce duplication while still preserving important 
portions of this program element, such as research into 
readiness and methods for reducing sexual harassment.

Army vehicle prototyping

    The budget request included $122.1 million in PE 63005A for 
combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology. The 
committee notes that the Tank Automotive Research Development 
and Engineering Center possesses the facilities, procedures, 
workforce, and leadership to fully develop armored fighting 
vehicle prototypes and encourages the Army to fully exploit the 
unique capabilities of the Center. The committee understands 
that the Center can develop concepts to meet emerging 
requirements; test developmental concepts with soldier 
involvement; model, virtually test, and modify designs; 
integrate new technologies; and manufacture, test, and 
demonstrate prototypes. The committee believes that if the 
Center is employed to its full potential, future acquisition 
efforts would be accelerated and developmental costs would be 
reduced. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of 
$50.0 million in PE 63005A for the funding of Project 440: 
advanced combat vehicle technology for demonstration or 
prototyping.

Electronic warfare technology

    The budget request included $27.9 million in PE 63270A for 
electronic warfare technology. The committee notes that each of 
the military services, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency have 
extensive programs and investments with a goal of advancing 
electronic warfare capabilities. The committee is concerned 
that these programs are not well-coordinated, nor are they 
leveraging the best available commercial technologies, 
particularly in areas such as dynamic spectrum-sharing. In 
particular, the committee notes that a significant portion of 
the budget request is for effective electronic warfare 
countermeasures. However, the committee notes that such 
countermeasures are not unique to the Army and therefore need 
coordination with other organization. To encourage the Army to 
collaborate more fully with others on electronic warfare 
countermeasures, the committee recommends a program decrease of 
$5.0 million in PE 63270A.

Advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology

    The budget request included $44.2 million in PE 63772A for 
advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology. The 
committee notes that this program element matures and 
demonstrates technologies that allow soldiers to effectively 
collect, analyze, transfer, and display situational awareness 
information in a network-centric battlefield environment. The 
committee notes that much of the work performed in this program 
overlaps with efforts by other services. In addition, the 
committee understands that private sector firms are developing 
many of the same technologies that this program element is 
meant to address. Therefore, the committee recommends a program 
decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63772A, and encourages the Army 
to more closely coordinate its efforts with the services and 
with private sector. The committee notes that the recommended 
decrease would still allow the Army to continue research into 
the critical areas of the program element, such as command and 
control and situational awareness.

Small Arms Improvement

    The budget request included $7.6 billion for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army of which $10.6 million 
was for Small Arms improvement in PE 63827A Soldier Systems 
Advanced Development. The committee recommends an increase of 
$9.4 million to accelerate development of new small arms 
weapons and small arms ammunition improvements.

Army contract writing system

    The budget request included $20.7 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 65047A, for army 
contract writing system. The committee is concerned that the 
Army is planning to spend over $200.0 million on software to 
write contracts.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $20.7 million in 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 65047A, 
for Army contract writing system. The committee urges the Army 
to analyze lower cost alternatives for this business function.

Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army

    The budget request included $7.5 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which 
$155.6 million was for PE 605013A Integrated Personnel and Pay 
System--Army (IPPS-A).
    The committee is concerned with the significant cost 
increases to the program for Defense Information Systems Agency 
(DISA) services. Further, the committee is concerned regarding 
escalating program management support costs and facility and 
lease cost increases.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $20.0 million for 
PE 605013A Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army (IPPS-A) 
for Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army Increment 2.

Aircraft survivability development

    The budget request included $114.2 million in PE 0605051A 
for aircraft survivability development. The committee 
recommends an increase of $13.0 million in PE 0605051A.
    Additional funding for aircraft survivability development 
was included on the Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded 
priority list.

Technical information activities

    The budget request included $33.3 million in PE 0605803A 
for technical information activities. The committee recommends 
an increase of $2.5 million in PE 0605803A. Additional funding 
for the Army geospatial enterprise will improve the Army's 
ability to provide needed hardware and software to improve 
interoperability between mission command systems.

Aerostat joint project--COCOM exercise

    The budget request included $45.5 million in PE 0202429A 
for aerostat joint project-combatant command exercise. Due to 
operational mishaps the committee recommends a decrease of 
$41.0 million in PE 0202429A the aerostat joint project.

Combat vehicle improvement programs

    The budget request included $316.8 million in PE 0203735A 
for combat vehicle improvement programs. The committee 
recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 0203735A for the 
integration of active protection systems (APS) on Army armored 
fighting vehicles. Additional funding for APS was included on 
the Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priority list.

Army Global Combat Support System Increment 2

    The budget request included $1,304.1 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for RDT&E Operational 
Systems Development, of which $25.2 million was for Army Global 
Combat Support System (GCSS) Increment 2.
    The committee is concerned that the Army has not completed 
Increment 1 of GCSS-Army and that the current plan for 
Increment 2 software upgrades will cost in excess of $200 
million over five years.
    The Committee recommends a reduction of $25.2 million in 
RDT&E, line 196, Program Element 33141A, for Army Global Combat 
Support System Increment 2 and for the Army to provide 
alternatives to the committee regarding the need for the 
capabilities provided by Army Global Combat Support System 
Increment 2.

Distributed Common Ground/Surface System

    The budget request included $32.3 million in PE 0305208A 
for Distributed Common Ground/Surface System. The committee 
notes changing tactical requirements. Therefore the committee 
recommends a decrease of $32.0 million in PE 0305208A.

Undersea warfare applied research

    The budget request included $126.3 million in PE 62747N for 
undersea warfare applied research. The committee notes that 
undersea warfare is a key tenet of the Third Offset strategy, 
but that the development of next generation capabilities in 
this domain is required to address challenges in sensing, 
signature control, propulsion, and advanced materials. 
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in PE 62747N.

Power projection advanced technology

    The budget request included $96.4 million in PE 63114N for 
power projection advanced technology. The committee notes that 
the Navy, Air Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 
Strategic Capabilities Office, and other elements within the 
Department of Defense are all pursuing advanced power 
projection technologies and systems. The committee is concerned 
that these efforts are not well-coordinated and have uncertain 
pathways for transition to programs of record. In addition, the 
committee notes that the budget request represents an almost 
200 percent increase over the amount enacted for fiscal year 
2016. The committee believes that such a large increase in 
budget is not warranted and is concerned about the ability of 
the programs to absorb the additional funding. Consequently, 
the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in PE 
63114N, but directs that this reduction not be assessed against 
solid state laser maturation efforts.

Capable manpower and power and energy

    The budget request included $249.1 million in PE 63673N for 
future naval capabilities advanced technology developments. The 
activities listed under this program element include capable 
manpower and power and energy. The committee believes that the 
work plans for fiscal year 2017 on these activities does not 
warrant the level of funding included in the budget request. 
For example, the committee notes that the research included in 
these two projects include development of new personnel and 
management methodologies, and capabilities in energy security. 
Both of these efforts could be better coordinated with other 
organizations performing similar research. Consequently, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63673N 
to be distributed appropriately from capable manpower and power 
and energy.

Large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle

    The budget request included $165.8 million in PE 63502N for 
research, development, test, and evaluation of surface and 
shallow water mine countermeasures. The committee notes the 
Navy planned to spend $19.5 million in fiscal year 2016 on 
large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle product development. 
In fiscal year 2016, the Navy shifted the acquisition strategy 
from an industry prime contractor to a government lead system 
integrator. As a result, the committee recommends a decrease of 
$1.5 million to this program due to available prior year funds 
that were requested for source selection activities.

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules

    The budget request included $160.1 million in PE 63596N for 
research, development, test, and evaluation of Littoral Combat 
Ship mission modules. The committee notes the Navy planned to 
spend $30.9 million in fiscal year 2016 to complete operational 
testing. Due to developmental test results, the Navy cancelled 
operational testing. As a result, the committee concurs with a 
Government Accountability Office finding and recommends a 
decrease of $30.9 million to this program due to available 
prior year funds.

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R)

    The budget request included $6.4 million in PE 64454N for 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) of LX(R), 
which is expected to functionally replace LSD-41 and LSD-49 
class ships. The committee supports accelerating the 
construction of LX(R) class ships, provided the ships are 
competitively awarded. The committee notes the President's 
budget request reduced LX(R) RDTE funding in fiscal years 2017 
through 2019 by a total of $29.0 million. Navy officials have 
stated an additional $19.0 million is required in fiscal year 
2017 to maintain an accelerated schedule. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million for this 
program.

Extra large unmanned underwater vehicle

    The budget request included $75.6 million in PE 64536N for 
research, development, test, and evaluation of advanced 
undersea prototyping. The committee notes the President's 
budget request for this program element provides for the 
prototyping and testing of extra large unmanned undersea 
vehicles (XLUUV), including procurement of five vehicles and 
the lease of one vehicle. Based on the Navy budget 
justification information, the committee supports the 
procurement of two XLUUVs and the lease of a second similar 
vehicle. Understanding the operational need, the committee 
views the risk of developing five XLUUV prototypes concurrently 
as excessive and supports funding only the two XLUUVs that will 
begin fabrication in fiscal year 2017. The committee recognizes 
leasing a commercially available vehicle will enable refinement 
of tactics, techniques, and procedures. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a decrease of $34.4 million for this 
program.

Marine Corps cyber protection team fly-away kits

    The budget request included $4.9 million for the Cyber 
Operations Technology Development program, Navy exhibit R-1, 
line 162, Program Element 36250M. The committee recommends an 
increase of $1.8 million to respond to a Marine Corps Unfunded 
Priority List (UPL) request for Cyber Protection Team (CPT) 
``fly-away'' kit hardware and software necessary to hunt 
malicious cyber actors, triage vulnerabilities, and remediate 
the intrusions and exploitation of compromised computer 
networks.

Management, technical, and international support

    The budget request included $87.1 million in PE 65853N of 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy for 
management, technical, and international support. The committee 
notes the following projects contain unjustified growth: 2098 
($4.3 million), 2221 ($3.9 million), 0149 ($1.0 million), and 
3330 ($1.6 million). Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $10.8 million to this program.

Aerospace propulsion

    The budget request included $185.7 million in PE 62203F for 
aerospace propulsion. The committee notes that the Department 
is continuing efforts to improve the performance and efficiency 
of advanced engine technologies to reduce costs and increase 
operational effectiveness. The committee also notes that the 
National Research Council's Air Force Studies Board recently 
found that ``to accelerate the development of new engine 
technologies, the Air Force gas turbine S&T funding should be 
increased significantly'', including in areas such as ``high-
temperature, high-heat-sink fuels for thermal management, 
lightweight structures, and signature control.'' Consistent 
with this recommendation, the committee recommends an increase 
of $5.0 million in PE 62203F to support research on advanced 
turbine engine technologies.

High energy laser joint technology office

    The budget request included $42.3 million in PE 62890F for 
high energy laser research. The committee notes that this 
program element funds defense high energy laser applied 
research through the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office. 
However, the committee is concerned that the Joint Technology 
Office has not received sufficient funding in recent years to 
drive the maturation of high energy laser technology. As an 
example, the committee notes with concern that no laser 
technologies have yet been fielded or deployed, despite 
promising development and field tests. Given the importance of 
directed energy weapons systems in general as noted elsewhere 
in this Act, and of high energy laser systems in particular, 
the committee is concerned that budget request for this program 
element will be insufficient for supporting the joint 
technology office. Accordingly, the committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million in PE 62890F for the high energy laser 
joint technology office.

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, motor drives, 
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.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 63216F, for a total of $99.6 million, to support 
the development of application-specific power circuit 
development using silicon carbide modules.

Electronic combat technology

    The budget request included $58.3 million in PE 63270F for 
electronic combat technology. The committee notes that the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, Army, Navy, and Air Force all have new 
initiatives focused on outreach to Silicon Valley and are all 
exploring technology development programs related to command 
and control and networking technologies. The committee is 
concerned that these efforts are duplicative and not well-
coordinated. For example, the committee notes that a 
significant portion of the budget request is for effective 
electronic countermeasures. However, such technologies are not 
unique to the Air Force and therefore need coordination with 
other organizations. To encourage the Air Force to collaborate 
more fully with others on electronic warfare, the committee 
recommends a general decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63270F.

Battlespace knowledge development and demonstration

    The budget request included $58.1 million in PE 63788F for 
battlespace knowledge development and demonstration. While the 
committee is supportive of this program element in general and 
understands the importance of making concrete progress in this 
field, it also notes that the budget request represents a 
significant increase of over 25 percent above the amount 
enacted for fiscal year 2016. The committee also notes that the 
amount enacted for fiscal year 2016 was itself an almost 35 
percent increase over the amount enacted for fiscal year 2015. 
The committee is concerned about the ability of this program 
element to absorb such a steep ramp-up in funding. 
Consequently, the committee recommends a general decrease of 
$10.0 million in PE 63788F.

B-21 long range strike bomber

    The budget request included $1.36 billion in PE 64015F for 
the B-21 long range strike bomber. Due to a lower than expected 
contract award amount to the selected vendor, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $302.3 million in PE 64015F.

Operationally Responsive Space program

    The budget request included $7.9 million for the 
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program, Air Force exhibit 
R-1, line 42, Program Element 64857F. The committee recommends 
an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate the development of 
an operational demonstration of a Space Situation Awareness 
(SSA) satellite. This satellite is necessary for meeting U.S. 
Strategic Command requirements and will serve as risk reduction 
for a Space Based Space Surveillance Follow-on satellite. The 
committee also directs the ORS office to determine if the 
development of a small synthetic aperture radar satellite 
constellation could be used to meet any unmet combatant command 
requirements and to provide the congressional defense 
committees the results of that assessment no later than April 
1, 2017.

Advanced Pilot Training Program

    The budget request included $12.4 million in PE 65223F for 
the Advanced Pilot Training (APT) program. The Air Force 
decided to delay awarding the development contract from the 
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017 until the first quarter of 
fiscal year 2018. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
decrease of $7.9 million in PE 65223F due to the availability 
of prior year funds.

KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program

    The budget request included $261.7 million in PE 65221F for 
KC-46A tanker development. Due to fewer than expected 
engineering change proposals and lower than expected test 
support costs, the Air Force will not obligate or expend funds 
at the budgeted rate.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $140.0 
million in PE 65221F due to availability of unobligated prior 
year funds. The committee understands that the reduction of 
these funds in fiscal year 2017 will not impact the program 
delivery schedule of the KC-46A tanker aircraft.

Evolved Advanced Extremely High Frequency MILSATCOM

    The budget request included $228.1 million for the Evolved 
Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) MILSATCOM program, Air 
Force exhibit R-1, line 80, Program Element 65431F, BPAC 
657104. The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million as 
a result of the delayed completion and submission to the 
congressional defense committees of an Analysis of Alternatives 
(AoA) for the follow-on capability for secure, survivable anti-
jam, anti-scintillation communications for strategic and 
tactical users.

B-2 Defensive Management System Modernization

    The budget request included $315.6 million in PE 65931F for 
the B-2 Defensive Management System modernization program. The 
program experienced a contract award delay affecting fiscal 
year 2016 funds. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease 
of $26.7 million in PE 65931F due to availability of 
unobligated prior year funds.

MQ-9 automatic takeoff and landing control system

    The budget request included $151.4 million in PE 25219F for 
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The committee recommends an 
increase of $35.1 million in PE 25219F for development and 
integration of MQ-9 Automatic Takeoff and Landing Control 
System (ATLCS) capability in support of the provision elsewhere 
in this Act for the transition to enlisted remotely piloted 
aircraft (RPA) operators.

Air Force Cost Estimating Module (CEM)

    The budget request included $28.1 billion for Research, 
Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force of which $10.5 
million was for PE 901538F Financial Management Information 
Systems Development.
    The committee notes that $4.9 million of this request was 
for the Air Force Cost Estimating Modeling (CEM). The committee 
believes this funding is unjustified.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $4.9 
million for PE 901538F Financial Management Information Systems 
Development for research and development of CEM and directs the 
Air Force to utilize or improve its existing cost estimating 
software as well as utilize resources from the office of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation.

Air Force Program Budget Enterprise Service (PBES)

    The budget request included $28.1 billion for Research, 
Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force of which $10.5 
million was for PE 901538F Financial Management Information 
Systems Development.
    The committee notes that $1.9 million of this request was 
for the Air Force Program Budget Enterprise Service (PBES). The 
committee believes this funding is unjustified.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.9 
million for PE 901538F Financial Management Information Systems 
Development for PBES and directs the Air Force to utilize its 
existing enterprise research planning software systems as well 
as legacy systems to meet its budget formulation requirements.

Budget request realignments

    The Air Force requested the committee make a realignment in 
the budget to correct an error in their submission of the 
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) 
documentation. The table below reflects this adjustment:

                   CHANGE TO CORRECT SUBMISSION ERRORS
                              (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Item                  Account     Line Item      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISPAN Inc 5....................        RDTEAF          124         -$8.9
ISPAN Inc 5 EMD................        RDTEAF         124a         +$8.9
Shared Early Warning Sys.......        RDTEAF          222         -$5.0
Atmospheric Warning Sys........        RDTEAF         222a         +$5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operational energy capability improvement increase

    The budget request included $3.4 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Defense-wide, of 
which $37.3 million was for the PE 0604055D8Z Operational 
Energy Capability Improvement.
    The committee recognizes the combat requirement to improve 
operational effectiveness via targeted and competitive 
operational energy science and technology investments.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million in RDT&E, PE 0604055D8Z, for Operational Energy 
Capability Improvement.

Post intercept assessment acceleration

    The budget request included $439.6 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63896C, for 
Ballistic Missile Defense command and control in support of the 
Missile Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of 
$10.0 million to allow earlier integration of command and 
control/battle management with the space-based kill assessment 
program by two years to field spiral 8.2-5 of increment 6 in 
fiscal year 2020.

Israeli cooperative missile defense program

    The budget request included $103.8 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 63913C, for 
Israeli Cooperative Programs in support of the Missile Defense 
Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $135.0 million 
in PE 63913C to reduce development risk and continue the 
modernization of Israeli's multi-tiered missile defense 
systems. The additional funding shall be apportioned as 
follows: $25.0 million for the Arrow-3 system; $50.0 million 
for the base-line Arrow program; and $60.0 million for the 
David's Sling program.

Ground based interceptor booster acceleration

    The budget request included $274.1 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64874C, for 
improved homeland defense interceptors in support of the 
Missile Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of 
$30.0 million to accelerate the development and initial 
fielding of an upgraded ground based interceptor booster to 
enhance survivability, mitigate current obsolescence and expand 
homeland defense capabilities against emerging threats. This 
acceleration would allow for earlier flight testing and 
accelerate the initial fielding and replacement of older 
boosters in fiscal year 2021 versus fiscal year 2022.

Redesigned kill vehicle risk reduction

    The budget request included $274.1 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64874C, for 
improved homeland defense interceptors in support of the 
Missile Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of 
$25.0 million to accelerate the system engineering and risk 
reduction testing to reduce schedule risks for a critical 
design review for the redesigned kill vehicle program in late 
fiscal year 2017 and the first flight test in fiscal year 2018.

Multiple object kill vehicle technology maturation

    The budget request included $71.5 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64894C, for 
the Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle in support of the Missile 
Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 
million to fund technology maturation and risk reduction for 
key technologies, including advanced sensors and new propulsion 
systems critical to enabling the Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle.

High altitude long endurance solar powered unmanned aircraft

    The budget request included $3.4 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Defense-wide, of 
which $10.4 million was for the PE 0603923D8Z Coalition 
Warfare.
    The committee recognizes the combat requirement for more 
persistent and long endurance unmanned aircraft systems on the 
battlefield.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 
million in RDT&E, PE 0603923D8Z, for high altitude long 
endurance solar powered unmanned aircraft systems.

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase

    The budget request included $6.9 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Advanced 
Component Development & Prototypes, of which $3.8 million was 
for PE 0604016D8Z Department of Defense (DOD) Corrosion 
Program.
    The committee continues to be concerned that the Department 
consistently underfunds the DOD Corrosion Program. The DOD 
estimates that the negative effects of corrosion cost 
approximately $22.9 billion annually to prevent and mitigate 
corrosion of its assets, including military equipment, weapons, 
facilities, and other infrastructure.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in RDT&E, PE 0604016D8Z, for the DOD Corrosion Program.

Directed energy systems prototyping

    The budget request included no money in PE 64342D8Z for 
defense technology offsets. The committee notes with 
disappointment that the administration did not view it as a 
priority to request funds through this program element. 
Particularly with the high-profile emphasis placed on the 
Department of Defense's Third Offset Strategy, the committee is 
disappointed to see this program be unfunded. In addition, as 
noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is deeply 
disappointed with how the technology offset funding enacted in 
fiscal year 2016 was allocated. As noted, none of the money was 
put towards directed energy, in contradiction to the clear 
intent of Congress that half of the money be used to bolster 
directed energy technologies. While the committee does not 
recommend additional unrestricted funds for the technology 
offsets program, the committee underscores that directed energy 
systems are still critical areas of work in need of greater 
support and attention. The committee believes that the 
Department needs to focus in particular on the transition from 
lab development to deployment and fielding. Consequently, the 
committee recommends a general increase of $25.0 million in PE 
64342D8Z to be used only for the purposes of directed energy 
systems prototyping.

Development test and evaluation

    The budget request included $19.5 million in PE 65804D8Z 
for development test and evaluation. The committee notes that 
the Department continues to underinvest in developmental test 
and evaluation activities. A lack of robust developmental 
testing inevitably results in failures in operational testing. 
The failures of programs to meet their established testing 
requirements lead to cost growth and schedule slippage, as the 
programs make expensive and necessary fixes to systems. The 
committee feels that more robust development testing, combined 
with more disciplined and technically realistic requirements 
generation will improve acquisition program outcomes. 
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 65804D8Z to support enhanced development test and 
evaluation capabilities.

Information Systems Security Program at the National Security Agency

    The budget request included more than $1.1 billion for the 
Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) in the National 
Security Agency (NSA), which is approximately one-third of the 
total ISSP budget for the Department of Defense (DOD). The 
committee recommends, as follows, a net reduction of $30.0 
million from NSA's ISSP Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation (RDT&E), (program element 33140G), and Operations 
and Maintenance (O&M) budgets, because of higher priorities, 
duplication of effort, and the need to reduce overhead costs:
          (1)Fusion, Analysis, and Mitigation project:
                  -$5.0 million in RDT&E
                  -$5.0 million in O&M
          (2) Information Assurance project:
                  -$10.0 million in O&M
          (3) Enterprise and Business Management subproject:
                  -$3.0 million O&M
          (4) Strategic Engagement, Integration, and Foreign 
        Affairs project:
                  -$4.0 million O&M
          (5) Cryptographic Platform Engineering project:
                  -$3.0 million RDT&E
                  -$5.0 million O&M
          (6) Enterprise Trusted Systems for Advanced Cross 
        Domain Solutions project:
                  +$5.0 million RDT&E
    As noted above, the committee recommends an increase for 
cross-domain solutions because cross-domain systems represent 
one of the most significant vulnerabilities for classified 
networks--where they connect to less-secure networks. The 
committee is concerned that the budget for this NSA program to 
enhance the security of cross-domain solutions and to modernize 
them for cloud environments has been disproportionately cut in 
recent years. In addition to the increase of $5.0 million, the 
committee recommends that the DOD Chief Information Security 
Officer consider transferring resources to this project from 
the Active Cyber Defense and Cyber Situational Awareness 
subprojects, as these efforts appear redundant to other DOD 
programs and compete with commercial solutions and Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency programs.

Sharkseer 2.0

    The budget request included unspecified amounts for the 
Sharkseer program, Defense-Wide exhibit R-1, line 203, Program 
Element 33140G. The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 
million for research and development to extend the Sharkseer 
architecture, connections, and information sharing beyond the 
perimeter defense boundary.
    The committee has strongly supported the Sharkseer program 
since its inception as a novel effort to rapidly acquire and 
integrate advanced commercial cybersecurity technology for 
detecting intrusions and malware for which signatures are not 
already known. Sharkseer is being deployed at all Department of 
Defense (DOD) perimeter gateways to filter web traffic, and by 
all accounts is performing well.
    The committee has been concerned that DOD's cybersecurity 
solutions have tended to be deployed in piecemeal fashion, as 
isolated, stand-alone capabilities. Perimeter defenses, 
endpoint/host-based capabilities, continuous monitoring and 
asset management capabilities, the patchwork of incident 
response and remediation tools, intermediate-level regional 
security systems, ``big data'' analytics of masses of packet 
and session metadata, and the tools and activities of Cyber 
Protection Teams and Computer Network Defense Service Providers 
are not interoperable, are not tied together under overarching 
concepts of operation and architectures, and cannot seamlessly 
and instantly share machine-readable indicators of compromise 
or otherwise tip and cue each other.
    The committee is concerned that despite the billions of 
dollars invested in perimeter defense, the department's ability 
to rapidly identify and remediate cyber vulnerabilities remains 
time and resource intensive. Because of this stove-piped nature 
of the existing architecture, the committee is concerned that 
the department's ability to defend the Department of Defense 
Information Network against future adversaries will be limited 
by its ability to network its many sensors to identify 
malicious activities and rapidly isolate and remediate that 
malicious activity in cyber relevant time frames.
    The committee is aware of the productive efforts of joint 
working groups, composed of experts from the Principal Cyber 
Adviser's cross-functional team, the Joint Staff, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 
and the Chief Information Officer, to define operational views, 
requirements, and plans for the foundational building blocks 
for integrated cyber operations, such as the Unified Platform. 
Likewise, United States Cyber Command staff are grappling with 
the same issues and exploring commercial technology solutions. 
The committee also notes the sustained efforts of the DOD Chief 
Information Security Officer (CISO) to create an integrated 
cybersecurity enterprise capability with limited resources and 
authority.
    The committee believes that the Sharkseer team has the 
vision, technical depth, and connections across the enterprise 
and in commercial industry to play an effective role in 
achieving the goal of an integrated cybersecurity enterprise. 
The committee directs the Sharkseer program to apply additional 
funding to develop and demonstrate integration of cybersecurity 
tools and processes across the network layers and systems, 
under the guidance of the DOD CISO and the Commander of U.S. 
Cyber Command.

MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

    The budget request included $17.8 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), PE 
1105219BB, for the development, integration, and testing of 
special operations-unique mission kits for the Medium Altitude 
Long Endurance Tactical (MALET) MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
(UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible 
for the rapid development and acquisition of special operations 
capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out 
operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral 
damage.
    The committee understands that the budget request only 
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its 
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $12.0 million in RDTEDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
    The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to 
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging 
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. The committee has 
authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of 
the last 4 years to enhance these efforts and understands that 
SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new 
capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target 
location and tracking, image resolution, and video transmission 
during that time. The committee expects SOCOM to update the 
committee periodically on its development efforts under the 
MALET MQ-9 UAV program.

Sharkseer email protection

    The budget request for the Defense Information Systems 
Agency (DISA) does not include funds to sustain the effort to 
extend the Sharkseer ``zero-day net defense'' capability to the 
email traffic flowing across the gateway boundaries of the 
Department of Defense (DOD). Sharkseer is already deploying to 
all DISA Internet gateway nodes to defend DOD networks against 
malicious hidden activity in web traffic. The committee 
believes it makes little sense to filter web traffic for 
previously unknown threats while leaving email traffic 
unprotected against the same types of threats. Congress 
provided additional funds in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to assist DISA and 
the Sharkseer program office in the National Security Agency in 
getting started on this extension of zero day net defense to 
email. The committee recommends an increase of $11.7 million in 
DISA's Defense-wide Operations and Maintenance account, and 
$16.3 million in Defense-wide Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation (program element 33140K) to sustain this initiative.

                       Items of Special Interest


Active protection systems

    The committee encourages the Army, in cooperation with the 
United States Marine Corps, to rapidly acquire effective active 
protection systems (APS) to protect ground combat forces and 
weapon systems from projectiles including rocket propelled 
grenades and anti-tank, wire guided missiles. Key armored 
fighting vehicles such as M1 main battle tanks, Bradley 
fighting vehicles, Stryker vehicles, and armored assault 
vehicles should be given first priority for APS due to their 
mission profiles. The committee understands that APS technology 
is mature and fielded by some of our allies. The committee 
encourages the Army to acquire non-developmental, mature 
designs for integration and testing with our vehicles. The 
committee believes that such an effort will increase both force 
protection and combat power of our close combat maneuver 
forces.

Advanced airlift airship technology

    The committee has maintained an ongoing interest in 
advanced lighter-than-air (LTA) airship technology that has the 
potential to add much needed cutting-edge capabilities for the 
Department of Defense. Among other things, airship technology 
can enhance logistics, Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance (ISR), Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief 
(HA/DR), and Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations (NEO).
    The committee is aware that multiple advanced airship 
technology efforts during the past 20 years have all failed to 
establish conclusively the value of advanced lighter-than-air 
technology by not demonstrating clear proofs of technical 
viability and the benefits of superior operating utility. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112-81), recognizing that Department of Defense airship 
development appeared disparate, directed the Secretary of 
Defense to designate a senior official with responsibility for 
Department airship programs, to delineate this official's 
responsibilities and to submit reports on Department hybrid 
airship operational concepts and future development strategies. 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
(Public Law 113-66) further recognized the failure to 
consolidate a structured path forward and re-affirmed the 
committee's belief in the transformational potential of 
advanced technology airships. That legislation noted U.S. 
Transportation Command's stated opinion that airships possess 
the nascent capability to enhance mobility substantially.
    While some have advanced the idea of waiting for commercial 
firms to develop airship logistics capability, the committee is 
concerned that this strategy would allow the Department to 
evade development responsibility. However, the committee notes 
that several failed attempts by the commercial sector argue for 
the involvement of the expertise of the Department. The 
committee understands that properly identified, the required 
technologies already exist or are near final states of 
development. Within the wherewithal of the Department of 
Defense, these technologies could be demonstrated en route to a 
successfully executed advanced airship program. Engaged 
leadership and full program involvement of the Department is 
essential for advanced airship success.
    The committee also understands that there are obstacles to 
a successful commercial initiative including development risk, 
fiscal investment requirements, and the potential for 
disruptive change to existing airlift technologies. 
Nevertheless, the committee believes that the rewards of 
exemplar government technology investments are, today, 
ubiquitous within the commercial arena and clearly show how 
timely involvement may have later broad-based national 
benefits.
    The committee believes that a new advanced airship program 
must address two primary risk areas. First, for airship outsize 
airlift, the most pressing discrete problem remains cargo off-
loading without the airship instantly becoming too light for 
safe operation. Development of a robust, responsive and wide 
bandwidth buoyancy-ballast system that supports full vertical 
flight capability is essential and must be demonstrated 
convincingly and early. Second, a system of systems, involving 
lift, control and unique lighter-than-air flight technology, 
represents a demanding integration challenge and should be 
resolved before committing to final airship design and 
development.
    An incremental early ``iron bird'' demonstration with 
proving metrics and appropriate program off-ramps may provide 
the best way to establish core program viability and a path 
towards a full airship demonstration. This would be more 
soundly based than previous program strategies and could 
resolve the most critical risks before committing to the full 
flight demonstration.
    The committee believes that there is a strong justification 
to pursue airlift airship concepts and encourages the Air 
Force, Army, United States Transportation Command, and other 
appropriate defense organizations to become more proactive in 
developing advanced airship mobility needs and capability 
requirements that both lead and stimulate emerging 
demonstration plans.
    The committee directs that no later than 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall:
          (1) Reaffirm leadership and responsibilities for 
        airship technical initiatives within the Department of 
        Defense;
          (2) Develop a strategy for future Department airship 
        technologies that takes ownership of maturation efforts 
        consistent with airship outsize airlift capability to 
        identify:
                  (a) Critical technology challenges (in 
                addition to the aforementioned) and methods to 
                demonstrate viability;
                  (b) Development risks and lessons learned;
                  (c) Impediments to successful demonstration, 
                including an assessment of in-house 
                understanding of airship technology;
          (3) Develop notional estimates for time, costs and 
        other necessary resources to conduct an incremental 
        demonstration for technical viability with suitable 
        decision points and off-ramps.

Advanced weapons technology

    The committee recognizes the increased risk of exposure to 
chemical and biological agents faced by deployed U.S. and 
coalition forces. The committee believes it is critical to have 
the ability to expedite collection and characterize these 
agents in near real time. To meet this requirement, the 
committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to 
accelerate the fabrication, prototyping and testing of 
capabilities to detect and classify chemical and biological 
agents that will provide needed battlefield intelligence and 
increase the protective posture of U.S. and coalition forces.

Assessment of status of little used research and development 
        infrastructure assets

    The committee is concerned that certain research and 
development infrastructure assets employed by the military 
services are prematurely decommissioned or otherwise dismantled 
prior to a general accounting and assessment of the value and 
utility of such assets to the Department of Defense as a whole. 
Given the immense expense involved in establishing and standing 
up infrastructure assets, it is critical that decision on the 
final disposition of such assets not be made on parochial, 
short-term considerations. The committee believes that these 
assets may still have broader defense-wide and national utility 
and that such utility needs to be assessed before any decisions 
are made.
    To help alleviate this concern, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to identify such ``orphan'' assets that 
support Research and Development and Test and Evaluation. The 
definition of these assets shall be the same as the definition 
developed for the study provided to the Congress in October 
2010 pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to address ``Orphan 
Assets''. The committee directs the Secretary to submit a list 
of these assets, along with a description of the need for these 
assets, to the congressional defense committees no later than 
one year after the enactment of this Act.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Transmission Competition

    The committee is aware that the U.S. Army is testing an 
alternative transmission for the family of Bradley Fighting 
Vehicles, which includes the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle 
(AMPV) and Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) programs. 
Assuming a successful test, the committee understands that the 
Army will assess the cost and benefits of an alternative 
transmission and then conduct a full and open competition to 
integrate a new transmission into the family of Bradley 
Fighting Vehicles. The committee notes that the Fiscal Year 
2017 budget request does not include funding to support the 
alternative transmission strategy. Therefore, the committee 
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a 
report on the full and open competition for the family of 
Bradley Fighting Vehicle transmissions. The required report 
must be submitted no later than January 15, 2017, and include 
details regarding the Army's test report on the alternative 
transmission, the acquisition strategy and schedule, and the 
funding plan to support the competition.

Conformal phased array antennas

    The committee notes that there have been recent substantive 
improvements in antenna technology, providing enhanced 
capabilities to aircraft and unmanned aerial systems. 
Additionally, the committee is aware that these same platforms 
face environments where it would be useful for antennae to 
operate on different frequency bands and to be reconfigurable 
in flight. The committee believes that these enhanced 
capabilities could be critically important in improving sensing 
in constrained or contested aerial environments. Consequently, 
the committee encourages the Navy to examine research 
opportunities to develop the fundamental theory, modeling, 
demonstration, and control of super-adaptable conformal phased 
array antennae.

Department of Defense technology offset program to build and maintain 
        the military technological superiority of the United States

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
undertaken a third offset initiative to help maintain the 
military technological superiority of the United States. Much 
like the previous two offset initiatives, the committee is 
encouraged to learn that the Department recognizes that our 
adversaries are rapidly developing technologies and strategies 
that can rival those of the United States and that the 
Department, in theory, is taking steps to avert such a 
scenario.
    As the committee expressed in the Senate report 
accompanying S. 1376 (S. Rept. 114-49) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, since World War II, the 
United States has never faced a more sophisticated and 
comprehensive array of challenges that threaten to undermine 
the integrity of the global security that the United States has 
underwritten for seven decades. Without rapid innovation and 
bold commitment to technology development and deployment, the 
committee believes that the United States could be in danger of 
ceding its authority as the unparalleled military leader in the 
world today. This concern is made all the more stark by the 
fact that our adversaries seem to be able to innovate advanced 
technologies more quickly and efficiently that the Department 
of Defense, which continues to be hampered by outdated 
practices and regulations. The committee believes that the 
ability and foresight necessary to pivot to critical 
technologies and bring them to development and deployment in an 
expedited manner is critical to maintaining the status of the 
United States in global security.
    In recognition of these issues, to express support for the 
Department's third offset initiative, and to assist the 
Department in accelerating the program as much as would be 
reasonable, the Congress established a technology offset 
program in section 218 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). This program, as 
laid out in the authorizing legislation, would provide the 
Department of Defense with additional funds on an annual basis 
to carry out research, development, prototyping, deployment, 
and rapid fielding of critical offset technologies. In 
developing this initiative, the committee authorized the 
Secretary of Defense up to $400.0 million for use towards 
technology offsets. While the committee ultimately gave the 
Secretary latitude to determine the most critical technologies 
on which to expend these funds, it also recommended that the 
Department focus on six technologies that the committee 
believes to be most vital for maintaining our military 
technological superiority. In particularly, the committee noted 
its clear intent that approximately half of the authorized 
funds be used for technologies related to directed energy.
    Although the level of funding was ultimately reduced to 
$100.0 million through the Defense appropriations process, the 
committee believed that the program could still serve as a test 
case to determine the Department's commitment to and 
understanding of the technology offsets initiative. Despite the 
lower level of funding, the committee had intended to ramp up 
available funds in subsequent years as the Department 
demonstrated its ability to use the money wisely and 
effectively for technology offset activities.
    The committee is alarmed to learn that this initial $100.0 
million funding has been allocated by the Defense Department to 
activities that are tangential, at best, to the technology 
offset initiative. In fact, of the $100.0 million, the 
committee believes that only $6.0 million has been put toward 
true offset technologies. With such a breakdown, the committee 
is unfortunately left to conclude that the Department has used 
money to pay its bills, rather than focus on technologies that 
are vital to the military technological superiority of the 
United States. Most distressingly, the committee was 
disappointed to learn that none of the money was put toward 
directed energy technologies, thereby showing a comprehensive 
lack of regard for the clear intentions laid out by the 
committee and by the Congress as a whole. Taken together, the 
committee is concerned that the Department is not focusing on 
strengthening the core mission capability of our military in 
terms of offensive and defensive weapons systems. Directed 
energy can fundamentally change warfare, much like precision-
guided weapons did when developed during the second offsets 
efforts.
    In addition, the authorizing legislation clearly lays out a 
procedure whereby the funds should be competed internally with 
clear criteria and identifying purposes and priorities for the 
use of the funds. The legislation also directs the Secretary to 
solicit applications from across the defense research and 
development enterprise for use of the funds. The committee was 
concerned to learn that unfortunately none of this occurred 
before the money was allocated.
    Given these circumstances, the committee has no choice but 
to refrain from providing additional funding authorization for 
the technology offset program. Given the Department's clear 
disregard for the intent of the committee and of Congress in 
providing the technology offset funding, the committee is 
unable to justify further expenditure. Without some sort of 
assurance or demonstration from the Department that it can 
manage technology offsets funding in a responsible manner, the 
committee believes that any additional funding for this program 
would be similarly misused.
    The committee notes that the Department has said publicly 
that up to $18.0 billion is being devoted to offset technology. 
Despite repeated requests for a breakdown of this claim and an 
accounting for where this funding is being applied, the 
committee remains unaware of the specifics of how the 
technology offset program is being carried out. Given the 
Department's performance regarding the authorized offset funds, 
the committee remains wary of the Department's ability to truly 
carry out a third offset program and see it through to 
fruition.

Digital polarimetric radar development

    The committee notes that there have been major advances in 
the field of radar development with respect to incorporating 
both polarimetric and phased array radar technology into an 
all-digital design. The committee considers the development of 
this technology as a critical enabler for the Navy in the 
development of increased sensing, discrete object tracking 
(especially small unmanned aerial vehicles), interference 
avoidance, spectral dominance, electronic warfare, dynamic 
aperture sharing, and multi-function/multi-objective 
capabilities. Consequently, the committee encourages the Navy 
to examine research opportunities to create an all-digital 
polarimetric phased array radar for future use in small object 
sensing and tracking, and dynamic aperture tasking for 
spectrally-contested and dense-target electronic warfare 
environments.

Expedited hiring at Department of Defense laboratories

    The committee is concerned that it takes unreasonable 
amounts of time to hire experienced individuals at defense 
laboratories, sometimes exceeding over a year. As a result, a 
sizeable percentage of authorized billets at DOD laboratories 
remain vacant due to lengthy delays as well as competition from 
the private sector. This committee notes that these delays 
occur despite expedited authorities authorized by this 
committee in a series of provisions in previous National 
Defense Authorization Acts.
    Given the Department's ``Third Offset'' strategy and the 
fact that these laboratories play a critical role in driving 
the key technologies of that strategy, the committee directs 
the Comptroller General to conduct an assessment of the 
different hiring structures at military laboratories across the 
services, compare the time it takes to hire personnel, assess 
whether certain laboratories are using existing expedited 
hiring authorities effectively, and what recommendations it has 
to enable laboratories to accelerate the hiring process.

Human augmentation technology for industrial operations

    The committee commends the Office of Naval Research (ONR) 
Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Program for its renewed 
efforts toward understanding the benefits of human industrial 
operations augmentation technology that improves the health and 
safety of the workforce and reduces the total ownership cost 
(TOC) of Naval assets.
    The committee notes that the Navy Metalworking Center (NMC) 
and ManTech recently highlighted cost and labor savings on 
projects such as the DD 51 of over 20-30 percent through the 
use of exoskeleton-based human augmentation technologies. The 
committee continues to be interested in technological advances 
that help reduce the labor component of TOC by increasing 
productivity, improving quality, and reducing costs associated 
with workplace injuries related to repetitive motions.
    Following the success of this initial program, the 
Committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to continue to 
develop these technologies with a goal of broad implementation 
of commercially-available human industrial operations 
augmentation technologies for the construction, maintenance, 
repair, and disposal of Navy assets.

Hypersonic wind tunnel capabilities

    The committee notes that a key element of the Third Offset 
strategy is the development of high speed and hypersonic 
capabilities to support defense missions such as global and 
precision strike; intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR); and access to space. The committee notes 
that advanced research and development in this area depends on 
world class testing facilities, including high speed wind 
tunnels, as well as world class technical and engineering 
talent. Recently, in its ''Hypersonic Weapons and US National 
Security: A 21st Century Breakthrough'' report, the independent 
Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies found that Congress 
and DOD must adequately support continued operation and 
upgrading of the national hypersonic technology infrastructure, 
particularly unique test tools and research facilities for 
undertaking both ground-based and full-flight testing and 
research. The committee notes that this bill authorizes a 
significant increase in support for hypersonics test 
capability, as requested by the President. Further, the 
committee recommends that the Department of Defense, working 
through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Test 
Resource Management Center, and the Air Force, continue to 
explore the development of wind tunnel test capabilities to 
support development of hypersonic military systems.

Immunosuppression associated with Anthrax Prophylaxis

    Historic scientific literature has noted that certain 
compounds when combined with anthrax inhibit the immune 
response effecting the ability of a prophylaxis drug to 
effectively treat exposure or vaccines to protect from 
exposure. Unknown at the present is whether naturally occurring 
compounds such as aflatoxins when combined with anthrax causes 
such a suppression. The committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to conduct a peer-reviewed study to assess the efficacy of 
such a combination or other such immunosuppression agents and, 
where applicable, develop a controlled experimental regime to 
assess the applicability of these combined agents. The peer-
reviewed study and experimental plan shall be due to the 
congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 
2017.

Integration of nanoscale techniques for improved battery technology

    The committee supports the efforts of the Department of 
Defense, including those of the military services, to improve 
battery technology. In addition, the committee recommends 
continued research and development of nanoscale techniques to 
improve battery technology as it relates to improving military 
capabilities on the battlefield.

Laser weapon system demonstrator

    The Committee commends the Navy for initiating and funding 
the Laser Weapon Systems Demonstrator (LWSD) and believes that 
this is an important step toward maturing technologies that 
could ultimately enable the deployment of a shipboard maritime 
laser weapons system. While the Committee understands that the 
Navy envisions transitioning laser weapons to a formal Program 
of Record in the 2020s, it appears that the Navy has not 
programmed funding beyond the LWSD sea-based tests to support 
the installation of LWSD on a DDG or for the design and 
procurement of a formal maritime laser program.
    The committee expects that the Secretary of the Navy will 
keep the congressional defense committees updated on its plan 
to seamlessly transition the LWSD to a shipboard weapons system 
following sea-based testing and to a formal maritime laser 
Program of Record, technical progress toward developing the 
capability, and programmatic steps being taken to move to 
demonstration and deployment of advanced laser systems.

Littoral Combat Ship propulsion and machinery control test capability

    The committee notes the operational benefits and cost 
savings that propulsion and machinery control test capabilities 
have provided the Navy, including for Arleigh Burke-class 
destroyers, Zumwalt-class destroyers, and Whidbey Island-class 
dock landing ships. The committee is concerned by a series of 
recent significant and costly engineering casualties on 
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), including: mechanical failures 
contributing to USS Freedom being underway for just 35 percent 
of its deployment in the 7th Fleet area of responsibility in 
2013, a fuel valve and combining gear failure on the USS 
Milwaukee in 2015, and a combining gear casualty on USS Fort 
Worth in 2016. The committee believes establishing a LCS 
propulsion and machinery control test capability would provide 
the Navy with a critical resource that is currently lacking to 
troubleshoot issues, identify root causes of casualties, and 
provide in-depth training to sailors. The net effect of such a 
test capability would be to reduce the time, cost, and 
inexperience associated with LCS propulsion and machinery 
control casualties.
    Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the 
Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations to consider 
establishing an LCS propulsion and machinery control test 
capability for both the LCS Freedom and Independence classes.

Long-range threat detection

    The Committee is aware of advances the Department of 
Defense (DOD) is making in long-range threat detection to 
safely detect explosives and explosive constituent chemicals 
from long distances. The Committee encourages DOD to engage 
with industry and academia to pursue further innovation in this 
field, including the development of cost effective threat 
sensor systems to support defense missions.
    The Committee notes that DOD should emphasize capabilities 
that can provide real-time detection, with the greatest 
possible standoff and lowest false alarm rates, and which are 
portable enough to be used with mobile, aerial, and sea-based 
platforms.

Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio

    Modernizing battlefield communications is a critical 
priority for the Army. The Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio 
(MNVR) provides the backbone for the Army's tactical network, 
connecting lower-echelon radios those at the brigade and 
battalion level. These two channel networking radios reduce 
reliance on satellite communications for the Army's command and 
control capability. The Committee fully funded this program and 
encourages the Army to maintain its testing schedule in order 
to meet fielding requirements.

Military medical photonics

    The committee notes that military medical photonics 
research improves battlefield patient care using photomedicine 
technologies and exemplifies how mission-oriented research can 
benefit both military and civilian populations. The committee 
is encouraged by recent breakthroughs in this research, 
including 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 wounds of war.
    The committee notes that funding for military medical 
photonics research decreased significantly in the Department of 
Defense's budget planning for fiscal years 2015 and 2016, but 
was subsequently restored to $6.0 million by the Department in 
each of those years in accordance with congressional guidance. 
This program has made great progress in the development of 
important, innovative technologies for battlefield medicine. 
The committee expects that the Department will continue to fund 
this important work at an appropriate level.

MQ-XX

    The committee believes the Navy needs to rapidly introduce 
a carrier-launched unmanned aircraft into the carrier air wing. 
While the committee continues to believe that the Navy should 
develop a penetrating, air-refuelable, unmanned carrier-
launched aircraft capable of performing a broad range of 
missions in a non-permissive environment, the committee 
believes the MQ-XX moves the Navy in the right direction while 
filling critical tanking and intelligence, surveillance and 
reconnaissance missions for the carrier air wing.
    The committee notes that on February 26, 2016, Chief of 
Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson stated, ``I like this 
way forward for carrier-based unmanned aircraft to be sort of a 
poster child for how we should do acquisition. We're going to 
get something on deck as soon as we can that will fulfill a 
valid need--tanking and ISR--on that aircraft carrier and for 
that air wing.''
    The committee is concerned that despite the service chief's 
emphasis on this program, current plans will require 10 years 
to field the MQ-XX. According to Navy budget documents, the 
first MQ-XX land-based flight will not occur until fiscal year 
2022 and the initial operational capability will not occur 
until fiscal year 2026. Given the years of effort and millions 
of dollars of investment already spent to bring an unmanned 
aircraft to the carrier, including the successful demonstration 
of the capability with the X-47B, the committee believes this 
timeline is unacceptably long and does not meet the CNO's 
intent for a model acquisition program done at speed. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives with the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2018, which includes: (1) a detailed 
MQ-XX program schedule through initial operational capability, 
and (2) detailed options to accelerate MQ-XX.

Night Vision Device Reset

    The committee believes night vision systems are an 
essential capability for successful conventional military and 
counterterrorism operations, and one in which the United States 
must keep its qualitative advantage.
    The committee is concerned that more than half of the 
approximately 480,000 fielded AN/PVS-14 monocular night vision 
devices provide significantly lower level performance than 
those possessed by potential adversaries-leaving U.S. forces at 
a capability mismatch given the access of potential adversaries 
to more advanced French, Russian, and Chinese night vision 
devices. In addition, extensive delays in developing and 
fielding a digital image intensified alternative are being 
experienced by Special Operations Command and the Night Vision 
and Electronic Sensors Directorate, thus extending the 
anticipated use of the AN/PVS-14 to fiscal year 2030.
    The Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Report 114-49) encouraged the Secretary of 
the Army to develop and implement a comprehensive night vision 
systems research, development, acquisition, reset maintenance, 
and sustainment strategy that improves readiness, identifies 
and delivers promising new or emerging technologies, and 
ensures the affordability of night vision systems by managing 
cost throughout their life cycle. The committee is troubled 
that the Army has not followed this recommendation, and is not 
taking appropriate action to provide necessary performance and 
reliability improvements for the legacy fleet of AN/PVS-14 
systems, commensurate with the threat and extended service 
life.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
to request funding as part of the fiscal year 2018 budget 
request to begin a performance reset of fielded AN/PVS-14 
systems through the component upgrade of the image intensifier 
tubes or explain in writing why such an upgrade is not needed 
to meet combatant commander requirements and ensure U.S. 
service members possess night vision devices superior to their 
potential adversaries.

Night Vision Reset

    The Senate report accompanying S. 1376 (S. Rept. 114-49) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
acknowledged that night vision systems are an essential 
capability for successful military and counterterrorism 
operations. With increased proliferation around the world of 
high performance night vision technologies, U.S. forces may 
face a capability mismatch as adversaries acquire higher 
performance level technology. The committee believes it is 
crucial that the Department of Defense maintains and, where 
possible, extends its technological advantage in night vision 
systems.
    The committee is aware that the Army is working to address 
the technological opportunities, operational requirements, and 
industrial base challenges associated with current and future 
night vision systems. Therefore, the committee continues to 
encourage the Secretary of the Army to develop and implement a 
comprehensive night vision systems research development, 
acquisition, reset maintenance, and sustainment strategy that 
improves readiness, identifies and delivers promising new 
technologies, and ensures affordability of night vision systems 
by managing cost throughout their life cycle.

Plan to reduce the footprint of aged chemical and biological weapons 
        facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground

    The southern end of Aberdeen Proving Ground contains the 
laboratories for the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Command 
(ECBC). While many laboratories are new and state of the art, 
the ECBC contains a number of 50-year-old laboratories that are 
inactive but still must be fenced and have their ventilation 
systems functioning given the trace amounts of agents that are 
present in them. The result is a cost of several hundred 
thousand dollars each year to keep some of these laboratories 
in a warm status, which includes other activities such as 
ensuring they are structurally sound and do not leak. Because 
the cost of maintaining the laboratory each year is less than 
the 1 year tear down cost, they remain standing for a period of 
time such that the accumulated cost over the outyears would pay 
for their removal. Similar parallels exist at the Department of 
Energy with abandoned nuclear weapon production facilities. The 
committee directs the Corps of Engineers to report no later 
than February 28, 2017 on a plan to tear down these hazardous 
facilities, which ultimately will save taxpayers money over the 
long run.

Review of balance between Department of Defense developmental and 
        operational test and evaluation

    The committee notes that Congress has now re-established a 
developmental test and evaluation organization within the 
defense research and engineering enterprise. With this 
development, the committee believes it is necessary to examine 
the functions and resources between the organizations of the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test 
and Evaluation (DT&E) and the Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation. To improve test and evaluation results for the 
Department's acquisition programs in the most efficient manner, 
particularly given that DT&E will now be reporting to the 
Director Operational Test and Evaluation as directed elsewhere 
in this act, the developmental and operational test and 
evaluation organizations must maintain a balance of resources 
and oversight activities.
    The committee notes that during the 2000s, the resources 
and influence of the developmental test and evaluation 
organization declined while operational test and evaluation 
assumed a more comprehensive role, including absorbing 
resources and functions formerly within the purview of the 
developmental test and evaluation organization. For example a 
number of programs were transferred to the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation, such as Joint Test & 
Evaluation, the Center for Countermeasures (CCM), munitions 
effectiveness, and aircraft survivability. In addition, the 
Operational Test and Evaluation organization co-opted 
developmental test and evaluation aspects of acquisition 
programs.
    When the developmental test and evaluation organization was 
almost non-existent, this enlargement of responsibilities under 
operational test and evaluation was essential. However, that 
role needs to be re-examined in light of a stronger 
developmental organization. As a result, the committee believes 
it would be useful for the Department of Defense to review the 
roles and resources of the current developmental and 
operational test and evaluation organizations to address a 
number of issues and questions.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to form a 
study panel to review the appropriate balance between 
developmental and operational test and evaluation activities 
and the resources required to accomplish related activities 
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The panel will 
develop recommendations for alternative approaches and resource 
levels and such recommendations should be completed no later 
than one year after the enactment of this Act.
    The committee recommends that the panel address the 
following questions:
          (a) How can the Director, Operational Test and 
        Evaluation (DOT&E) with duties established in section 
        139 of title 10, United States Code, and the Deputy 
        Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test 
        and Evaluation (DASD (DT&E)) with duties established in 
        section 139b of title 10, United States Code, at the 
        Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) level approach 
        oversight within the weapons development cycle to avoid 
        overlap but be mutually supporting without sacrificing 
        the independence of either organization?
          (b) Does participation and assessments of program 
        progress during phases prior to operational test and 
        evaluation bias the independent objectivity of the 
        operational test and evaluation organization?
          (c) Are staffing and other resources between the two 
        test and evaluation oversight organizations 
        commensurate with the effort of each relative to the 
        portion of the programs that their oversight entails?
          (d) Are there programs under the purviews of the 
        Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center 
        with duties established in Section 196 of Title 10, 
        United States Code, or the DASD (DT&E) that should be 
        managed within operational test and evaluation, such as 
        the Resource Enhancement Program and Joint Mission 
        Environment Test Capability?
          (e) Are there programs under the purview of the DOT&E 
        or the DASD (DT&E) that should more appropriately be 
        under the purview of other Office of Secretary of 
        Defense organizations?
          (f) Overall are the DASD (DT&E) and the DOT&E 
        organizations effectively carrying out the missions as 
        described in title 10, United States Code, and are 
        there impediments to meeting those responsibilities. In 
        addition are they engaged in activities outside their 
        mission areas?
          (g) Are the activities of the test and evaluation 
        organizations complementary, not duplicative or 
        disruptive, to the activities of the military 
        departments?
          (h) What are the implications for the balance between 
        the two organizations now that DT&E will be reporting 
        to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation?

Silicon Carbide Technology

    The Committee supports the Army's investment to advance 
power and energy technology to meet requirements for higher 
electric power loads at forward operating bases through 
efficient generators, extend silent watch capabilities for 
ground vehicles, and improve vehicle performance. Silicon 
Carbide MOSFET based high performance power modules have been 
identified as an enabling technology that meets Army 
requirements for power distribution and management as part of 
generator and battery systems. The Army is encouraged to 
increase support for demonstration and deployment of silicon 
carbide power electronics under the Research, Development and 
Engineering Command Tank Automotive Research, Development and 
Engineering Center.

Simulation training

    The Committee supports the Department of Defense's 
continued expansion of the full range of simulation training as 
a cost-effective means by which military units can improve 
tactical decision-making skills through training in realistic 
scenarios otherwise only found in theater combat operations. 
Well-trained units ultimately save lives when deployed to 
combat situations. The Department of Defense should continue to 
ensure the most efficient and effective training programs are 
available through a combination of both government-owned and 
operated simulators, as well as simulation support from a 
dedicated commercial activity capable of providing frequent 
hardware and software updates.

Single appropriation for developmental test and evaluation and test 
        resources

    The committee notes that prior to 1999, the Department of 
Defense had a strong developmental test and evaluation 
organization with a single appropriation for development test 
and evaluation support (including test resources) with all 
related program elements included within one appropriation. The 
committee understands that in 1999, developmental test and 
evaluation was reorganized and downsized and the appropriations 
were transferred to other program elements, primarily to the 
operational test and evaluation office.
    The committee further notes though, that in 2009, the 
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (Public Law 111-23) re-
established a strong developmental test and evaluation 
organization. Unfortunately, the related issue of resources was 
not addressed in the legislation and, as a result, 
developmental test and evaluation programs and projects remain 
scattered throughout defense-wide appropriations.
    To correct this oversight, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to include in the budget transmitted to 
Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States 
Code, for each fiscal year a separate statement of estimated 
expenditures and proposed appropriation for the fiscal year for 
the activities of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Developmental Test & Evaluation (DASD (DT&E)) and the Director, 
Test Resources Management Center (TRMC) for carrying out 
assigned duties and responsibilities. The Secretary of Defense 
shall re-establish a separate Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation appropriation for Development Test & Evaluation and 
Test Resources as existed in the Department prior to fiscal 
year 1999. The reestablished appropriation will include all 
Program Elements currently administered by the DASD (DT&E) and 
the Director, TRMC including the Central Test and Evaluation 
Investment Program and Department of Defense Test and 
Evaluation Science and Technology. This reestablished 
development test and evaluation appropriation will be 
administered by the DASD (DT&E) and the Director, TRMC.
    This change would consolidate the developmental test and 
evaluation-related resources in a single appropriation similar 
to what existed prior to 1999, which would allow for better 
congressional oversight and more efficient execution. This 
change would also provide Congress better visibility on 
resources being directed to developmental test and evaluation 
and test infrastructure. This change would also increase 
efficiency and minimize the possibility that resources can be 
realigned between program elements without congressional 
approval.

Study on best practices for laboratory management techniques

    In previous years, the committee has taken many steps to 
unshackle the Department of Defense laboratories from federal 
rules and regulations that the committee believed to be overly 
burdensome and to be having a deleterious effect on the 
abilities of the laboratories to carry out the critical mission 
with which they are charged. Among other things, the committee 
has granted the laboratories greater autonomy and authority to 
make their own decisions regarding personnel, workforce, 
funding allocation, and general laboratory administration and 
management.
    The committee has undertaken these efforts because it 
believes that the Department of Defense laboratories, along 
with the scientific and technical experts that they employ, are 
a unique national resource carrying out work that is vital to 
the national security interests of the United States. In 
recognition of the special status that the laboratories and 
employees occupy in terms of service to the Nation, the 
committee felt an obligation to ensure that all necessary tools 
were made available as necessary.
    To be sure, while the committee has taken many steps, many 
more remain. As an ultimate goal, the committee hopes to ensure 
that laboratories and lab employees have the desired 
flexibility to experiment and innovate in a supportive 
environment on an accelerated timescale that meets the needs of 
the defense services and of those engaging in the Nation's 
conflicts.
    As the committee has carried out its reforms in this arena, 
it has discovered that the Department has scientific 
organizations that are managed under a number of different 
governance models. For instance, the traditional service 
laboratories, such as the Army Research Lab, the Navy Research 
Lab, and the Air Force Research Lab, are all government owned 
and operated, meaning that all employees are direct federal 
employees. As a contrast, institutions like Lincoln Lab and the 
Applied Physics Lab are federally funded research and 
development centers, paid for by the government, but run by 
institutes of higher education. In addition, the committee is 
aware that laboratories of other federal agencies are managed 
under completely different models. For instance, the 
laboratories of the Department of Energy are government-owned, 
but operated by private companies, meaning that all employees 
are private sector contractors.
    While the committee appreciates that different missions and 
different objectives often require different management and 
governance, it also recognizes that with the launch of the 
Department of Defense's third offset initiative, greater 
pressure is being placed on the defense laboratories, indeed 
the entire defense research enterprise, to be more innovative 
and quicker in bringing new technologies to production and 
deployment. The committee is struck that it seems unreasonable 
to expect such increased output and efficiency from the 
laboratories without a commensurate overhaul of management and 
governance structures.
    At the same time, the committee has yet to see a 
comprehensive accounting of best practices for government 
laboratory governance. As a result, the ability of the 
committee to move forward smartly with additional reforms, 
designed to fully unleash the inherent capabilities of the lab 
in an efficient manner, is somewhat hampered. As much as the 
committee would like to undertake comprehensive defense lab 
governance reform, it remains wary of doing more harm than 
good.
    To remedy this gap in the committee's knowledge and 
expertise, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to complete a study of the various laboratory 
governance models employed at federal government laboratories, 
both defense and non-defense. This study should identify all 
different governance models used across the government, the 
benefits and drawbacks of each model, and how successful each 
governance model has been at fostering efficiency and 
innovation. The study should also compare the relative autonomy 
given to each of the different lab directors, and conclude with 
recommendations on best governance practices. The committee 
directs the Comptroller General to submit this study to the 
congressional defense committees no later than 1 year after the 
enactment of this Act.

Subsurface threat detection systems

    The committee notes that the Navy has requested $45.7M in 
PE 0603123N for force protection advanced technologies, 
including funding for sensors and countermeasures for use 
against unmanned underwater threats and divers. The committee 
expects the Navy to continue and expand these efforts, 
commensurate with these growing threats.

The improved turbine engine program (ITEP) for Army rotary wing 
        aviation

    The committee recognizes the importance of more efficient 
fuel consumption and enhanced power benefits that collectively 
increase the combat capability under the improved turbine 
engine program (ITEP) for Army rotary wing aviation. For 
example, the committee understands that the ITEP will increase 
the combat range of Black Hawk and Apaches by at least 85 
percent. However, the committee also understands that 
underfunding ITEP will result in a program schedule delay that 
could defer engine fielding to Black Hawk and Apache units. 
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Army to review 
the program funding profile for the key preliminary design 
phase of this competitive program to ensure resources are 
properly allocated across the future years defense program. 
Additionally, the committee strongly encourages the Army to 
examine all possible options to accelerate development and 
fielding of the engine so that the increased capabilities can 
be realized sooner.

Third offset technology--industrial base concerns

    The Committee acknowledges the critical role that the Third 
Offset strategy plays in assuring long-term national security 
but to date, has not received a clear interpretation of what 
this strategy consists of. Without a clear explanation from the 
Department of Defense, the Committee is concerned about the 
viability of the U.S. industrial base to support the Third 
Offset strategy. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to submit to the Committee a report on the Third 
Offset strategy, including how Third Offset programs will 
overcome capability or capacity challenges posed by U.S. 
adversaries, as well key capability shortfall areas that 3rd 
offset does not address. It will further submit its top five 
acquisition priorities, how they fit into the Third Offset 
strategy and to what extent the Department believes the U.S. 
industrial base can fill gaps in ability to support the 
strategy. The committee directs the Department submit both the 
strategy report and its acquisition findings and views to the 
Senate Armed Services Committee no later than one year after 
the enactment of this Act.

Troposcatter Systems

    The committee is concerned that warfighters lack needed 
communication capability in environments where satellite 
communications are degraded or denied. The committee is aware 
of the Army 's effort to leverage advances in troposcatter 
systems in order to close this strategic gap. Given current 
budget constraints, the committee urges the Army to assess the 
ability of off-the-shelf, non-developmental solutions to meet 
Army requirements while reducing cost and risk.

United States Special Operations Command, Airborne High Energy Laser

    The committee notes that United States Special Operations 
Command (SOCOM) has identified an unfunded requirement for 
fiscal year 2017 to accelerate the exploration of tactics, 
techniques and procedures, and concept of employment of an 
Airborne High Energy Laser (AHEL) on an AC-130 aircraft. The 
committee agrees that directed energy capabilities, potentially 
including the AHEL, may offer possible tactical and operational 
advantages over conventional capabilities for certain missions 
requiring clandestine activities and the ability to disable 
vehicles, infrastructure, weapons, and other equipment. Such 
capabilities may also offer advantages in terms of cost 
effectiveness, sustainability, and precision.
    The committee supports the experimentation proposed by 
SOCOM and understands that defense research laboratories and 
industry are currently working to advance directed energy 
systems for integration on various types of military aircraft. 
The committee directs SOCOM to fully coordinate its activities 
with the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office in order to 
avoid duplication of efforts and encourages the Department to 
pool resources from relevant offices in support of this 
unfunded requirement.

Working capital fund efficiencies

    The committee understands that the Department of Defense 
and other federal government organizations will continue to 
experience constrained budgets for several years in the near-
term, and that under such circumstances, federal organizations 
cannot afford to duplicate capabilities that may exist in other 
government organizations.
    The committee also notes that working capital funded 
organizations are uniquely capable of managing within their 
budgets while supporting other organizations since the 
organizations being served pay for the services received. In 
addition, the committee notes that an increased client base for 
working capital funds results in a larger base upon which to 
spread overhead cost, which in turn can reduce cost for all 
customers.
    The committee notes with concern that the leadership of 
some Department of Defense organizations may choose to reduce 
the flexibility allowed for working capital organizations to 
expand their base beyond the work for their parent 
organization. Such policies could necessitate other 
organizations to acquire duplicate capabilities.
    As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to ensure that all working capital funded facilities within the 
Department of Defense are allowed to provide services to all 
other Department of Defense organizations and all other federal 
organizations that request such services. The committee expects 
that, to the extent allowed by budget limitations, these 
services will be provided regardless of which organization 
operates the working capital funded facility and regardless of 
workforce staffing levels. The committee expects that such 
direction will be given to working capital funded facilities no 
later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.

                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations


Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)

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

                 Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment


Modified reporting requirement related to installations energy 
        management (sec. 302)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subsection (a) of section 2925 of title 10, United States Code, 
by significantly reducing the contents of the Department of 
Defense's Annual Energy Management Report.
    Additionally, the committee clarifies that the intent for 
reporting of all commercial utility outages caused by threats 
and hazards should include all four categories of utility 
service: electrical, potable water, wastewater, and natural 
gas. Accordingly, the committee believes the Department should 
appropriately revise the data collection template's 
instructions to capture such disruptions and outages.

Report on efforts to reduce high energy cost at military installations 
        (sec. 303)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, in consultation with the assistant secretaries 
responsible for energy installations and environment for the 
military services and the Defense Logistics Agency, to conduct 
an assessment of the efforts to achieve cost savings at 
military installations with high energy costs.

Utility data management for military facilities (sec. 304)

    The committee recommends a provision that recognizes the 
importance of energy management for improving resiliency and 
achieving the Department of Defense's Federal energy reduction 
goals. Therefore, to reduce energy costs, the committee directs 
the Department of Defense, in consultation with the Department 
of Energy, to develop a pilot program to investigate the 
utilization of utility data management services to perform 
utility bill aggregation, analysis, third-party payment, 
storage and distribution.
    Of the amounts to be appropriated for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy for SAG BSIT, Enterprise Information, the 
Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer funds for the 
purposes of the pilot program.

                      Linear LED lamps (sec. 305)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2-4.1.1.2 of the Department of Defense's Unified 
Facilities Criteria to allow linear light emitting diode lamps 
for facilities and installation retrofits. The committee notes 
that these fixtures may consume less energy, improve safety, 
realize life-cycle cost savings, and provide a return on 
investment.

                 Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment


Deployment prioritization and readiness of Army units (sec. 311)

    The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the 
Department of Defense, that would amend chapter 1003 of title 
10, United States Code, and would revise the Army's 
deployability rating system and the manner in which the Army is 
required to track prioritization of deployable units.
    The committee notes this provision would require the 
Secretary of the Army to maintain a readiness rating system for 
units of all components of the Army that provides an accurate 
assessment of the deployability of a unit and those shortfalls 
of a unit that require additional resources.

Revision of guidance related to corrosion control and prevention 
        executives (sec. 312)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics, in coordination with the Director of Corrosion 
Policy and Oversight, to revise the corrosion-related guidance 
to clearly define specific roles of the corrosion control and 
prevention executives of the military departments.

Repair, recapitalization, and certification of dry docks at Naval 
        shipyards (sec. 313)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow 
savings derived from foreign currency fluctuations to be made 
available for the repair, recapitalization, and certification 
of dry docks at Naval Shipyards.

                          Subtitle D--Reports


Modifications to Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (sec. 321)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to further 
streamline the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC).
    The committee remains very concerned that the QRRC's 
delivery to Congress lacks timeliness, remains hampered by 
parallel processes, and contains overlapping assessments which 
are then collectively hindered by unnecessarily prolonged 
approval processes within the Department of Defense.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to 
separate and alternate semi-annual assessments with semi-annual 
reports on remedial actions and recovery models in the next 
QRRC. The committee also strongly urges the Department to 
remove the senior readiness fora summaries in Annex A in order 
to avoid duplication. Additionally, the committee directs the 
Department to reduce duplication of the content currently 
provided in Annexes B and C of the QRRC, to the maximum extent 
practicable.
    The committee remains unsatisfied with the content reported 
in Annex F--Risk assessment of dependence on contractor 
support--as required by section 482(g) of title 10 United 
States Code. The committee strongly urges the Department to 
significantly improve the reporting quality in the next 
iteration of the QRRC.
    Lastly, because the content of Annex G--Cannibalization 
rates report--is unclassified, the provision would require the 
Department to provide Annex G to the congressional defense 
committees in a separate unclassified report containing the 
information collected pursuant to section 117(c)(7) of title 
10, United States Code.

Report on HH-60G sustainment and Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program 
        (sec. 322)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense 
committees that sets forth a plan to modernize, sustain 
training, and provide depot maintenance for all components of 
the HH-60 helicopter fleet.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Repurposing and reuse of surplus military firearms (sec. 331)

    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer 
excess firearms to Rock Island Arsenal to be repurposed for 
military use as determined by the Secretary of the Army.
    Additionally, the provision would allow for the transfer of 
M-1 Garand rifles and caliber .22 rimfire rifles currently in 
the Navy and Marine Corps inventory at Defense Distribution 
Center, Anniston, or Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane to be 
used as awards for competitors in marksmanship competitions 
that are held by the Navy or the Marine Corps.

Limitation on development and fielding of new camouflage and utility 
        uniforms (sec. 332)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation or expenditure of funds for the development or 
fielding of new camouflage or utility uniforms or families of 
uniforms until one year after the Secretary of Defense notifies 
the congressional defense committees.
    The committee notes that the Joint Clothing and Textiles 
Governance Board that is charged with developing policies 
related to combat uniforms has only met four times since 2010. 
The committee remains concerned that a lack of guidance has led 
to confusion amongst the services with how to ensure the best 
technology is integrated into all uniforms while maintaining 
compliance with existing Department of Defense policies. The 
committee understands that different operational environments 
will require different materials to provide protection from 
different threats.

Hazard assessments related to new construction of obstructions on 
        military installations (sec. 333)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 358 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to ensure that due 
diligence and proper assessment is given so energy projects do 
not interfere with operational training of the military 
services.

Plan for modernized Air Force dedicated adversary air training 
        enterprise (sec. 334)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force to submit to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
not later than March 3, 2017, a resource ready and executable 
plan for developing and emplacing a modernized dedicated 
adversary air training enterprise to support the full spectrum 
air combat readiness of the United States Air Force.
    The committee is concerned that although the Air Force has 
not been seriously challenged by an adversary that has caused 
significant friendly losses in air warfare for over four 
decades, technological advances, increased defense spending, 
and more aggressive military posturing by contemporary 
potential adversaries bring that concern back to the forefront. 
The Air Force's experience over Southeast Asia during the 
Vietnam conflict catalyzed a wholesale change in strategy, 
doctrine, and training, but not before suffering significant 
losses at the hands of an enemy initially perceived as 
substantially less capable.
    The committee recalls that in response to this undesirable 
circumstance, the Air Force emplaced a robust training regimen 
of advanced dissimilar air combat training, large force 
employment exercises such as RED FLAG and COPE THUNDER, and 
perhaps most importantly, an institutional commitment to 
fielding a dedicated air adversary training capability in the 
form of a full fighter wing equivalent of 72 aircraft in 
aggressor adversary air training units. This training 
capability remained in place from the early 1970s until the end 
of the 1980s, when defense budget pressures drove a 92 percent 
reduction in dedicated adversary air training assets from their 
peak level.
    The committee believes these dedicated adversary air 
training assets undoubtedly contributed to the eventual defeat 
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and also played a 
significant part in training Air Force units who subsequently 
dominated Saddam Hussein's air force in the first Gulf War. 
However, 25 years of continuous combat operations, divestment 
of over 60 percent of combat aircraft squadrons, and constantly 
declining defense budgets have combined with resurgent and 
emergent nation-state threats to necessitate a reexamination of 
how the Air Force will maximize training and readiness as 
necessary pillars of its fifth generation-enabled force into 
the future.

Independent study to review and assess the effectiveness of the Air 
        Force Ready Aircrew Program (sec. 335)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of the Air Force to commission an independent review 
and assessment of the assumptions underlying the Air Force's 
annual continuation training requirements, and the efficacy of 
the overall Ready Aircrew Program in the management of Air 
Force's aircrew training requirements. The provision would also 
direct the Comptroller General of the United States to assess 
the matters contained in the Secretary's report on the 
independent review and assessment.
    The Air Force has raised concerns regarding training 
shortfalls for both fourth and fifth generation combat aircraft 
aircrews against the annual continuation training requirements 
established in their Ready Aircrew Program (RAP). RAP defines 
the required individual training events, proficiency levels, 
and the appropriate mix and quantities of live training sorties 
and simulator missions for combat air forces. A number of 
factors have contributed to existing training shortfalls, 
including operations tempo, maintenance personnel levels, aging 
aircraft, limited and obsolete range infrastructure, and 
nonavailability of training support assets, such as dedicated 
adversary air training aircraft, among other factors. 
Additionally, the Air Force's reduced number of combat 
squadrons, and the reduced numbers of primary assigned aircraft 
to most of the remaining squadrons, combine to provide fewer 
cockpit positions to absorb and train new pilots to experienced 
proficiency levels. Finally, ongoing combat operations, the 
future fielding of large numbers of F-35As, and a potential A-
10 fleet divestment further exacerbate these training 
challenges.
    The committee is also concerned with assumptions underlying 
the annual training requirements that have not been adjusted in 
recent years to ensure that aircrews are training for the full 
range of core Air Force missions. For example, the Air Force 
has historically established annual training requirements for 
experienced or inexperienced aircrews based on whether a combat 
aircrew has achieved 500 flying hours in a primary aircraft. 
However, some new aircrew personnel can quickly meet the 
experienced flying hour level through operational deployments, 
even though the type of deployed flying operations may not 
represent the required experience across the full range of core 
missions.

Mitigation of risks posed by certain window coverings with accessible 
        cords in military housing units in which children reside (sec. 
        336)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to remove and replace window coverings 
with accessible cords from military housing units in which 
children under the age of 9 reside and require housing 
contractors to phase out window coverings with accessible 
cords.

Tactical explosive detection dogs (sec. 337)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2583 of title 10, United States Code, to require all 
new contracts involving tactical explosive detection dogs 
(TEDD) to include a provision that would transfer the TEDD to 
the 341st Training Squadron after the end of their useful 
service life and reclassify them as military animals to follow 
the adoption procedures set forth by section 2583.

STARBASE Program (sec. 338)

    The committee recommends a provision that would continue 
funding for the STARBASE Program by up to $25.0 million for SAG 
4GT3 Civil Military Programs in Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-Wide for fiscal year 2017. The committee believes the 
STARBASE Program is a highly effective program that improves 
the knowledge and skills of students in kindergarten through 
12th grades in science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics.

Access to Department of Defense Installations for drivers of vehicles 
        of online transportation network companies (sec. 339)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
secretary of defense to establish policies, terms, and 
conditions under which online transportation networks and their 
drivers shall be permitted access to military installations to 
serve base personnel.

Women's military service memorials and museums (sec. 340)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to provide not more than $5.0 million 
for the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of exhibits, 
facilities, historical displays, and programs at military 
service memorials and museums that highlight the role of women 
in the military.
    The committee notes that a funding offset of $5.0 million 
is derived from the Army's plan to accelerate the opening of 
another museum from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2019. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 
million to SAG 435 Other Service Support within the Operations 
and Maintenance, Army budget request.

                              Budget Items


Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard readiness unfunded 
        priorities increases

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $791.5 million was for SAG 
111 Maneuver Units, $1.3 billion was for SAG 116 Aviation 
Assets, $1.0 billion was for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot 
Maintenance, $336.3 million was for SAG 211 Strategic Mobility, 
$902.8 million was for SAG 322 Flight Training, and $778.7 
million was for SAG 423 Logistics Support Activities.
    The budget request also included $2.6 billion in Operation 
and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $491.7 million 
was for SAG 113 Echelons Above Brigade and $347.4 million was 
for SAG 121 Force Readiness Operations Support. The budget 
request also included $6.8 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $708.2 
million was for SAG 111 Maneuver Units, $37.1 million was for 
SAG 121 Force Readiness Operations Support, and $219.9 million 
for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
    The committee notes that, within the Army's unfunded 
priorities list, the Chief of Staff of the Army has identified 
specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help 
accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that these 
recommended increases will help restore the Army Prepositioned 
Stock Sustainment (APS) program in support of the European 
Reassurance Initiative and increase throughput for depot work. 
Additionally, this increase will help defray lodging costs for 
enlisted soldiers who sometimes must travel hundreds of miles 
for reserve duty. Lastly, the Chief of Staff of the Army 
testified before the committee that home station training for 
the Army National Guard to prepare for additional Combat 
Training Center rotations was one of his top unfunded readiness 
priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
increases: $50.0 million for SAG 111 Maneuver Units; $68.0 
million was for SAG 116 Aviation Assets; $19.4 million for SAG 
123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance; $25.0 million for SAG 211 
Strategic Mobility for APS; $36.6 million for SAG 322 Flight 
Training; and $4.0 million for SAG 423 Logistics Support 
Activities in OMA; $46.0 million for SAG 113 Echelons Above 
Brigade for Lodging in Kind and Home Station Training and $0.3 
million for Force Readiness Operations Support for range 
improvements in OMAR; and $70.0 million for SAG 111 Maneuver 
Units for Home Station Training; $2.4 million for SAG 121 Land 
Forces Operations Support; and $54.6 million for SAG 123 Land 
Forces Depot Maintenance in OMARNG.

Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization increases

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $2.2 billion was for SAG 132 
Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. The 
budget request also included $2.7 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $214.9 million was 
for SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization. The budget request also included $6.8 billion in 
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of 
which $676.4 million was for SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, 
Restoration & Modernization.
    The budget request included $39.4 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.6 billion was for SAG BSM1 
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization. The budget request 
also included $927.6 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy 
Reserve (OMNR), of which $27.5 million was for SAG BSMR 
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization.
    The budget request included $5.9 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $632.6 million was 
for SAG BSM1 Sustain, Restoration, & Modernization. The budget 
request also included $270.6 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve (OMMCR), of which $25.4 
million was for SAG BSM1 Sustain, Restoration and 
Modernization.
    The budget request included $37.5 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.6 billion was for 
SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. 
The budget request also included $3.1 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force Reserve(OMAFR), of which $113.4 million 
was for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization. The budget request also included $6.7 billion in 
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which 
$245.8 million was for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, 
Restoration & Modernization.
    The committee notes that throughout all unfunded 
requirement lists provided by the individual services, 
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization (FSRM) 
remained a shortfall for every service. The committee believes 
FSRM funding is crucial to rebuilding and maintaining 
readiness.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
increases: $354.4 million in OMA for SAG 132 Facilities, 
Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $21.5 million in OMAR 
for SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization; $32.1 million in OMARNG for SAG 132 Facilities, 
Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $160.9 million in OMN 
for SAG BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization; $5.8 
million in OMNR for SAG BSMR Sustainment, Restoration and 
Modernization; $39.3 million in OMMC for SAG BSM1 Sustain, 
Restoration, & Modernization; $5.5 million in OMMCR for SAG 
BSM1 Sustain, Restoration and Modernization; $157.7 million in 
OMAF for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization; $11.7 million in OMAFR for SAG 011R Facilities 
Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $14.0 million in 
OMANG for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & 
Modernization.

Army advertising reduction

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $550.6 million was for SAG 
331 Recruiting and Advertising.
    The committee understands that within the Recruiting and 
Advertising request was an increase of $50.8 million, or 27 
percent of the budget request, to fund additional marketing and 
advertising efforts. The committee also understands that the 
National Commission on the Future of the Army recommended that 
Congress authorize, and that the Secretary of the Army direct 
the consolidation of marketing functions under the authority of 
the Army Marketing Research Group to ensure unity of effort 
across all three Army components: Regular Army, Army Reserve 
and Army National Guard. The committee believes the budget 
request is not in line with that recommendation and believes 
these funds can be better aligned for other readiness 
priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.0 
million in OMA to SAG 331 Recruiting and Advertising.

Army museum reduction

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion million was for 
SAG 435 Other Service Support.
    The committee understands that within the Other Service 
Support request was an increase of $29.5 million to accelerate 
the opening date for the National Museum of the U.S. Army from 
fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2019. The committee notes that 
the Army has consistently stated that readiness is the 
service's number one priority. The committee agrees with that 
statement and believes these funds should be realigned to 
support higher priority readiness requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.5 
million in OMA to SAG 435 Other Service Support.

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $441.1 million was for SAG 
138 Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support.
    The committee notes that United States Southern Command 
(SOUTHCOM) identified intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance as an unfunded priority.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMA of 
$6.7 million for SAG 138 Combatant Commands Direct Mission 
Support for SOUTHCOM airborne intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance.

Printing reductions to active service components and defense-wide

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.4 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $5.9 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $37.5 billion for Operation 
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.5 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW).
    The committee notes that readiness is a top priority of the 
services and the Department of Defense. The committee notes the 
printing budget for active service components as follows: (1) 
Army $228.8 million, (2) Navy $48.6 million, (3) Marine Corps 
$95.5 million, (4) Air Force $59.6 million, and (5) defense-
wide $9.1 million. The committee believes that the printing 
budget for the active service components is excessive and 
portions should be realigned to fund unfunded requirements as 
requested by the Service Chiefs.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed 
reduction to the following: $34.3 million to OMA, $7.3 million 
to OMN, $14.3 million to OMMC, $8.9 million to OMAF, and $1.4 
million to OMDW.

Distributed Common Ground System-Army

    The budget request included $33.8 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $126.9 million was for the 
Distributed Common Ground Station-Army (DCGS-A).
    The committee is aware that the DCGS is a multi-service 
program that is intended to provide a family of fixed and 
deployable multi-source ground processing systems that support 
a range of Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Army 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems.
    The committee notes that DCGS-A is operationally suitable 
and effective when operating from fixed sites and providing 
direct support to operational and strategic forces. However, 
the committee also notes that DCGS-A is not suitable or 
effective in providing a reliable capability to tactical forces 
operating in the field. Army Brigade Combat Teams and 
battalions are required to improvise to overcome unreliable 
hardware and complex software. Operator knowledge and 
proficiency is low because of this complexity and unit 
readiness is negatively impacted.
    The committee notes that since 2007 total program cost of 
DCGS-A has been in excess of $3.0 billion. Costs to complete 
the program are estimated to be in excess of an additional $7.0 
billion.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed 
decrease in OMA of $63.0 million for DCGS-A.

Foreign currency fluctuations

    The budget request included $33.8 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.0 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $37.5 billion for Operation 
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.6 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
    The committee believes that when foreign currency 
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of 
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, 
particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 
million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
informed the committee that as of March 2016, the Department 
does not plan to transfer in any prior year unobligated 
balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2016. GAO 
analysis projects that the Department will experience a net 
gain in fiscal year 2017 due to favorable foreign exchange 
rates.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of: $59.2 
million to OMA, $14.6 million to OMN, $2.9 million to OMMC, 
$33.5 million to OMAF, and $10.6 million to OMDW for FCF.

Bulk fuel savings

    The budget request included $33.8 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.0 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $37.5 billion for Operation 
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.6 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
    The committee understands that as of March 2015, the 
Department has overstated its projected bulk fuel costs for 
fiscal year 2017.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
decreases: $123.3 million to OMA, $238.4 million to OMN, $24.7 
million for OMMC, $394.6 million to OMAF, and $41.1 million to 
OMDW for bulk fuel savings.

Army National Guard psychological health increase

    The budget request included $6.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $245.0 
million was for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.
    The committee understands that within this request was $7.4 
million for 69 Director of Psychological Health (DPH) positions 
within the Army National Guard. This level of funding is 
insufficient to cover the full validated requirement of 157 DPH 
positions. The committee notes that the Army National Guard has 
one of the highest rates of suicides in the military and that 
over 60 percent of those suicides were soldiers who never 
deployed and are not eligible for behavioral healthcare 
provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. For these 
members of the Army National Guard, the DPH can administer on-
site screening, counseling and referral to community resources 
when needed.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMARNG 
of $9.5 million to SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.

Army National Guard underexecution reduction

    The budget request included $6.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $245.0 
million was for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.
    Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office, 
the committee understands this subactivity group has 
historically underexecuted its appropriated funding.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMARNG 
of $5.0 million for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.

Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases

    The budget request included $39.4 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.0 billion was for SAG 1A5A 
Aircraft Depot Maintenance, $564.7 million was for SAG 1A9A 
Aviation Logistics, and $0.0 million was for SAG 4B2E 
Environmental Programs.
    The committee notes that, within the Navy's unfunded 
priorities list, the Chief of Naval Operations has identified 
specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help 
accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that these 
recommended increases will increase aviation depot maintenance 
and E-6B and F-35 sustainment capabilities. The committee 
further notes that these recommended increased will help 
crucial environmental restoration.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
increases in OMN: $34.0 million for SAG 1A5A Aircraft Depot 
Maintenance, $16.0 million for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics, and 
$18.0 million for SAG 4B2E Environmental Programs.

Navy enterprise information reduction

    The budget request included $39.4 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $790.7 million was for SAG 
BSIT Enterprise Information.
    Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office, 
the committee understands this subactivity group has 
historically underexecuted its appropriated funding.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $54.3 
million to SAG BSIT Enterprise Information due to low execution 
in prior years.

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase in security 
        programs

    The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 411 
Security Programs.
    The committee notes that United States Southern Command 
(SOUTHCOM) identified intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance as an unfunded priority.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMA of 
$6.0 million for SAG 411 Security Programs for SOUTHCOM 
airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

Naval History and Heritage Command reduction

    The budget request included $39.4 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $285.9 million was for SAG 
4A5M Other Personnel Support.
    The committee understands that within this request was 
$10.0 million for an increase to the Naval History and Heritage 
Command. The committee believes these funds can be better 
aligned for other readiness priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 
million to OMN for SAG 4A5M Other Personnel Support.

Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases

    The budget request included $5.9 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) of which $674.6 million was 
for SAG 1A1A Operational Forces, $947.4 million was for SAG 
1A2A Field Logistics, $206.7 million was for SAG 1A3A Depot 
Maintenance, $632.6 million was for SAG BSM1 Sustain, 
Restoration & Modernization. The budget request also included 
$39.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of 
which $564.7 million was for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics.
    The committee notes that, within the Marine Corps' unfunded 
priorities list, the Commandant of the Marine Corps has 
identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that 
could help accelerate readiness recovery. Specifically, the 
committee understands the Marine Corps has identified exercise 
program shortfalls, aviation readiness gaps in depot 
maintenance, enterprise network defense, explosive ordnance 
disposal mission equipment needs, rifle optics modernization, 
nano-UAS capabilities, and shortfalls in facilities demolition.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
increases to OMMC: $63.7 million for SAG 1A1A Operational 
Forces, $28.1 million for SAG 1A2A Field Logistics, $7.8 
million for SAG 1A3A Depot Maintenance, and $39.2 million for 
BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration and Maintenance. Additionally, 
the committee recommends an increase to OMN for $5.4 million 
for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics.

Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard readiness unfunded 
        priorities increases

    The budget request included $37.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.6 billion was for 
SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $7.1 billion was for SAG 
011M Depot Maintenance and $1.5 billion was for SAG 021M Depot 
Maintenance. The budget request included $3.1 billion in 
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), of which 
230 million was for SAG 011G Mission Support Operations. The 
budget request also included $6.7 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG) of which $7.0 billion 
was for SAG 011M Depot Maintenance.
    The committee notes that, within the Air Force's unfunded 
priorities list, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has 
identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that 
could help accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes 
that this recommended increase will improve shortfalls of the 
HC/HH-60 C4I platform. The committee further notes that this 
recommended increase will improve Air National Guard depot 
maintenance efforts.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.8 
million for SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $150.4 million 
for SAG 011M Depot Maintenance, and $66.4 million for SAG 021M 
Depot Maintenance in OMAF and $29.0 million for SAG 011G 
Mission Support Operations in OMAFR. The committee also 
recommends an increase in OMANG of $43.2 to SAG 011M Depot 
Maintenance.

Air Force advertising reduction

    The budget request included $37.5 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $104.7 million was for 
SAG 033A Recruiting and Advertising.
    The committee understands that within the Recruiting and 
Advertising request was an increase of $29.2 million to fund 
additional marketing and advertising efforts. The committees 
notes this request would more than double the Air Force's 
advertising budget. The committee believes these funds can be 
better aligned for other readiness priorities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $27.0 
million in OMAF to SAG 033A Recruiting and Advertising.

Special Operations Command civilian compensation

    The budget request included $5.4 billion in Operations and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for U.S. Special Operations 
Command (SOCOM), of which $751.8 million is for civilian 
compensation. The committee notes that the budget request for 
SOCOM civilian compensation for fiscal year 2017 is $72.7 
million more than what was enacted for fiscal year 2016, which 
represents an approximately 10 percent increase. The committee 
recommends a reduction of $45.3 million to be applied to higher 
priority requirements.

Defense Logistics Agency Price Comparability Office

    The budget request included $358.0 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Defense Logistics Agency 
(DLA), of which $61.4 million was for the Price Comparability 
program.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $5.8 million in 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Defense 
Logistics Agency (DLA) Price Comparability program which would 
return the program to its fiscal year 2015 budget level.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency foreign partner engagement programs

    The budget request included $496.8 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency, of which $270.2 million is for the Global 
Train and Equip Program, $58.6 million for the Regional 
Centers, $21.8 million is for the Wales Initiative Fund/
Partnership for Peace, $26.8 million for the Combating 
Terrorism Fellowship Program, $25.6 million for the Defense 
Institution Reform Initiative, $9.2 million for the Ministry of 
Defense Advisors program, $2.6 million for the Defense 
Institute of International Legal Studies. The committee 
recommends a transfer of $414.8 million to the Security 
Cooperation Enhancement Fund in Title 14 of this Act.

Funding for impact aid

    The budget request included $2.7 billion in the Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTJ) for the operations of the 
Department of Defense Education Activity. The amount authorized 
to be appropriated for OMDW includes the following changes from 
the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in 
funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of 
this committee report.

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]
 
 
 
Impact aid for schools with military dependent                     +25.0
 students.............................................
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities......              +5.0
    Total.............................................             +30.0
 

Office of Economic Adjustment reduction

    The budget request included $32.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide of which $155.3 million was for SAG 
4GTM Office of Economic Adjustment.
    The committee understands that within this request was 
$19.2 million for non-defense funding related to a public 
health lab. The committee notes there is an additional $13.0 
million in prior year funding that has not yet been obligated 
for this project. The committee notes that with over 1.3 
million people visiting Guam from countries with ``emerging 
infections,'' the addition of 5,000 marines would have a 
limited impact. Therefore, the committee encourages the 
administration to seek funding for any needed civilian lab from 
appropriate civilian sources.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $32.2 
million to SAG 4GTM Office of Economic Adjustment and 
recommends that the Department seek to reprogram the prior year 
funds to higher priority requirements.

Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and closure planning 
        and support

    The budget request included $32.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.4 billion was for 
SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    The committee understands that $4.0 million was to be used 
for base realignment and closure (BRAC) planning and support. 
The bill recommended by the committee would prohibit the 
expenditure of funds for a new BRAC round.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of 
Defense.

Department of Defense rewards program reduction

    The budget request included $1.4 billion in the Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $6.6 million was for 
the Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program.
    The committee continues to be concerned that the DOD 
rewards program has been hampered by historical under-
execution.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 
million to SAG 4GTN for the DOD rewards program.

Funding for Secretary of Defense delivery unit

    The budget request included $32.6 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.5 billion was for 
SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. The committee 
recommends an increase of $30.0 million in OMDW to SAG 4GTN 
Office of the Secretary of Defense for a delivery unit for the 
Secretary of Defense to bring in professionals with deep 
experience in management consulting, organization 
transformation, and data analytics to assist with key reforms 
and business transformation priorities. The provision 
underlying this change in funding levels is discussed in 
greater detail in title IX of this committee report.

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service

    The budget request included $171.3 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance.
    The committee recommends an undistributed increase of $15.0 
million in Operation and Maintenance that would establish the 
National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service 
as an independent commission, which shall remain available 
until expended. Additional information on this recommended 
increase can be found in Title X, Subtitle H.

Funding for waiver of long-term temporary duty travel per diem rates

    The budget request included $171.3 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in Operations and Maintenance to authorize a waiver of 
temporary duty travel per diem rates up to the full rate in 
long-term temporary duty travel activity. The provision 
underlying this change in funding levels is discussed in 
greater detail in title XI of this committee report.

Modeling of an Alternative Army Design and Operational Concept

    The budget request included $32.6 billion for Operations 
and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, of which $85.7 million was for 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff (SAG 3PL1). The committee recommends 
an increase of $10.0 million to SAG 3PL1 for the modeling of an 
alternative Army design and operational concept. Additional 
funding would allow the Secretary of Defense to establish an 
office to study and evaluate the reconnaissance strike group 
concept as recommended by the National Commission on the Future 
of the Army.

                       Items of Special Interest


Additive manufacturing recommendations

    The committee recognizes the advances being made by the 
Department of Defense (DOD) in the rapidly emerging additive 
manufacturing (AM), or 3-D printing environment. The committee 
strongly encourages DOD to more aggressively pursue AM 
capabilities that are innovative, adaptive, improve readiness, 
and enables the military services to be more self-sustainable, 
while developing the ability to qualify and certify AM produced 
items. The committee commends the Navy, in particular, for its 
leadership in this area regarding its AM roadmap and 
recognizing the potential AM could improve DOD capabilities in 
the areas of on-demand warfighting systems, agile supply 
chains, expeditionary sustainment, personalized medical care, 
and energetics. For example, the committee commends the Navy 
for its testing and flight critical part demonstration of a V-
22 nacelle link and fitting.
    However, it is clear that industry remains at the 
forefront, leading the way in AM. While there are multiple 
nascent efforts in AM, there are unique Navy and Marine Corps 
challenges such as afloat stabilization, fire hazards, and 
space constraints that must be addressed to fully realize the 
benefits of AM for widespread implementation. The committee is 
aware of the many demonstration and prototyping efforts, but it 
is still unclear when DOD will implement and more fully benefit 
from these advances in AM.
    The committee understands that DOD may already have some 
appropriate authorities to enter into public-private 
partnerships, however, the committee strongly encourages faster 
AM adoption and learning across DOD, as well as collaboration 
and opportunities to seek efficiencies as each of the military 
services make investments in AM. Further, the Government 
Accountability Office noted in its 2015 report on AM that DOD 
needs to systematically track and disseminate the results of AM 
efforts across DOD. As a result, DOD may not have the 
information it needs to leverage resources and lessons learned 
from AM efforts and thereby facilitate the adoption of the 
technology across DOD.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no 
later than February 1, 2017. The report should include, but not 
be limited to: (1) details from each of the military services 
regarding their current AM efforts to include fiscal years 2016 
and 2017 planned and completed demonstrations and prototyping 
efforts; (2) details regarding joint-development projects and 
efficiencies achieved through intra-service collaboration; (3) 
details regarding AM qualification and certification efforts 
for materials, processes and components; (4) a recommendation 
regarding the expanded use of Working Capital Funded pilot 
programs, potential changes to public-private partnerships 
within the defense industrial base, or any other potential 
changes in law that could enable DOD to better demonstrate and 
execute AM end use component fabrication.

Addressing unacceptable conditions at al Udeid Air Base

    The committee remains concerned by reports that 
servicemembers have been exposed to unacceptable living 
conditions, including black mold, in latrines and living 
quarters at al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.
    The committee continues to believe that all servicemembers 
deserve safe and healthy living conditions.
    The committee understands that the Air Force is 
implementing a four-point plan to maintain, repair, renovate, 
and replace substandard facilities at al Udeid Air Base. The 
committee expects the Air Force to keep the committee updated 
on its efforts at al Udeid Air Base and to address any 
remaining problematic living conditions across United States 
Central Command, including at al Udeid, without delay.

Advertising activities among the military service components

    The committee understands that as part of its efforts to 
meet yearly military recruitment goals, the Department of 
Defense (DOD) requested almost $575.0 million for fiscal year 
2017. The committee notes that preliminary findings from the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicate that DOD has 
taken steps to coordinate some advertising activities among the 
military service components, but it has not developed a formal 
process for coordination and addressing inefficiencies to 
ensure information sharing among the services. The GAO found 
examples of possible unnecessary duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation that may result from the absence of coordination. 
For example, the Air Force has three advertising programs that 
contract with three advertising agencies, but officials could 
not provide a rationale for requiring separate programs.
    The committee also notes that the GAO found the military 
service components vary in their ability to determine whether 
their activities are generating leads for potential recruits. 
For example, while the Marine Corps has developed a framework 
to assess the effectiveness of its advertising including leads 
generated from advertising activities at the local level, Army 
officials stated they do not have reliable data to evaluate 
whether locally executed advertising activities are generating 
leads, and the Army National Guard does not require state units 
to report on the performance of their advertising activities. 
The committee concurs with the GAO finding that without fully 
measuring advertising performance, especially at the local 
levels, DOD may be unable to ensure advertising dollars are 
used efficiently and effectively to help meet recruiting goals.
    Additionally, the committee remains concerned that some 
military service components are paying sport teams to provide 
recognition ceremonies for service members--a practice later 
deemed unacceptable by DOD--suggest that the absence of DOD 
oversight may have contributed to some activities of 
questionable appropriateness. Without a Department-wide policy 
that clearly defines its oversight role, DOD lacks reasonable 
assurance that advertising is carried out in an effective and 
appropriate manner.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with officials from the military 
service components and the Joint Advertising Market Research 
Studies office, to develop a formal process for coordination on 
crosscutting issues to facilitate more effective use of 
advertising resources. As part of this process, the Secretary 
shall review existing advertising programs to identify 
opportunities to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and 
fragmentation and obtain potential efficiencies. The Secretary 
shall also clearly define DOD's role in overseeing the 
advertising activities of military service components, clarify 
issues related to sports related advertising and marketing, and 
outline procedures that should guide the components' 
advertising activities for other types of advertising, such as 
concerts or other event advertising and digital advertising.
    Additionally, the committee directs the secretaries of the 
military departments to review and ensure that each military 
service component fully measures advertising performance. This 
review shall include both the identification of measurable 
goals in advertising plans and contracts, and ensure that the 
military service components have access to the necessary 
performance data to determine the effectiveness of their 
advertising for lead generation activities.
    The above mentioned formal process and review should be 
prepared in a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 
2017.

Army Foundry Military Intelligence Program

    The committee urges the Army to use the Army Foundry 
Military Intelligence Training Program for maximum training 
effect. Army Regulation 350-32 states that ``Foundry enables 
Army intelligence personnel to sustain intelligence skills 
pertinent to their unit's mission, to improve their individual 
and collective technical and analytical skills, and to receive 
required accreditation and certification training to 
successfully execute intelligence missions in support of the 
unit's mission.'' The appropriated funds for this account are 
limited and intended to support this vital training of 
soldiers.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review 
and certify to Congress that Foundry Military Intelligence 
Training Program funds are being used for the purposes outlined 
in Army Regulation 350-32. The secretary's report is to be sent 
to the committee within 180 days of the enactment of this bill.

Army requirements for footwear technology

    The committee understands that the Army procures a wide 
range of footwear products that incorporate expanded 
polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane technology. The 
committee further understands that Army product description 
documents, currently used in footwear Requests For Proposals 
seek to achieve a small set of capabilities that are 
subsequently addressed with 35-year-old ePTFE technology.
    The committee is aware that ePTFE technology, other new 
membrane technologies, and associated laminates have advanced 
significantly over the years and can address current Army 
requirements and future Army needs, while achieving enhanced 
and diverse sets of capabilities, comfort, and performance.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 
December 15, 2016. This report shall provide a detailed review 
to include evaluation and testing outcomes, of new ePTFE 
membrane, laminates, and other membrane technologies that can 
meet current requirements and address a wider set of current 
and future Army footwear capability needs and objectives. In 
addition, this report shall also suggest potential revisions to 
current requirements and associated footwear product 
descriptions that could expand access to these new technology 
advancements.

Assessment of Navy and Marine Corps training requirements

    The committee notes that the Navy and Marine Corps will 
continue to confront an increasingly complex security 
environment that will demand a wide range of missions, such as 
defeating terrorist organizations in the Middle East and 
responding to worldwide humanitarian crises. The committee 
understands that to meet these evolving challenges, the 
services have developed plans to synchronize training and 
deployment schedules to improve readiness and are reemphasizing 
training for core skills that degraded during a decade of 
counterinsurgency operations.
    The committee is concerned, however, that factors such as 
equipment availability due to maintenance delays and access to 
training ranges can affect the services' ability to conduct 
training for their core capability areas. The committee is 
further concerned that the military services continue to face 
an environment of uncertain and constrained budgetary resources 
for the foreseeable future.
    The committee notes, for example, in fiscal year 2013, the 
Department of Defense's operation and maintenance accounts, 
specifically those which fund the military services' training 
programs, were reduced by approximately $20.0 billion under the 
spending caps agreed to in the Budget Control Act of 2011 
(Public Law 112-25). Due to these reductions, the services 
curtailed some training or reduced the number of larger 
training exercises.
    The committee is aware that some targeted investments have 
been made since fiscal year 2013 to improve training readiness, 
but remains concerned about the Navy and Marine Corps' ability 
to balance training investments with available resources. As a 
result, the committee believes the services will need to 
fundamentally 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.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which the Navy 
and Marine Corps have: (1) processes that establish 
requirements and resource needs to train forces for core 
capability areas; (2) conducted training for core capability 
areas and identified any factors that limit this; and (3) 
integrated the use of virtual training to prepare forces for 
the full range of military operations.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to brief the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services not later than February 15, 2017, on preliminary 
findings of the Comptroller General's evaluation with a final 
report to be completed by April 1, 2017.

Assessment on duplication and inefficiencies within the Defense 
        Logistics Agency and United States Transportation Command

    The committee notes that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 
provides the military services with a full spectrum of 
logistics services, including the storage and distribution of 
consumable items, such as spare parts, fuel, and construction 
material, across the world. Additionally, DLA aims to position 
inventory to meet customer needs in a timely manner through its 
network of distribution warehouses while ensuring that the 
efficiency of its transportation network, which is also 
referred to as supply alignment.
    The committee also notes that the U.S. Transportation 
Command (TRANSCOM) provides air, land, and sea transportation 
for DOD and is the manager of the DOD Transportation System, 
which relies on military and commercial resources to support 
DOD's transportation needs. In particular, TRANSCOM manages the 
Defense Transportation Coordination Initiative program, which 
is focused on improving the efficiency of transportation and 
distribution of freight through a commercial partnership with a 
world-class logistics provider.
    The committee believes that while DLA and TRANSCOM have 
different missions in support of the warfighter, there may be 
efficiencies that could be created reorganizing or 
consolidating the two agencies. Additionally, the committee is 
concerned that some of the functions that currently reside with 
either organization may be better suited for the service-level 
functions.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to direct an assessment of the Defense Logistics Agency and the 
United States Transportation Command conducted by an 
independent, non-governmental entity that has recognized 
credentials and expertise in business operations and military 
affairs appropriate for this assessment. The assessment should 
include but not be limited to: (1) DLA's use of TRANSCOM's 
Defense Transportation Coordination Initiative program; (2) 
DLA's efforts to improve supply alignment and TRANSCOM's role 
in DLA's efforts; (3) DLA's and TRANSCOM's efforts to identify 
and implement transportation and distribution efficiencies; (4) 
the role of the individual services in the identified functions 
of DLA and TRANSCOM and whether there would be any efficiencies 
gained by moving any functions from DLA and TRANSCOM to the 
services; (5) identification of senior flag officer positions 
no longer required at DLA and TRANSCOM due to consolidation and 
delegation of functions; (6) recommendation regarding future 
need for TRANSCOM to remain a combatant command due to 
consolidation and delegation of functions; and (7) any other 
recommendations on ways that a reorganization, or consolidation 
of these entities could improve efficiencies including the 
shifting of any functions out of either organization back to 
the military services.
    The committee further directs that a briefing on 
preliminary findings be given to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not 
later than December 15, 2016, with the final report to be 
delivered in conjunction with the annual budget submission for 
fiscal year 2018.

Battery standardization plan

    The committee notes that in 2014, the Army conducted a 
study that determined the Army communications-electronics (CE) 
battery list had over 200 batteries on it and estimated the net 
gain would average five new batteries each year. The committee 
is aware that the Army is developing a formal requirement for 
battery modernization and interface standardization that seeks 
to standardize soldier-worn CE batteries down to six battery 
components. The committee understands this would be the 
foundation of an Army standard family of batteries.
    The committee remains supportive of the efforts of the Army 
and the other military services to improve soldier-worn CE 
batteries and increase combat capability. However, the 
committee is concerned that soldier-worn technology 
modernization should also maximize inventory efficiencies 
reducing logistical inefficiencies as CE and soldier-worn 
batteries continue to proliferate. The committee also believes 
this is an issue across all of the military services.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a plan to the congressional defense committees no 
later than March 31, 2017 on: (1) How the Department of Defense 
(DOD) will develop formal requirements for battery 
modernization and interface standardization that seek to 
minimize the inventory of batteries and battery components; (2) 
Leveraging commercial innovation and products; (3) Using the 
products of research and development efforts in DOD, the 
Department of Energy, and the commercial sector; and (4) 
Working with DOD research and development programs to support 
efforts of standardization.

Civil Air Patrol (CAP)

    The Committee notes the Air Force's fiscal year 2017 budget 
request does not fully fund the CAP's fiscal year 2017 
requirement for $30.24 million in Operations and Maintenance, 
only funding at 85 percent of the requirement. The committee is 
concerned this lack of funding will greatly degrade CAP's 
ability to conduct state and local emergency response and 
counter-drug missions. Additionally, reduced funding may also 
adversely impact thousands of community youth programs and 
eliminate crucial aircraft and national communications 
upgrades.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, Air 
Education and Training Command to submit a report and provide a 
briefing to this committee, no later than 180 days after the 
enactment of this Act, to present historical funding trends for 
the CAP, and assess the CAP's current mission shortfalls due to 
funding gaps.

Clarification of the Department of Defense's authority to perform 
        environmental response actions on other agency's lands in the 
        case of aircraft crashes

    The Committee notes that Section 2691 of title 10, United 
States Code, currently allows a military department to restore 
the lands of another federal agency damaged by an aircraft 
crash, when there is a pre-existing land use agreement with the 
other agency. Additionally, even absent such agreement, the 
1986 law creating the Defense Environmental Restoration Program 
(DERP), 10 U.S.C. 2700 et. seq., authorizes the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to perform environmental response actions at 
property under the jurisdiction of another federal agency if 
such property is contaminated by the crash of a DOD aircraft.

Clarification on the importance of operation and maintenance savings

    The committee recognizes that, in addition to energy 
savings, the military services should consider funding sources 
for Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) to include 
energy and project-related operation and maintenance (O&M) 
savings, which are both equally permitted under the ESPC 
statute. Therefore, O&M savings should not be limited by the 
administration or an agency, and should be utilized to improve 
resiliency and achieve Federal energy reduction goals.

Comprehensive review of the Army sustainable readiness model

    The committee notes that the Army is redesigning its 
process for generating forces with a goal of having units that 
are able to sustain a desired level of readiness over longer 
periods of time when not deployed on a given mission, called 
the sustainable readiness model (SRM). The committee 
understands that the SRM will rotate forces through a cycle of 
deployments over time, just as the Army did under the previous 
force generation concept, the Army force generation process 
(ARFORGEN). However, unlike ARFORGEN, the committee understands 
that SRM will have a tiered aspect that will ensure that some 
capabilities and unit types will be resourced to a higher 
readiness level than others. The committee notes that the 
Army's objective is to have 66 percent of the active component 
force in a Category 1 or 2 ready status at any moment in time 
to rapidly respond to a major contingency, however, the Army 
has not yet determined exact readiness goals for the Army 
National Guard and Army Reserve.
    The Chief of Staff of the Army has directed that the SRM be 
implemented by fiscal year 2017. The committee is concerned 
that implementing SRM will require fundamental shifts in how 
the Army organizes, trains, equips, and manages the force. 
Among other things, the Army will need to ensure that a unit's 
collective training events, command changes, and personnel 
rotations are well synchronized, and that units returning from 
deployment do not suffer significant and abrupt personnel 
transfers that prevent them from redeploying on short notice to 
meet unforeseen demands. Over the next 12 months, the Army also 
will need to establish and codify the roles, responsibilities, 
and processes for coordinating these force management actions 
across the total Army, and for making the resource allocation 
decisions needed to implement SRM as the Army intends.
    To inform committee oversight of the Army's plan to 
fundamentally restructure its force generation process, the 
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 
to conduct a comprehensive review of the Army's SRM force 
generation concept. The assessment that supports this review 
should compare and contrast SRM with ARFORGEN, including 
similarities and differences in the goals, objectives, resource 
requirements, and supporting force management processes. 
Additionally, the review shall provide the Comptroller 
General's assessment on the Army's goals, plans, and progress 
for implementing sustainable readiness, including: (1) The 
Army's governance of the transition to and implementation of 
the SRM concept; (2) the readiness goals and resources required 
to sustain readiness; (3) potential changes to the Army's 
processes for manning, equipping, and training forces in order 
to support Sustainable Readiness; and (4) any other aspects of 
the sustainable readiness concept the Comptroller General deems 
significant.
    The committee directs that the Comptroller General should 
provide a briefing of preliminary findings of the review to 
congressional defense committees by February 15, 2017, followed 
by one or more reports no later than April 1, 2017.

Comptroller General review of emerging contaminants on military 
        installations

    Defense operations at military bases often require the use 
of hazardous materials, including solvents and corrosives; 
fuels, paint strippers and thinners; metals such as lead, 
cadmium, and chromium; and unique military substances such as 
nerve agents and unexploded ordinance, the release of which has 
resulted in environmental contamination. One of the primary 
purposes of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program 
(DERP) is to help protect the life, health, and safety of 
military service members and their families by among other 
things, the ongoing process of detecting the discharge of 
environmental contaminants when they occur and the associated 
environmental remediation as needed. It is especially important 
to protect installation drinking water systems and supplies 
from contamination.
    A class of unregulated drinking water contaminants exists 
that either lack human health standards or have an evolving 
science and regulatory status, which raises questions about how 
this class of contaminants is tested for and managed on 
military installations, including whether the military services 
are being consistent in their approaches to this. The use and 
releases of these emerging contaminants raises concerns about 
the ability of the military services to ensure a safe and 
healthful work environment on or near installations. Such 
contaminants have been tested for and found from time to time 
on some installations. For example, the Department of Defense 
(DOD) has been testing for RDX, a white crystalline solid used 
in explosives and demolition blocks. Moreover, DOD has detected 
perchlorate in groundwater and drinking water samples taken at 
an installation whose missions included launching rockets. Once 
a release has been confirmed, environmental remediation 
activities may be needed to respond to the release, offer a 
structure for cleanup, and protect public health.
    A key concern of the committee is the need to ensure that 
DOD maintains installation mission capability and a safe and 
healthful environment on military installations. For this 
reason, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct a review of DOD's program to 
effectively manage emerging contaminants in sources of drinking 
water to protect readiness, people, and the environment. The 
Comptroller General is further directed to provide a report by 
April 10, 2017 or a briefing by that date with a final report 
as soon as practicable thereafter to the congressional defense 
committees. At a minimum, the study should answer the following 
questions:
          (1) To what extent have DoD and its components issued 
        and effectively implemented guidance to ensure adequate 
        control, detection and remediation in the event that 
        emerging contaminants are released to the environment?
          (2) What is known about the effectiveness of DoD's 
        and its components' programs to protect public health 
        and the environment from emerging contaminants in such 
        areas as installation drinking water systems and 
        supplies?
          (3) Have the military departments adopted and 
        implemented consistent policies and procedures?
          (4) To what extent are DoD and its service components 
        using guidelines, policies, and advisories established 
        by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for 
        Disease Control and other federal agencies regarding 
        emergent containments. What challenges do they face 
        when interpreting and applying such resources?
          (5) What is the current status of drinking water 
        infrastructure across military installations?

Comptroller General review of F-22A global force posture

    The committee is concerned the proliferation of 
increasingly capable integrated air defense systems (IADS) by 
emerging and reemerging potential adversaries have created 
regions where fourth-generation airborne systems likely cannot 
operate. Additionally, potential adversary air-to-air 
capabilities are rapidly approaching parity with, and in some 
cases, surpassing, the capabilities of U.S. and allied fourth 
generation fighter aircraft.
    Based on these factors, the committee is concerned the 
global force posture of America's only currently fielded and 
fully operational fifth-generation fighter, the F-22A, may not 
be optimized to deter, and if necessary, quickly defeat any 
potential adversary hostile actions in a variety of regions 
around the globe.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
forth the results of a study conducted by the Comptroller 
General, with preliminary observations due no later than March 
3, 2017 and a final report to follow. The review, assessment, 
and recommendations by the Comptroller General should include, 
but are not limited to:
          (1) Most efficient and combat effective F-22A 
        squadron size in numbers of primary assigned aircraft 
        and deployable unit type code packages;
          (2) Optimal ratio in the F-22A fleet of primary 
        mission aircraft inventory to backup aircraft inventory 
        and attrition reserve aircraft;
          (3) Consideration of small fleet size characteristics 
        and constraints;
          (4) Optimal ratio of overseas versus continental 
        United States (CONUS) stationed F-22A units;
          (5) Optimal locations for overseas regional and CONUS 
        stationing of F-22A units to provide most effective 
        presentation of fifth-generation airborne forces to 
        regional combatant commanders;
          (6) Consideration of F-22A global force posture in 
        anticipation of increased fielding of F-35 Joint Strike 
        Fighter aircraft; and
          (7) Other information such that the Comptroller 
        General considers appropriate to include in the report.

Cyber implementation at the combat training centers

    The committee recognizes and is strongly encouraged by the 
cyber training support to corps and below (CSCB) pilot program 
implemented through the cyber opposing forces support during 
every Joint Readiness Training Center and National Training 
Center rotation. The committee understands that the CSCB pilot 
prepares combat training centers (CTC) to execute cyberspace 
operations and is intended to inform Army-wide doctrine, 
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, 
personnel, and facilities development. The committee further 
understands that any future changes in the cyber force will be 
informed through the CSCB pilot, subsequent lessons learned, 
and the 2016 CTC Program Comprehensive Review, which will 
conduct an analysis for increased contested cyberspace activity 
at the CTCs.

Cybersecurity guidelines for micro-grids

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 
2017 on established cybersecurity guidelines for micro-grids 
and installation energy and utility systems. The guidelines 
should recognize that installation energy managers may not 
currently have the expertise to identify and mitigate 
cybersecurity threats and that cybersecurity managers tasked 
with maintaining the functionality of the electricity grid may 
not have the expertise to be able to provide solutions required 
to maintain the functionality of a micro-grid or installation. 
The report should be unclassified, but may contain a classified 
annex as deemed appropriate.

Defense Logistics Agency overhead costs

    The committee notes the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 
sources and provides nearly every consumable item used by our 
military forces worldwide. The committee also notes the 
Department of Defense (DOD) uses the defense-wide working 
capital fund to cover DOD's costs for providing services and 
purchasing commodities under three DLA activity groups: supply 
chain management, energy management, and document services. The 
committee understands 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. The committee 
further understands that 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.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate: (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; and (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.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to brief the Senate Armed Services Committee 
not later than March 15, 2017, on preliminary findings of the 
evaluation with a final report to be due by June 30, 2017.

Defining readiness and interoperability for commercial carriers

    The committee notes that the National Airlift Policy (NAP) 
was established to ensure that military and commercial air 
carrier resources are able to meet defense mobilization and 
deployment requirements. The committee further notes that 
section 5 of the NAP states, ``Consistent with the requirement 
to maintain the proficiency and operational readiness of 
organic military airlift, the Department of Defense (DOD) shall 
establish appropriate levels for peacetime cargo airlift 
augmentation in order to promote the effectiveness of the Civil 
Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and provide training within the 
military airlift system.'' The committee further notes that 
section 9517 of title 10, United States Code, states, ``[I]t is 
the policy of the United States to maintain the readiness and 
interoperability of Civil Reserve Air Fleet carriers by 
providing appropriate levels of peacetime airlift augmentation 
to maintain networks and infrastructure, exercise the system, 
and interface effectively within the military airlift system.''
    The committee is concerned, however, that there is no clear 
definition of what constitutes ``readiness'' or 
``interoperability'' in regard to commercial carriers. The 
committee understands that this has led to misunderstandings 
about how best to promote the effectiveness of the CRAF and 
what constitutes training within the military airlift system. 
The committee also recognizes that the absence of definitions 
has resulted in different assessments of what level of 
commercial augmentation is sufficient to meet DOD's readiness 
and interoperability requirements. The committee notes that 
according to DOD's Report, as mandated by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), 
commercial augmentation levels will remain well above the 
minimum required for readiness and interoperability for the 
foreseeable future. The committee believes, however, a 
definition of readiness and interoperability, with associated 
metrics, would help determine if the level of commercial 
augmentation is achieving the intent of the National Airlift 
Policy and title 10. The committee notes this will provide a 
more realistic assessment of the ability of commercial carriers 
to operate within the military airlift system.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to develop definitions of readiness and interoperability for 
CRAF and suitable metrics to determine that readiness and 
interoperability are achieved, to include an explanation of the 
weighting of ground based activities, as specified in the 
``Level of Readiness of CRAF Carriers'', and engagements versus 
level of commercial aircraft activity at DOD aerial ports. In 
determining those definitions, the committee directs the 
Department to consult with its CRAF partners through its semi-
annual meetings and other forums.
    Additionally, the committee directs the Department to 
include those definitions and metrics in the next ``Level of 
Readiness of CRAF Carriers'' report to Congress due 
concurrently with the submission of the President's budget for 
fiscal year 2018.

Demilitarization of conventional munitions

    The committee notes that at current funding levels, the 
stockpile of conventional munitions awaiting demilitarization 
is projected to grow from approximately 480,000 tons to more 
than 700,000 tons by 2021.
    The committee notes that in light of current budget 
constraints, coupled with an increased emphasis on training 
within all of the military services, destruction or sale of 
these munitions should be a last resort. The committee further 
notes that even though the stockpile awaiting to be 
demilitarized is growing, it is concerning that procurement of 
some munitions continues to rise. The committee believes that 
procedures for how these munitions are classified as suitable 
for use or that they must be demilitarized could lead to cost 
savings and increased military readiness. In addition, the 
Government Accountability Office noted in its 2016 annual 
report on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication that DOD 
could potentially reduce its storage, demilitarization, and 
disposal costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars by 
transferring excess serviceable conventional ammunition, 
including small arms ammunition, to federal, state, and local 
government agencies.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to submit an assessment to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 
later than February 1, 2017. The assessment shall include: (1) 
a review of the requirements for how excess munitions are 
utilized for operational or training purposes prior to being 
classified for demilitarization and any recommendations for how 
to improve this process to reduce both the stockpile and new 
procurement costs; (2) options for reducing risk, enhancing 
efficiency, and achieving cost reductions, such as maximizing 
the proximity of demilitarization operations to 
demilitarization asset storage locations in order to minimize 
cost and risk associated with transportation; and (3) a 
parallel timeline for how procurement of munitions and the 
demilitarization of munitions will continue until the stockpile 
is below 50,000 tons.
    The committee further encourages the Secretary to leverage 
expertise from industry and academia to advance affordable 
demilitarization technologies.

Department of Defense transportation protective services

    The committee notes that as a result of the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) review of the policies and 
procedures used by the Department of Defense (DOD) in the 
handling of hazardous material shipments, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 directed U.S. 
Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) to submit a report that 
examines the data limitations of the Department of 
Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's 
(FMCSA) Safety and Accountability Program and report on what 
changes, if any, should be made to the process used by DOD to 
determine hazardous material carrier eligibility and evaluate 
performance of carriers within the Transportation Protective 
Service (TPS).
    Accordingly, based on the GAO review and USTRANSCOM report, 
the committee directs the Commander of USTRANSCOM to provide a 
report to the Congressional Defense and Commerce Committees no 
later than November 1, 2016. The report should include a review 
and updates to the existing plan, as required, to ensure that 
USTRANSCOM has a comprehensive program that evaluates the 
safety of commercial carriers and their ability to move DOD 
hazardous TPS cargo. Additionally, the report should include 
USTRANSCOM's strategy and timeline for developing and 
implementing ways to incentivize carrier safety performance. 
Finally, the committee encourages USTRANSCOM continue to 
coordinate with the Department of Transportation on proven 
safety technologies for inclusion in future requirements for 
carriers transporting the most sensitive or extremely dangerous 
cargo.

Department of Defense weapon system sustainment strategy

    The committee notes that one of the Department of Defense's 
(DOD) most pressing concerns continues to be the readiness of 
its weapon systems and the cost to sustain readiness. The 
Department spends billions of dollars each year to sustain its 
weapon systems. The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 
2009 directed a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review 
of the growth in operating and support costs of major weapon 
systems. The GAO found that the Department did not have key 
information to manage life-cycle costs. The committee believes 
that the development of a sustainment strategy that includes 
goals, performance measures, and key initiatives could help to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of sustaining DOD 
weapon systems.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report on the strategy for weapon system 
sustainment to the congressional defense committees in the 
House and Senate no later than January 2, 2017. The strategy 
should cover the entire logistics lifecycle from production 
through battlefield use, retrograde and organic repair or 
modification, or disposal. The strategy will include at a 
minimum the following elements: (1) key sustainment principles 
and their inclusion at every step of the acquisition processes; 
(2) product support; (3) supply chain integration; (4) asset 
visibility; (5) data rights; (6) software sustainment; (7) 
sustainment engineering; (8) private and public maintenance, 
repair, and overhaul; (9) nuclear sustainment; (10) war reserve 
material; (11) distribution; and (12) operational contracting.

Department of Defense's use of executive agents

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense has 
various management approaches that it uses to improve 
efficiency in its programs and activities. For example, the 
committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense has designated 
executive agents across the Department to provide defined 
levels of support for operational missions, or administrative 
or other designated activities that involve two or more 
Department components. The committee is also aware that prior 
work by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 
the Department had opportunities to improve executive agent 
management efforts for foreign language support. The committee 
believes that given the Department's use of executive agents 
for numerous programs and activities, additional opportunities 
may exist to gain further efficiencies in areas outside of the 
GAO's previous review.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate the Department's use of 
executive agents, to include an assessment of the following: 
(1) A description of the types of programs and activities for 
which DOD has established executive agents; (2) The 
Department's use of executive agents to focus its resources in 
specific areas in order to maximize fragmentation, unnecessary 
overlap, or duplication; (3) The Department's evaluation of the 
performance of its executive agents' efforts for effectiveness 
and efficiency in meeting program needs; (4) Additional 
opportunities for the Department to gain further efficiencies 
in executive agent management efforts; (5) Identification of 
specific statutory, regulatory, practice, resource allocation, 
or cultural impediments to the most effective and efficient use 
of executive agents as a management practice by the Department; 
and (6) Identification of best practices in the use of 
executive agents.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than March 15, 
2017, on preliminary findings of the evaluation with a final 
report to follow by June 30, 2017.

Development and procurement of combat personal protective equipment for 
        different body types

    The committee believes the expanding role of women in 
combat positions provides an opportunity to improve the 
personal protective equipment (PPE), organizational clothing, 
and individual equipment (OCIE) for both male and female 
warfighters to ensure the best fit to gain a tactical advantage 
through increased maneuverability. The committee recognizes the 
advances made to date regarding weight reduction in PPE and 
OCIE, and further believes that the Department should continue 
to seek to take advantage of the best technology available to 
reduce PPE and OCIE weight for all servicemembers.
    The committee notes that the Department has often acquired 
individual equipment such as boots, helmets, combat clothing, 
and body armor for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in a 
piecemeal manner. The committee encourages the services to 
consider appropriately addressing the unique needs of both male 
and female service members through a comprehensive acquisition 
strategy that seeks to improve OCIE and PPE through an 
integrated combat ensemble designed to meet validated 
operational requirements.
    The committee understands that on June 26, 2015, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology 
provided guidance to the services to take immediate steps to 
ensure that combat equipment is properly designed and fitted 
for female servicemembers. The committee also understands that 
the services are conducting anthropometric studies on their 
male and female servicemembers that will help each service 
properly outfit and equip their respective servicemembers.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in coordination with the service chiefs, to submit a 
report no later than February 1, 2017 to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 
The report shall include: (1) an acquisition strategy, by 
service branch, for the PPE and OCIE needs of both male and 
female service members; (2) the Department's plan to provide 
improved PPE and OCIE developed for all service members to meet 
validated operational requirements; and (3) any plans for 
budgeting, development, and procurement of female-specific 
equipment needs, validated through the requirements process, 
including helmets, clothing, and body armor. The report may be 
classified, or for official use only, as deemed appropriate by 
the Secretary, but if classified should include an unclassified 
executive summary.

Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program

    The committee is aware of the readiness challenges facing 
the Armed Forces due to the constraints put forth by 
sequestration. Additionally, the committee is aware of the 
Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program, which contributes 
to military readiness and provides realistic training in a 
joint environment for National Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty 
members, preparing them to serve during a national crisis at 
home or abroad.
    Examples of IRT activities include, but are not limited to, 
constructing rural roads and airplane runways, small building 
and warehouse construction in remote areas; transportation of 
medical supplies, and military readiness training in the areas 
of engineering, health care and transportation for under-served 
communities.
    The committee understands the IRT program offers complex 
and challenging training opportunities for domestic and 
international crises. The committee is also aware that states 
that utilize the IRT program include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, 
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South 
Dakota, and Texas.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense 
to continue to fully utilize IRT programs that provide hands-on 
and mission-essential training and that are available to 
active, reserve and National Guard forces.

Energy resiliency metrics

    The committee remains interested in the capability of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to assign a value to energy 
resiliency and mission assurance for its installations. The 
committee believes that having appropriate energy resiliency 
and mission assurance metrics could enable DOD and installation 
commanders to document the value of energy security to better 
inform infrastructure investment decisions. The committee is 
concerned that the Department and the military services may not 
currently or consistently evaluate the impact of energy 
disruptions and outages on its facilities and installations. 
For example, current methods by which utility disruptions and 
outages are tracked and evaluated by DOD may not account for 
costs associated with loss of mission capability. The committee 
is also concerned that energy resiliency and mission assurance 
evaluations and planning may vary within each military service 
as well as across DOD. Additionally, a consistent valuation 
methodology could encourage industry to develop new business 
models and third party financing mechanisms to help DOD achieve 
greater energy resiliency and mission assurance on its 
installations.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
March 30, 2017 with established metrics to evaluate the costs, 
risks, and benefits associated with energy resiliency and 
mission assurance against energy supply disruptions on military 
facilities and installations. The metrics should take into 
account financial and operational costs and risks associated 
with sustained losses of power resulting from natural or man-
made disasters or attacks that impact military installations.

Enhanced transparency in Department of Defense fuel rate pricing

    The committee is encouraged that in response to concerns 
raised by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the 
Department of Defense (DOD) has adjusted its methodology for 
determining the fiscal year 2017 fuel rate price by basing it 
on the Gas and Oil price index included in the Administration's 
economic assumptions and incorporating relevant data on actual 
fuel prices prevailing during the most recent fiscal year. The 
committee notes that the GAO's November 2015 report, however, 
highlighted the fact that the Department still had not fully 
documented its process for selecting a methodology for 
estimating its fuel rate pricing. In order to account for real-
time changes in the world-wide fuel market, the committee 
believes the Department should retain reasonable flexibility in 
determining and applying an appropriate methodology underlying 
the estimate of the next fiscal year's fuel rate price.
    The committee remains concerned about the quality and 
transparency of information available to Congressional decision 
makers and Department fuel customers concerning the methodology 
selected each year and its application to relevant data used in 
estimating fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year. A well-
documented methodology allows decision makers and other 
stakeholders to understand and evaluate the Department's budget 
requests and make informed decisions concerning annual funding 
levels. The committee notes the Department's budget 
justification materials for fiscal year 2017 do not specify the 
process by which the Department evaluated any methodological 
options for developing its fuel rate pricing.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit detailed guidance to the congressional defense 
committee no later than February 1, 2017 on how DOD will take 
steps to develop and implement a process for the annual review 
and selection and application of an appropriate methodology for 
estimating fuel rate prices for the next fiscal. The detailed 
guidance should also include the process for the identification 
of an appropriate methodology to assess the accuracy of 
estimated fuel rate prices as compared with actual fuel prices 
for the most recent fiscal year, and the establishment of a 
detailed process for the annual development of estimated fuel 
rates prices for the next fiscal year, to include requiring 
documentation of the rationale for using one methodology over 
another for estimating the next fiscal year's fuel rate price, 
including the limitations and assumptions of underlying data 
and establishing a timeline for developing annual estimated 
fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year.
    Lastly, the committee will continue to monitor the 
Department's efforts and may direct further action if the 
process for determining fuel pricing does not achieve greater 
transparency.

Examination and recommendations regarding reimbursement process major 
        range test base facilities

    The committee notes that major range test base facilities 
(MRTFBs) operate under the reimbursable research, development, 
test, and environment model of billing for direct costs of 
service, which is different than at typical operational 
training ranges. The committee further notes that the Test 
Resource Management Center of the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense recently reported to Congress that it has not 
identified problems with reimbursement procedures for units 
training at MRTFBs. The committee remains concerned that a 
number of optimal and potentially lower cost training 
opportunities are declined by operational training units due to 
the difficulty of locating funds to reimburse MRTFBs.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than February 
1, 2017. The report shall: (1) examine how the reimbursement 
process for the MRTFBs relate to operational unit payment 
procedures and (2) include any recommendations for legislative 
or administrative action to make it easier for operational 
units to comply with the MRTFBs reimbursement process, 
including any recommendations specific to White Sands Missile 
Range, Utah Test and Training Range, Yuma Proving Ground, and 
Aberdeen Test Center.

Expanding the number of younger cyber security professionals on 
        Department of Defense contracts

    The committee is concerned that current labor category 
practices on Department of Defense (DOD) contracts may 
unnecessarily discriminate against younger cyber security 
professionals. These workers are often the best and brightest 
workers in the cyber security field but the committee has been 
informed that they are finding it increasingly difficult to be 
included on contractor teams to address DOD cyber security 
needs. This is because in many cases DOD procurement officials 
are requiring specific tenure requirements for the contracting 
workforce and younger workers do not have the years of 
experience required by these labor category requirements.
    While the Department rightly desires to have experienced 
scientists and engineers working on federal contracts, by not 
including or funding labor categories for students, interns, 
co-ops, and recent college graduates in the cyber security 
field it may be eliminating some of the most promising software 
developers from being considered for work on a DOD contract. 
The committee believes that Silicon Valley companies would not 
make such a mistake. Another possible strategy for the 
Department to pursue would be to forgo specific labor category 
requirements and write performance specifications that would 
allow contractors to bring together the best team that they see 
fit to address the cyber challenge. To inform the committee on 
the best path forward to address acquisition policy in these 
situations, the committee directs the Principal Cyber Advisor 
to the Secretary of Defense to assess current approaches to 
accessing the next generation of cyber professionals on DOD 
contracts and brief the committee on how labor categories are 
being used to contract for cyber security support, an 
identification of current best practices for cyber support 
acquisition, and any recommendations necessary to more 
adequately address the cyber security contracting workforce.

Expansion of Surface Warfare Officer School basic division officer 
        course

    The committee notes the strides that have been made in 
improving training for new surface warfare officers (SWO). From 
2004 until the establishment of the basic division officer 
course (BDOC) in 2012, newly commissioned SWOs reported to 
their first ships with little to no training. Once aboard their 
ships, ensigns completed on-the-job training and computer-based 
training to earn qualifications.
    The committee further notes that in contrast, other Navy 
unrestricted line communities provided and continue to provide 
new officers with initial training prior to reporting to their 
first command to achieve basic skills and proficiency (e.g., 
submariners attend the submarine officers basic course and 
nuclear training, aviators attend flight training, and SEALs 
attend Basic Underwater Demolitions/SEAL training). In 2012, 
the surface warfare community launched the basic division 
officer course to provide an intensive, 8-week course of 
instruction designed to provide foundational classroom training 
to newly reported prospective SWOs. The committee notes that 
shiphandling training at BDOC is conducted exclusively on 
simulators.
    The committee commends the Navy on establishing SWOs BDOC, 
but believes more should be done. Yard patrol craft have been 
used at the U.S. Naval Academy for decades to teach navigation, 
seamanship, and shiphandling to midshipmen. Similar benefits, 
specifically tailored to the qualifications that new SWOs must 
attain, could be gained by relocating yard patrol craft to BDOC 
locations. These benefits provide fundamental skills in an at-
sea training environment, including: shiphandling, navigation, 
radar operation, bridge resource management, seamanship, and 
maintenance.
    Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the 
Secretary of the Navy to consider reactivating and relocating 
three yard patrol craft from Annapolis, Maryland to the SWO 
School BDOC in Norfolk, Virginia and three yard patrol craft 
from Annapolis, Maryland to the BDOC in San Diego, California.

Expeditionary equipment and forward operating bases

    The committee notes that the Base Camp Integration Lab 
(BOIL) at Fort Devens, Massachusetts provides the Army with an 
operational base camp to integrate and evaluate more effective 
technologies in power generation, shelter, energy management 
microgrids, and water reuse, which combine into a more 
effective forward operating base called the Force Provider 
Expeditionary (FPE) module. These combined BCIL improvements 
and FPE modules reduce forward operating base fuel consumption 
by more than 50 percent. The committee believes that by 
reducing reliance on energy sources and becoming more 
efficient, the military services become more agile and 
effective in combat, which reduces the risk to servicemembers' 
lives, frees up assets to conduct combat missions rather than 
provide security for resupply convoys, and ultimately saves 
taxpayer's money.
    The committee recognizes and is very encouraged by the 
Army's FPE modules, as well as similar efforts by the Marine 
Corps' Expeditionary Energy Office, which focuses on extending 
the operational reach of the Marine Air Ground Task Force.
    Additionally, the committee recognizes and is very 
encouraged by the Air Force's Forward Operating Base of the 
Future located at the Basic Expeditionary Airmen Skills 
Training (BEAST) site--including Basic Expeditionary Airfield 
Resources (BEAR). The committee continues to believe that the 
Department of Defense has a critical requirement to leverage 
technologies that will enhance combat capability and may 
deliver energy efficient returns on investment. For example, 
one retrofitted zone of the BEAST site will reduce the energy 
footprint by 85 percent. Additionally, the medium shelters 
procured through the BEAR program reduce heat and air 
conditioning requirements by at least 35 percent.
    The committee understands that the Army has deployed FPE 
modules to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa in support of the 
Ebola response during Operation United Assistance. The 
committee is also encouraged by collaborative efforts that have 
occurred between the Army FPE and Air Force BEAR to share 
lessons learned. The committee notes that the Army currently 
has 232 FPE modules in its inventory, with 21 currently 
deployed to Iraq, seven in Afghanistan, one in Cameroon, and 
many others at prepositioned stocks around the globe.
    However, the committee is concerned that it appears more 
effective and efficient base camp technologies are not widely 
known assets across the military departments.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to prepare a report or briefing to the committee no later than 
February 1, 2017 detailing how the military services can 
broaden the use of FPE modules, BEAR, and Marine Corps 
expeditionary energy systems, including any plans to modify 
unit tables of equipment or programs of record to include FPE 
modules, BEAR, and Marine Corps expeditionary energy systems.

Flame resistant uniforms

    The committee understands that the military services 
continue to evaluate emerging flame resistant technologies that 
may have the potential to provide a more cost-effective level 
of protection to a wider range of service members. The 
committee also understands that the Army and the Marine Corps 
have conducted a study to evaluate commercial flame resistant 
applications that could be more affordable, provide enhanced 
protective qualities, are more breathable, and are more durable 
when compared to current flame resistant uniforms.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to provide an 
assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 
and the House of Representatives by February 1, 2017 that 
outlines developmental efforts to date, assesses technology 
readiness, and describes future efforts to appropriately 
resource and equip flame resistant protective postures for 
military personnel. Additionally, the committee strongly 
encourages both services to review and consider any necessary 
and appropriate updates to personal protective equipment 
requirements to include potentially equipping flame resistant 
protective postures based on the threat and operating 
environment.

Foreign language training report

    The committee notes the importance of foreign language 
proficiency to ensure military readiness objectives are met by 
the numerous defense agencies and military services, including 
the intelligence community. The committee notes that in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92), the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report that identifies the capability gaps in advanced 
foreign language proficiency within the military services and 
other relevant U.S. federal government agencies that support 
Department of Defense and military operations. The committee 
notes that the Department has not met the mandated deadline for 
this report.
    To avoid possibly legislating on this matter without the 
Department's input, the committee directs the Department to 
submit the report as mandated in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 as soon as possible.

Impacts to the defense industrial base from carryover reductions

    The committee notes that depot maintenance carryover 
consists of funded orders that are not completed by the end of 
the fiscal year, which is frequently the result of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) receiving appropriations from 
Congress late in a fiscal year, often with not enough time to 
execute scheduled work. Cuts to carryover in the operation and 
maintenance (O&M) accounts have a disproportionately negative 
impact on production orders, systems, and the defense 
industrial base workforce. Reductions to carryover in O&M 
increase depot rates by reducing future workload and ultimately 
decreases the military services and customer buying power. In 
an era of unstable budget certainty and frequently late 
appropriations, having an appropriate amount of carryover on-
hand can provide a continuous and effective means of production 
across fiscal years in the event of a continuing resolution. 
The committee notes that excessive carryover, as determined by 
specified service-range limits, should not be construed as 
appropriate carryover. Rather, appropriate carryover is the 
amount that falls between the high and low thresholds.
    The committee remains very concerned that indiscriminate 
cuts to carryover directly correlates to the loss of work at 
DOD depots, shipyards, and air logistics centers, which in turn 
negatively impacts units and the warfighter.
    At a time when readiness cannot afford to take unnecessary 
cuts, appropriation reductions to carryover in Army O&M within 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113) 
resulted in a plethora of negative operational impacts to 
warfighter readiness: (1) the loss of approximately 332,000 
direct labor hours prevented the overhaul and repair of two M1 
Abrams tanks, 24 Stryker vehicles, 12 Paladin systems, 13 
M777A2 medium howitzers, 24 M119A2 towed howitzers, seven M113 
vehicles, 13 M88 recovery vehicles, over 2,000 individual and 
crew served weapons, approximately 3,000 gas masks, eight M9ACE 
earthmovers, and reduced combat vehicle evaluations prior to 
induction to depot maintenance at Anniston Army Depot and Pine 
Bluff Arsenal (for gas masks); (2) the loss of approximately 
197,000 direct labor hours prevented the repair and overhaul of 
two MH-60H Special Operations aircraft, two UH-60 Blackhawk 
helicopters, and one AH-64D aircraft at Corpus Christi Army 
Depot; (3) the loss of approximately 164,000 direct labor hours 
prevented the inspection, repair, and overhaul of 42 systems, 
to include PATRIOT missile re-certifications and overhaul of 
PATRIOT sub-systems and 46 programs that support the repair of 
high mobility artillery rocket system and 13 forklifts at 
Letterkenny Army Depot; and (4) the loss of approximately 
504,000 direct labor hours prevented the inspection, repair, 
and overhaul of eight AN/TPQ-37 fire finder radar systems, 
three AN/TRC-70 tropospheric scatter microwave radio terminals, 
20 AN/TRC-190 line-of-sight multi-channel radio terminals, 154 
AN/ASM-146/147/189/190 Avionics and electronics shop vans, 145 
standard integrated command post system shelters, a variety of 
communications security equipment supporting strategic and 
tactical command environments, 12 strategic satellite 
communications terminals, and field support for the Guardrail 
system at Tobyhanna Army Depot.
    The result of the Consolidated Appropriations Act cuts to 
Army O&M for carryover meant that equipment that needed repairs 
to fill unit shortages did not occur for the following Army, 
Army Reserve, and Army National Guard units in North Carolina, 
Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, Hawaii, New York, Kentucky, 
Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, 
Tennessee, California, Kansas, Georgia, Colorado, Washington, 
Germany, South Korea, Kuwait, and Southwest Asia.
    Additionally, a $24.0 million cut to Navy O&M in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 for carryover negatively 
impacted the operational readiness of our Marines by preventing 
the depot maintenance of: 18 MRAP CAT IIs, 7 M1A1 tanks, 226 
.50 caliber machine guns, 2 medium tactical vehicle 
replacements, 11 scout sniper scopes, 2 mine clearing blades, 7 
radios, 2 generators, 1 communication system, and 1 tactical 
water purification system at a cost of approximately 71,000 
direct labor hours at Albany, Georgia and Barstow, California. 
These reductions also had the expected effect of reducing the 
depot workforce by 44 positions.
    Accordingly, the committee remains strongly against 
unnecessary carryover cuts to O&M accounts as they directly 
attribute to reduced workload for the defense industrial base 
and negatively impact warfighter readiness at a time where 
readiness should remain Congress' top priority.

Installation security

    The committee notes that in the 15 years since 9/11, the 
services have taken different approaches to vetting and 
screening individuals that require access to military 
installations. Despite insider events like those at the 
Washington Navy Yard and Fort Hood, the Department of Defense 
(DOD) and the services continue to work internally to develop 
and deploy credentialing and physical access control systems 
(PACS), while at the same time often using commercial systems 
that meet all stated requirements at little or no cost to the 
Department. In some instances, installations that have not 
contracted with commercial providers are not scanning 
credentials at all because internally developed DOD systems are 
not working properly, are still in development, and are very 
expensive to deploy by the services and to maintain by base 
commanders. Today, there are dozens of military installations 
that are not scanning credentials, leaving these facilities 
vulnerable to a range of risks. This situation is indefensible 
especially when the services have years of experience 
successfully using commercial credentialing and PACS systems. 
The Army's current plan for its Automated Installation Entry 
(AIE II+) PACS system would have full deployment at Army 
garrisons by 2022--21 years post 9/11. By contrast the U.S. 
Coast Guard has already deployed a commercial enterprise based 
credentialing and PACS system at 12 stations with each 
installation taking less than 5 weeks. The committee strongly 
believes the Secretary of Defense and the services need to 
update DOD policy and guidance concerning internally developed 
credentialing and PACS efforts to ensure that commercial 
systems are being utilized to the fullest extent possible.

Item unique identification implementation and verification

    The committee continues to monitor the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) strategy for improving asset tracking and in-
transit visibility. The committee supports the Department's 
goal of enhancing asset visibility through item unique 
identification (IUID), automatic identification technology 
(AIT), and automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) 
processes. However, the committee remains concerned with the 
Department's level of compliance with its own policy. 
Specifically, the committee remains concerned that DOD 
continues to lack a plan and timeline to adopt, implement, and 
verify its revised policy IUID, AIT, and AIDC across the 
Department and the defense industrial base.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than November 
1, 2016 on its new policies, timelines, procedures, staff 
training, and equipment to ensure contract compliance with the 
IUID policy for all items that require unique item level 
traceability at any time in their life cycle, to support 
counterfeit material risk reduction, and to provide for 
systematic assessment and accuracy of IUID marks as set forth 
by DOD Instruction 8320.04.

Joint-Military Service approach to prepositioning

    The committee notes that in section 321 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a plan for 
implementing a prepositioning strategic policy that establishes 
a coordinated joint-military service approach for DOD's 
prepositioned stock programs, in order to maximize efficiencies 
across the department, not later than 120 days after the date 
of the Act--that is, by April 24, 2014. However, DOD has not 
yet developed the required strategy or implementation plan, as 
directed; instead, DOD has informed the committees that it 
would develop Department-wide guidance in the form of a DOD 
directive for managing DOD's prepositioned stock programs 
before developing an implementation plan, which it would submit 
within 120 days after the DOD directive had been approved. 
However, DOD has not identified a timeline for completing the 
directive and meeting the requirements of section 321 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
    As early as May 2011, GAO recommended that DOD develop a 
department-wide strategy on prepositioned stocks and that it 
strengthen joint oversight of its prepositioned stock programs 
to integrate and synchronize at a DOD-wide level the services' 
prepositioned stock programs, in order to maximize efficiency 
in managing prepositioning across the department and to reduce 
potentially unnecessary duplication.
    The committee remains concerned about DOD's lack of 
progress in developing a prepositioned stock strategy and 
implementation plan.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit to the congressional defense committees no later than 
September 1, 2016 a timeline by which it will complete the 
Department-wide directive and implementation plan, and to 
include in the timeline the major steps DOD plans to take in 
implementing the plan, with target dates for accomplishing each 
of them that can be used to monitor progress and report 
results.

Modernization of emergency power generation

    The committee notes that the emergency power generation 
systems frequently used in Army National Guard armories can be 
plagued by unreliable operation in addition to high operation 
and maintenance costs. The committee notes that the Army has 
plans and programs in place to address the operational 
requirements, technological opportunities, and industrial base 
challenges associated with the strategic goal of a net zero 
energy, water, and waste policy.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
March 1, 2017 with a comprehensive strategy, including a 
development and implementation plan, that replaces or improves 
emergency power generation readiness, reduces system 
maintenance, and improves fuel flexibility to ensure the 
sustainability of all Department emergency power generation 
systems in operation.

National Test and Training Range Improvements

    The committee is aware of the critical role our national 
assets of test and training ranges play in providing full-
spectrum readiness critical for all of our Services, and large 
live training exercises as one of the key components to this 
training.
    National test and training ranges such as the Joint Pacific 
Alaska Range Complex (JPARC), Pacific Missile Range Facility, 
Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), Utah Test and Training 
Range (UTTR), China Lake Complex, White Sands Missile Range 
(WSMR), the National Training Center (NTC), Eglin Gulf Test and 
Training Range (EGTTR), as well as other United States-based 
ranges, are critical to hosting realistic service, joint, and 
coalition large force training exercises such as RED FLAG, RED 
FLAG-Alaska, Northern Edge, Army Network Integration 
Evaluation, and other large force training exercises. The 
committee also recognizes the need for secure and modem range 
complexes to host coalition and international partner training 
exercises.
    Additionally, the committee recognizes the critical 
importance of expansive and tactically relevant training ranges 
that contain high fidelity air-to-air, surface-to-air, surface-
to-surface, subsurface, and command, control, communication, 
computers, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and 
cyber assets to simulate anticipated threat environments for 
the coming decades.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
in coordination with the Service Secretaries, to develop a 
strategic plan for identifying requirements and priorities, 
resourcing for national test and training range infrastructure 
improvements and addressing encroachment mitigation. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to provide both a written plan 
and briefing to the congressional defense committees no later 
than 180 days following the enactment of this Act.

New Hampshire water contamination

    As the committee noted in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Report (114-29), 
the Air Force in coordination with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the New Hampshire Department of Environmental 
Services (NHDES), and the City of Portsmouth--discovered the 
presence of perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in the Haven Well in 
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. On August 3, 2015, the EPA issued a 
final order directing the Air Force to clean up the 
contamination at the Haven Well. According to the order, the 
Air Force has caused or contributed to the presence of the 
chemicals in the well in Portsmouth due to the Air Force's use 
of fire-fighting foam at the former Pease Air Force Base.
    Research has associated exposure to these chemicals to 
adverse health effects including but not limited to increased 
cholesterol, increased blood pressure, liver damage and 
possibly cancer. Portsmouth residents who believe they were at 
risk of exposure have requested tests to check their blood 
serum levels of PFCs.
    The PFC contamination detected at the Haven Well has also 
been detected at the Harrison and Smith wells. The Air Force 
has committed to using the best available technology to treat 
the water at the wells and return it to safe drinking water 
levels.
    While unrelated to the contamination at Pease, the 
committee notes that an increasing number of communities across 
New Hampshire have reportedly identified the presence of 
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and that potential health effects 
of using water contaminated by PFOA remain unknown. According 
to reports, levels of PFOA have been detected in the public and 
private water supplies in the communities of Merrimack, 
Litchfield, Bedford, Londonderry, and Dover. Public and private 
wells in these communities are being tested by the NHDES. The 
EPA has identified PFOA as an ``emerging contaminant'' and in 
2009, the Agency issued a provisional health advisory for 
drinking water of 400 ppt for PFOA.
    The committee believes the Air Force should work 
collaboratively with NHDES and EPA to share lessons learned 
from Haven Well. No later than September 1, 2016, the Air Force 
should provide the committee with: (1) an update on the Haven 
well cleanup; (2) an update on the Air Force's efforts to 
identify and notify all affected or impacted by the 
contamination; (3) an assessment of the Air Force's role, if 
any, in the new contaminations; and (4) a summary of the Air 
Force's support, where appropriate, for NHDES and the EPA with 
respect to the latest contaminations.

Objective training readiness reporting

    The committee is aware that some of the military services 
have efforts underway to establish objective and uniform 
standards to measure the training readiness of military forces. 
The committee notes, for example, that the Army is 
standardizing lists of mission essential tasks for like units 
below the brigade level and developing objective evaluation 
criteria that commanders will use to evaluate unit training 
against these critical tasks. The committee further notes that 
according to Army senior leadership, these initiatives will 
facilitate accurate and uniform readiness evaluations and 
enable the service to make risk-informed resourcing and force 
allocation decisions.
    The committee notes that these initiatives to more 
objectively evaluate training readiness may continue the 
practice of giving commanders the flexibility to subjectively 
upgrade or downgrade the overall readiness of their units in 
certain circumstances based on the commander's judgement in 
light of a mission analysis, among other factors. While 
recognizing that commanders may require some degree of 
flexibility in assessing their units' training readiness based 
on subjective factors, the committee stresses the importance of 
accurate readiness reporting and encourages all of the military 
services to define objective and uniform standards to assess 
training readiness.
    Accordingly, the committee further encourages the military 
services to limit the use of subjective readiness upgrades, 
which could mask the department's progress transitioning from a 
force trained to conduct counterinsurgency operations to one 
trained for a broader range of military operations. The 
committee will continue to monitor the military services' 
development of objective and uniform standards to evaluate 
training readiness and may direct further action, including 
limiting the use of subjective upgrades, if these standards are 
not fully utilized in readiness reporting.

Physical security of sensitive conventional ammunition items at 
        Department of Defense and contractor locations

    The committee notes that Security Risk Category I (SRCI) 
ammunition items, including certain man-portable missiles and 
rockets, are extremely lethal and a potential threat if they 
were to be used by unauthorized individuals or groups. To help 
protect these items and minimize the risk of loss or theft, it 
is critical that the Department of Defense (DOD) have strong 
physical security measures at DOD and contractor locations.
    The committee notes that the Government Accountability 
Office's February 2015 report on SRCI ammunition items found 
that enhanced policy and procedures are needed to improve 
management of sensitive conventional ammunition, specifically 
the timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of information to 
maintain full accountability and visibility of SRCI ammunition 
items.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which: (1) DOD 
and the military services, in accordance with policies and 
procedures, have established and maintained physical security 
measures at DOD and contractor locations, and (2) these 
identified physical security measures differ between selected 
DOD depots and retail locations, as well as at selected 
contractor locations.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General to 
brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives no later than March 30, 2017, on 
preliminary findings of the Comptroller General's evaluation 
with a report to follow no later than June 1, 2017.

Public shipyard funding and capital investment to support defense 
        operations

    The committee notes that ongoing operational demands for 
Navy ships remain high and continue to increase, with some key 
current demands going unmet. The committee recognizes that the 
Navy is working to maximize the operational availability of the 
existing fleet and rebuild its warfighting readiness after more 
than a decade of continued deployments. The Navy has identified 
shipyard performance--namely the ability to complete 
maintenance availabilities on time--as one of the key risks to 
its plans to maximize the availability of the fleet.
    The committee notes that any delay in completing a 
maintenance availability results in lost operational days for 
Navy ships, which in turn compresses time available for 
training and reduces ships' operational availability to 
combatant commanders. Maintenance delays also can lead to 
unsustainable risk mitigation strategies such as deferring 
maintenance and extending deployments which can jeopardize 
reaching ships' service lives and retention of the force.
    In the late 1990s, the Navy converted its shipyards from 
financing under the Navy Working Capital Fund to funding 
through direct appropriations, referred to as ``mission 
funding''. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office found 
that the Navy had experienced unfunded shore readiness that 
contributed to growth in the backlog of capital investments at 
the shipyards and noted that the average age of facilities and 
drydocks was 61 and 81 years old, respectively. The ability of 
the shipyards to meet their mission--keeping the fleet 
operational--depends on maintaining the shipyards' 
infrastructure and equipment, and to do this the Navy and the 
committee need an accurate picture of whether the Navy has the 
means to accomplish this so the committee can best exercise 
oversight and make knowledgeable funding decisions.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to evaluate: (1) the impact, if any, the 
change from working capital funding to mission funding has had 
on shipyard capital investment and performance and (2) the 
extent, if any, the Navy's shipyard planning has addressed its 
restoration and modernization needs to support operational 
readiness. The Comptroller General may also include other 
related matters as deemed appropriate.
    The committee further directs the Comptroller General to 
brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives no later than March 30, 2017, on 
preliminary findings of the Comptroller General's evaluation 
with a report to follow by May 15, 2017.

Rebuilding readiness

    The committee notes that due to the consistent high pace of 
operations coupled with significant downsizing of some of the 
military services, the past decade has witnessed a disturbing 
decline in readiness. The Department of Defense (DOD) has 
stated that rebuilding readiness is one of its overarching 
priorities and submitted to Congress plans for readiness 
recovery last year. However, preliminary work from the 
Government Accountability Office evaluating DOD's efforts to 
rebuild readiness shows that DOD lacks comprehensive readiness 
goals or a strategy for achieving those goals.
    Therefore, the committee has grown increasingly concerned 
about the state of military readiness and whether DOD has a 
viable plan for rebuilding it. To inform its oversight, the 
committee directs DOD to submit a detailed plan to the 
congressional defense committees for rebuilding readiness by 
September 30, 2016. DOD's plan should, at a minimum, include: 
comprehensive readiness goals and a strategy for achieving the 
goals; metrics for measuring progress at specific milestones; 
identification of external factors that may impact recovery 
plans and potential mitigations; and plans for Department-level 
oversight of service readiness recovery plans including methods 
for evaluating the effectiveness of readiness recovery efforts. 
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to evaluate DOD's plan for rebuilding readiness 
and provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services by 
February 1, 2017 on any preliminary findings with a report to 
the congressional defense committees to follow no later than 
May 1, 2017.
    In evaluating DOD's readiness recovery plan, the 
Comptroller General should consider the extent to which DOD's 
plan addresses the root causes of degraded readiness; and he 
may, at his discretion and in consultation with the committee, 
provide additional reports that address these root cause issues 
in more detail. Specifically, he should consider doing a 
detailed evaluation of different options for approaching 
readiness and the consequences of each option. In the past, DOD 
has varied its approach to the way it collects and reports 
readiness--applying uniform policies and practices across DOD 
in some cases, while providing the military services and 
combatant commands wide latitude and flexibility in other 
cases.
    Additionally, DOD has varied: the way it applied plans and 
scenarios to determine force structure and readiness 
requirements and the way it has managed personnel tempo in 
mobilizing and deploying its forces. The different approaches 
to these, and other, areas can directly affect: readiness 
requirements, the levels of readiness that are reported, the 
resultant readiness gaps that need to be filled, and ultimately 
the funding requirements for the weapons systems, maintenance, 
personnel, and training that are needed to rebuild readiness.

Report on equipment purchased under sole source contracts

    The committee notes that it is important for the Department 
of Defense (DOD) to utilize competition when procuring services 
and equipment. The committee further notes that increased 
competition provides DOD the opportunity to obtain lower 
prices, better technology, and the ability to review the 
marketplace should there be a need for multiple sources. 
Finally, the committee notes the dangers of utilizing sole 
source contracts when due diligence was not done to assess 
alternatives in the marketplace.
    The committee is concerned that too often DOD has used sole 
source contracts thus limiting competition from potential 
suppliers.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 
2017. The report should include a list of each contract awarded 
by the DOD during fiscal years 2011 through 2015 using 
procedures other than competitive procedures or cases where 
solicitations resulted in only one responsive bidder for the 
procurement of equipment, weapons, weapon systems, components, 
subcomponents, or end-items with a contract value equal to or 
greater than $3.0 million. The report shall include for each 
product listed: (1) an identification of the items purchased 
under the contract; (2) the rationale for using an exception or 
waiver to award the contracts using procedures other than 
competitive procedures; and (3) a list of potential alternative 
manufacturing sources from the public and private sector that 
could be developed to establish competition for those items.

Report on M240 Sustainment and the small arms industrial base

    The committee appreciates the recent report regarding 
sustainment of the industrial base for the M240. The committee, 
however has concerns that the industry was not consulted in the 
preparation of the sustainment plan.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to 
provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives no later than September 30, 
2016. With input from industry, the report should include: (1) 
the Army's sustainment plan for the M240 to include an 
assessment of the necessity of establishing an M240 
recapitalization program. If a recapitalization plan is 
necessary, the timeline and strategy for establishing such a 
program should be included; and (2) the Army's plans to ensure 
the health of the domestic small arms industrial base, 
including both original and spare parts manufacturers.

Report on non-combat training requirements for Army, Navy, Air Force, 
        and Marine Corps servicemembers

    The committee notes the important training servicemembers 
participate in for both combat and non-combat activities. The 
committee believes that both types of training are important to 
develop and maintain not only a lethal, fighting force but also 
a responsible and professional one. The committee is concerned, 
however, that at times some non-combat training may be 
duplicative and take time away from what could be used for 
critical combat training.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the service secretaries, to 
submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than November 
1, 2016. The report shall include non-combat related training 
requirements for all components with: 1) A list and description 
of all non-combat training requirements, divided by each 
service, to include designation for training that must remain 
current or is required for pre-deployment; 2) A description of 
the method required for accomplishing the training; 3) A 
description of the average amount of time required to complete 
the training, including the time spent enforcing the training 
requirements and the required time spent on instructor 
training, if required; 4) The number of times the training is 
required and the duration of time that the training is valid; 
5) A description of the applicability of the individual 
training to the servicemember's primary job performance; 6) A 
description of the total amount of time a servicemember is 
required to complete the non-combat training requirements; and 
7) An identification and description of any negative impact to 
primary job performance that is a result of the non-combat 
training requirements.
    The report shall include recommendations for any non-combat 
training that the Secretary of Defense believes should be 
eliminated. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, 
but may include a classified annex if required.

Report on reset and sustainment of material handling equipment

    The committee notes the continued efforts of the military 
logistics community to provide vital resources for the 
warfighter. However, the committee is concerned by the lack of 
a comprehensive and appropriately resourced sustainment 
strategy for Material Handling Equipment (MHE) and RT240 Rough 
Terrain Container Handlers (RTCH), despite the Army's inventory 
of roughly 1 million International Standards Organization, or 
ISO, containers in Southwest Asia.
    The committee believes that the incorporation of state-of-
the-art systems that enhance logistical through-put and provide 
greater item unique identification and in-transit visibility of 
assets should be considered with the goal of increasing 
efficiency and reducing fuel requirements. The committee is 
concerned that if left without an overarching strategy, 
expeditionary logistics equipment like the RTCH will continue 
to deteriorate with age.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to provide an assessment no later than February 1, 2017. 
This assessment should include: (1) an inventory of all RTCH 
(RT240 and DV43), to include the number over 10 years old, and 
numbers non-mission capable; (2) the readiness rates of these 
systems and any known block obsolescence issues; (3) any 
divestment plans of obsolete RTCH equipment within the future 
years defense program; (4) a comprehensive and appropriately 
resourced sustainment strategy, beginning in fiscal year 2017, 
to prevent future capability gaps.

Requirements model for restoration and modernization funds at 
        Department of Defense installations

    The committee remains concerned that fiscal constraints as 
a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 have unnecessarily 
hampered vital investments in restoration and modernization 
(R&M) accounts. Deferred work and existing backlogs of R&M 
exacerbate the conditions of our installations, which increases 
risk to the Armed Forces' ability to accomplish their missions, 
meet quality of life standards, and compounds long-term costs.
    Accordingly, the committees directs the Secretary of 
Defense to develop a model of requirements for R&M funds and 
provide the congressional defense committees with an initial 
model to be delivered in conjunction with the budget submission 
for fiscal year 2018. The R&M model should address both 
vertical and horizontal infrastructure and include age of 
facilities, miles of roads, miles of utilities, and acreage in 
addition to any other appropriate considerations determined by 
the Secretary. The R&M model should not rely on prior year 
funding levels to estimate future requirements. Additionally, 
the Secretary should pilot the use of the initial model in 
fiscal years 2017 and 2018, request feedback from installations 
in each of the services on the accuracy and sufficiency of the 
model to reflect the diverse needs of all installations, and 
refine the R&M model as necessary. Lastly, once the R&M model 
is complete, the Secretary shall submit a written plan to the 
congressional defense committees detailing how the Department 
will use the model for funding R&M requirements. The plan 
should include how each military service will resource the 
personnel for carrying out the modeled requirements including, 
but not limited to, contract officer staffing to ensure timely 
use of the funding provided.

Resiliency through improved utilization of CHP and WHP

    The committee strongly supports the U.S. Army's Energy 
Security & Sustainability strategy and the use of heat recovery 
technologies, such as combined heat and power (CHP) and waste 
heat to power (WHP), to improve its current and future 
capabilities and enhance mission effectiveness. CHP and WHP 
technologies help make critical infrastructure more resilient, 
and--when interconnected with energy storage systems or onsite 
renewable generation assets, through micro-grid and smart grid 
technologies--can provide standby power during grid outages.
    To reduce risks posed by a vulnerable energy grid, and in 
accordance with Executive Orders 13624 (``Accelerating 
Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency'') and 13693 
(''Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade''), 
the committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
expand deployment of CHP and WHP on military property. The 
committee also directs the DOD to convene a forum to identify 
ways to encourage further use of these technologies on military 
bases to better enhance mission assurance and to leverage the 
use of existing and new renewable energy generation 
investments.

Review of Navy Coastal Riverine Forces

    The committee notes that the Navy's Coastal Riverine Force 
operates in harbors, rivers, bays, across the littorals and 
ashore, conducting maritime security operations ranging from 
defending high value assets and critical maritime 
infrastructure to conducting offensive combat operations. The 
committee understands that in 2012, the Navy merged Riverine 
Forces and Maritime Expeditionary Security Forces to form the 
Coastal Riverine Force. The committee further understands that 
the Coastal Riverine Force is organized into 2 Groups with 7 
Squadrons--3 homeported on the west coast and 4 homeported on 
the east coast--operating more than 100 boats, from 25-foot 
patrol boats to the new 85-foot Mark VI patrol boat. Coastal 
Riverine Force units have deployed worldwide in recent years to 
Korea, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt among other locations.
    The committee notes that in January 2016, U.S. sailors 
aboard two U.S. riverine patrol craft were detained by Iran's 
Revolutionary Guard. Footage of the incident aired widely in 
the media. According to news reports, a subsequent Navy 
investigation found that several factors may have contributed 
to the vessels' capture including mechanical problems with one 
boat's diesel engines and satellite communications gear, and 
parts shortages, among others. The committee is interested in 
understanding the factors that contributed to the detention of 
these sailors, in particular the material condition of the 
boats and equipment, and steps taken to prevent such incidents 
in the future.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General 
of the United States to undertake a comprehensive review of the 
readiness of the Navy's coastal riverine force and to provide a 
briefing on preliminary observations by February 1, 2017 with a 
report to follow to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives to address the 
following elements: (1) what are the current and historical 
readiness status of the Navy's coastal riverine units including 
any trends in reported readiness in personnel, material 
condition of vessels, maintenance, and training and any major 
areas of deficiencies?; (2) what impact, if any, do the above 
identified deficiencies have on maintaining needed warfighting 
capabilities?; (3) to what extent have actions been taken by 
the Navy to address the above identified deficiencies including 
the development of any further plans and identification of 
resource needs to address them?; and (4) any other related 
matters as deemed appropriate by the Comptroller General.

Software-based foreign language training and sustainment

    The committee understands that foreign language training, 
including the sustainment of foreign language competencies, is 
an important component of training for many service members and 
Department of Defense (DOD) civilians.
    The committee expects DOD to continue to identify best 
practices, including for United States Special Operations 
Command and defense-related intelligence activities, that 
exploit emerging technology to more effectively integrate 
software-based training with human instruction to deliver 
efficient language training and sustainment.
    As foreign language training best practices are identified, 
the committee encourages DOD to explore opportunities to make 
software-based foreign language training and sustainment 
available to service members and DOD civilians at the lowest 
possible overall cost to minimize capability gaps.

Study on power storage capacity requirement

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 
2017 on the costs and benefits associated with requiring 25 
percent of National Guard and Reserve facilities to have at 
least a 21-day on-site power storage capacity to assist with 
providing support to civil authorities in case of manmade or 
natural disasters.

Synthetic and simulation training to enhance small arms weapons skills 
        and combat readiness

    The committee recognizes that synthetic training systems 
can enhance small arms weapons skills training effectiveness 
for U.S. military personnel, while reducing direct and indirect 
training time and costs. The committee is aware that by 
leveraging software capabilities, these systems can demonstrate 
that collection and analysis of trainee performance data can 
accelerate warfighter training results, while providing 
resource programmers the ability to assess program fidelity and 
ensure effective test and evaluation metrics are implemented to 
achieve successful, cost-wise weapons training results, 
including live fire proficiency.
    For example, the committee is aware that synthetic small 
arms training systems utilized by Navy commands, including Navy 
Expeditionary Combat Command and Naval Special Warfare Command, 
and at U.S. Army and joint training sites, including the Joint 
Multi-National Training Center under U.S. Army (Europe), can 
leverage data collection and metric analysis to improve 
training efficiency and ensure training effectiveness transfers 
to live fire qualifications and skills sustainment. This 
capability could allow commanders to maintain and track 
individual and squad-level training records, provide trend 
analysis and forecast models to reduce training time and 
accurately determine live fire transfer readiness, enable 
customization to train to multiple proficiency levels and hone 
training as threats evolve, and demonstrate clear and repeated 
live fire transfer proficiency.
    As investments are made in small arms simulator training 
systems to meet warfighter operational objectives and force 
protection requirements, the committee strongly encourages all 
military departments, schools, and commands to appropriately 
adopt more advanced, innovative small arms weapons and crew 
served training systems, such as those described above, that 
are capable of demonstrating consistent and successful live 
fire transfer and combat readiness in cost efficient and time 
effective manner.
    Additionally, the committee supports the Department of 
Defense's continued expansion of the full range of simulation 
training as a cost-effective means by which military units can 
improve tactical decision-making skills through training in 
realistic scenarios otherwise only found in combat operations. 
The committee strongly encourages the Department to continue to 
ensure the most efficient and effective training programs are 
available through a combination of both government-owned and 
operated simulators, as well as simulation support from a 
dedicated commercial activity capable of providing appropriate 
hardware and software updates.

Third party financed energy projects

    Department of Defense (DOD) installations serve as 
platforms from which military forces employ and are critical to 
joint military operations around the world. The committee 
continues to be strongly supportive of the DOD's efforts to 
enter into third party financed power purchase agreements 
(PPAs), which improve combat capability and provide energy 
resiliency for the military services along with the appropriate 
stewardship of taxpayer funding. Projects developed using PPAs 
and third party financing have little to no upfront cost to 
DOD, and the committee supports the adage that any project that 
saves money is money that can otherwise be spent on training 
and readiness.
    The committee recognizes and strongly encourages DOD to 
pursue PPAs that provide electricity to installations at below 
market rates for 25-30 years with the capability for islanded 
operations, ensuring the appropriate inverter functionality is 
included in the PPA agreement. When possible, the committee 
also encourages the inclusion of micro-grids for critical 
assets that enable a more flexible allocation of power on the 
installation which can also improve resiliency and mission 
assurance.
    For example, the committee notes that in Georgia, the 
Marine Corps is using a third party financed energy savings 
performance contract (ESPC) to generate enough renewable 
Electricity on base, through a biomass steam turbine generator, 
to support all of Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany's 
electrical needs. Additionally, the ESPC will include other 
energy conservation measures such as light emitting diode 
lighting, boiler retrofits, and a smart grid to allow for 
automated load shedding, fault location and isolation, and 
utility islanding in the event of a grid outage at Albany. The 
committee recognizes and is supportive of the efforts at Marine 
Corps Logistics Base Albany to maximize the use of resilient 
energy to achieve net-zero installation status and greater 
energy security in their mission to support Marine Corps units 
and the defense industrial base.
    Additionally, the committee recognizes and is strongly 
supportive of the Air Force's Office of Energy Assurance and 
its plans to design cost-competitive energy projects to enhance 
resiliency and notably, has successfully reduced energy 
intensity across installations by over 24 percent since 2013, 
despite utility prices increasing 29 percent since 2003. The 
committee also recognizes and is supportive of the micro-grid 
deployed to the Hawaii Air National Guard Wing to increase 
energy security for its F-22 alert aircraft. Additionally, the 
Air Force is developing a 19 megawatt photovoltaic array at 
Nellis Air Force Base, in addition to a 14 megawatt array that 
started producing power in 2007. The project enables Nellis 
with a substation and feeder line that insulates the base and 
allows continuous operations should the local power grid go 
down. Lastly, natural gas peaking plants at Tinker Air Force 
Base and Warner Robins Air Force Base can be islanded and 
provide the base with energy security during grid outages.
    For the Army, the committee is strongly encouraged by and 
supportive of the Army's largest single renewable energy 
project to date at Fort Hood, Texas. The project is expected to 
save the Army at least $168.0 million over the course of the 
contract, which is a solar and wind project that will have a 
capacity of 65 megawatts and will be micro-grid capable to 
enhance energy security. Other Army projects include a large-
scale renewable solar projects at Redstone Arsenal, Anniston 
Army Depot, and Fort Rucker which represent an 18-fold increase 
in total solar capacity installed in the state of Alabama. 
These projects will purchase energy at or below the costs of 
conventional energy. Additionally, an Army project in Georgia, 
totaling over 90 megawatts led to a six-fold increase in 
photovoltaic capacity for the state.
    Historically, DOD had frequently taken an approach to 
improving grid resiliency that entailed placing hundreds of 
backup diesel generators at the point of load. Instead, the 
committee strongly encourages DOD to pursue alternative and 
renewable energy projects which have capability, cost, and 
reliability benefits that provide additional resiliency and 
flexibility to route power during grid outages.
    Accordingly, the committee continues to strongly encourage 
DOD to continue to use PPAs and other authorities to take full 
advantage of private sector financing for renewable energy 
projects that improve energy resiliency, increase mission 
assurance, and offer cost savings.

Third party financed energy savings performance contracts

    The committee strongly supports and encourages the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) continued approach of leveraging 
third party financing mechanisms for large-scale energy 
projects. The committee has also observed the positive benefits 
of DOD increasing use of private sector financing and expertise 
for energy projects that support DOD infrastructure.
    In particular, the committee has been encouraged by the 
Department's continued use of Energy Savings Performance 
Contracts (ESPCs) which guarantee energy savings to pay for the 
investment in energy-related equipment.
    The committee also recognizes the continued importance of 
appropriate oversight with respect to third-party financed 
energy projects. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to report to the 
congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 2017 
with a review of: (1) The extent of the deferred maintenance 
backlog across DOD buildings and facilities, as well as the 
quality of life and financial impact of such continued deferral 
and backlog; (2) The extent to which, if any, the DOD budget is 
sufficient to address the deferred installation maintenance 
backlog; (3) The extent to which, if any, DOD would have 
otherwise been able to address large-scale energy projects 
without the availability of third-party financing mechanisms; 
and (4) The total amount of investment and costs DOD has 
avoided since 2009 by leveraging third-party financing 
mechanisms compared to if DOD used direct appropriations to 
acquire large-scale renewable energy projects.

Warfighter technology

    The committee is aware of the work being done by the 
Warfighter Technology directorate in improving the protection, 
survivability, mobility and combat effectiveness of our 
Nation's Army. Key to these efforts is continued research in 
areas of advanced ballistic polymers for body armor, fibers to 
make uniforms more fire resistant, lightweight structures for 
advanced shelters are all examples of tangible benefits to the 
Soldier.
    The Committee notes that the FY17 President's Budget 
decreased funding for the Warfighter Technology Directorate by 
roughly $2 million as compared to FY16 levels. In order to 
ensure the Army remains at the cutting edge of technology in 
these critical areas, the Committee urges the Army to ensure 
that proper resources are available for this research.
    The Committee is aware there is a clear need and future 
requirements to broaden this effort to the development of 
lightweight multifunctional materials and systems integration 
in the areas of (1) soldier protection, and (2) expeditionary 
basing, collective protection, and sustainment.

              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                      Subtitle A--Active Personnel

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2017, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army..........................................     475,000    460,000         460,000          0         -15,000
Navy..........................................     329,200    322,900         322,900          0          -6,300
Marine Corps..................................     184,000    182,000         182,000          0          -2,000
Air Force.....................................     320,715    317,000         317,000          0          -3,715
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................   1,308,915  1,281,900       1,281,900          0         -27,015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2017, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................     342,000    335,000         335,000          0          -7,000
Army Reserve..................................     198,000    195,000         195,000          0          -3,000
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         801,200          0          -9,800
Coast Guard Reserve...........................       7,000      7,000           7,000          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 
        (sec. 412)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2017, as shown 
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components 
of the Army and Air Force for fiscal year 2017, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provision also authorizes variance from the end 
strengths described above in accordance with the variance 
authorities found in subsections (f)(1) and (g)(1)(B) of 
section 115 of title 10, United States Code.
Fiscal year 2017 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 
        (sec. 414)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be 
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2017, 
as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................       1,600      1,600           1,600          0               0
Air National Guard............................         350        350             350          0               0
Army Reserve..................................         595        420             420          0            -175
Air Force Reserve.............................          90         90              90          0               0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................       2,635      2,460           2,460          0            -175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for 
        operational support (sec. 415)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2017, as 
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2017                  Change from
                                                  FY 2016  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     Authorized                              FY 2017       FY 2016
                                                             Request   Recommendation   Request     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................      17,000     17,000          17,000          0               0
Army Reserve..................................      13,000     13,000          13,000          0               0
Navy Reserve..................................       6,200      6,200           6,200          0               0
Marine Corps Reserve..........................       3,000      3,000           3,000          0               0
Air National Guard............................      16,000     16,000          16,000          0               0
Air Force Reserve.............................      14,000     14,000          14,000          0               0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................      69,200     69,200          69,200          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical corrections to annual authorization for personnel strengths 
        (sec. 416)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make a 
technical correction to section 115 of title 10, United States 
Code.

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Military personnel (sec. 421)

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

                              Budget Items


Military personnel funding changes

    The amount authorized to be appropriated for military 
personnel programs include the following changes from the 
budget request:

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]
 
 
 
Military Personnel Underexecution.....................            -880.5
Rejection of Department of Defense Budgeted Retired               -400.0
 Reforms..............................................
Rejection of Air Force Pilot Bonus Increase for All                 -2.5
 Platforms............................................
Defense Officer Personnel Management Act Reforms......            +100.0
Foreign currency fluctuation adjustment...............             -0.73
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................         -1,183.73
 

    The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military 
Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $1183.73 million. This 
amount includes: (1) A reduction of $880.45 million to reflect 
the Government Accountability Office's most recent assessment 
of the average annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) A reduction 
of $400 million to account for the rejection of a Department of 
Defense legislative proposal to change the vesting date for 
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) contributions from two years of 
service to five and other matters; (3) A reduction of $2.5 
million for the rejection of an Air Force proposal to increase 
the maximum aviation continuation bonus from $25,000 from 
$35,000 for all platforms; (4) An increase of $100 million to 
support reforms to the Defense Officer Personnel Management 
Act; (5) An adjustment of $0.73 million to reflect the foreign 
currency fluctuation.

                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Reform of distribution and authorized strength of general and flag 
        officers (sec. 501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 525a to title 10, United States Code, to establish the 
authorized distribution of general and flag officers for the 
Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, effective December 31, 
2017. The provision would require a 25 percent reduction in the 
number of general and flag officers in the military 
departments. The provision would also sunset the authorized 
distribution of general and flag officers in section 525 of 
title 10, after December 31, 2017.
    The provision would add a new section 526a, to title 10, 
United States Code, to limit the number of general and flag 
officers on Active Duty in the military departments and to 
exclude from those limits the specified number of general and 
flag officers serving in joint duty assignments. The provision 
would require a 25 percent reduction in the number of general 
and flag officers in the military departments and the joint 
pool. The provision would also sunset the authorized 
distribution of general and flag officers in section 526 of 
title 10, after December 31, 2017.
    The provision would add a new section 12004a, to title 10, 
United States Code, to establish the authorized distribution of 
general and flag officers in an active status in the reserve 
component, effective December 31, 2017. The provision would 
require a 25 percent reduction in the number of general and 
flag officers in active status in the reserve component, 
including general officers of the National Guard of the States 
and territories and general officers serving in the National 
Guard Bureau, but excluding officers serving as adjutants 
general or assistant adjutants general of a state. The 
provision would also sunset the authorized distribution of 
general and flag officers in section 12004 of title 10, after 
December 31, 2017.
Repeal of statutory specification of general or flag officer grade for 
        various positions in the Armed Forces (sec. 502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend or 
repeal various statutory specifications in title 10, United 
States Code, to remove the requirement that an officer serving 
must hold a specified general or flag officer grade for certain 
positions in the Armed Forces. The Committee determined that in 
order to effectively manage the reduction in the number of 
general and flag officers prescribed elsewhere in this Act, 
that the Secretary of Defense must be given the flexibility to 
assign appropriate officer grades to positions. The provision 
would not prohibit the position from being filled by an officer 
with the same, or a higher, or lower grade than the law 
currently requires.
Temporary suspension of officer grade strength tables (sec. 503)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 523(a) and 12011(a) of title 10, United States Code, 
to remove the limitations on the total number of commissioned 
officers authorized to serve on Active Duty or on full-time 
reserve component duty in the pay grades of O-4 through O-6 as 
of the end of the fiscal year for fiscal years 2017 through 
2021. The committee determined that providing relief from 
statutory caps on the numbers of officers of the active and 
reserve components serving in pay grades from O-4 to O-6, for a 
5-year trial period, would allow the secretaries of the 
military departments to adjust the shape of their officer corps 
to affect talent management-based promotion systems and more 
quickly adapt to changing war fighting requirements and 
available talent supply.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, describing the use of this 
authority, the specific categories of adjustments in control 
grades and the number and percentages of such adjustments, and 
an assessment of the impact of the authority as implemented on 
the desired officer grade composition of the military 
departments. The report shall specifically address the use of 
this authority for military intelligence officers, foreign area 
specialists, judge advocates with a military justice skill 
identifier, and officers with expertise in cyber matters. The 
report will reflect the officer control grade composition on 
the last day of the fiscal year, and shall be submitted 
annually not later than October 31.
    The committee recognizes the value of flexibility in 
personnel authorities, yet remains concerned that the authority 
under this section must not be used to promote ``grade creep'' 
that bloats senior officer ranks.
Enhanced authority for service credit for experience or advanced 
        education upon original appointment as a commissioned officer 
        (sec. 504)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 533 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
service secretaries to credit an applicant for an original 
appointment in a commissioned grade with an amount of 
constructive credit limited to the amount required for an 
original appointment in the grade of colonel in the Army, Air 
Force, or Marine Corps, or in the grade of captain in the Navy. 
The provision would authorize the secretary concerned to award 
constructive credit for leadership experience, professional 
credentials, and technical expertise to directly commission 
officers up to the grade of O-6. The authorities created by 
this provision would be similar to existing authorities used to 
commission professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and 
chaplains. The authorities would also extend to branches, 
career fields, and occupational specialties that may be 
designated by the services as having technical track status. It 
would also enhance the ability to rapidly assess highly 
qualified personnel for emergent warfighting areas such as 
cyber.
Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of particular merit 
        be placed at the top of the promotion list (sec. 505)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 616 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize an 
officer promotion board to recommend Active-Duty officers of 
particular merit to be placed at the top of the promotion list.
Promotion eligibility period for officers whose confirmation of 
        appointment is delayed due to nonavailability to the Senate of 
        probative information under control of non-Department of 
        Defense agencies (sec. 506)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 629(c) of title 10, United States Code, to provide that 
the period for promotion eligibility of an officer would not 
expire during the period when the Senate is unable to obtain 
information necessary to give its advice and consent to the 
appointment concerned because the information is under control 
of a department or agency of the federal government other than 
the Department of Defense.
Length of joint duty assignments (sec. 507)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 664 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
qualifying period for joint duty assignments from 3 years to 
not less than 2 years. The proposal would repeal the average 
tour length requirement and repeal the authority for shorter 
tour lengths for officers initially assigned to critical 
occupational specialties.
    The committee is concerned that joint duty assignments must 
provide an adequate opportunity for officers to gain meaningful 
experience with and exposure to joint requirements. The 
committee determined that a period of not less than 2 years is 
an acceptable period of time to achieve this desired result. In 
addition to clarifying that a qualifying joint tour length must 
be not less than 2 years it allows officers additional time to 
attain service-specific warfare professional development 
experience.
Modification of definitions relating to joint officer management (sec. 
        508)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 668 of title 10, United States Code, to update the 
definitions of joint matters and joint duty assignment for the 
purpose of joint officer management. The provision would also 
repeal the definition of critical occupational specialty.
Continuation of certain officers on Active Duty without regard to 
        requirement for retirement for years of service (sec. 509)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 36 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
service secretaries to allow officers in a grade above O-4 who 
are serving in military occupational specialties designated by 
the secretary to remain on Active Duty for up to 40 years of 
active service.
Extension of force management authorities allowing enhanced flexibility 
        for officer personnel management (sec. 510)
    The committee recommends a provision that would:
          (a) amend section 4403(i) of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-
        484) to extend Temporary Early Retirement Authority 
        through December 31, 2025;
          (b) amend section 638a(a)(2) of title 10, United 
        States Code, to extend through December 31, 2025 
        authority for service secretaries to manage authorized 
        officer personnel strength by shortening the period of 
        continuation of service by officers on Active Duty, to 
        authorize involuntary early retirement for certain 
        officers on Active Duty, and to consider officers for 
        involuntary discharge who are not eligible for 
        retirement;
          (c) amend section 1175a(k)(1) of title 10, United 
        States Code to extend through December 31, 2025 
        authority to provide voluntary separation pay and 
        benefits; and
          (d) amend section 1370(a)(2)(F) of title 10, United 
        States Code to extend through fiscal year 2025, 
        authority for early retirement of up to 4 percent of 
        the authorized Active-Duty strength of officers in the 
        grades of O-5 and O-6 without reduction in grade, in 
        each fiscal year.

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

Authority for temporary waiver of limitation on term of service of Vice 
        Chief of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 521)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 10505(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code, to 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to extend the term of office 
of the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau for up to 90 
days to provide for the orderly transition of officers 
appointed to the positions of the Chief and the Vice Chief of 
the National Guard Bureau.
Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be considered 
        for selection for promotion (sec. 522)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
secretaries of the military departments to defer promotion 
consideration for reserve component officers in a non-
participatory (membership points only) status. Currently, 
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, requires 
servicemembers identified on the Reserve Active Status List to 
be considered for promotion to the next higher grade. This 
includes certain categories of reservists on the Reserve Active 
Status List who, by Department of Defense guidance, are in the 
Individual Ready Reserve and the Standby Reserve and who remain 
eligible for promotion consideration, but are not actively 
participating in Reserve duty because they are in a status in 
which they are receiving membership only points for Reserve 
credit. Under current law, some individuals assigned to the 
Individual Ready Reserve may be discharged from the reserve 
component upon their second deferral for promotion because they 
are considered to have twice failed for promotion. This 
provision would provide the reserve component flexibility to 
remove individuals from promotion consideration during a period 
when they are least competitive for promotion, and would allow 
the services to retain servicemembers with significant military 
training as well as civilian technical and professional skills 
that could contribute to their potential for selection for 
promotion should the individual return to active participation 
in military service.
Rights and protections available to military technicians (sec. 523)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 709 of title 32, United States Code, to clarify the 
employment rights and protections of military technicians such 
that when a military technician files an appeal of a personnel 
action that concerns an activity that occurs while the member 
is in a military status or concerns fitness for duty in the 
reserve components, current statutory limitations concerning 
such appeals will continue to apply. With respect to an appeal 
concerning any other activity occurring while the member is in 
a civilian status, the provisions of section 717 of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16) shall apply.
Extension of suicide prevention and resilience programs for the 
        National Guard and Reserves (sec. 524)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 10219(g) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the 
authority for suicide prevention and resilience programs for 
the National Guard and Reserves until October 1, 2022.
Inapplicability of certain laws to National Guard technicians 
        performing Active Guard and Reserve duty (sec. 525)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 709 of title 32, United States Code, to clarify that 
the provision that grants military leave to individuals 
appointed to the civil service does not apply to members of the 
Active Guard and Reserve, just as it does not apply to members 
on Active Duty.

                Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for standards and 
        qualifications for military specialties within the Armed Forces 
        (sec. 531)
    The Committee recommends a provision that would vest in the 
Chief of Staff of each of the Armed Forces the responsibility 
for establishing, approving, and modifying the criteria, 
standards, and qualifications for military specialty codes 
within that Armed Force. The Secretary of Defense will still 
retain oversight authority.
Leave matters (sec. 532)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize up to 
6 weeks of uncharged leave that may be taken by a servicemember 
who is the primary caregiver in the case of the birth of a 
child or the adoption of a child. In the case of leave taken 
following the the birth of a child, the availability of primary 
caregiver leave would commence after completion of medical 
convalescent leave resulting from the birth of such child.
    The provision would also increase the amount of uncharged 
leave authorized for a secondary caregiver in the case of the 
birth of a child or the adoption of child. The provision would 
authorize 21 days of uncharged leave for a birth parent or an 
adoptive parent who is the secondary caregiver. The provision 
would repeal subsections of section 701 relating to spouse and 
adoption leave as obsolete.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
prescribe in regulation definitions of eligible primary and 
secondary caregivers for the purposes of this benefit, and to 
establish regulations for requesting and approving uncharged 
leave associated with births to a military family, and with 
adoptions by a military family, and would allow a military 
member to accept a 1-week extension of a servicemember's 
military service obligation for every week of such leave 
approved and taken. The implementing regulations would 
authorize the secretary concerned to waive service obligation 
extensions related to this leave as an incentive for re-
enlistments.
    The provision would also create a new section 704a of title 
10, United States Code, that would prohibit leave to be 
authorized, granted or assigned, including uncharged leave, 
unless expressly authorized by law. The committee considers 
this provision necessary to clarify that military leave is 
established by law and may not be created without express 
congressional authority.
Transfer of provision relating to expenses incurred in connection with 
        leave canceled due to contingency operations (sec. 533)
    The committee recommends a provision that would relocate 
the authority to reimburse members of the Armed Force for 
expenses incurred in connection with leave cancelled due to 
contingency operations from section 453 of title 37, United 
States Code, to title 10, United States Code.

Reduction of tenure on the temporary disability retired list (sec. 534)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1210 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the 
maximum tenure for servicemembers placed on the Temporary 
Disability Retired List (TDRL), due to an injury or illness 
eligible for disability retirement, from 5 years to 3 years. 
The committee notes that this provision addresses a 
recommendation from the Government Accountability Office in 
2009 for Congress to shorten the maximum tenure for placement 
on the TDRL.

Prohibition on enforcement of military commission rulings preventing 
        members of the Armed Forces from carrying out otherwise lawful 
        duties based on member gender (sec. 535)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit a 
military commission established under chapter 47A of title 10, 
United States Code, from acting by order, ruling, finding, or 
otherwise that a member of the Armed Forces may not perform 
duties otherwise lawfully assigned if the prohibition is based 
solely on the gender of the servicemember. The provision would 
also vacate any such order issued before the date of enactment 
of this Act.

Board for the Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review Board 
        matters (sec. 536)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, to require that a 
board convened to consider a claim for correction of military 
records by a former servicemember (1) who had been deployed in 
support of contingency operation and who was subsequently 
diagnosed as experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 
or traumatic brain injury (TBI), or (2) who was diagnosed while 
serving in the military as experiencing a mental health 
disorder include a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, or a 
physician with training on mental health issues connected with 
PTSD or TBI. The proposal would require the military department 
concerned, or the Department of Homeland Security, to make 
available to the public on an Internet website information 
regarding claims considered by the service board for correction 
of military records in a calendar quarter.
    The committee also recommends a provision that would modify 
section 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to require 
similar information be made available to the public on an 
Internet website information regarding claims considered by the 
service discharge review boards in a calendar quarter.
    The committee endorses the supplemental guidance issued by 
former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on September 3, 2014, 
to military boards for correction of military/Naval records 
considering discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming 
PTSD. This guidance requires the boards to give liberal 
consideration to petitions for changes in characterization of 
service to service treatment record entries which document one 
or more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of PTSD or 
related conditions. The committee directs that similar guidance 
be provided to military discharge review boards and that in 
cases where PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably 
determined to have existed at the time of discharge, all boards 
will consider those conditions as potential mitigating factors 
for any misconduct that resulted in a discharge less than an 
honorable discharge.

Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to qualifications 
        for enlistment in the reserve components of the Armed Forces 
        (sec. 537)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 12102(b) of title 10, United States Code, to align the 
requirements for enlistment in the reserve components of the 
Armed Forces with the requirements for enlistment in the active 
components.

       Subtitle D--Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters


                          Part I--Retaliation


Report to complainants of resolution of investigations into retaliation 
        (sec. 541)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations that would 
require that the results of an investigation of a retaliation 
complaint by a member of the Armed Forces be reported to the 
member who initiated the complaint. The report would inform the 
member whether the complaint was substantiated, 
unsubstantiated, or dismissed. The provision would also require 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to prescribe similar 
regulations to report on retaliation complaints by a member of 
the Coast Guard.

Training for Department of Defense personnel on sexual assault trauma 
        in individuals claiming retaliation in connection with reports 
        of sexual assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 542)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe training on the nature and 
consequences of sexual assault trauma to individuals in the 
Department of Defense who investigate claims of retaliation.

Inclusion in annual reports on sexual assault prevention and response 
        efforts of the Armed Forces of information on complaints of 
        retaliation in connection with reports of sexual assault in the 
        Armed Forces (sec. 543)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1631(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to 
require the annual report on sexual assault and response 
efforts to include information on complaints of retaliation in 
connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces.

Metrics for evaluating the efforts of the Armed Forces to prevent and 
        respond to retaliation in connection with reports of sexual 
        assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 544)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office of the Department 
of Defense to establish and issue metrics to be used by the 
military departments to evaluate the efforts of the Armed 
Forces to prevent and respond to retaliation in connection with 
reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces.

                Part II--Other Military Justice Matters


Discretionary authority for military judges to designate an individual 
        to assume the rights of the victim of an offense under the 
        Uniform Code of Military Justice when the victim is a minor, 
        incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased (sec. 546)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806b(c) of title 10, United States Code (Article 6b(c), 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize military 
judges to decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is 
appropriate to appoint an individual to assume the victim's 
rights in all cases under the UCMJ in which the victim of an 
offense is under 18 years of age (unless the victim is a member 
of the Armed Forces) or is incompetent, incapacitated, or 
deceased. The proposal would bring Article 6b(c), UCMJ, in line 
with the discretion federal civilian judges have to appoint an 
individual to assume the victim's rights under the Crime 
Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. 3771). The proposal would help 
protect minors in those situations where they are mature enough 
to communicate their desires themselves or through counsel. The 
American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 
upon which the service rules are based, presume the competency 
of minors to exercise their rights, unless or until they 
demonstrate they are not able to do so.

Appellate standing of victims in enforcing rights of victims under the 
        Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 547)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806b of title 10, United States Code (article 6b of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize victims 
to file pleadings as a real party in interest when the 
Government files appellate pleadings implicating the victim's 
rights relating to Military Rule of Evidence (MRE) 412, 
relating to the admission of evidence regarding a victim's 
sexual background; MRE 513, relating to the psychotherapist-
patient privilege; or MRE 514, relating to the victim advocate-
patient privilege. The provision would also amend section 806b 
of title 10, United States Code (article 6b of the UCMJ) to 
afford a victim with the right to reasonable, accurate, and 
timely notice of any appellate matters.

Effective prosecution and defense in courts-martial (sec. 548)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
service secretaries to carry out a program to ensure that trial 
and defense counsel detailed to prosecute or defend a court-
martial have sufficient experience and knowledge to effectively 
prosecute or defend the case, or that there is adequate 
supervision and oversight of the trial counsel and the defense 
counsel to ensure effective prosecution and defense in the 
court-martial. The provision would also require service 
secretaries to establish and use a system of skill identifiers 
to identify judge advocates with skill and experience in 
military justice proceedings to identify judge advocates to 
provide supervision and oversight of less experienced judge 
advocates prosecuting and defending in military courts-martial.
    The committee is concerned that junior judge advocates may 
be detailed as trial counsel or defense counsel in complex 
cases where the judge advocate does not have the skill and 
experience to effectively address the complex issues in the 
case. In those cases where the judge advocate does not have the 
requisite skill or experience, the committee expects the 
service secretaries, acting through their Judge Advocates 
General, or Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant in the case 
of the Marine Corps, to provide adequate supervision and 
oversight to ensure that the case is professionally and 
competently prosecuted and defended.

Pilot programs on military justice career track for judge advocates 
        (sec. 549)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of each military department to conduct a 5 year pilot 
program to assess the feasibility and advisability of a career 
military justice litigation track for judge advocates in the 
Armed Forces. The pilot programs would include a military 
justice career track that leads to senior judge advocates with 
military justice expertise in prosecuting and defending complex 
cases in military courts-martial. The provision would use 
authority provided elsewhere in this Act to suspend limitations 
on the number of certain senior commissioned officers on active 
duty, under section 532(a) of title 10, United States Code. The 
provision would require the use of skill identifiers to 
identify judge advocates participating in the pilot programs. 
The provision would also require promotion boards to give the 
same opportunity for promotion as all other judge advocates 
being considered for promotion.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit reports on the pilot programs not later than 4 years 
after the date of enactment of this Act.

Modification of definition of sexual harassment for purposes of 
        investigations of complaints of harassment by commanding 
        officers (sec. 550)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1561(i) of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
definition of sexual harassment. The committee is concerned 
that the existing definition of sexual harassment has caused 
the military services to consider sexual harassment as a 
violation of equal opportunity policy instead of an adverse 
behavior that data have demonstrated is on the spectrum of 
behavior that can contribute to an increase in the incidence of 
sexual assault.

Extension and clarification of annual reports regarding sexual assault 
        involving members of the armed forces (sec. 551)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1631 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) that would extend 
the requirement for the annual report on sexual assault in the 
military under that section through February, 2025, and require 
the reports to be submitted to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 
March 31 each year. The provision would also clarify the scope 
of sexual assaults covered by the report to include all 
reported sexual assaults, regardless of the age of the offender 
or victim or the relationship status between the offender and 
victim, including, at a minimum, all sexual assault reports 
received by the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, 
or equivalent, and the Family Advocacy Program, or equivalent, 
of each Armed Force.

Expansion of authority to execute certain military instruments (sec. 
        552)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1044d of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a 
person authorized to act as a notary under section 1044a of 
title 10, United States Code, or a state-licensed notary 
employed by a military department or the Coast Guard, who is 
supervised by a military legal assistance counsel, to notarize 
military testamentary instruments. The provision would also 
amend section 1044a(b) to authorize all civilian paralegals 
serving at military legal assistance offices, supervised by a 
military legal assistance counsel, to act as a notary.

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 553)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 942(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code (Article 
142(b)(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) to modify 
the terms of two civilian judges of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Armed Forces (``the court'') to avoid 
disruption that may occur to the operations of the court when 
two judicial vacancies occur simultaneously.
    The provision would modify the daily rate of compensation 
for senior judges performing judicial duties with the court so 
that they would be paid the difference between the pay of a 
judge of the court and their federal retired pay, consistent 
with the process employed by the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia and the United States Bankruptcy 
Courts.
    The provision would authorize the judges of the court to 
administer oaths in a similar manner as other federal judges.
    The provision would repeal the provision in article 
142(b)(3) that precludes more than three judges of the court 
from being from the same political party. The party balance 
requirement was included in the original Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, which established the Court of Military 
Appeals (as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was 
originally named) as a new three-judge Court. The committee has 
determined that the party balance requirement has outlived its 
usefulness. It does not appear that any other federal court is 
subject to a party balance requirement.

         Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, and Transition


Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty training or education 
        (sec. 561)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2007 of title 10, United States Code, to limit the 
tuition assistant program for off-duty training and education 
to education programs likely to contribute to the professional 
development of the servicemember. The committee notes that this 
provision was recommended in the final report of the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. The 
committee strongly recommends this limit as essential to good 
stewardship of the tuition assistance program.
    The committee also notes that this amendment preserves the 
important distinction between off-duty education programs 
funded by tuition assistance that primarily benefit 
professional development of service members while currently 
serving in the Armed Forces and programs addressed elsewhere in 
this Act that support the transition to civilian life by 
providing access to civilian credentials based on military 
training and experience.

Modification of program to assist members of the Armed Forces in 
        obtaining professional credentials (sec. 562)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, to include within 
the program to assist members in obtaining professional 
credentials those credentials that were acquired during 
military service, but which were not necessarily obtained 
incident to the performance of their military duties. The 
provision would also eliminate the requirement that 
credentialing programs be accredited by third party 
accreditation bodies, and instead would require that 
credentialing programs meet certain other quality assurance 
benchmarks.

Access to Department of Defense installations of institutions of higher 
        education providing certain advising and student support 
        services (sec. 563)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 101 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense to grant access to all Department of 
Defense installations any institution of higher education that 
has a Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of 
Understanding with the Department for the purposes of student 
advising and support services.

Priority processing of applications for Transportation Worker 
        Identification Credentials for members undergoing discharge or 
        release from the Armed Forces (sec. 564)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to consult, and enter into a memorandum of 
understanding, with the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
afford a priority in the processing of applications for 
Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC) by 
members of the Armed Forces who are undergoing separation, 
discharge or release from the Armed forces. The provision would 
require adjudication of such applications not later than 14 
days after the application is submitted, unless an appeal or 
waiver applies, or if other documentation is required. The 
priority for separating servicemembers shall commence not later 
than 180 days after enactment of this Act. The provision also 
requires a report on the implementation of this provision one 
year after enactment of this Act.
    The committee recommends that the memorandum of 
understanding required under this provision should provide, to 
the greatest extent practicable, that the Transportation Safety 
Administration (TSA) accept validated security clearance 
information from the Department of Defense, including the 
National Agency Check with Law and Credit (NACLC), to meet the 
expeditious processing of applications required under this 
provision. The committee understands that the Department of 
Defense's security clearance checks meet or exceed the 
requirements currently required and conducted by the TSA.
    The committee is yet again disappointed that the Department 
of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security have failed 
to take necessary action to implement priority processing of 
TWIC applications for transitioning servicemembers who are 
qualified and motivated to serve in the maritime industry. The 
Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114-92) expressed 
the disappointment of conferees in the lack of progress in 
providing the prioritized treatment of such applications. The 
committee expects the Department of Defense and the Department 
of Homeland Security to now work to implement the priority 
required by this provision, and without further delay.

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


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

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

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, defense-wide, for 
impact aid payments for children with disabilities (as enacted 
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-77; 20 U.S.C. 7703a) 
using the formula set forth in section 363 of the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
(Public Law 106-398), for continuation of Department of Defense 
assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible 
dependents with severe disabilities.

Impact Aid amendments (sec. 573)

    The committee recommends a provision that would: 1) amend 
sections 7003(b)(2)(B)(i)(I), 7003(b)(2)(B)(i)(II)(bb), and 
7003(b)(2)(B)(i)(IV) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965 (most recently amended by Public Law 114-95) to: 1) 
make a technical correction to the current statute to prevent 
the inadvertent disqualification of some local school districts 
from the Impact Aid heavily impacted program whose boundaries 
are within the perimeter of military installations; 2) provide 
additional time to collect data on the effects to the Impact 
Aid heavily impacted program; and 3) adjust eligibility 
criteria to meet congressional intent.

One-year extension of authorities relating to the transition and 
        support of military dependent students to local educational 
        agencies (sec. 574)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 547(c)(3) of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (20 U.S.C. 7703b note) 
to extend the authorities relating to transition and support of 
military dependent students to local educational agencies from 
September 30, 2016, to September 30, 2017. The provision would 
also require the administration to submit detailed budget 
justification information with any annual budget request that 
includes a request for the future extension of these 
authorities.

Comptroller General of the United States analysis of unsatisfactory 
        conditions and overcrowding at public schools on military 
        installations (sec. 575)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report, 
within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, which 
provides an analysis of the condition and capacity of public 
schools on military installations. The provision would require 
the analysis to include schools omitted from the July 2011 
Department of Defense analysis of such schools.

Enhanced flexibility in provision of relocation assistance to members 
        of the Armed Forces and their families (sec. 576)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1056 of title 10, United States Code, to permit 
enhanced flexibility in giving relocation assistance to members 
of the Armed Forces and their families. The provision would 
allow the Department of Defense to adapt the delivery of 
relocation assistance to meet the evolving needs of military 
servicemembers and their families by leveraging technology to 
improve access, efficiency, and responsiveness of the 
relocation assistance program, especially in situations where 
servicemembers reside overseas or away from a military 
installation with a relocation assistance program. Finally, the 
provision would establish the position of Program Manager of 
Military Relocation Assistance in the office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

Reporting on allegations of child abuse in military families and homes 
        (sec. 577)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
prescribe regulations to ensure that the family advocacy 
program office at a military installation to which a member of 
the Armed Forces is assigned is provided an immediate report of 
credible information obtained by any individual in the chain of 
command of the servicemember, that a child in the family or 
home of the servicemember has suffered an incident of child 
abuse. The provision would require a similar report by any 
member of the Armed Forces in a profession described by 
subsection 226(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 
U.S.C. 13031) who has reason to suspect that a child in the 
family or home of a servicemember has suffered an incident of 
child abuse.

Background checks for employees of agencies and schools providing 
        elementary and secondary education for Department of Defense 
        dependents (sec. 578)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
certain local educational agencies receiving impact aid under 
subchapter VII of chapter 70 of title 20, United States Code, 
and each Department of Defense (DOD) domestic dependent 
elementary and secondary school, within 2 years of enactment of 
this Act, to establish policies and procedures requiring a 
criminal background check for each school employee of the 
agency or school. Additionally, this provision would: (1) 
prohibit the employment of a school employee at the agency or 
school if the employee refuses to consent to a criminal 
background check, makes a false statement in connection with a 
criminal background check, or has a conviction for certain 
specific felonies; (2) require periodic updates of background 
checks in accordance with policies established by local 
educational agencies or DOD domestic schools; (3) authorize a 
school employee, upon request, to receive a copy of the 
criminal background check, and the employee would have a right 
to appeal the accuracy and completeness of the background 
check; and (4) authorize a local educational agency or school 
to share the results of a criminal background check with 
another educational agency considering an employee for 
employment. Finally, the provision would authorize certain 
federal and state officials to charge reasonable fees for 
conducting a criminal background check not to exceed the actual 
costs for processing and administering the background check.

Support for programs providing camp experience for children of military 
        families (sec. 579)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to provide financial or non-monetary 
support to qualified non-profit organizations to assist those 
organizations in carrying out programs to support the 
attendance of children of military families at a camp or camp-
like setting.

Comptroller General of the United States report on Exceptional Family 
        Member Program (sec. 580)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, on the effectiveness of each Exceptional 
Family Member Program of the Armed Forces.

Repeal of Advisory Council on Dependents' Education (sec. 581)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 1411 of the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 
to abolish the Advisory Council on Dependents' Education.

                   Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards


Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Charles S. Kettles for 
        acts of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 586)

    The committee recommends a provision that would waive the 
time limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the President to award the Medal of 
Honor to Charles S. Kettles, for acts of valor on May 15, 1967, 
during the Vietnam War, while as Flight Commander in the United 
States Army, 176th Aviation Company, 14th Aviation Battalion, 
Task Force Oregon, Republic of Vietnam.

Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Gary M. Rose for 
        action of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 587)

    The committee recommends a provision that would waive the 
time limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United 
States Code, to authorize the President to award the Medal of 
Honor to Gary M. Rose, for acts of valor from September 11 
through 14, 1970, during the Vietnam War, while a member of the 
United States Army, Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Studies 
and Observation Group (MACVSOG).

Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Chaplain 
        (First Lieutenant) Joseph Verbis LaFleur for acts of valor 
        during World War II (sec. 588)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service 
Cross to Chaplain (First Lieutenant) Joseph Verbis LaFleur for 
acts of valor while interned as a prisoner of war by Japan, 
from December 30, 1941 to September 7, 1944.

Posthumous advancement of Colonel George E. ``Bud'' Day, United States 
        Air Force, on the retired list (sec. 589)

    The committee recommends a provision that would 
posthumously advance Colonel George E. ``Bud'' Day, United 
States Air Force, to the rank of brigadier general on the 
retired list of the United States Air Force. Colonel Day's 
benefits would not be affected by this action.

          Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters


Applicability of Military Selective Service Act to female citizens and 
        persons (sec. 591)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
Selective Service Act (Public Law 65-12) to include women in 
the requirement to register for selective service, to the same 
extent men are currently required, beginning January 1, 2018. 
The committee notes that the ban of females serving in ground 
combat units has been lifted by the Department of Defense, and 
as such, there is no further justification to apply the 
selective service act to males only.

Senior Military Acquisition Advisors in the Defense Acquisition Corps 
        (sec. 592)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 1725 to title 10, United States Code, to establish 
positions known as ``Senior Military Acquisition Advisors'' in 
the Defense Acquisition Corps. The provision would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish in the Defense 
Acquisition Corps positions to be known as ``Senior Military 
Acquisition Advisors'''. Senior Military Acquisition Advisors 
will be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate. Eligible officers include officers in 
the grade of colonel or captain in the Navy, with extensive 
defense acquisition experience, and who are eligible for 
retirement. Senior Military Acquisition Advisors will be 
authorized to remain in service in support of their Service 
Acquisition Executive and be assigned as an adjunct professor 
at the Defense Acquisition University.
    Senior Military Acquisition Advisors would be competitively 
selected and would provide senior level acquisition expertise 
to the Service Acquisition Executive of their military 
department for the remainder of their career. An officer who is 
continued on active duty under this program is not eligible for 
consideration for selection for promotion. A Senior Military 
Acquisition Advisor will serve no longer than a 5-year term. 
When a Senior Military Acquisition Advisor retires with a 
minimum of 3 years of service, the officer may, at the 
discretion of the President, be retired as a brigadier general 
or rear admiral (lower half), but without increase in retired 
pay or other compensation by reason of retirement of an officer 
in the grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half).

Annual reports on progress of the Army and the Marine Corps in 
        integrating women into military occupational specialties and 
        units recently opened to women (sec. 593)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
report to be delivered to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives by the Chief of 
Staff of the Army, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the 
Commander of the United States Special Operations Command 
annually on April 1, 2017 and each year thereafter through 2021 
on the progress of integrating women into military occupational 
specialties and units recently opened to women.
    Elements of the report shall include: (1) The status of 
gender-neutral standards throughout the Entry Level Training 
continuum; (2) The propensity of applicants to apply for and 
access into newly-opened ground combat programs, by gender and 
program; (3) Success rates in Initial Screening Tests and 
Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Classification Standards 
for newly-opened ground combat military occupational 
specialties, by gender; (4) Attrition rates and causes of 
attrition throughout the Entry Level Training continuum, by 
gender and military occupational specialty; (5) 
Reclassification rates and causes of reclassification 
throughout the Entry Level Training continuum, by gender and 
military occupational specialty; (6) Injury rates and causes of 
injury throughout the Entry Level Training continuum, by gender 
and military occupational specialty; (7) Injury rates and 
nondeployability rates in newly-opened ground combat military 
occupational specialties, by gender and military occupational 
specialty; (8) A comparative analysis of injury rates, causes 
of injury, and nondeployability rates in similar military 
occupational specialties of allied countries, including 
Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, and a 
comparative analysis of the mitigation factors used by the 
United States and such countries; (9) Lateral move approval 
rates into newly opened military occupational specialties, by 
gender and military occupational specialty; (10) Reenlistment 
and retention rates in newly-opened ground combat military 
occupational specialties, by gender and military occupational 
specialty; (11) Promotion rates in newly-opened ground combat 
military occupational specialties, by grade and gender; and 
(12) Actions taken to address matters relating to equipment 
sizing and supply, and facilities, in connection with the 
implementation by such Armed Forces.

Report on career progression tracks of the Armed Forces for women in 
        combat arms units (sec. 594)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a description of the career 
progression track for entry level and laterally moved female 
service members both officer and enlisted of each Armed Force 
for positions that have been opened as a result of the December 
3, 2015, decision by the Secretary to open all previously 
closed military occupations to women.

Repeal of requirement for a chaplain at the United States Air Force 
        Academy appointed by the President (sec. 595)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 9337 of title 10, United States Code, that requires a 
chaplain at the United States Air Force Academy appointed by 
the President. The section is not required because the Air 
Force and the other military departments already assign 
chaplains to the service academies under existing service 
personnel assignment procedures.

Extension of limitation on reduction in number of military and civilian 
        personnel assigned to duty with service review agencies (sec. 
        596)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1559 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the 
limitation on reducing the number of military and civilian 
personnel assigned to duty with the service review agencies 
through December 31, 2019.
    The committee determined that the service review agencies 
must continue to be staffed at a level to accommodate 
expeditious review of cases and to reduce backlog. The 
committee notes that recent changes to eligibility for service 
record and discharge reviews may have increased the number of 
former servicemembers seeking review, particularly for members 
who were separated for misconduct that may be attributed to the 
effects of post-traumatic stress disorder, whether or not 
diagnosed at the time of the misconduct, and for members 
separated for homosexual conduct prior to the repeal of ``Don't 
Ask Don't Tell''. The service review agencies must continue to 
be staffed with an adequate number of personnel to perform 
their important work.

                       Items of Special Interest


Assessment of Joint Professional Military Education

    The committee believes that Joint Professional Military 
Education (JPME) is a key component of growing joint-qualified 
officers, and in developing leaders capable of planning, 
fighting, and winning tomorrow's wars. The committee also 
believes, however, that the delivery of JPME, and Professional 
Military Education (PME) provided by the military services, can 
be improved. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to review the delivery of Joint Professional Military 
Education in the military services, including an assessment of: 
(1) the current statutory and regulatory framework authorizing, 
regulating, and potentially restricting development of better 
methods and models of delivering JPME; (2) the curricula of 
JPME and PME, and whether they are adequately preparing 
tomorrow's leaders; (3) the quality of faculty, both military 
and civilian; (4) whether institutions that deliver JPME and 
PME afford faculty sufficient academic freedoms and career 
progression opportunities to attract and retain talented 
instructors; (5) whether any JPME or PME courses, programs, or 
schools should be added or eliminated; and (6) any other aspect 
of JPME or PME that the Secretary deems appropriate. The 
Secretary shall provide a report to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no 
later than April 1, 2017, on the results of this review.

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department of 
        Navy personnel strategies for unmanned systems

    Unmanned systems have become an integral part of the 
Department of Defense's warfighting capabilities as 
demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent years, much 
focus has been on the Air Force and the Army regarding their 
use of unmanned aerial systems. However, the Navy is also 
rapidly increasing its use of unmanned systems and has recently 
established a deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for 
unmanned systems. The Navy's use of unmanned systems not just 
in the air, but also on the sea and undersea, creates unique 
challenges that must be addressed. As the Secretary of the Navy 
has noted, unmanned systems are inherently different from their 
manned counterparts, and policies and procedures must be in 
place for the design, development, testing and evaluation of 
unmanned systems. The committee also believes the associated 
unique personnel issues of the Department of the Navy's 
unmanned systems must be considered and addressed.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
forth the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller 
General with preliminary observations due no later than March 
1, 2017, and a report to follow, to examine the Department of 
Navy's personnel strategies for unmanned systems, including 
unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles and 
unmanned underwater vehicles. The report shall include an 
examination of the extent to which the Navy and the Marine 
Corps have done the following: (1) analyzed the personnel 
requirements for positions required to operate aerial, surface, 
and underwater systems including the existing and future 
critical skills and competencies needed; (2) examined 
alternative populations, such as civilians and contractors, as 
well as the type of military personnel used, officer, enlisted, 
or a mix, that could be assigned to unmanned systems; (3) 
conducted a cost benefit analysis to determine the risks and 
advantages of the varying personnel assignment strategies they 
are pursuing for unmanned operators; and (4) developed 
strategies to recruit and retain personnel to operate unmanned 
using compensation tools available.

Comptroller General of the United States review of pilot programs on 
        career flexibility to enhance retention of members of the armed 
        forces

    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to review career intermission pilot programs implemented 
pursuant to section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as 
amended by section 523 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), and the reports 
prepared and submitted under section 533(k) of that Act, and to 
provide a report on the results of the study to the Committees 
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by December 31, 2016. At a minimum, the review 
should assess:
          (a) whether the authorities of the pilot program have 
        provided an effective means to enhance the retention of 
        members of the armed forces possessing critical skills, 
        talents, and leadership abilities;
          (b) the career progression in the armed forces of 
        individuals who participated in the pilot program and 
        whether their careers have been adversely affected;
          (c) the usefulness of the pilot program in responding 
        to the personal and professional needs of individual 
        members of the armed forces;
          (d) the extent to which the designation as a pilot 
        program has discouraged participation by qualified 
        applicants; and
          (e) the costs incurred in the program to date, and an 
        assessment of the expected annual costs in the expanded 
        program as modified by section 523 of the National 
        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to 
        remove limits and restrictions on participation.

Comptroller General report on the continuum of offenses involving 
        unwanted sexual behavior in the armed forces

    Over the past decade, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 
made significant strides to address problems in its ranks 
regarding hazing, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and 
sexual assault. As DOD has grappled with these problems, 
however, it has historically found that the reporting of these 
incidents is under-reported and fragmented. Defining such 
behaviors as ``hazing,'' ``sexual harassment,'' ``domestic 
violence,'' and ``sexual assault'' has been difficult because 
these behaviors frequently overlap, and because efforts to 
combat unacceptable behaviors must be founded on clearly 
understood definitions that precisely distinguish between 
unacceptable and criminal behavior. These difficulties have 
been complicated by the fact that DOD and the services assign 
responsibility for preventing these behaviors and setting 
policies regarding unwanted sexual behaviors to separate 
offices with different chains of command and different 
reporting databases and reporting mechanisms. As a result, DOD 
lacks a comprehensive view of the continuum of offenses 
involving sexual behavior and can therefore not adequately 
target policies to prevent them, hold perpetrators accountable, 
and care for those who are victims. Because of this 
fragmentation and lack of focus for DOD's sexual prevention 
efforts, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 
United States to provide preliminary observations to the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services no later than April 1, 2017, that 
are based on the following questions:
          (a) To what extent do offices and programs in DOD 
        that are responsible for setting policy and preventing 
        the various types of unwanted sexual behavior involving 
        servicemembers perform the same or similar functions?
          (b) To what extent do these offices coordinate and 
        collaborate with each other to share information and 
        leverage resources?
          (c) To what extent are policies and databases that 
        contain information on incidents on unwanted sexual 
        behavior coordinated to ensure that DOD has a complete 
        picture of the continuum of such behavior and to target 
        policies to prevent them and punish perpetrators?

CONUS Education Options Assessment

    The Department of Defense (DOD) currently operates schools 
or contracts with local education agencies to provide K-12 
education for over 25,000 students in nine states. The 
Department estimates that its annual cost to provide that 
education is over $23,000 per student. The committee is aware 
that DOD contracted with the RAND National Defense Research 
Institute to assess the options for providing K-12 education of 
military children residing on military installations in areas 
of the United States on which the Department of Defense 
Education Activity either operates schools or contracts with 
local education agencies to operate schools. The committee 
understands that RAND considered six alternatives for the 
provision of education to children attending those schools and 
provided its assessment to the Department in May 2015. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the RAND 
report to the committee no later than September 1, 2016, 
together with the Department's views of the recommendations 
contained therein.

Department of Defense consultation with outside experts to improve 
        sexual assault prevention and response programs

    A November 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report entitled ``Sexual Assault: Actions Needed to Improve 
DoD's Prevention Strategy and to Help Ensure it is Effectively 
Implemented,'' found that ``DoD has identified five performance 
measures to assess the effectiveness of its prevention efforts, 
but these measures are not fully developed as they are missing 
many of the 10 key attributes that GAO has found can contribute 
to assessing program performance effectively. . . .'' GAO 
listed five recommendations, and according to the report, the 
Department of concurred with all of them.
    As the Department implements reforms to address these 
recommendations and to improve the Department's sexual assault 
prevention and response strategy, the committee expects the 
Department to consult closely with outside experts in the field 
of sexual assault awareness, prevention, and response.

Department of Defense identity numbers

    The committee recognizes the identity security issues that 
arise for members of Congress and their respective staff who 
deal with the Department of Defense (DoD) on a regular basis. 
Without DoD identify numbers, members of Congress and staff are 
required to provide their Social Security numbers for 
identification purposes on paperwork and to visit the Pentagon. 
Repeatedly divulging this information heightens the risk of 
identify theft, exacerbating the risk already faced by members 
of Congress. Therefore, the committee urges the DoD to provide 
an alternative option to identify these individuals, including 
issuing Department of Defense identity numbers to members of 
Congress or their staff who deal with the DoD on a regular 
basis, as this will also help standardize identification with 
the DoD employees.

Disclosure of Military Sexual Trauma During Separation Examinations

    The committee understands that current Department of 
Defense policy requires all members of the military services 
who are scheduled to be separated from Active Duty after 
serving for 180 days or more to take a comprehensive Separation 
History and Physical Examination (SHPE). The purpose of the 
SHPE is to ensure all medical conditions incurred or aggravated 
during the servicemembers military service are identified and 
documented prior to separation or retirement from military 
service. The Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs have established a coordinated, standardized 
examination process that supports the VA disability 
compensation program and the DoD SHPE program. Under an 
agreement between DoD and VA, VA providers complete the 
examination for servicemembers who file a claim for VA benefits 
prior to discharge.
    The committee is concerned that the current procedure 
followed by VA providers to conduct a SHPE discourages a 
servicemember who was the victim of military sexual trauma from 
disclosing the assault. Unlike Department of Defense health 
care providers, VA providers are not currently permitted to 
take a restricted report of a sexual assault. Separating 
servicemembers who have a VA-provided SHPE are instructed that 
any discussion about a sexual assault will be included in their 
Service Treatment Records and could change a restricted report 
to an unrestricted report.
    The Committee is concerned that the inability of a 
servicemember to disclose military sexual trauma at the time of 
the SHPE undermines the purpose of the SHPE to produce a 
comprehensive record of all of the servicemember's medical 
conditions incurred or aggravated during military service and 
could compromise the ability of the servicemember to receive 
the full scope of VA benefits to which the servicemember is 
entitled. Furthermore, the Committee understands the personal 
strength and courage it requires for a victim of military 
sexual trauma to file a restricted or unrestricted report of a 
sexual assault, and the committee believes that no 
servicemember should be discouraged from reporting a sexual 
assault. The Committee believes that when barriers to reporting 
are identified every effort should be made to eliminate them.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to 
establish a policy that enables all Department of Defense and 
Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers who 
administer separation exams to take a restricted report of a 
sexual assault. The policy should also ensure that information 
regarding military sexual trauma that is received in connection 
with a restricted report of sexual assault can be appropriately 
considered for the purpose of disability benefits administered 
by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

DoD report on implementation of GAO recommendations on hazing

    The GAO recently conducted a study to address the extent to 
which DOD and the Coast Guard, which falls under the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS), have developed and implemented 
policies to address incidents of hazing, and have visibility 
over hazing incidents. The GAO made twelve recommendations in 
their report, among them that DOD and the Coast Guard regularly 
monitor policy implementation, issue guidance on the collection 
and tracking of hazing incident data, and evaluate the 
prevalence of hazing. DOD concurred with all twelve GAO 
recommendations and stated an intention to address them. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives on the progress of their implementation of 
the GAO recommendations by the close of the fiscal year 2016.

Employment of members of the National Guard, Reserves, and veterans of 
        the Armed Forces

    The committee remains concerned about members of the 
National Guard, Reserves, and veterans of the Armed Forces 
finding civilian employment. The committee recognizes that the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Department of 
Labor and the Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit this 
year to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
House of Representatives a report required by section 583 of 
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), on 
the feasibility of improving the efforts of the Department of 
Defense to provide job placement assistance and related 
employment services to members of the reserve components. The 
committee is committed to reviewing that report and taking any 
recommended actions to improve the processes by which members 
of the National Guard, Reserves, and veterans of the Armed 
Forces may find and obtain civilian employment.

Enhancing the capabilities of Army military intelligence personnel

    The committee is concerned that as the Army continues its 
efforts to regionally align its forces, the U.S. Army Human 
Resources Command does not have a way to quickly 
administratively identify its military intelligence personnel 
who have experience and expertise relevant to specific 
geographical regions of the world.
    Furthermore, as the Department of Defense continues its 
efforts to provide unique broadening assignments and 
opportunities to servicemembers, the committee urges the 
Department to place special focus in providing opportunities to 
military intelligence servicemembers as a way to enhance the 
capabilities of the military intelligence corps and provide the 
Army with the ability to quickly identify personnel who have 
had regionally focused or overseas assignments, language 
proficiency, and relevant advanced degrees.
    In order to enhance our military intelligence capabilities, 
the committee urges the Army to create a regional focus 
identifier for military intelligence personnel to provide the 
Army with a greater ability to assign or surge servicemembers 
to support missions in specific geographical regions of the 
world where certain military intelligence servicemembers are 
best suited through their military, academic, and other 
relevant experience.

Enlisted representation

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to appoint 
senior noncommissioned officers (in the pay grades of E7, E8, 
or E9) as members on Department of Defense boards, panels, or 
bodies of a similar nature, where the topic involves the 
consideration of compensation and benefits (including pay and 
allowances, health care, retirement, and other benefits) of 
enlisted members of the Armed Forces.

F-35A maintainer shortage report

    The committee is aware of the aircraft maintainer shortage 
that is impacting the stand up of F-35A squadrons and impacting 
the combat readiness and sustainment of all other Air Force 
squadrons. As a result of this shortage, the USAF is hiring 
contract maintainers through 2019 in non-deploying squadrons in 
order to ensure the Air Force is able to stand up new F-35A 
squadrons, as well as meet basic operations and maintained 
schedule for training and combat missions across the entire 
inventory. While the committee is supportive of increasing the 
number of USAF aircraft maintainers in order to fill the 
shortage of active-duty maintainers across the force, the 
committee remains concerned about a long-term plan to address 
these shortages. The contract maintainers will only meet the 
Air Force requirements through 2019. Beyond 2019, the Air Force 
still has a total force aircraft maintainer shortfall, and will 
need to access at least 4,000 active duty maintainers to 
replace the contract maintainers, maintain the training 
pipelines, reduce the deploy-to-dwell ratio, and maintain the 
Congressionally mandated 1,950 fighter aircraft floor.
    To address this shortfall, the committee recommends that 
the Air Force should thoroughly assess and consider the number 
of additional active duty, guard, and reserve maintainers that 
they need in order to meet full-spectrum readiness across the 
entire force.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to develop a plan to increase or reallocate authorized 
end strength, to include in the reserve components and to give 
consideration to the most effective and efficient use of the 
total force, to ensure that installations receiving new F-35As 
across the Air Force post-2019 have the necessary maintainers 
to ensure their operation. The committee directs the Secretary 
to provide a written plan to the congressional defense 
committees no later than 90 days following the enactment of 
this Act.

Impact of basic allowance for housing changes on the Military Housing 
        Privatization Initiative

    The committee notes that recent changes in the basic 
allowance for housing (BAH), as requested by the Department of 
Defense, were implemented without an appropriate level of 
consideration on the impact such changes would have on military 
housing privatization initiative (MHPI) projects. The committee 
notes that elsewhere in this Act, reforms to the basic 
allowance for housing that take into account actual costs 
should be applied equally to MHPI projects. The Department of 
Defense has continued to view the BAH as compensation, and has 
thus treated it like a piggy bank to return to for savings by 
slicing percentages across the board. However, this committee 
wishes to preserve the tax-free allowance for housing, taking 
into account dependency status and those living in MHPI 
projects and the actual costs of the value of that housing. The 
BAH is intended to provide housing as an in-kind benefit to 
service members, a benefit which should not involve increased 
costs to those members living in the Department of Defense 
contracted MHPI projects.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States, by August 1, 2017, to conduct an audit of each MHPI 
project in the United States to assess the solvency of each 
project and the impact recent changes to BAH may have on the 
long-term sustainability of such projects.

Military to mariner transition

    Some industry experts project that the commercial maritime 
industry will face a shortfall of workers over the coming 
decade. The Navy and the Maritime Administration rely on the 
availability of merchant mariners to crew the Ready Reserve 
Force ships in wartime. The Committee therefore urges the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to work with relevant stakeholders, 
including the Maritime Administration and the Coast Guard, to 
assess whether a shortage is likely, and to develop plans to 
address a potential merchant mariner shortage if such a 
shortage is predicted.
    The Committee recognizes the ability of transitioning 
servicemembers with maritime experience to help fill this void, 
and that DOD could take steps to assist transitioning 
servicemembers in receiving credentials for maritime service in 
the private sector. The Committee recommends that DOD do the 
following: (1) maximize the transferability of active duty 
military servicemembers' career skills to similar civilian 
merchant marine industry positions by aligning, where possible, 
required knowledge, skills, and abilities for military 
positions with knowledge, skills, and abilities for 
certification for maritime careers; and (2) develop a military 
skills translator that could relate military qualifications to 
equivalent commercial certifications, identify gaps in current 
resources available to help servicemembers transition to the 
merchant marine industry, as well as provide courses and 
training to address qualification discrepancies.

Pilot deficiencies

    It is the sense of the Senate that the services may not be 
taking adequate action to remedy the shortfall of fighter 
pilots in the near and long term. The Air Force is currently 
short more than 500 fighter pilots, and expects this to surpass 
800 by 2022. Some other Air Force pilot communities, 
particularly the remotely piloted aircraft community, also have 
shortages, while there are more pilots than needed to meet 
requirements in other communities. The Navy, while meeting 
current requirements, also anticipates a fighter pilot 
shortfall in the early 2020s.
    The Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct a report on available force management tools, 
as well as how these tools are used by military services with 
pilots, to manage their pilot accessions and force management 
priorities to right size their different communities. The 
Committee encourages the Comptroller General of the United 
States to provide a detailed account of all approaches 
currently taken by services and recommend regulatory or process 
changes to service force management practices, as warranted, as 
well as appropriate statutory changes.

Process required for adjudication of suspension or termination of 
        institutions with a voluntary education partnership memoranda 
        of understanding with Department of Defense

    The committee is concerned that Department of Defense 
Instruction (DODI) 1322.25 does not provide adequate 
administrative procedures for the fair and expeditious 
adjudication of complaints about educational institutions that 
have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOD 
for a Voluntary Education Partnership. As a result, there is no 
clear guidance on the rights and responsibilities of the DOD or 
of the educational institution prior to and following a DOD 
decision to suspend or terminate a MOU. The committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense, not later than December 30, 2016, to 
modify the DODI 1322.25 to delineate administrative procedures 
that would ensure that such complaints are resolved fairly and 
expeditiously and establish guidance on the rights and 
responsibilities of the DOD and the subject educational 
institutions after such a complaint has been made.

Religious accommodation in the military

    The committee commends the Army on recent decisions to 
grant religious accommodation to soldiers of the Sikh faith 
that will allow these soldiers to faithfully serve the Army 
while adhering to the tenets of their faith. The committee 
strongly encourages all the military services to provide 
accommodations such as those provided to these soldiers to the 
maximum extent possible. The committee believes any restriction 
based on the health and safety of the force must be narrowly 
drawn and objectively imposed on a factual case-by-case basis. 
Further, the committee does not consider that so-called 
uniformity of appearance, in isolation from other factors, 
remains a compelling government interest in the context of a 
force as varied and diverse as ours. Indeed, over the past 15 
years our military has operated in areas of the world where the 
predominant religions require articles of faith be worn, or 
hair be worn unshorn. The committee concludes that the greater 
and more compelling interest is to allow our servicemembers to 
demonstrate in full view the diversity of the United States 
military.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department and the 
military services to formally adopt policies that allow for the 
consideration of requests for religious accommodation prior to 
enlistment or commissioning and allow such accommodations, once 
granted, to remain in effect for the servicemember throughout a 
career. This will ease administrative burden of processing 
these requests and will empower commanders to consistently 
apply clear and operationally relevant standards. Most 
importantly, it will provide peace of mind and certainty for 
service members who have served and continue to serve their 
nation faithfully.

Report on litigation billets

    Based on the need to retain senior judge advocates with 
litigation experience, the Secretaries of the military 
departments should study the feasibility of designating 
military justice litigators as eligible for continuation under 
subsection (a) of section 503 of this Act. The Secretaries 
shall also submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the manner 
in which the judge advocates general corps under the 
jurisdiction of such Secretary (and, in the case of the Marine 
Corps, the judge advocate command element) would best be 
organized and staffed to provide billets for judge advocates in 
grades 0-5 and 0-6 who have experience as courtroom litigators 
in order to provide such corps with an adequate pool of 
experienced litigators to serve as trial counsel and defense 
counsel in general courts-martial for the prosecution of 
violent offenses under chapter 47 of title 10, United States 
Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). If additional 
billets are required to provide a corps with such a pool of 
litigators, the report on such corps shall specify the number 
of additional billets so required.

Sexual assault prevention strategy

    A November 2015 report by the Government Accountability 
Office evaluating the Department of Defense's (DoD) sexual 
assault prevention strategy cites several shortfalls. The 
report recommends that the Department implement a comprehensive 
evidence-based approach to determine the success of prevention-
focused activities. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to provide a report on how it will address the issue of 
sexual assault prevention, and encourages DoD to seek expertise 
from outside experts to validate the approach the Department is 
taking.

Space available seating for veterans with service-connected 
        disabilities

    The committee continues to support the Department of 
Defense's (DoD) program to provide transportation on aircraft 
on a space-available basis for eligible individuals. The 
committee recognizes that the department has the authority to 
include veterans with service-connected disabilities in the 
space available program. If there is excess capacity on some 
space available flights, the committee encourages the 
department to assess the feasibility and advisability of 
providing access to the space available program for veterans 
with 100% service-connected, permanent disability.

Transition Assistance Program and reserve component members

    The committee is concerned that the Transition Assistance 
Program (TAP) sometimes fails to meet the unique needs of 
National Guard and Reserve members returning from an active-
duty deployment, especially the needs of those who have 
deployed, and transitioned, multiple times, which oftentimes 
results in an unnecessary duplication of TAP required 
attendance. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
collect data about National Guard and Reserve members' 
transition experiences and to make recommendations to the 
committee on how to better serve the transition needs of this 
population, or alternatively to suggest a transition program 
specifically designed for the National Guard and Reserve.

          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Fiscal year 2017 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
pay raise of 1.6 percent for all members of the uniformed 
services effective January 1, 2017.
Publication by Department of Defense of actual rates of basic pay 
        payable to members of the Armed Forces by pay grade for annual 
        or other pay periods (sec. 602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Department of Defense to ensure that pay tables of basic pay 
for members of the uniformed services published by the 
Department reflect the operation of the pay cap contained in 
section 203(a)(2) of title 37, United States Code, to more 
accurately reflect the rates of basic pay that may actually be 
received by service members whose basic pay is affected by that 
cap.
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic 
        allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily 
increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas 
impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx 
of personnel.
Reform of basic allowance for housing (sec. 604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would reform the 
basic allowance for housing (BAH) benefit for members of the 
uniformed services, applicable January 1, 2018. The provision 
would require a system that utilizes actual costs up to a 
maximum allowable amount. No service member will see a change 
in their allowance until such time as they undergo a permanent 
change of duty station outside their military housing area 
after January 1, 2018. The committee notes with disappointment 
the March 2016 Department of Defense report submitted in 
response to the Congressionally-directed reporting requirement 
contained in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92). This directive required the Department to assess 
how best to modify the current BAH system to accurately capture 
actual housing costs. The Department, however, expressed its 
opposition to limiting BAH to actual housing costs and views 
BAH as simply another form of compensation. The Department 
includes BAH, a tax-free housing benefit, as a part of its 
calculation of ``Regular Military Compensation,'' which it uses 
as an approximation of a civilian salary, and indeed, makes 
this comparison in determining the adequacy of military pay.
    The committee has concerns about how BAH, as an 
entitlement, and the perception of BAH among servicemembers, 
has evolved over the past 20 years. BAH, and the iterations of 
the benefit that came before, was intended to provide a housing 
benefit for service members in recognition of the transient 
nature of military service, and in further recognition of the 
reality that civilian spouses are often unemployed and 
sacrifice careers of their own. Indeed, that the housing 
allowance was and is intended as primarily a housing benefit is 
demonstrated by its tax-free nature, the differentiation based 
on dependency status, and the fact that servicemembers 
occupying government quarters, including junior enlisted 
personnel required to reside in barracks or on a ship, are 
ineligible to receive BAH. This disconnect between what the 
allowance is for and how it is promoted and perceived is 
exacerbated by the significant increases in the benefit over 
the past 16 years. While servicemembers paid as much as 22 
percent of their housing costs out of pocket in the decades 
preceding the change to the current system in the late 1990s, 
by 2006, out-of-pocket expenses were eliminated entirely, and 
indeed, in certain circumstances, as demonstrated by a recent 
US Army Audit Agency (USAAA) audit, the benefit now far exceeds 
the actual cost of housing borne by some servicemembers. USAAA 
found that BAH entitlements paid to married servicemembers 
collocated in the same military housing area significantly 
exceeded the local housing costs for these servicemembers by 
more than $200 million in fiscal year 2014 alone, and 
recommended modifying BAH to bring actual costs more in line 
with the provided benefit.
    For the forgoing reasons, the committee recommends 
substantial reform of the housing benefit. Accordingly, the 
Secretary of Defense is directed to submit to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
no later than March 1, 2017, a report that describes the new 
BAH calculation will be implemented. Such a report shall 
include the following elements: (1) proposed regulations that 
the Secretary of Defense will implement for the purpose of 
administering the basic allowance for housing inside the United 
States consistent with this provision; (2) any legislative 
changes the Secretary believes are necessary to execute this 
change in application of the BAH; (3) an analysis of whether a 
system that establishes a single rate, similar to the basic 
allowance for subsistence, as applied by rank and grade nation-
wide with a variable allowance for high-cost areas would be a 
preferred option for BAH delivery as an alternative to this 
provision; and (4) an assessment of the impact of these changes 
on retention and overall military compensation, particularly 
pertaining to members who reside with other members and members 
who share accommodations.
Repeal of obsolete authority for combat-related injury rehabilitation 
        pay (sec. 605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 328 of title 10, United States Code, relating to an 
obsolete authority for combat-related injury rehabilitation 
pay.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays


One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        reserve forces (sec. 611)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment 
bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, 
special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high-
priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 
without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and 
reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected 
Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 
prior service, travel expenses for certain inactive-duty 
training, and income replacement for reserve component members 
experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for Active-Duty 
service.

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        health care professionals (sec. 612)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate 
accession bonus, education loan repayment for certain health 
professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and 
retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health 
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the 
accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 
pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in 
critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus 
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime 
specialties.

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 
        officers (sec. 613)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending period of active service, the 
nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual 
incentive bonus.

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 
        special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the 
general bonus authority for officers, special bonus and 
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special 
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, and 
special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in 
health professions, and contracting bonus for cadets and 
midshipmen enrolled in the Senior Officers' Training Corps. The 
provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay 
hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill 
incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and retention incentives 
for members qualified in critical military skills or assigned 
to high priority units.

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 
        bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention 
bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for 
active members, the enlistment bonus, precommissioning 
incentive pay for 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.

Conforming amendment to consolidation of special pay, incentive pay, 
        and bonus authorities (sec. 616)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 332 of title 10, United States Code, to correct an 
inequity that will exist when the Department transitions to a 
general bonus authority on October 1, 2017. This amendment will 
increase the maximum bonus authority under the new general 
bonus authority to $20,000 to match the maximum bonus level 
under the old authority. Maintaining the current bonus level 
will enable the Services to retain the ability to recruit and 
retain reserve component officers.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances


Maximum reimbursement amount for travel expenses of Reserves to attend 
        inactive duty training outside of normal commuting distance 
        (sec. 621)

    The Committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 478a(c) of title 37, United States Code, to allow for a 
higher reimbursement amount on a case-by-case basis for certain 
members of the Reserve component traveling to attend inactive 
duty training outside of normal committing distances.

Period for relocation of spouses and dependents of certain members of 
        the Armed Forces undergoing a permanent change of station (sec. 
        622)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 1784b of title 10, United States Code, to provide 
greater flexibility for families to determine the sequencing of 
permanent change of station moves when the member and family 
must move separately to accommodate particular circumstances 
requiring such a division, including the accommodation of 
dependent educational obligations and spousal employment and 
education needs. The provision would also require the 
Comptroller General to submit to Congress within one year after 
the enactment of this Act a report assessing potential actions 
of the Department of Defense to enhance the stability of 
military families undergoing permanent changes of station.

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


        Part I--Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay Reform


Election period for members in the service academies and inactive 
        Reserves to participate in the modernized retirement system 
        (sec. 631)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1409 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
timing for cadets and midshipmen at the service academies to 
opt-in to the new military retirement system enacted in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92). The provision would also clarify the timing of 
such elections for reservists who are on Inactive Duty during 
the election period otherwise provided for under the new 
retirement system.

Effect of separation of members from the uniformed services on 
        participation in the Thrift Savings Plan (sec. 632)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
paragraph (2) of section 632(c) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). 
This amendment makes a technical correction for the new 
military retirement plan enacted in that Act relative to 
defining separation from service under the Thrift Savings Plan.

Continuation pay for members who have completed 8 to 12 years of 
        service (sec. 633)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 356 of title 37, United States Code, to modify the 
continuation pay for members under the new military retirement 
system enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to provide the Secretary 
of Defense with the flexibility to offer continuation pay in 
the window between 8 and 12 years of service in exchange for a 
3 years of service or greater commitment as the Secretary deems 
appropriate for retention.

Combat-related special compensation coordinating amendment (sec. 634)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1413a of title 10, United States Code, to make a 
technical and conforming amendment to Combat-Related Special 
Compensation, to bring that authority in line with the new 
military retirement system enacted in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).

Sense of the Congress on Roth contributions as default contributions of 
        members of the Armed Forces participating in the Thrift Savings 
        Plan under retired pay reform (sec. 635)

    The committee recommends a provision which states the sense 
of the Congress that the Department of Defense should explore 
making the default contributions of a full Thrift Savings Plan 
member under the new military retirement plan enacted in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92) to be designated as Roth contributions until the 
member elects not to designate such contributions as Roth 
contributions. The Congress believes this will benefit and aid 
enlisted and junior troops in saving for their retirement.

                         Part II--Other Matters


Extension of allowance covering monthly premium for Servicemembers' 
        Group Life Insurance while in certain overseas areas to cover 
        members in any combat zone or overseas direct support area 
        (sec. 641)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 437 of title 37, United States Code, to expand the 
areas eligible for the allowance for covering monthly premiums 
for the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance to include any 
designated combat zone or an area directly supporting a 
designated combat zone.

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 (sec. 642)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1408 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 
division of military retired pay in a divorce decree to the 
amount the member would be entitled based upon the member's pay 
grade and years of service at the time of the divorce rather 
than at the time of retirement with the spousal share of the 
retired pay computed on the retired pay as adjusted by the 
annual increases in military pay. This provision is prospective 
only and would not affect existing divorce settlements.

Permanent extension of payment of special survivor indemnity allowances 
        under the survivor benefit plan (sec. 643)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1450 of title 10, United States Code, to permanently 
extend the authority to pay the Special Survivor Indemnity 
Allowance at the monthly rate currently payable for fiscal year 
2017.

Authority to deduct Survivor Benefit Plan premiums from combat-related 
        special compensation when retired pay not sufficient (sec. 644)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1452 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
deduction of Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) premiums from monthly 
combat related special compensation (CRSC) when retired pay is 
insufficient to cover the premiums.
    The committee notes that under current SBP law, only a 
member's retired pay may be reduced for payment of the SBP 
premiums. In the event that the amount of the required premium 
deductions exceeds the amount of retired pay available to be 
reduced, there is no statutory authority to reduce the combat-
related special compensation. Instead, the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service (DFAS) must pay the full amount of CRSC to 
the member, and the member must then remit the SBP premium 
payment separately back to DFAS. This provision would allow for 
the deduction of SBP premiums from CRSC when the member is in 
receipt of both retired pay and CRSC so that the member does 
not have the extra administrative burden of paying the 
government through a separate check and risking interest 
accrual on such payments.

Sense of the Congress on options for members of the Armed Forces to 
        designate payment of the death gratuity to a trust for a 
        special needs individual (sec. 645)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
Sense of the Congress that the Department of Defense should 
explore options to allow servicemembers to designate that, upon 
their death, the death gratuity may be paid to a trust that is 
legally established under any federal, state, or territorial 
law. This would provide greater financial and estate planning 
capability for a servicemember to provide for those who require 
the protections of a trust, such as minor children or 
incapacitated adults, or those with special needs.

Independent assessment of the Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 646)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide for an independent assessment 
of the Department of Defense Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) by a 
federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC). The 
assessment conducted shall include, but not be limited to, the 
following: (A) A statement of the purposes behind the SBP, how 
that program interacts with other federal programs to provide 
for survivors of military members and retirees, and a 
comparison with civilian sector benefits offered to both 
government and private sector employees intended to provide 
financial stability and resources for spouses and other 
dependent individuals when a primary family earner dies; (B) 
The effectiveness of the SBP in providing survivors with 
intended benefits, including the provision of survivor benefits 
for survivors of members dying on Active Duty and those in a 
reserve status; and (C) Whether the provision of survivor 
benefits might be better accomplished through alternative 
insurance products available commercially for similar purposes, 
to what extent the Government may subsidize such a product so 
that there are no increased costs to the Government, and the 
extent to which such products might meet the needs of 
survivors, especially those on fixed incomes, to maintain 
financial stability. Not later than 1 year after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report 
on the independent assessment to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives containing 
the findings of the assessment, together with comments by the 
Secretary on the assessment and recommended statutory changes, 
if any.

   Subtitle E--Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality 
                        Benefits and Operations


Protection and enhancement of access to and savings at commissaries and 
        exchanges (sec. 661)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2481, 2483, 2484, and 2487 of title 10, United States 
Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to develop and 
implement a comprehensive strategy to optimize management 
practices across the defense commissary system and the exchange 
system that reduces their reliance on appropriated funding 
without reducing benefits to commissary patrons or revenues 
generated by non-appropriated fund entities. This provision 
would authorize the Secretary to carry out an alternative 
pricing program, evaluated against specific, measurable 
benchmarks and a documented baseline level of savings, within 
the defense commissary system to establish prices for goods and 
services in response to market conditions and customer demand. 
Furthermore, the provision would authorize the Secretary to 
convert the commissary system to a non-appropriated fund entity 
or instrumentality if the Secretary determines that the 
alternative pricing program met established benchmarks for 
success for a period of at least 6 months. If conversion to a 
non-appropriated fund entity or instrumentality occurs, the 
Secretary would ensure that no employee of the defense 
commissary system, as of the date of enactment of this Act, 
would incur a loss or decrease in pay resulting from the 
conversion. This provision would also authorize the Secretary 
of Defense to establish common business processes, practices, 
and systems to optimize the operations of the entire defense 
resale system, including authorizing the use of appropriated 
and non-appropriated funds on contracts or agreements for the 
acquisition of common systems. Finally, the provision would 
authorize the Secretary to supplement appropriated funds for 
defense commissary system operations with additional funds 
derived from improved management practices and the alternative 
pricing program.

Pilot program on privatization of the Defense Commissary System (sec. 
        662)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, to conduct a pilot program, of not less 
than 2 years and at no more than five commissaries, assessing 
the feasibility and advisability of privatization of the 
Defense Commissary System. The provision would authorize the 
Secretary to include such elements as necessary to assess the 
feasibility and advisability of privatization. In conducting 
the pilot program, the Secretary may include an online 
component such that eligible beneficiaries may order and 
purchase goods and products through the Internet and receive 
those items through home delivery. The provision would require 
the Secretary to establish specific, measurable benchmarks of 
success for the provision of high quality grocery merchandise, 
discount savings to patrons, and customer satisfaction. Within 
180 days after completion of the pilot program, the Secretary 
would submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives that, with other 
report requirements, provides an assessment of the feasibility 
and advisability of privatizing the Defense Commissary System.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Compliance with domestic source requirements for footwear furnished to 
        enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry 
        into the Armed Forces (sec. 671)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to furnish athletic footwear directly to 
members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps instead 
of providing a cash allowance. Such footwear must comply with 
section 2533a of title 10, United States Code.

Authority for payment of pay and allowances and retired and retainer 
        pay pursuant to power of attorney (sec. 672)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 602 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize 
payment of certain pay and allowances of a servicemember or 
retired servicemember to an individual to whom the member has 
granted authority to manage these funds pursuant to a valid and 
legally executed durable power of attorney. This proposal will 
enable members to responsibly and proactively plan their 
personal affairs in the event of their incapacitation, and to 
allow those durable powers of attorney to be recognized by the 
military departments and the Department of Defense.
    The provision would also amend section 602 of title 10, 
United States Code, to require a bond only in the case of a 
person acting for the benefit of the incapacitated member who 
is designated by the secretary concerned under this section, 
and only if the amount of payments would be more than $25,000.

                       Items of Special Interest


Military forty-year pay table revision advisability report

    The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 
Representatives no later than March 1, 2017, a study on the 
advisability and feasibility of reforming the 40-year pay table 
and retirement benefit to cap retired pay based on the highest 
grade achieved, irrespective of years of service performed. 
Such a structure would allow only members of the highest rank 
and highest years of service to earn the highest retirement 
benefit. Caps should be considered separately for commissioned 
and non-commissioned officers, warrant officers, and enlisted 
personnel. This study should include an assessment of cost 
savings, impact to morale and retention, secondary effects to 
promotion rates, and benefits to force management. This study 
shall also consider cost-saving measures that still allow a 
member with 20 years of total service to retire but prevent 
officers with prior enlisted service to use non-commissioned 
time served to increase their retirement percent eligibility. 
It should also consider the suitability of special pay or 
bonuses as a retention tool as an alternative to increasing the 
retired pay multiplier, to compensate specific occupational 
specialties such as chaplains and limited duty officers, 
specialties that have limited promotion rates but great 
longevity benefits.
    The Committee report accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for 2015 (P.L. 114-92) directed the Secretary 
of Defense to review the military's pay tables, focusing on 
whether the 40-year pay table was still justified as a 
retention tool. The Department of Defense stated it opposed 
reverting back to the 30-year pay table because the 40-year pay 
table accomplishes the Department of Defense's objectives of 
fielding an experienced and ready force capable of retaining 
its most senior members. Although an analysis showed that the 
Department of Defense did experience greater retention of 
general and flag officers and senior non-commissioned officers, 
the most significant percentage increases in service over 30 
years were in the group of field grade officers. At an 
additional cost of $1.2 billion per year and growing, cost-
saving reforms need to be investigated to keep the 40-year pay 
table. These reforms must ensure that the increased incentives 
inherent to the 40-year pay table targets groups that have 
experienced the greatest retention challenges.

                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Military health system reform overview
    In January 2015, the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission provided the Congress its 
recommendations to modernize the military compensation and 
retirement systems. Building on those recommendations, the 
committee achieved enactment of historic reforms to the 
military retirement system in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). 
These reforms expanded retirement benefits to the majority of 
military servicemembers excluded under the old system while 
saving taxpayers approximately $13.0 billion in discretionary 
spending over the next 10 years and approximately $12.0 billion 
per year in steady state mandatory spending. Modernizing the 
military retirement system demonstrated that true reform can 
deliver better and expanded benefits to military servicemembers 
while saving taxpayer dollars.
    In addition to its recommendations to modernize the 
military retirement system, the Commission recommended major 
reform of the military health system. Those recommendations 
offered a plan to improve and sustain operational medical force 
readiness, improve access to care, and expand beneficiaries' 
choices of health plans.
    The committee has taken a very deliberate approach to 
enacting major military health system reform legislation. For 
more than a year, the committee has worked diligently to 
understand the implications and unintended consequences of any 
plan to reform the military health system a large, complex 
health program with over 9.4 million eligible beneficiaries. 
During this time, the committee held hearings with civilian 
healthcare experts and Department of Defense (DOD) officials, 
studied the attributes of high-performing civilian health 
systems, examined many published reports on military and 
civilian healthcare, visited military treatment facilities, 
held numerous meetings with military and veterans service 
organizations, and conducted sensing sessions with military and 
civilian hospital personnel. Most importantly, the committee 
visited with beneficiaries to better understand their current 
experiences with the military health system and to determine 
whether the existing system meets their needs. This extensive 
work has made invaluable contributions to the committee's 
oversight of the military health system.
    Since 2001, battlefield injury survival rates have been 
higher than at any time in our nation's history. The committee 
applauds military healthcare personnel for professionally and 
compassionately caring for wounded, ill, and injured 
servicemembers over the last 15 years. Clearly, battlefield 
medicine is a pocket of excellence in the military health 
system that must be maintained.
    However, it is also clear that the military health system, 
designed decades ago, has increasingly emphasized delivering 
peacetime healthcare at the expense of strengthening 
operational medical force readiness. Prior to 2001, medical 
force readiness suffered immeasurably, forcing the military 
Services to build a more robust combat casualty care capability 
to meet the demands of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For 
example, the committee understands that OB/GYN physicians 
substituted as trauma surgeons in combat theaters because the 
Services had too few qualified trauma surgeons to meet 
combatant command requirements.
    Bloated medical headquarters staffs--over 12,000 persons 
strong--have failed to take quick action on what needs to be 
fixed in the direct care component of the military health 
system. Despite the lack of additional capacity to enroll 
patients in bottle-necked primary care clinics, beneficiaries 
continue to be forced to receive care at military hospitals. 
The Services claim they need more patients in their hospitals 
to maintain medical force readiness, but the most common health 
services performed by military providers relate to pregnancy, 
childbirth, and pediatric care--health services not typically 
necessary to ensure medical force readiness training.
    In addition, the current stove-piped military health system 
command structure leads to inevitable turf wars among the 
military Services and the Defense Health Agency, paralyzing 
decision-making and stifling healthcare innovation. Data show 
that military healthcare providers have much lower productivity 
than their comparable civilian counterparts, which severely 
limits beneficiaries' access to healthcare services. Although 
set at an unreasonably low level, DOD's productivity goal for 
physicians--40 percent of the Medical Group Management 
Association median--cannot be met by many military medical 
providers. While some lower productivity should be expected due 
to unique medical force readiness training requirements, the 
committee does not believe that these requirements should 
hinder productivity significantly.
    Moreover, a recent study shows that the Services 
underestimate the true costs of officer and enlisted medical 
personnel compared to the total costs for government civilians 
and contractors. The study concluded that the complete cost to 
the taxpayer of military medical personnel far exceeded the 
cost of civilian healthcare providers with comparable skills. 
Data also show that the total cost to provide healthcare 
services in military treatment facilities is greater than the 
cost of providing the same types of services in the private 
sector yet the Department continues to advocate that military 
treatment facilities are less expensive than private sector 
facilities.
    The private sector component of the military health system 
is not without its own flaws. Beneficiaries complain about the 
cumbersome authorization and referral process for specialty 
care and a lack of access to care in large TRICARE provider 
networks. The current TRICARE program's myriad outmoded 
regulations and policies focus on ``the system'' rather than 
doing the right thing for beneficiaries. TRICARE's obsolete 
medical support contract strategy results in high acquisition 
costs, routine bid protests, implementation delays, high 
management costs, and costly contract extensions. Under those 
contracts, the Department, and ultimately the taxpayers, remain 
solely at risk for the cost of all healthcare services 
provided, and the rigid adherence to fee-for-service provider 
reimbursement fails to encourage individual and institutional 
network providers to provide higher quality care, better access 
to care, and higher patient satisfaction at lower costs to the 
Department and the taxpayers.
    As the committee formulated its defense health reform 
initiatives, we determined not to increase TRICARE fees unless 
we could create more value--provide higher quality care, better 
access to care, and a better experience of care. Based on the 
above findings and many others, the committee developed a 
comprehensive legislative package that would provide a gold-
standard, integrated healthcare delivery system, creating high 
value for all beneficiaries. The committee mark contains 
numerous provisions to meet the following reform objectives of 
the committee. Improve and maintain operational medical force 
readiness: (1) creates specialized care centers of excellence 
at major military medical centers; (2) expands military-
civilian trauma training sites and requires integrated trauma 
team training; (3) requires establishment of personnel 
management plans for important wartime medical specialties; (4) 
requires development of quality of care outcome measures for 
combat casualty care; (5) requires greater focus on medical 
research to understand better the causes of morbidity and 
mortality of service men and women in combat; (6) requires 
development of a trauma care registry; (7) requires development 
of standardized tactical combat casualty care training; and (8) 
expands eligibility for care in military treatment facilities 
to veterans and certain civilians.
    Enhance access to high quality healthcare: (1) creates 
local high-performing military-civilian integrated health 
delivery systems; (2) expands telehealth capabilities in the 
military health system; (3) creates specialized care centers of 
excellence at major military medical centers; (4) requires 
contracts for turn-key primary care/urgent care clinics at 
military treatment facilities; (5) authorizes a pilot program 
to give commercial health insurance coverage to reserve 
component members and their families; and (6) requires a 
standardized medical appointment system across the military 
health system.
    Improve beneficiaries' health outcomes: (1) increases 
beneficiary involvement and shared responsibility to improve 
health outcomes and to lower costs--targets smoking cessation 
and weight reduction; (2) incentivizes participation in disease 
management programs; and (3) and incentivizes use of high-value 
providers.
    Create health value: (1) expands and improves access to 
care by requiring a standardized appointment system in military 
treatment facilities; (2) expands the full range of telehealth 
services available to beneficiaries; (3) authorizes lower co-
payments for high-value pharmaceuticals and medical services; 
(4) eliminates the requirement for pre-authorization for 
specialty care referrals; (5) requires a plan to improve 
pediatric care and related services; (6) incentivizes 
participation in disease management programs; (7) authorizes 
enrollment of eligible beneficiaries in federal dental and 
vision insurance programs managed by the Office of Personnel 
Management; (8) authorizes new TRICARE health plans; and (9) 
eliminates existing cost-shares for services provided under the 
current TRICARE Standard plan and replaces them with fixed co-
payments to lower overall costs for beneficiaries.
    Modernize TRICARE medical support contracts: (1) 
incorporates value-based healthcare methodology and value-based 
provider reimbursement into TRICARE contracts; (2) expands 
access to the full range of telehealth capabilities; (3) allows 
contractors to use the latest innovations in the private sector 
health plan market; (4) transfers financial risk to contractors 
and healthcare providers; (5) focuses contracts on building 
networks of high-value providers; and (6) requires a 
competitive, continuously open contracting strategy.
    Drive efficiencies and eliminate waste: (1) right-sizes the 
footprint of the military health system to meet operational 
medical force requirements and the medical readiness of the 
Armed Forces; (2) realigns the medical command structure and 
shrinks headquarters staffing creating greater efficiency in 
the management of the military health system; (3) eliminates 
graduate medical education training programs not directly 
supporting operational medical readiness requirements and the 
medical readiness of the Armed Forces; (4) authorizes 
conversion of military healthcare provider positions to 
civilian or contractor positions; (5) requires a multi-year 
study by the Comptroller General of the United States to find 
healthcare waste throughout the military health system; (6) 
requires centrally-managed, performance-based professional 
staffing contracts; and (7) modernizes TRICARE medical support 
contracts.
    Lower the per capita costs of healthcare for DOD and 
beneficiaries: (1) authorizes very modest increases in existing 
single and family annual enrollment fees by $68 and $135 
respectively for working-age military retirees; (2) authorizes 
changes to co-payments for medical services but allows DOD to 
lower co-payments for high-value services and raise co-payments 
for low-value services; (3) increases pharmacy co-payments 
incrementally over a 9-year window but authorizes DOD to give 
preferential status to any non-generic pharmaceutical agent on 
the uniform formulary by establishing the same co-payment as 
the co-payment of a generic product under the retail and mail 
order programs; (4) authorizes appointment no-show fees in 
military treatment facilities; and (5) incentivizes 
participation in disease management programs.
    Demand performance accountability: (1) establishes 
performance accountability for military healthcare leaders 
throughout the military health system; (2) establishes rigorous 
criteria for selection of military treatment facility 
commanders; and (3) establishes minimum lengths of tours of 
duty for military treatment facility commanders.
    The committee believes these significant reforms constitute 
a critical first step in the evolution of the military health 
system from an under-performing, disjointed health system into 
a high-performing integrated health system that gives 
beneficiaries what they need and deserve: the right care at the 
right time in the right place. True transformation, however, 
will require a cultural change across the entire military 
health system--a change from a system-first culture to a 
patient-first culture. Such a cross-service cultural shift is 
essential to building trust with beneficiaries and creating 
health value for them. The committee expects military health 
system leaders and their private sector partners to begin 
immediately advancing a patient-first culture throughout the 
military health system.

           Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits

Reform of health care plans available under the TRICARE program (sec. 
        701)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to reform health 
care plans available under the TRICARE program. The provision 
would establish three health plan choices for families of 
Active-Duty servicemembers, and retired military members and 
their families: (1) TRICARE Prime, a managed care option; (2) 
TRICARE Choice, a self-managed option; and (3) TRICARE 
Supplemental, an option for retired members and their families, 
other than TRICARE-For-Life beneficiaries, who have other 
health insurance. Beneficiaries would be required to enroll in 
one of the TRICARE options during an annual open enrollment 
period in order to obtain care through the TRICARE Program.
    Under this provision, the Department would offer TRICARE 
Prime in areas near military treatment facilities (MTFs). 
Active-Duty family members would be authorized to enroll in 
TRICARE Prime, and there would be no cost shares. Retirees and 
their family members would be authorized to enroll in TRICARE 
Prime in areas where an MTF has a significant number of health 
care providers, including specialty providers, and sufficient 
capability to support efficient operations of the MTF. A 
TRICARE Prime enrollee would be required to obtain a referral 
for care from a designated primary care manager prior to 
obtaining care under the TRICARE program. A referral to network 
providers for specialty care services would not require a 
beneficiary to obtain a pre-authorization. The provision would 
require the Secretary to ensure that beneficiaries have the 
same level of access to care within timelines that meet or 
exceed those of high-performing health systems in the private 
sector. The committee believes this should enable beneficiaries 
to obtain same-day appointment access to most primary and some 
specialty health care services.
    This provision would establish TRICARE Choice in other 
locations in the country, and beneficiaries may receive care 
from any health care provider selected by the member subject to 
any restrictions established by the Secretary.
    This provision includes a cost-share table for calendar 
year 2018 for both TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Choice that would 
establish rates for annual enrollment fees, annual deductibles, 
annual catastrophic caps, and co-payments for inpatient visits, 
outpatient visits, and other services. The provision would 
gradually increase the annual enrollment fee for military 
retirees and their families under TRICARE Choice over a period 
of 5 years through 2023. Subsequently, annual enrollment fees 
for military retirees and their families in TRICARE Choice 
after 2023, and for military retirees and their families under 
TRICARE Prime after 2018, would increase by the annual percent 
of the Consumer Price Index for Health Care Services, published 
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Additionally, the provision 
would increase the deductible, co-payment, and annual 
catastrophic cap amounts after 2018, by the annual cost of 
living adjustment for military retired pay.
    The provision would authorize the Secretary to adopt 
special coverage and reimbursement methods, amounts, and 
procedures to encourage the use of high-value services and 
products and to discourage the use of low-value services and 
products.
    Under this provision, retirees and their family members 
with other health insurance would be authorized to enroll in 
the TRICARE Supplemental option. The provision establishes an 
annual enrollment fee that would be one-half of the fee for the 
TRICARE Choice option. Under TRICARE Supplemental, TRICARE 
would pay the deductible and co-payment amounts under the 
beneficiary's primary health plan, not to exceed the amount 
TRICARE would have paid as primary payer to an out-of-network 
provider.
    A number of existing TRICARE programs would remain 
unchanged under this provision: (1) Extended Health Care Option 
Program; (2) TRICARE Reserve Select; (3) TRICARE Retired 
Reserve; (4) TRICARE Dental Program; and the (5) Continued 
Health Care Benefits Program. This provision would not affect 
the required cost-shares under the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits 
Program, but the annual enrollment fee, annual deductible, and 
annual catastrophic cap established in this section would apply 
to the pharmacy program. With this provision, the cost-share 
requirements for remote area dependents would be the same as 
those established under the TRICARE Prime Option but without a 
referral requirement.
Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the TRICARE Pharmacy 
        Benefits Program and treatment of certain pharmaceutical agents 
        (sec. 702)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
cost-sharing amounts for the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program 
for years 2017 through 2025. After 2025, the Department could 
establish cost-sharing amounts equal to the cost-sharing 
amounts for the previous year adjusted by an amount, if any, to 
reflect increases in costs of pharmaceutical agents and 
pharmacy dispensing fees. With this provision, beneficiaries 
would continue to receive pharmaceuticals at no cost in 
military medical treatment facilities. Under this provision, 
there would be no changes to cost-sharing amounts for survivors 
of members who died on Active Duty or for disabled retirees and 
their family members.
    To encourage use of pharmaceutical agents that provide the 
greatest value to beneficiaries and the Department, the 
provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense, upon 
recommendation from the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee and 
review by the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, to 
exclude from the pharmacy benefits program any pharmaceutical 
agent that the Secretary determines provides little or no value 
to covered beneficiaries and the Department. Additionally, the 
Secretary would give preferential status to any non-generic 
pharmaceutical agent on the uniform formulary by treating it, 
for the purposes of cost-sharing, as a generic product under 
the TRICARE retail pharmacy and mail order programs. Finally, 
the provision would authorize the Secretary to adopt special 
reimbursement methods, amounts, and procedures in medical 
contracts to encourage physicians to use high-value 
pharmaceutical agents and to discourage use of low-value 
agents.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) authorized modest cost-share amount 
increases for certain pharmaceuticals obtained through the 
TRICARE retail pharmacy network or the mail order pharmacy in 
fiscal year 2016, but it did not include the Administration's 
proposal to increase cost-share amounts in subsequent years. In 
conference deliberations with the House of Representatives last 
year, the conferees agreed to reconsider broader proposed cost-
share amount changes submitted by the Administration with the 
fiscal year 2017 budget request. The committee believes the 
Department should use savings generated from pharmaceutical 
cost-share increases to improve health outcomes and the 
experience of care for beneficiaries of the military health 
system.
Eligibility of certain beneficiaries under the TRICARE program for 
        participation in the Federal Employees Dental and Vision 
        Insurance Program (sec. 703)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 8951 and 8981 of title 5, United States Code, to 
require the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement 
with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to 
offer eligible beneficiaries the opportunity to purchase dental 
and vision insurance currently available to federal employees 
under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance 
Program. The committee believes this provision would extend 
highly regarded dental and vision insurance coverage to certain 
eligible beneficiaries and provide better opportunities, 
through enhanced benefits, for improved dental and vision 
health.
Coverage of medically necessary food and vitamins for digestive and 
        inherited metabolic disorders under the TRICARE program (sec. 
        704)
    The committee recommends a provision that amend section 
1077 of title 10, United States Code, to provide TRICARE 
program coverage for medically necessary food, including the 
equipment and supplies necessary to administer that food, and 
vitamins for digestive disorders and inherited metabolic 
disorders.
Enhancement of use of telehealth services in military health system 
        (sec. 705)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 1 year of the date of enactment of 
this Act, to incorporate the use of telehealth services 
throughout the direct and purchased care components of the 
military health system.
    The provision would require the Department to make 
telehealth services available to: (1) improve access to primary 
care, urgent care, behavioral health care, and specialty care; 
(2) perform health assessments; (3) provide diagnoses, 
treatments, interventions, and supervision; (4) monitor 
individual health outcomes of covered beneficiaries with 
chronic diseases or conditions; (5) improve communication 
between health care providers and patients; and (6) reduce 
health care costs for beneficiaries and the Department of 
Defense.
    This provision would require the Secretary to establish 
standardized payment methods to reimburse health care providers 
for telehealth services provided to covered beneficiaries in 
the purchased care component of the TRICARE program to 
incentivize the provision of telehealth services. The provision 
would also require the Secretary to reduce or eliminate co-
payments or cost-shares for covered beneficiaries for receipt 
of telehealth services.
    The Secretary would be required to submit an initial 
report, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, describing the full range of telehealth 
services to be available in the direct and purchased care 
components of the military health system. Within 3 years after 
the date of incorporation of telehealth services throughout the 
military health system, the Secretary would be required to 
submit a final report to the committees describing the impact 
made by use of telehealth services in the direct and purchased 
care components of the military health system.
    Early this year, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Health Affairs published a memorandum that authorized the 
provision of telemedicine services at a patient's location. The 
committee considers this policy a good first step, but the 
additional conditions applied to the policy unduly restrict 
beneficiaries' full use of the same telehealth capabilities 
readily available in the private sector. The committee believes 
the Department should amend its published conditions for the 
provision of telemedicine services to ensure beneficiaries 
everywhere have full access to those services.
Evaluation and treatment of veterans and civilians at military 
        treatment facilities (sec. 706)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
veteran or civilian to be evaluated and treated at a military 
treatment facility if the Secretary of Defense determines that: 
(1) the evaluation and treatment of the individual is necessary 
to maintain the medical readiness skills and competencies of 
health care providers at the facility; (2) health care 
providers at the facility have the competencies, skills and 
abilities to treat the individual; and (3) the facility has 
available space, equipment, and materials.
    The provision would authorize a military treatment facility 
to bill and accept reimbursement for services provided to a 
civilian patient. Under this provision, the Secretary of 
Defense would be required to enter into a memorandum of 
understanding with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs whereby 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would reimburse a military 
treatment facility for the costs of any health care services 
provided to individuals eligible for health care services from 
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    By authorizing military health care providers to treat 
eligible veterans and certain civilians in military treatment 
facilities, this provision would help the Department of Defense 
to ensure that military health care providers maintain their 
operational medical force readiness skills and core 
competencies.
Pilot program to provide health insurance to members of the reserve 
        components of the Armed Forces (sec. 707)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program jointly 
with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management 
(Director), of at least 5 years duration, to provide commercial 
health insurance coverage to eligible reserve component members 
who enroll for either individual, self plus one, or self and 
family coverage. If the Secretary, and the Director, determine 
that a pilot program is feasible, the Director would contract 
with qualified health insurance carriers to provide eligible 
beneficiaries with a variety of high quality health benefits 
plans, which could vary by plan design, covered benefits, 
geography, and price. Reserve component members and their 
family members would not be eligible to enroll in a health plan 
in the pilot program if they are eligible to enroll in a health 
benefits plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program.
    Under the pilot program, the Secretary could contract with 
qualified health insurance carriers to provide coverage for 
health care services provided at military treatment facilities 
to pilot program participants, and the Department would receive 
payment from those carriers for any services provided at those 
facilities. Family members of an eligible reserve component 
member could remain covered under the pilot program even when 
the reserve component member became ineligible for coverage 
while serving on Active Duty for a period greater than 30 days.
    In addition, an eligible reserve component member would be 
responsible for payment of all cost sharing amounts applicable 
to the health benefits plan plus an annual premium amount equal 
to 28 percent of the total annual amount of the premium under 
the plan. During a period in which a reserve component member 
served on Active Duty for more than 30 days, the premium amount 
and cost shares would be zero for eligible family members.
    In consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
the Secretary would provide recommendations and data to the 
Director on matters regarding military treatment facilities, 
matters unique to eligible reserve component members and their 
families, and any other guidance necessary to administer the 
pilot program. The Secretary and the Director would jointly 
establish a funding mechanism for the pilot program, and the 
Secretary would make funds available to the Director, without 
fiscal year limitation, for payment of health plan costs and 
administrative expenses.
Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces for post-
        traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma 
        (sec. 708)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, of not 
more than 3 years duration, to award competitive grants to 
community partners to provide intensive outpatient programs to 
treat members of the Armed Forces suffering from post-traumatic 
stress disorder resulting from military sexual trauma, 
including treatment for substance use disorder, depression, and 
other issues related to those conditions. Under this provision, 
a community partner would be a private health care organization 
or institution that: 1) provides health care to servicemembers; 
2) provides evidence-based treatment for psychological and 
neurological conditions common to servicemembers; 3) provides 
health care, support, and other benefits to family members of 
servicemembers; and 4) provides health care under the TRICARE 
program. The government share of the costs of programs carried 
out by community partners could not exceed 50 percent in this 
pilot program.

                 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration

Consolidation of the medical departments of the Army, Navy, and Air 
        Force into the Defense Health Agency (sec. 721)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to disestablish the medical departments of 
the Armed Forces and consolidate all activities of those 
departments into the Defense Health Agency. The Secretary could 
not undertake this action until 60 days after submission of the 
Department's consolidation plan to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The 
provision would also require the Comptroller General of the 
United States to review the consolidation plan and submit that 
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives within 180 days after the 
Secretary submits the plan to the committees.
    Under this provision, the Defense Health Agency would be 
led by an officer of the Armed Forces holding the grade of 
lieutenant general or vice admiral and be responsible for the 
medical operations of the Department of Defense. The resultant 
Defense Health Agency would consist of four subordinate 
organizations: 1) an organization responsible for all military 
medical treatment facilities; 2) an organization responsible 
for medical professional recruitment and retention activities, 
medical education and training, research and development 
activities, and executive agencies for medical operations or 
activities; 3) an organization responsible for activities and 
duties of the current Defense Health Agency; and 4) an 
organization responsible for activities and duties to improve 
and maintain operational medical force readiness capabilities 
and to ensure sustainment of combat casualty care and trauma 
readiness of military health care providers. A major general or 
rear admiral upper half would serve as head of each subordinate 
organization.
    The provision would give broad authorities to the Director 
of the Defense Health Agency, under the supervision and control 
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, to 
conduct the medical operations functions of the Department. In 
addition, the provision would amend sections 3036, 5137, and 
8036 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the duties 
and responsibilities of the Surgeons General of the military 
Services as principal advisor to the service secretary and 
service chief as well as chief medical advisor of that Service 
to the Defense Health Agency. Finally, the provision would 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on 
consolidation, by January 1, 2017, to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
    After careful study, the committee concludes that a single 
agency responsible for all medical operations of the Department 
of Defense would best improve and sustain operational medical 
force readiness and the medical readiness of the Armed Forces; 
improve beneficiaries' access to care and the experience of 
care; improve health outcomes; and lower the management cost of 
the military health system.
    In January 2015, the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission provided the committee its 
recommendations to modernize the military health system. The 
commission made important recommendations to improve and 
sustain military medical force readiness, to improve access to 
care, and to expand beneficiaries' choices of health plans.
    Unfortunately, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 
the Services have made insufficient progress over the past year 
to improve health care delivery services for beneficiaries. The 
committee continues to hear from beneficiaries voicing problems 
with access to health care services--obtaining medical 
appointments quickly; receiving timely referrals for specialty 
care; receiving coordinated care in military hospitals and in 
the private sector; and receiving urgent care when primary care 
appointments are unavailable. It is clear to the committee that 
the existing medical command structure of the Department--a 
structure that numbers almost 12,000 military, civilian and 
contract staff members--has failed to recognize and rapidly 
correct systemic problems in health care delivery in military 
hospitals and clinics. The committee believes that the current, 
inefficient organizational structure of the military health 
system paralyzes rapid decision-making and stifles innovation 
in producing a modern health care delivery system that would 
better serve all beneficiaries. A streamlined organizational 
structure, eliminating redundancy and generating greater 
efficiency, would yield significant monetary savings to the 
Department and lead to true reform of the military health 
system while improving the experience of care for 
beneficiaries.
Accountability for the performance of the military health care system 
        of certain positions in the system (sec. 722)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military 
departments, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this 
Act, to incorporate performance accountability measures into 
the annual performance reviews of certain leadership positions 
in the military health care system. The provision would 
prohibit payment of a performance bonus to a civilian employee 
of the Department of Defense occupying a position, specified in 
the provision, unless the operations of the military health 
care system met or exceeded performance measures during the 
period of the employee's annual performance review. The 
Secretary of Defense would submit a report to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 
within 180 days of enactment of this Act, which describes the 
incorporation of performance accountability measures in the 
annual performance reviews of leadership positions in the 
military health care system.
Selection of commanders and directors of military treatment facilities 
        and tours of duty of commanders of such facilities (sec. 723)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop common qualifications and core 
competencies required for selection of commanders or directors 
of military medical treatment facilities. The provision would 
also establish a minimum length of 4 years for tours of duty, 
with limited exceptions, for those commanders or directors to 
ensure greater stability in health system executive management 
at each facility and throughout the military health system.
    The committee is concerned that military treatment facility 
commanders typically rotate to new duty stations every 2 years, 
and these frequent transfers lead to great instability in the 
management of hospitals and clinics. The rapid turnover of 
military hospital commanders creates turmoil in hospital 
executive leadership and management, negatively affecting the 
performance of the local facility and the overall performance 
of the entire military health system. The committee believes 
this provision would steady the executive management of 
military hospitals and clinics and improve the performance of 
those facilities.
Authority to convert military medical and dental positions to civilian 
        medical and dental positions (sec. 724)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Department of Defense to convert military medical and dental 
positions to civilian positions if: 1) conversion would not 
result in a loss of a military-essential position; 2) 
conversion would not result in degradation of medical care or 
the medical readiness of the Armed Forces; and 3) conversion to 
a civilian position would be more cost effective. The committee 
believes this provision would give the military services more 
flexibility to achieve the most efficient medical and dental 
force mix aligned with their operational missions and to 
correct skill and specialty imbalances within the medical and 
dental forces.
    In May 2014, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) 
published a comprehensive DOD-commissioned study on medical 
total force management. In the study, IDA determined that the 
military services underestimate the true costs of officer and 
enlisted medical personnel compared to the total costs for 
government civilians and contractors. IDA calculated that the 
complete cost to the taxpayer of military medical personnel far 
exceeded the cost of civilian health care providers with 
comparable skills.
    Since the military services seemingly underestimate the 
full cost of medical personnel, they incorrectly rely on more 
military medical personnel than civilians and contractors to 
provide health care services to beneficiaries. This problem 
primarily occurs in the Navy and Air Force as their staffing 
models generally favor using more military medical personnel 
than civilians or contractors. In contrast, the Army has a more 
civilian-intensive medical labor force. If the Navy and Air 
Force military-to-civilian staff ratios closely matched Army 
ratios, IDA calculated short-term savings to taxpayers of 
$500.0 million per year and long-term savings of $1.0 billion 
per year. The committee believes this provision would enable 
the Department to garner significant short and long-term 
budgetary savings that could be used to enhance the health care 
experience of beneficiaries or to improve overall military 
readiness.
Authority to realign infrastructure of and health care services 
        provided by military treatment facilities (sec. 725)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the secretary of a military department to realign the 
infrastructure of or modify the health care services provided 
by a military treatment facility (MTF) if a realignment or 
modification would better: 1) ensure the delivery of safe, high 
quality health care services; 2) adapt the delivery of health 
care in a facility to rapid changes in private sector health 
care delivery models; or 3) maintain the medical force 
readiness skills and core competencies of health care providers 
in a facility. Before taking any action under this provision, 
the Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives on proposed realignments of infrastructure 
of or modifications of health care services at MTFs. Within 60 
days after the Secretary submits a report under this provision, 
the Comptroller General of the United States would submit a 
review of such report to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Acquisition of medical support contracts for TRICARE program (sec. 726)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a new competition of all 
medical support contracts, except the overseas medical support 
contract, with private sector entities under the TRICARE 
program by January 1, 2018, upon expiration of each such 
contract. New contracts would be competitively procured and 
automatically renewable for a period of not more than 10 years 
unless notice for termination is provided by either party not 
later than 180 days before contract termination. The Department 
would award contracts with a combination of local, regional and 
national private sector entities to develop individual and 
institutional networks of high-performing health care 
providers. The Secretary could not exercise an option to extend 
an existing medical support contract with a private sector 
entity that would delay the award of a new contract.
    Within 1 year of the award of new medical support 
contracts, the Secretary would be required to issue an open 
broad agency announcement to allow potential contractors to 
propose innovative ideas and solutions to meet the medical 
support contract needs of the Department. A medical support 
contract awarded through the open broad agency announcement 
would be deemed to meet the requirements under section 2304 of 
title 10, United States Code, relating to use of competitive 
procedures to procure services.
    For new medical support contracts, the Department would be 
required to include, to the extent practicable: (1) maximum 
flexibility in network design and development; (2) integrated 
medical management between military medical treatment 
facilities and network providers; 3) maximum use of the full 
range of telehealth services; (4) use of value-based 
reimbursement methods that transfer financial risk to health 
care providers and medical support contractors; (5) use of 
prevention and wellness incentives to encourage beneficiaries 
to seek health care services from high-value providers; (6) a 
streamlined enrollment process and timely assignment of primary 
care managers; (7) elimination of the requirement to seek 
authorization of referrals for specialty care services; (8) the 
use of incentives to encourage certain beneficiaries to engage 
in medical and lifestyle intervention programs; and (9) the use 
of financial incentives for contractors and health care 
providers to receive an equitable share in cost savings 
resulting from improvement in health outcomes and the 
experience of care for beneficiaries.
    In establishing new medical support contracts, the 
provision would require the Secretary to: (1) assess the unique 
characteristics of providing health care services in rural, 
remote, or isolated locations, such as Alaska, Hawaii, and 
locations in the contiguous 48 states; (2) consider the various 
challenges inherent in developing robust provider networks in 
those locations; and (3) develop a provider reimbursement rate 
structure in those locations that ensures timely access to 
care, high quality primary and specialty care, and improvement 
in health outcomes. Additionally, the Secretary could not 
modify existing medical support contracts or enter into new 
contracts in rural, remote, or isolated locations until the 
Secretary certifies to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives that those contracts 
would ensure timely access to care, high quality care, better 
health outcomes, and a better experience of care. The provision 
would also require the Comptroller General of the United States 
to submit a report, by January 1, 2019, that assesses the 
compliance of the Secretary with the requirements of this 
section.
    The committee views this provision as critically important 
to reform of the TRICARE program. The Department's contract 
strategy for the next generation of TRICARE managed care 
support contracts, commonly known as the T-2017 contracts, does 
not acknowledge the rapid changes in delivery of health care 
services in the private sector. The T-2017 contract strategy 
fails to focus on development of high-value provider networks, 
and the Department remains fixed on reimbursing network 
providers solely on the number and types of services provided 
rather than on improvement in beneficiaries' health outcomes 
and the experience of care.
    Moreover, the Department's current strategy of essentially 
awarding 5-year contracts (1 base-year with 4 option-years) 
results in a winner-take-all approach that limits competition 
and stifles adoption of innovations in health care delivery. 
The Department and the American taxpayers continue to assume 
all financial risk in those contracts while that risk, if 
transferred to health care providers and medical support 
contractors, would encourage more efficient, effective delivery 
of health care services. The committee firmly believes that 
multiple local, regional, and national TRICARE medical support 
contracts, which transfer financial risk from the government to 
contractors and health care providers, would improve 
beneficiaries' health outcomes, simplify the onerous, costly 
contracting process, and ultimately lower health care costs for 
the Department.

Authority to enter into health care contracts with certain entities to 
        provide care under the TRICARE program (sec. 727)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts to provide 
health care, including behavioral health care, to covered 
beneficiaries under the TRICARE Program with any of the 
following: (1) the Department of Veterans Affairs; (2) an 
Indian tribe or tribal organization that is party to the Alaska 
Native Health Compact with the Indian Health Service; and (3) 
an Indian tribe or tribal organization that has entered into a 
contract with the Indian Health Service to provide health care 
in rural Alaska or other locations in the United States.

Improvement of health outcomes and control of costs of health care 
        under TRICARE program through programs to involve covered 
        beneficiaries (sec. 728)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, by January 1, 2018, to implement programs 
to increase involvement of covered beneficiaries in making 
health care decisions and to encourage beneficiaries to share 
more responsibility for the improvement in their health 
outcomes through participation in medical and lifestyle 
intervention programs. This provision would also authorize the 
Secretary to charge and collect a fee from a covered 
beneficiary, other than an Active-Duty servicemember, for 
failure to notify a military treatment facility, within 24 
hours of a scheduled appointment with a health care provider, 
that the beneficiary will be unable to attend the appointment. 
The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, by January 1, 2020, that describes 
implementation of the programs mandated under this provision.
    The committee believes that the Department of Defense 
should make a greater effort towards controlling health care 
costs for high-need, high-cost patients. Recent studies show 
that comprehensive care management programs can improve a 
patient's health outcomes and quality of life while reducing 
costs for the patient and the patient's health plan. This 
provision would incentivize those beneficiaries with chronic 
diseases or conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, or 
depression, or those exhibiting unhealthy behaviors, such as 
tobacco use or obesity, to participate in comprehensive medical 
or lifestyle intervention programs designed to improve 
beneficiaries' health outcomes and functional status while 
controlling health care costs for those beneficiaries and the 
Department.
    In addition, the committee is concerned about the high 
number of failed medical appointments in the military health 
system. From October 2014 through September 2015, there were 
over 1.6 million scheduled appointments missed by all 
categories of beneficiaries--Active-Duty servicemembers missed 
over 700,000 of those scheduled appointments. Although other 
patients likely filled some missed appointments, the military 
services could not provide accurate data to demonstrate that 
fact to the committee. The large number of failed appointments 
negatively affects access to care for all beneficiaries at 
great financial costs to the Department and taxpayers. It is 
clear to the committee that the military services must take 
this problem more seriously by implementing programs to 
minimize the number of failed appointments in military 
hospitals and clinics.

Establishment of centers of excellence for specialty care in the 
        military health system (sec. 729)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish regional centers of 
excellence for the provision of specialty care to covered 
beneficiaries at major medical centers of the Department of 
Defense. The provision would authorize the Secretary to 
establish satellite centers, when and where appropriate, 
particularly to provide specialty care for post-traumatic 
stress and traumatic brain injury.
    Furthermore, the provision would specify the types of 
centers of excellence that the Secretary could establish while 
allowing for the establishment of additional centers when 
appropriate. The centers of excellence established under this 
provision would serve as the primary sources for specialty care 
within the direct care health system, and health care providers 
throughout the system would refer beneficiaries to those 
facilities. The provision would require the Secretary to submit 
a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, within 180 days of the date of 
enactment of this Act, which provides a plan to establish 
specialty care centers of excellence in the military health 
system.
    After careful study, the committee concludes that 
establishment of specialty care centers of excellence in the 
military health system would result in the delivery of superior 
health care for specialized procedures, therapies, and 
services, and improve health outcomes for beneficiaries. By 
concentrating military specialty care providers in regional 
major medical centers, such as Walter Reed National Military 
Medical Center, Brook Army Medical Center, Keesler Medical 
Center, Womack Army Medical Center, Naval Medical Center 
Portsmouth, Naval Medical Center San Diego, and Madigan Army 
Medical Center, the Department would enhance operational 
medical force readiness by allowing military health care 
providers to practice and train in multi-disciplinary, team-
oriented environments treating complex, high acuity patients. 
This modern approach to the delivery of specialty medical care 
in the military health system would closely mirror the approach 
used by high-performing health systems in the private sector 
such as the Cleveland Clinic.

Program to eliminate variability in health outcomes and improve quality 
        of health care services delivered in military treatment 
        facilities (sec. 730)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a program, not later than 
January 1, 2018, to: (1) establish best practices for the 
delivery of health care services for certain diseases or 
conditions at military treatment facilities; (2) incorporate 
those best practices into the daily operations of military 
treatment facilities participating in the program; and (3) 
eliminate variability in health outcomes and improve the 
quality of health care services delivered at military treatment 
facilities. Under this provision, the Secretary would conduct 
the program in three phases and be required to complete each 
phase within 180 days following initiation of that phase. The 
initiation of phases two and three would immediately follow 
completion of the previous phase.
    The provision would require the Secretary, during the 
conduct of the program, to continuously monitor and adjust the 
health care services delivered at military treatment facilities 
and the number of patients enrolled at those facilities to 
ensure: (1) a high degree of safety and quality in the delivery 
of health care at those facilities; and (2) the delivery of 
only those health care services critical for maintaining 
operational medical force readiness and the medical readiness 
of the Armed Forces.

Establishment of advisory committees for military treatment facilities 
        (sec. 731)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish an advisory committee for 
each military medical treatment facility. Each advisory 
committee would include six beneficiaries eligible for health 
care services in the military health system: (1) two Active-
Duty servicemembers; (2) two Active-Duty family members; and 
(3) two military retirees. The committee recognizes that 
beneficiaries need an official forum to provide guidance on the 
operations of military treatment facilities. Advisory committee 
members would regularly engage with the executive management of 
each military treatment facility to discuss concerns and to 
provide feedback on matters relating to the provision of health 
care services in the facility.

Standardized system for scheduling medical appointments at military 
        treatment facilities (sec. 732)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to implement, by January 1, 2018, a 
standardized medical appointment scheduling system at military 
treatment facilities throughout the military health system. 
Under this provision, no military treatment facility would have 
the authority to use an appointment scheduling system other 
than the standardized system. Each military treatment facility 
would make available a centralized appointment system that 
allows beneficiaries to make appointments, either by telephone 
or by an internet-connected device, including by smartphone 
application, through an online scheduling system available 24 
hours per day, 7 days per week. The online appointment system 
would be able to send automated email and text message 
reminders to patients.
    The committee regularly hears from beneficiaries that the 
multiple medical appointment systems used across the military 
health system lead to extended delays in getting timely care 
and result in poor patient satisfaction. The committee believes 
the current appointment scheduling systems lead to waste, 
inefficiency, and lower provider productivity. The Department 
should quickly implement a new appointment scheduling system, 
universally applied in each military treatment facility, which 
enables beneficiaries to make appointments rapidly and stress-
free. The new, standardized appointment system should enable 
beneficiaries to make appointments at least 1 year in advance, 
and it should send automatic appointment reminders by email, 
telephone or text message.

Display of wait times at urgent care clinics, emergency departments, 
        and pharmacies of military treatment facilities (sec. 733)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
commander or director of a military treatment facility, by 
January 1, 2018, to display in a conspicuous location at each 
urgent care clinic, emergency department, and pharmacy in a 
military treatment facility an electronic sign that displays 
the current average wait time either to be seen by a qualified 
medical provider or to receive a filled prescription of a 
pharmaceutical agent. The provision would prescribe how the 
commander or director should determine the average wait times 
for beneficiaries at urgent care clinics, emergency 
departments, and pharmacies in military treatment facilities.

Improvement and maintenance of combat casualty care and trauma care 
        skills of health care providers of Department of Defense (sec. 
        734)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to implement measures to improve and 
maintain the combat casualty care and trauma care skills for 
health care providers of the Department of Defense by January 
1, 2018. The provision would require the Secretary to: (1) 
conduct a comprehensive review of combat casualty care and 
wartime trauma systems from January 1, 2001 to the present 
time; (2) expand military-civilian trauma training sites to 
provide enhanced training for integrated combat trauma teams; 
(3) establish a personnel management plan for important wartime 
medical specialties; (4) develop standardized tactical combat 
casualty care instructions and training for all servicemembers; 
(5) develop a comprehensive trauma care registry; (6) develop 
quality of care outcome measures for combat casualty care; and 
(7) conduct research to understand better the causes of 
morbidity and mortality of servicemembers in combat.

Adjustment of medical services, personnel authorized strengths, and 
        infrastructure in military health system to maintain readiness 
        and core competencies of health care providers (sec. 735)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to implement measures, within 180 days of 
the date of enactment of this Act, to maintain the critical 
wartime medical readiness skills and core competencies of 
health care providers within the Armed Forces. The provision 
would require the Secretary to implement a measure to ensure 
the military Services do not substitute a medical specialty 
required for medical force readiness with another medical 
specialty. Additionally, the provision would require the 
Secretary to: (1) modify medical services; (2) reduce 
authorized strengths of military and civilian personnel; and 
(3) reduce or eliminate unnecessary infrastructure in the 
military health system such that military treatment facilities 
would provide only those services required to maintain the 
critical wartime medical skills and core competencies of health 
care providers and to ensure the medical readiness of the Armed 
Forces.
    Moreover, this provision would require the Comptroller 
General of the United States to provide a report, within 18 
months of the date of enactment of this Act, which assesses the 
Department's implementation of this provision, to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.
    In May 2014, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) 
published a comprehensive DOD-commissioned study on medical 
total force management and noted that the total active military 
medical force ``generally exceeds the Service-identified 
military essential requirement.'' In the report, IDA stated 
that the military services have ``historically understaffed 
operationally required specialties like surgery while over-
staffing beneficiary care specialties like pediatrics and 
obstetrics.'' The IDA report also found that the military 
services' estimates of medical operational requirements 
``significantly exceed historic deployment levels and staffing 
requirements for deployable units.''
    The IDA report clearly showed that the military services' 
medical force authorized strengths exceed current operational 
medical force readiness requirements. The committee expects the 
Department to: (1) adjust downward the total medical force mix 
to coincide with rational and appropriate operational medical 
force requirements; (2) eliminate health care services provided 
in military treatment facilities that do not directly support 
operational medical force readiness and the medical readiness 
of the Armed Forces; and (3) eliminate excess infrastructure in 
military hospitals and clinics. In making these necessary 
adjustments, the Department should ensure eligible 
beneficiaries unable to receive health care services in 
military treatment facilities have access to high-value primary 
and specialty care services in the private sector.

Establishment of high performance military-civilian integrated health 
        delivery systems (sec. 736)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, by January 1, 2018, to establish high 
performance military-civilian integrated health delivery 
systems through partnerships with other health systems, 
including local or regional health systems in the private 
sector and the Veterans Health Administration. One of the 
objectives of these partnerships would be to transfer health 
care services, non-essential for maintenance of medical 
readiness skills of military health care providers, from 
military treatment facilities to the private sector. The 
Department of Defense would accomplish these partnerships 
either through memoranda of understanding or contracts between 
military treatment facilities and private sector health 
systems, such as health maintenance organizations, regional 
health organizations, integrated health systems, and health 
care centers of excellence, as well as the Veterans Health 
Administration. Under this provision, covered beneficiaries 
would be eligible to enroll in and receive medical services in 
the private sector component of established military-civilian 
integrated health networks. The Secretary of Defense would be 
required to incorporate value-based reimbursement methodologies 
into any memoranda of understanding or contracts to reimburse 
private sector entities for medical services provided to 
covered beneficiaries.
    The committee believes that implementation of this 
provision would improve health outcomes and enhance the 
experience of care for beneficiaries as local military 
treatment facilities create strong synergistic relationships 
with private sector health systems to form integrated high 
performance health systems. These formal relationships would 
foster innovation in military treatment facilities, enhance 
operational medical force readiness, improve access to 
specialized medical care, and strengthen care coordination 
through integration of all activities of these new health 
delivery systems.

Contracts with private sector entities to provide certain health care 
        services at military treatment facilities (sec. 737)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to enter into centrally-managed, 
performance-based contracts with private sector entities to 
augment the delivery of health care services at military 
treatment facilities with limited or restricted ability to 
provide services such as primary care or expanded-hours urgent 
care. Under this provision, contracts would be designed to 
purchase improvement in health outcomes for covered 
beneficiaries seeking health care services in military 
treatment facilities.
    The provision would require the Secretary to submit a plan 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, 
that includes: (1) a description of the number and types of 
contracts the Secretary intends to procure; and (2) a 
description of the performance measures used in procuring 
performance-based contracts.

Modification of acquisition strategy for health care professional 
        staffing services (sec. 738)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 725(a) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 
Law 113-291), which would require the Department of Defense to 
implement a performance-based, strategic-sourcing contract for 
acquiring health care professional staffing services for the 
military health system. The provision would require all 
components of the military health system to use the contract, 
and the Department would be required to develop a process for 
obtaining a waiver, based on documented rationale, to use 
another contract or acquisition approach.
    The committee remains frustrated that the Defense Health 
Agency and the military services have delayed any progress 
towards developing a unified contracting strategy to procure 
medical and dental staffing services in military treatment 
facilities. The current individual contracting strategy for 
medical and dental staffing services leads to higher costs for 
procurement and significantly delayed staff augmentation in 
military treatment facilities. This inefficient contracting 
strategy ultimately hinders access to care for beneficiaries.

Reduction of administrative requirements relating to automatic renewal 
        of enrollments in TRICARE Prime (sec. 739)

    The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 
administrative costs of the TRICARE program by removing an 
annual requirement that the managed care support contractors 
generate and mail an enrollment renewal letter to all 
beneficiaries enrolled in TRICARE Prime. The committee notes 
that the Department of Defense currently uses multiple avenues 
to notify beneficiaries of annual changes to the TRICARE 
Program. This provision would eliminate an unnecessary 
administrative process and save taxpayers up to $2.4 million 
per year.

                 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters


Pilot program on expansion of use of physician assistants to provide 
        mental health care to members of the Armed Forces (sec. 751)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to commence a physician assistant 
psychiatric fellowship pilot program, within 1 year of the date 
of enactment of this Act, to assess the feasibility and 
advisability of expanding the use of physician assistants 
specializing in psychiatric medicine. The pilot program would 
consist of two rounds with each round taking a maximum of 2 
years to complete. Under this provision, the Secretary would 
select a least five individuals to participate in the pilot 
program for each round. The provision would require the 
Secretary to use existing graduate medical education programs 
of the Department to the greatest extent possible in carrying 
out the pilot program. Within 180 days after the date the 
Secretary completes the first round of the psychiatric 
fellowship pilot program, the Secretary would submit an initial 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives on the program. Subsequently, the 
Secretary would submit a final report that updates the initial 
report within 90 days after termination of the pilot program. 
The authority for the pilot program would terminate upon 
completion of the second round of the psychiatric fellowship 
program.

Implementation of plan to eliminate certain graduate medical education 
        programs of Department of Defense (sec. 752)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to implement a phased plan, within 1 year 
of the date of enactment of this Act, to eliminate those 
graduate medical education programs of the Department that do 
not directly support the medical force readiness requirements 
for health care providers within the Armed Forces. The 
Secretary would provide a report, within 180 days of the date 
of enactment of this Act, which provides the Department's plan 
to eliminate graduate medical education programs non-essential 
for medical force readiness.
    The military services currently train military health care 
professionals in a mix of federal and civilian graduate medical 
education (GME) programs. The military services' data show that 
over 5,000 students received training in over 700 programs in 
academic year 2014-2015. Additionally, the military services 
required over 3,700 faculty and support staff to conduct their 
in-house training programs. Further evaluation of the military 
services' data reveals there are numerous GME programs funded 
by the military services, which have little to no direct 
relationship to the support of operational medical force 
readiness requirements. The committee understands that the 
military services have, for decades, relied on GME programs to 
recruit health care professionals, especially physicians and 
dentists, into military service, but the military services 
should now reevaluate their GME programs and right-size them to 
match realistic operational medical force readiness 
requirements. Cost savings resulting from right-sizing GME 
programs could be used to improve overall military readiness.

Modification of authority of Uniformed Services University of the 
        Health Sciences to include undergraduate and other medical 
        education and training programs (sec. 753)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2112(a) and 2113 of title 10, United States Code, to 
authorize the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
Sciences to grant certificates, certification, and 
undergraduate degree programs in addition to advanced degrees.

Memoranda of agreement with institutions of higher education that offer 
        degrees in allopathic or osteopathic medicine (sec. 754)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to create memoranda of agreement with 
local or regional allopathic or osteopathic schools of medicine 
to establish military treatment facilities as affiliate 
teaching hospitals. By sharing training facilities, staffing, 
and material resources, these new academic affiliations could 
help improve and sustain operational medical force readiness 
and possibly serve as productive recruiting grounds for new 
military physicians.

Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-Department of 
        Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 755)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority for the joint Department of Defense-Department of 
Veterans Affairs demonstration fund from September 30, 2017, to 
September 30, 2018.

Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and development 
        projects (sec. 756)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense and each service secretary from 
funding or conducting a medical research and development 
project unless the secretary concerned determines that the 
project would protect, enhance, or restore the health and 
safety of members of the Armed Forces.

Authorization of reimbursement by Department of Defense to entities 
        carrying out state vaccination programs for costs of vaccines 
        provided to covered beneficiaries (sec. 757)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to reimburse an entity carrying out a 
state vaccination program for the cost of providing vaccines to 
covered beneficiaries. Under this provision, the amount of 
reimbursement could not exceed the amount that the Department 
would reimburse an entity for providing vaccines to covered 
beneficiaries under the TRICARE program.

Maintenance of certain reimbursement rates for care and services to 
        treat autism spectrum disorder under demonstration program 
        (sec. 758)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, on the date of enactment of this Act, to 
reinstate the reimbursement rates in effect on March 1, 2016, 
for the provision of applied behavior analysis therapy and to 
preserve those rates throughout the duration of the 
Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program conducted under 
section 705 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 10 U.S.C. 1092 note), as 
extended and modified by the Secretary.
    The committee is concerned that certain changes to provider 
reimbursement rates implemented by the Department of Defense on 
April 1, 2016, have negatively affected both access to care and 
continuity of care for TRICARE beneficiaries seeking applied 
behavior analysis therapy. The committee believes it is vitally 
important to ensure that TRICARE beneficiaries with autism 
spectrum disorder receive timely, uninterrupted services under 
the Department's demonstration program.

Incorporation into certain surveys by Department of Defense of 
        questions on service women experiences with family planning 
        services and counseling (sec. 759)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, to begin action to integrate into 
certain surveys administered by the Department of Defense 
questions designed to obtain information on the experiences of 
service women with family planning and counseling.

Assessment of transition to TRICARE program by families of members of 
        reserve components called to Active Duty and elimination of 
        certain charges for such families (sec. 760)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, 
to complete an assessment of the extent to which families of 
members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces serving 
on Active Duty, pursuant to a call to or order to Active Duty 
for a period of more than 30 days, experience difficulties in 
transitioning from health care arrangements relied upon when 
the member is not in such an Active-Duty status to health 
benefits under the TRICARE program. Within 180 days after 
completing the assessment, the Secretary shall submit a report 
detailing the results of the assessment to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 
This provision would also amend section 1079(h)(4)(C)(ii) of 
title 10, United States Code, to expand the authority of the 
Secretary to eliminate balance billing for families of members 
of the reserve components of the Armed Forces serving on Active 
Duty.

Requirement to review and monitor prescribing practices at military 
        treatment facilities of pharmaceutical agents for treatment of 
        post-traumatic stress (sec. 761)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, 
to: (1) conduct a comprehensive review of the prescribing 
practices at military treatment facilities of pharmaceutical 
agents for the treatment of post-traumatic stress (PTS); (2) 
implement a process or processes to monitor the prescribing 
practices at military treatment facilities of pharmaceutical 
agents discouraged from use under the clinical practice 
guideline for management for PTS published by the Department of 
Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); (3) 
implement a plan to address any deviations from that guideline 
in the prescribing practices of pharmaceutical agents for 
management of PTS; and (4) implement a plan to address any 
instances where benzodiazepines and opioids are concurrently 
prescribed.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
lacks a uniform process to review and monitor prescribing 
practices for the treatment of PTS at military treatment 
facilities. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report highlighted the Department of the Army's failure to 
monitor, on an ongoing basis, the prescribing of medications to 
treat PTS. Since the GAO report only studied prescribing 
policies and procedures of the Army's health care providers, 
the committee is unaware of the extent to which this shortfall 
may extend to the other Services. Without ongoing monitoring of 
the prescribing of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines to 
servicemembers with PTS, the Services may be unable to identify 
and address prescribing practices inconsistent with the DOD/VA 
clinical practice guideline.

Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related services for 
        children of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 762)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
report setting forth a plan of the Department to improve 
pediatric care and related services for children of members of 
the Armed Forces.

Comptroller General report on health care delivery and waste in 
        military health system (sec. 763)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States, within 1 year after 
the date of enactment of this Act, and at least annually 
thereafter for 4 years, to submit to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a 
report assessing and identifying potential waste and 
inefficiency relating to the delivery of health care within the 
military health system.

                       Items of Special Interest


Cancer research programs

    The Department of Defense must ensure that research funded 
through various peer-reviewed cancer research programs 
primarily focus on cancers of significance to military 
populations. In support of this effort, the committee believes 
the Department should further promote collaborative research 
between Department of Defense researchers and non-military 
research institutions on these cancer research programs. These 
collaborations could leverage the research experience, 
knowledge, and infrastructure of civilian research partners and 
lead to greater advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and 
treatment of cancers important to maintaining the health of 
servicemembers. The committee directs the Department to 
prioritize coordination with non-military research institutions 
that are designated centers of excellence in cancer research by 
the National Institutes of Health.

Capability to transport and treat military personnel exposed to highly 
        infectious emerging diseases 

    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
ensure that the Department has the capability to transport and 
treat military personnel who are exposed to and may become 
infected with a highly infectious emerging disease. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a letter 
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives, not later than September 1, 2016, 
describing the Department's plan for: (1) transportation and 
treatment of military personnel exposed to highly infectious 
emerging diseases; and (2) training of medical personnel 
involved in the treatment and transportation of servicemembers 
with highly infectious emerging diseases.

Chronic pain 

    The committee recognizes the considerable human and 
economic impact of chronic pain on servicemembers, as well as 
the current lack of scientific evidence on both the short- and 
long-term safety and efficacy of many chronic pain treatments. 
Further, the committee notes that there is an urgent need to 
identify, research, and develop safe, effective drug and non-
drug therapies that can replace the use of addictive 
medications in the treatment of chronic pain. The committee 
recognizes the Department of Defense's initial steps to 
generate the necessary evidence base to inform the safe, 
effective management of chronic pain in developing the Pain 
Assessment Screening Tool and Outcomes Registry (PASTOR). 
However, the committee remains concerned with the Department's 
progress in implementing PASTOR across the Military Health 
System (MHS). The Committee directs the Department to submit to 
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, not later than September 6, 2016, a report 
describing the Department's plan to implement PASTOR across the 
MHS.

Collar technology

    The committee remains concerned about servicemembers 
sustaining traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in training and in 
combat. Although research, rehabilitation, and treatment 
continues for those servicemembers who sustain TBI, the 
committee recommends that the Department of Defense explore new 
technologies and equipment that may help either to prevent or 
reduce the incidence of TBI. The committee is aware of 
innovative ``collar technology'' that has shown promise in 
greatly reducing the occurrence of TBI in athletic and animal 
testing. This technology improves blood flow in the brain, 
which serves to cushion and protect the brain against an impact 
to the skull. The committee encourages the Department to study 
this new technology.

Comptroller General report on military health professional recruitment

    The military health system faces numerous challenges as it 
strives to deliver quality health care, including recruitment 
of health care professionals in an increasingly competitive 
civilian job market and a projected nationwide shortage of 
certain health care professionals. The Department of Defense 
(DOD) has two primary sources for accessing medical 
professionals into its officer corps--health professions 
scholarships for education and training in civilian 
institutions and direct provision of education and training at 
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 
(USUHS). For fiscal year 2017, DOD has requested almost $275.0 
million for its pre-commissioning health professions 
scholarship program and over $242.0 million for funding USUHS. 
Medical officers graduating from USUHS serve an average of 14 
years following completion of residency training while medical 
officers graduating from civilian institutions serve an average 
of seven years after residency training. DOD also offers 
bonuses and special pays for healthcare professionals, which 
vary by specialty. The actual effectiveness of DOD's current 
health professions accession and retention tools, in terms of 
cost and recruitment effectiveness, remains uncertain to the 
committee.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct a thorough review of the 
recruitment and retention of health care professionals and to 
provide preliminary observations by February 27, 2017, to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. Subsequently, the Comptroller General shall 
provide a full report to the same committees at a date agreed 
upon at the time of the preliminary briefing. The review shall 
address, at a minimum, the following: (1) an assessment of the 
cost and benefits of DOD's programs and policies for accessing 
and retaining military health care providers; and (2) an 
evaluation to determine whether DOD has developed a plan to 
address the potential shortage of health care professionals, 
such as physicians, dentists, nurses, and mental health 
providers, and to ensure an adequate pipeline of fully trained 
military medical personnel.

Comptroller General report on TRICARE managed care support contracts 
        acquisition strategy and program administration requirements

    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct a comprehensive review of the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) TRICARE managed care support contracts 
acquisition strategy and program administration requirements to 
include the Department's efforts to identify and incorporate 
best practices to improve the overall cost efficiency and 
quality of health care delivery. This review should include the 
identification of any incentives or barriers that affect the 
Department's ability to provide efficient and effective health 
care services.
    The Comptroller General shall provide preliminary 
observations not later than 9 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, to the Committees on Armed Services of 
the Senate and the House of Representatives. Subsequently, the 
Comptroller General shall provide a full report to the same 
committees at a date agreed upon at the time of the preliminary 
briefing. The review shall address, at a minimum, the 
following: (1) the extent to which DOD has made efforts to 
streamline the acquisition process and reduce the life cycle 
costs of its managed care support contracts, including the 
identification and use of industry best practices, if 
applicable; (2) incentives and barriers that may affect the 
efficiency and cost effectiveness of DOD's acquisition 
strategy; (3) the extent to which DOD has made efforts to 
modify program administration requirements to improve outcomes 
such as beneficiaries' health outcomes and satisfaction, as 
well as any cost efficiencies associated with health care 
delivery, including the identification and use of industry best 
practices, if applicable; and (4) incentives and barriers that 
may affect DOD's health care delivery outcomes.

Dental implants

    The Committee is aware of efficient, effective endosseous 
implant technologies available to serve Active-Duty 
servicemembers who may require fixed or removable dental 
prostheses. The use of these innovative technologies, combined 
with a renewed effort to provide research-based specific 
guidance with respect to less invasive practices, better 
patient outcomes, notable cost savings, and less aftercare, 
could lead to better, more efficient dental implant care 
practices.
    The Committee is concerned that the current guidelines and 
evaluation criteria used by the military departments may not 
allow for consideration of more advanced dental implant 
technologies that could provide measurable benefit to 
servicemembers. The committee encourages the military 
departments to consider the best available dental implant and 
non-metallic restorative options for service men and women and 
to ensure that current guidance and requirements allow for the 
evaluation of the latest dental implant technologies to meet 
the needs of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

Department of Defense tobacco policy

    The Committee recognizes the importance of the Secretary of 
Defense's 2016 policy memorandum, ``Department of Defense 
Tobacco Policy,'' which updated existing tobacco use policy and 
described efforts to curb tobacco use and reduce its harmful 
effects in the military. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense, and the 
Institute of Medicine, members of the military have higher 
rates of tobacco use than the civilian population, particularly 
among military personnel who have been deployed. Further, the 
Secretary's memorandum notes that about 38 percent of current 
military smokers initiated tobacco use following enlistment. 
The Department estimates that the impact of tobacco use in the 
military population costs over $1.6 billion per year in lost 
productivity. In an effort to improve the health and fitness of 
members of the Armed Forces, the Department's policy restricts 
tobacco use to designated areas, eliminates discounted prices 
on tobacco products at military exchanges, improves tobacco 
education, and improves smoke-free housing options. The 
Committee directs the Department of Defense to fully implement 
this guidance across the military Services.

Expert behavioral science support for courts-martial

    The committee is aware that the successful trial of 
military courts-martial frequently requires expert support from 
behavioral science professionals. An August 17, 2015, 
information paper from the Defense Health Agency revealed that 
the Center for Forensic Behavioral Sciences (CFBS) is the only 
dedicated capability within the Department of Defense (DOD) 
offering specialized forensic behavioral science evaluations 
and consultations in support of the military justice system. 
The CFBS also supports military criminal investigative 
organizations, the intelligence community, and military 
commanders around the world. The CFBS is the only accredited 
fellowship program within DOD for forensic psychiatry and 
forensic psychology. The information paper disclosed the CFSB 
is currently understaffed and this staffing level resulted in 
CFBS's ability to support only about 100 of 366 referrals from 
across DOD, with 69 percent of these referrals involving sexual 
assault offenses. Private civilian forensic experts ultimately 
met the demand by the Services at substantially increased cost 
to DOD.
    The committee is concerned that the existing organizational 
and budget model for the CFBS is inadequate to address the 
demand for these critical services. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to: (1) review the current staffing, 
budget, and resourcing of the CFBS; (2) evaluate the 
recommendations provided in the DHA's information paper; and 
(3) report the result of that review to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by 
September 30, 2016.

Full spectrum ultraviolet technologies

    The committee notes that both hospital associated 
infections (HAIs) and surgical site infections (SSIs) continue 
to be a major, yet preventable, threat to the safety of 
patients and health care workers in both civilian and military 
hospitals. Multiple published, peer-reviewed studies have shown 
that full spectrum ultraviolet (UV) technologies reduce both 
HAI and SSI rates in the health care environment. In addition 
to routine environmental disinfection to support patient and 
staff safety, environmentally friendly UV technologies can be 
deployed as a biodefense mitigation strategy.
    The committee is aware that over 40 federal health care 
organizations have acquired full spectrum UV technologies for 
environmental disinfection and for disaster preparedness. The 
committee encourages the Department of Defense to investigate 
full spectrum UV technologies to support patient and staff 
safety through routine disinfection of hospital environmental 
surfaces and as a mitigation strategy in response to an 
outbreak of biological contamination.

Hearing restoration research

    The committee commends the Department of Defense for its 
research to date on auditory and vestibular injuries among 
servicemembers. Hearing and balance are critical elements of 
military medical readiness. Servicemembers are exposed to 
hazardous noise levels and blast exposure during training and 
combat that result in auditory and vestibular system injuries 
leading to symptoms including hearing loss, persistent 
tinnitus, and balance problems. These symptoms may impede 
communication, reduce situational awareness, hinder threat 
detection, and otherwise impair personnel safety and mission 
effectiveness.
    The committee notes that hearing loss and auditory injuries 
in the military continue to rise and are some of the top 
occupational injuries for servicemembers. According to the 
Veterans Benefits Administration, tinnitus and hearing loss 
were the most prevalent service-connected disabilities among 
new veterans disability compensation beneficiaries in fiscal 
year 2014, bringing the total number of veterans receiving 
compensation for auditory disabilities to 2.4 million according 
to the most recent data.
    The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) established the 
Department of Defense Hearing Center of Excellence, focused on 
the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of 
hearing loss and auditory system injury. Despite the 
establishment of the Hearing Center of Excellence, research 
funding for auditory and vestibular injuries and disorders 
remains limited. The committee is concerned that current 
research and development funding may be inadequate to address 
the magnitude of this challenge, which to date has resulted in 
reduced medical readiness among servicemembers, as well as high 
costs to the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. Therefore, the committee encourages the 
Department to prioritize funding for hearing restoration 
research and consider establishing a research program dedicated 
to this field, especially regenerative strategies and other 
options that may reduce the burden of this disability on 
servicemembers.

Implementation of authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for 
        emerging health care services and supplies

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report, by September 30, 2016, to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 
implementation of the Department's authority for provisional 
TRICARE coverage for emerging health care services and supplies 
pursuant to section 1079(c) of title 10, United States Code. 
The report shall describe the following: (1) the actions 
undertaken to implement the authority to provide provisional 
TRICARE coverage for emerging health care services and 
supplies; (2) the services and supplies for which the 
Department has granted provisional TRICARE coverage; (3) the 
rationale, if any, for implementation of demonstration projects 
for TRICARE coverage of such services and supplies in lieu of 
granting provisional TRICARE coverage; and (4) the impact that 
implementation of provisional TRICARE coverage authority has 
had on access to and provider reimbursement for services and 
supplies, such as molecular pathology laboratory developed 
tests, as compared to non-coverage of those services and 
supplies.

Improvement of prosthetic care outcomes

    In 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs deployed 
advanced, proven lower limb prosthetic digital health 
technology to provide real-world data documenting activity in 
the community for veterans with lower limb prostheses. By 
documenting how patients with limb loss function with their 
prosthetic devices, this digital health technology offers new 
opportunities to improve prosthetic outcomes, increase 
activity, and improve the quality of life for those who have 
lost limbs. Currently, the Department of Defense (DOD) has not 
provided this technology to servicemembers who have lost lower 
limbs or to veterans who receive prosthetic care from DOD. The 
committee encourages DOD to utilize technology that captures 
real-world activity data for amputees to improve prosthetic 
outcomes for servicemembers and veterans.

Maternity care

    The committee recognizes the importance of medical support 
contracts in providing a network of maternity care providers 
for TRICARE beneficiaries. The committee directs the Secretary 
of Defense to review TRICARE reimbursement rates for the 
provision of maternity care in non-contiguous states and 
territories of the United States and to ensure a strong network 
of maternity care providers in those isolated and remote 
locations.

Medical operations in austere environments

    The committee recognizes significant efforts the Department 
of Defense (DOD) has undertaken to improve the delivery of 
medical care in austere environments, including emergency and 
trauma care for the warfighter, as well as countering threats 
posed by bioterrorism and infectious disease outbreaks. In 
recent years, infectious diseases such as Ebola, Zika, Malaria, 
Dengue, and Chikungunya, have highlighted the potential 
military role in responding to naturally occurring biological 
threats. Not only do these diseases pose a significant risk to 
the homeland, but they may also limit the strategic access and 
operational effectiveness of forward deployed forces. 
Meanwhile, emergency and trauma care for warfighters often 
takes place under less than ideal conditions.
    The committee notes that DOD must continue to maintain and 
modernize its ability to quickly and safely provide medical 
care in austere environments. This includes the ability to 
maintain sterile conditions and to control, inactivate, and 
dispose of hazardous medical and biological waste. The 
committee notes that commonly used burn pits and incinerators 
may not effectively neutralize chemical, biological, or 
radioactive agents, risking environmental contamination and 
further transmission. The committee encourages the Department 
to assess cost-effective, alternative solutions for mobile 
medical and biological waste disposal. The committee further 
encourages the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
Affairs to identify cost-effective, mobile options to enhance 
theatre distribution of medical facilities, including 
containerized platforms to expand combat surgical and 
infectious disease treatment capabilities.

Online patient portal

    In recognizing the importance of greater participation of 
TRICARE beneficiaries in managing their health, the committee 
encourages the Secretary of Defense to create an online patient 
portal to allow beneficiaries to: (1) track scheduled medical 
and dental appointments; (2) obtain laboratory test results; 
(3) request prescription refills; (4) track and manage 
participation in wellness programs; and (5) communicate with 
their physicians or dentists. This patient portal should be 
fully integrated with the electronic health record of the 
Department of Defense.

Prescription Drug Abuse

    The committee recognizes that there has been an increase in 
prescription drug abuse among servicemembers and their family 
members. In reforming the military health care system, the 
committee recognizes that there is a move to improve health 
outcomes and enhance healthcare value. The committee expects 
that the Department will be mindful of the growing prescription 
drug epidemic in making this transformation and will ensure 
that any new health delivery system in the military health 
system will take into account potential abuse of opioid drugs.
    The committee urges the Department to continue research on 
alternative treatments for chronic pain and ensure that all 
health care providers receive education and training on pain 
management and safe opioid prescribing guidelines. In addition, 
the committee urges the Department to implement evidence-based 
prevention and treatment interventions to address prescription 
drug abuse and to ensure that all health care providers receive 
education and training on pain management and safe opioid 
prescribing guidelines.

Psychological Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing

    In 2007, the Department of Defense created the 
Psychological Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing (PHRAMS) 
to assess the military health system's (MHS) current and future 
mental health provider staffing needs. A 2015 report by the 
Comptroller General of the United States found that the 
military Services are either not using PHRAMS to assess their 
mental health provider staffing needs or are supplementing 
PHRAMS with Service-specific methods to accommodate for 
shortcomings in the model. The same report found that the Navy 
and the Air Force do not track needs for mental health provider 
staffing but rather ``submit the number of authorized mental 
health provider positions for both the requirements and 
authorizations sections'' of their quarterly reports to the 
Defense Health Agency (DHA).
    The committee is concerned that the lack of accurate 
information from the military Services on mental health 
provider staffing requirements undermines efforts by the DHA to 
assess the need for mental health providers across the MHS and 
congressional oversight thereof. Therefore, the committee 
directs the military departments and the National Capital 
Region (NCR) Medical Directorate to include estimated mental 
health provider staffing needs generated through PHRAMS in 
their quarterly mental health staffing reports to the DHA. The 
committee further directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Health Affairs to make available to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives all 
past and future quarterly mental health staffing reports from 
the military Services and the NCR Medical Directorate.
    Given the Department's ongoing and considerable investment 
in developing and updating PHRAMS, it is important that the 
model provide value to the military Services. As such, the 
committee directs the service secretaries of each of the 
military departments as well as the director of the NCR Medical 
Directorate to review and report on the following: (1) their 
current method for assessing mental health provider staffing 
needs; (2) the utility of the PHRAMS model to their Service or 
organization; and (3) any Service- or organization-specific 
methods they use or recommend to improve PHRAMS' utility. These 
reports should be provided to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 
November 1, 2016.

Reduction of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in military hospital and 
        surgical environments

    Infections resulting from antibiotic-resistant bacteria 
present a common risk for patients with chronic non-healing 
wounds, for burn victims, and for those patients undergoing 
invasive surgery. These serious infections lead to higher rates 
of morbidity and mortality, ultimately leading to higher health 
care costs. Despite the emergence of antibiotic resistance, the 
serious side effects of systemic antibiotics, and insufficient 
tissue penetration of systemic antibiotics as a result of 
impaired blood supply to a wound or burn site, systemic 
antibiotic treatment currently remains the therapy of choice to 
prevent infections because of the lack of a suitable topical 
therapeutic alternative. Studies show that silicate-based 
nanoparticle technology, whether administered topically or 
intravenously, reduces the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant 
bacteria. Accordingly, the committee urges the U.S. Army 
Institute of Surgical Research to assess such technology, and 
in coordination with the Defense Health Agency, report such 
findings to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Health Affairs).

Report on provision of behavioral health and suicide prevention 
        resources to reserve component members

    The Committee notes that providing effective behavioral 
health and suicide prevention programs is essential to the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the Armed Forces and the 
stability of military families. The availability of these 
services varies widely for servicemembers, depending on their 
location and status in either the active or reserve component. 
The committee believes that determining the most efficient and 
effective model for the delivery of these services to these 
distinct populations is in the best interests of the 
servicemembers and the Department of Defense.
    Therefore, 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 October 1, 2016, a 
report detailing the present state of behavioral health 
services and suicide prevention programs provided by the 
Department to servicemembers in the reserve component to 
include: (1) information regarding which programs have been 
determined to be the most effective based on accepted metrics 
for performance; (2) an assessment of any disparity of services 
available between members of the active component and reserve 
component members; and (3) any recommendations for improving 
the delivery of these services in order to effectively and 
efficiently provide for the specific needs of servicemembers in 
the reserve component.

TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program

    The committee remains concerned about beneficiaries' access 
to care for services provided under the TRICARE Comprehensive 
Autism Care Demonstration program. Beginning not later than 
July 1, 2016, and continuing through the duration of the 
demonstration program, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to provide quarterly reports, by letter, to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives on access to care and the effectiveness of care 
among military dependents participating in the program. The 
Secretary shall report, at a minimum, the following information 
by state: (1) the number of new referrals for services under 
the program; (2) the number of total beneficiaries enrolled in 
the program; 3) the average wait-time from time of referral to 
the first appointment for services under the program; (3) the 
number of providers accepting new patients under the program; 
(4) the number of providers who no longer accept new patients 
for services under the program; (5) the average number of 
treatment sessions required by beneficiaries; and (6) the 
health-related outcomes for beneficiaries under the program. 
This provision would improve data reporting on the 
demonstration program and ensure that military dependents with 
autism spectrum disorder have timely access to effective care.

  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

             Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy And Management

Rapid acquisition authority amendments (sec. 801)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) to better integrate 
and conform the provision with the rapid acquisition 
authorities established in section 804 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Authority for temporary service of Principal Military Deputies to the 
        Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for 
        acquisition as acting Assistant Secretaries (sec. 802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 3016(b)(5)(B), 5016(b)(4)(B), and 8016(b)(4)(B) of 
title 10, United States Code, to allow Principal Military 
Deputies to serve in an acting capacity if there is a vacancy 
in the position of the Service Acquisition Executive.
Conduct of independent cost estimation and cost analysis (sec. 803)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2334 of title 10, United States Code, and would repeal 
section 2434 of title 10, United States Code, in order to 
remove the ambiguity concerning the roles and responsibilities 
for the conduct of independent cost estimates (ICE's) by 
designating the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation (CAPE) to ensure standards are met. Currently there 
is confusion and ambiguity because ICEs are referenced in two 
different locations of title 10, which this provision would 
rectify. The provision would ensure that the Secretary of 
Defense is only approving major defense acquisition programs 
after reviewing a full life-cycle cost estimate conducted by an 
independent entity that may also provide cost-saving and risk-
reducing alternative courses of action.
Modernization of services acquisition (sec. 804)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to revise the Department of Defense 
Instruction 5000.74, dated January 6, 2016. The Secretary would 
be required to provide more guidance as to how the acquisition 
community should address the changing nature of technology and 
services markets and also perform a review of the instructions' 
current categories of services acquisition and make changes as 
necessary. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense would be 
required to issue new guidance to address the training and 
development of the acquisition workforce, particularly those 
involved in the acquisition of services.
Modified notification requirement for exercise of waiver authority to 
        acquire vital national security capabilities (sec. 805)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subsection (d) of section 806 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to 
provide for a notification to Congress not later than ten days 
after the any use of the waiver authority to acquire vital 
national security capabilities outlined earlier in section 806.
Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private competitions for 
        conversion of Department of Defense functions to performance by 
        contractors (sec. 806)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 325 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

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

Defense cost accounting standards (sec. 811)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, and establish an 
independent board chaired by the Chief Financial Officer of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to prescribe, amend, and rescind 
cost accounting standards as they affect operations at the 
Department of Defense. The committee is concerned that the 
current cost accounting standards favor incumbent defense 
contractors and limit competition by serving as a barrier to 
participation by non-traditional, small business, and 
commercial contractors. To level the competitive playing field 
to access new sources of innovation it is in the government's 
interest to adopt more commercial ways of contracting, 
accounting, and oversight.
    The provision requires that cost accounting standards 
developed shall to the maximum extent practicable align with 
Generally Accepted Cost Accounting Principles, thereby 
minimizing the requirement for government-unique cost 
accounting systems. The provision would also ensure that 
managerial cost accounting and activity based accounting 
structures derived from cost accounting standards are applied 
to the financial operations of the Department of Defense. The 
committee is disappointed that the Federal Cost Accounting 
Standards Board does not currently have a quorum of members and 
has not met in over three years. Due to this situation, it is 
doubtful that any credible reform will emanate out of this 
board in the future and the committee believes that a DOD board 
will be better suited to meet national security needs.
Increased micro-purchase threshold applicable to Department of Defense 
        procurements (sec. 812)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the 
micro-purchase threshold for Department of Defense activities 
at $5,000.
Enhanced competition requirements (sec. 813)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
definition of competition and the role of the prime contractor 
in determining whether a subcontract meets the competitive or 
commercial test under the section.
Elimination of bid and proposal costs and other expenses as allowable 
        independent research and development costs on certain contracts 
        (sec. 814)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2372 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify in 
what circumstances that independent research and development 
costs are considered fair, reasonable, and allowable expenses 
on Department of Defense (DOD) contracts. The provision would 
authorize that up to 5 percent of the total amount of the work 
performed by a contractor on procurement and research, 
development, test, and evaluation activities during the 
preceding fiscal year could be spent on qualified independent 
research and development (IR&D) and be determined fair and 
reasonable by the Department.
    With this provision the committee intends that 
nontraditional contractors and those contractors who only 
operate on a fixed-price contractual basis with commercial 
accounting systems will be eligible to conduct independent 
research and development on behalf of the Department without 
triggering the need for government unique oversight 
requirements. There should be limited or no change for the 
process to reimburse traditional contractors for IR&D whose 
accounting systems conform to the Cost Accounting System 
standards.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to modify 
the acquisition process to ensure that any allowable costs for 
bid and proposal costs are reduced to the maximum extent 
practicable. The committee is concerned that DOD requirements, 
rules and regulations are driving contractors to increase bid 
and proposal costs to unsustainable levels that ultimately DOD 
pays for in contractor overhead. The committee is also 
concerned that the ability to be reimbursed for these large 
costs puts traditional defense contractors at a competitive 
advantage over a non-traditional contractor who does not 
receive reimbursement for these costs.
Exception to requirement to include cost or price to the Government as 
        a factor in the evaluation of proposals for certain multiple-
        award task or delivery order contracts (sec. 815)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2305(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to provide 
an exception to the existing statutory requirement to include 
cost or price to the Federal Government as an evaluation factor 
that must be considered in the evaluation of proposals for all 
contracts. The provision would only apply to multiple award 
task or delivery order contracts to buy services and the 
Department would then appropriately focus on price when 
individual task orders are issued and competed. The committee 
agrees with the Department's assessment that the evaluation of 
price as a source selection factor for initial contract awards 
on multiple award task or delivery order contracts adds limited 
value. This provision will allow the Department to be able to 
better focus on non-price factors in source selection that will 
result in more meaningful distinctions between offerors being 
made resulting in better value for the taxpayer.
Modified restrictions on undefinitized contractual actions (sec. 816)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2326 of title 10, United States Code, to revise 
policies regarding undefinitized contractual actions (UCAs). 
The committee is concerned that over the past decade the use of 
UCAs by the services and defense agencies has grown 
significantly while the speed at which these UCAs are 
definitized has lagged. To address this situation, the 
provision would: (1) require a written determination by senior 
officials to extend a UCA beyond 90 days; (2) require UCAs to 
be awarded on a fixed price level of effort basis; and (3) 
extend the 180 day definitization requirement to contracts in 
support of Foreign Military Sales cases.
    The committee has been made aware of certain practices by 
the services and defense agencies to get around the statutory 
restrictions on UCAs by ``restarting'' the 180 day clock 
whenever a contract modification is made and expects these 
modifications to be kept to a minimum. The committee will 
continue to review whether UCAs serve as barriers to the use of 
non-traditional contractors and further the culture of a 
reliance on cost contracts and non-value added unique 
government oversight requirements. If this is found to be the 
case, the committee will need to consider further restrictions 
on the use of UCAs by the Department.
Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 817)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2302(9) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
definition of a non-traditional contractor. To address the 
definition of entity which was intended to be interpreted as 
allowing specific business units within a corporation to be 
considered as a non-traditional contractor. The Committee would 
expect that business units shall be defined by the Department 
by unique Data Universal Number System (DUNS) number or a 
comparable identifier that is widely accepted as being able to 
delineate business units within a larger corporate or private 
unit.
Comprehensive small business contracting plans (sec. 818)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section that would codify the authority to conduct small 
business subcontracting plans. The Government Accountability 
(GAO) recently reported to the committee that the Test Program 
for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting 
Plans has resulted in the avoidance of millions of dollars in 
administrative costs and recommended that the program be made 
permanent. This provision would implement GAO's recommendation.
Limitation on task and delivery order protests (sec. 819)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2304c(e) of title 10, United States Code, that would 
prohibit task and delivery protests if the Secretary of Defense 
has appointed an ombudsman in accordance with section 2304c(f) 
of title 10, United States Code to review complaints related to 
task order and delivery contracts.
Modified data collection requirements applicable to procurement of 
        services (sec. 820)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the 
applicability of the contractor inventory requirement to staff 
augmentation contracts and to reduce data collection and 
unnecessary reporting requirements.
    The committee notes that the RAND corporation is undergoing 
a review mandated by section 807 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to 
examine and report to the committee the current approach taken 
by the Department of Defense to comply with section 2330(a) of 
title 10, United States Code. The committee has been briefed by 
RAND and the Department of Defense on preliminary findings 
during this ongoing reporting process, the results of which 
will be released in the summer of 2016. The committee will 
takes those results into consideration during the conference 
process of this Act so as to best capture recommendations to 
modify the current contractor inventory requirement.
Government Accountability Office bid protest reforms (sec. 821)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section to outline the role of the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) in bid protests on certain contracts with the 
Department of Defense. The provision would require a large 
contractor filing a bid protest on a defense contract with GAO 
to cover the cost of processing the protest if all of the 
elements in the protest are denied in an opinion issued by GAO. 
The provision would also impose a withhold on payments above 
incurred costs on any bridge or temporary contract to an 
incumbent contractor who submits a protest and that protest 
results in the issuance of a bridge or temporary contract. The 
distribution of this withhold would be dependent on the outcome 
of the protest.
Report on bid protests (sec. 822)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to contract with a research entity to 
carry out a comprehensive study on the prevalence and impact of 
bid protests on Department of Defense acquisitions. The report 
is due to the congressional defense committees 1 year after the 
enactment of this Act.
Treatment of side-by-side testing of certain equipment, munitions, and 
        technologies manufactured and developed under cooperative 
        research and development agreements as use of competitive 
        procedures (sec. 823)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2350a(g) of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
paragraph to clarify that the general solicitation and testing 
competitive procedures used under the program are competitive 
procedures under chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code.
Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec. 824)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2359b(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to expand 
the scope of the defense acquisition challenge program to 
include alternatives to existing acquisition programs and to 
clarify that the general solicitation competitive procedures 
used under the program are competitive procedures under chapter 
137 of title 10, United States Code.
Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process 
        (sec. 825)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense to revise the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to limit the use of lowest price 
technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection criteria in 
circumstances that would potentially deny the Department the 
benefits of cost and technical tradeoffs in the source 
selection process. The Department would be required to only use 
LPTA criteria in specified circumstances and avoid to the 
maximum extent practicable for the procurement of knowledge-
based professional services such as information technology 
services. Additionally, this provision would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees detailing instances for which LPTA source 
selection criteria was used annually for the next 3 years.
Penalties for the use of cost-type contracts (sec. 826)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
secretary of each military department and the head of each of 
the defense agencies to pay a penalty for the use of cost-type 
contracts in certain cases that are awarded in fiscal year 2018 
through fiscal year 2021. The penalty would equal 2 percent of 
obligated funds in the case of new contracts using procurement 
funds or 1 percent in the case of new contracts using research, 
development, test, and evaluation funds, with some limited 
exceptions.
    The committee is frustrated by the continuous dependence of 
the Department of Defense on the use of cost type contracts. 
While there are some circumstances where cost-type contracts 
may be appropriate, the Department has over the years expanded 
the use of these types of contracts as a forcing mechanism to 
achieve absolute certainty in visibility over contractor costs. 
While this visibility has enabled the Department the ability to 
achieve some narrow cost reductions on certain contracts, it 
has come at the cost of reduced competition and innovation. The 
effect of the overuse of cost-type contracts is the narrowing 
of the industrial base as commercial firms make a choice not to 
invest in the unique accounting and financial systems necessary 
to compete for a cost contract. This expensive barrier to entry 
has resulted in a smaller pool of defense unique companies that 
can comply with government unique requirements necessary to 
execute a cost contract. Commercial companies that choose not 
to invest in expensive government unique accounting systems are 
effectively precluded from doing business with the Department 
when DOD chooses to use cost contracts. This provision, in 
combination with the preference for fixed-price contracts in a 
separate section of this Act, is designed to limit the use of 
cost contracts in the future and focus the Department on 
achieving greater value and innovation through accessing 
commercial, non-traditional, and small business contractors 
that are nimble enough to operate in a fixed-price environment.
    The committee notes that there are some high risk, high 
reward research activities where a cost contract would still 
represent an appropriate allocation of risk between the 
government and contractor. For example, lead ships in new ship 
classes have been exempted from the cost penalty and science 
and technology spending will only be subject to the penalty 
beginning in fiscal year 2019. While the committee has not 
mandated a complete ban on cost contracting this provision is 
designed to set up incentives that limit its use to appropriate 
exceptional cases. The committee believes that through the 
course of this pilot period, the Department can develop and 
implement training and guidance, based on best commercial 
practice, to establish fixed price contract vehicles with 
enough options and flexibility that they can serve important 
high technology defense mission needs for research and 
development purposes. The committee looks forward to working 
with the Department to identify and define the appropriate set 
of cases for use of cost contracts for development, and 
establish rational policies that will protect government 
interests, while still meeting the concerns of technology 
companies.
Preference for fixed-price contracts (sec. 827)
    The committee recommends a provision that would revise the 
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to establish 
a preference for fixed-price contracts, including fixed-price 
incentive fee contracts, in the determination of contract type 
and establish an approval mechanism for the use of cost type 
contracts over $5.0 million in value. While the committee 
understands the flexibility and advantages inherent in a fixed-
price incentive contract, it is concerned that these contracts 
could evolve to look more like a cost-type contract. The 
Department needs to be vigilant in the proper usage of fixed-
price incentive contracts by focusing incentives on achievable 
outcomes and not using these contracts as a gateway to trigger 
government-unique data and accounting system requirements.
Requirement to use firm fixed-price contracts for foreign military 
        sales (sec. 828)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to require the 
use of firm fixed-price contracts for foreign military sales 
not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 
Additionally, this provision would grant the Secretary waiver 
authority if the Secretary determines that a different type of 
contract is in the best interest of the United States 
taxpayers.
Preference for performance-based contractual payments (sec. 829)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2307(b) of title 10, United States Code, to establish a 
preference for performance-based payments to contractors. The 
committee is disappointed in the movement of the Department to 
a greater reliance on cost-type contracts, progress payments, 
and the need for incurred cost audits performed by the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency that is currently woefully behind in many 
of its audit objectives. It was a desire to focus on achieving 
better outcomes for the taxpayer and reduce the unnecessary 
bureaucracy and compliance burden that Congress established in 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 
103-355) the option of using a more commercial payments process 
known as performance based payments. These payments would be 
targeted against achievable goals and metrics rather than 
merely the expenditure of dollars associated with progress 
payments. While the Federal Acquisition Regulation in FAR 
32.1001 establishes performance based payments as the preferred 
Government financing mechanism, the Department has become even 
more focused on measuring cost as an output rather than 
focusing on measuring outcomes for the taxpayer and rewarding 
contractors for meeting those performance objectives. This 
provision re-establishes the policy objective.
Share-in-savings contracts (sec. 829A)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2332 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Defense Acquisition University to develop and implement a 
training program for Department of Defense acquisition 
personnel on share-in-savings contracts not later than 180 days 
after the enactment of this Act.
Special emergency procurement authority to facilitate the defense 
        against or recovery from a cyber, nuclear, biological, 
        chemical, or radiological attack (sec. 829B)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United State Code, to add a new 
section that would grant the Secretary of Defense special 
emergency procurement authority for property or services that 
would facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, 
nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack against 
the United States.
Limitation on the use of reverse auction and lowest price technically 
        acceptable contracting methods (sec. 829C)
    The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) 
prohibit the use of reverse auctions and lowest priced 
technically acceptable (LPTA) contracting methods for the 
procurement of personal protective equipment where the level of 
quality needed or the failure of the item could result in 
combat casualties; and (2) establish a preference for best 
value contracting methods when procuring such equipment.
    The committee is concerned that an overarching bias towards 
reducing prices paid by the Department of Defense (DOD) to the 
exclusion of other factors could result in DOD buying low cost 
products that have the potential to negatively impact the 
safety of U.S. troops. This could be a particular problem with 
the quality of personal protective equipment such as helmets, 
body armor, eye protection, and other similar individual 
equipment issued to U.S. military personnel. While LPTA and 
reverse auction contracting techniques are appropriate for some 
type of purchases, the committee believes that lowest price is 
not always the best strategy when quality and innovation are 
needed. In these cases, the committee believes a best value 
acquisition approach is more appropriate.
Avoidance of use of brand names or brand-name or equivalent 
        descriptions in solicitations (sec. 829D)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that Department of Defense 
contract language does not specify a brand name in 
solicitations unless justification for such a specification is 
provided and approved in accordance with section 2304(f) of 
title 10, United States Code.
Sunset and repeal of certain contracting provisions (sec. 829E)
    The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) amend 
title 10, United States Code, to sunset sections 2212, 2220, 
2228, 2304e, 2421 by September 30, 2018; (2) amend title 10, 
United States Code, to sunset section 1706 by September 30, 
2019; and (3) repeal sections 2245a, 2225, 2302c, 2378, 2387 of 
title 10, United States Code.
Flexibility in contracting award program (sec. 829F)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
an award to recognize defense acquisition programs and 
acquisition professionals that make the best use of 
flexibilities and those authorities granted in the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation and Department of Defense Instruction 
5000.02 (Operation of the Defense Acquisition System) meant to 
increase the efficiency of programs. This award would encourage 
innovation among defense acquisition professionals for their 
work to simplify procedures, use of commercial contracting 
approaches, developing public private partnership agreements, 
and other inventive program management techniques.
Products and services purchased through contracting program for firms 
        that hire the severely disabled (sec. 829G)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from arranging contracts through 
AbilityOne, or its central non-profit agency, SourceAmerica, 
and instead require the Secretary to contract directly with 
qualified nonprofit agencies for the severely disabled until 
the Department of Defense Inspector General certifies that: (1) 
the internal controls and financial management systems of 
AbilityOne and SourceAmerica are sufficient to protect the 
Department of Defense against fraud, waste and abuse; (2) there 
are fair opportunities for qualified nonprofit agencies for the 
severely disabled to compete for DOD contracts under the 
procurement list; and (3) pass-through contracts to contractors 
who are not qualified nonprofit agencies are limited to the 
maximum extent practicable to providing services and supplies 
necessary for qualified nonprofit agencies to assemble or 
produce a final product for use by the Department of Defense.
    Established by Congress in 1938, the AbilityOne Program is 
a unique public-private structure that connects people who are 
blind or have severe disabilities to jobs that provide products 
and services to the federal government, and is now the single 
largest source of employment for these individuals. The 
AbilityOne Program relies on nearly 600 independent nonprofit 
agencies to provide this employment, assisted by one of two 
Central Nonprofit Agencies (CNAs): the National Industries for 
the Blind and SourceAmerica. The U.S. AbilityOne Commission 
oversees both the CNAs and their affiliated nonprofit agencies 
(NPAs) and is ultimately responsible for the performance of the 
program. Given that federal agencies including the Department 
of Defense--are directed to order certain supplies and services 
from Procurement List maintained by AbilityOne in support of 
this objective, there is a requirement that participating 
vendors--Non-profit Agencies-certify that 75 percent of their 
total direct labor hours are performed by people who are blind 
or severely disabled.
    The committee fully supports the AbilityOne program's 
objective to employ people who are blind and severely disabled. 
Given that DOD spent over $2.3 billion through the program in 
fiscal year 2015, and that DOD funds comprise the majority of 
those spent through the AbilityOne program, the committee is 
very concerned about the lack of transparency and effectiveness 
in vetting vendors and subvendors. The committee notes that in 
2013 GAO recommended enhanced oversight of the AbilityOne 
Program in several areas to promote accountability for program 
effectiveness, efficiency, and integrity. Recent media reports 
have raised allegations of corruption, financial fraud, and 
legal violations with SourceAmerica the central nonprofit 
agency responsible for selecting vendors who employ blind and 
severely disabled. Several federal agency Inspectors General 
are investigating these allegations, however, because 
AbilityOne selection of vendors takes place above the level of 
individual departments and agencies who use AbilityOne, only 
the Comptroller General of the United States--the Government 
Accountability Office--has complete authority to audit program 
management and governance.
    Due to the volume of DOD spending through the AbilityOne 
program, its objectives, its exception to competition, and its 
unique public-private structure, governance, and oversight, and 
given the ongoing investigations, the committee has concerns 
about ensuring the program is managed transparently and with 
integrity. The committee asked the Department of Defense 
Inspector General (IG) to evaluate whether the vendors 
performing the work were meeting requirements for hiring 
severely disabled, but the IG was prevented by AbilityOne from 
accessing the documents necessary to perform the review. The 
committee believes that the current inability for the Defense 
Department IG to verify and validate the proper use of DOD 
expenditures is currently untenable. This provision would 
ensure that DOD contracting officers will contract directly 
with qualified non-profits to select vendors until DOD IG is 
able to certify to Congress that the controls and financial 
management systems at AbilityOne are sufficient to protect the 
Department against waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee has 
received no indication of any problems with the operations of 
the National Industries for the Blind and expects that DOD 
operations with NIB will continue under current practices.
Applicability of Executive Order 13673 ``Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces'' 
        to Department of Defense contractors (sec. 829H)
    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
application of the acquisition regulations mandated by 
Executive Order 13673 to contractors or subcontractors of the 
Department of Defense that have been suspended or debarred as a 
result of the federal labor law violations referenced in the 
Executive Order in effect on May 28, 2015.
Contract closeout authority (sec. 829I)
    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense the authority to close out contracts 
entered into prior to fiscal year 2000 without completing 
further reconciliation audits other than those described in 
this section.
Closeout of old Navy contracts (sec. 829J)
    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of the Navy authority to close out contracts entered 
into between fiscal years 1974 and 1998 to design, construct, 
repair, or support the construction or repair of Navy 
submarines without completing further reconciliation audits 
other than those described in this section.

 Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs


Repeal of major automated information systems provisions (sec. 831)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
chapter 144A of title 10, United States Code. The committee 
believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) does not need a 
separate acquisition process for large information technology 
programs and that if these programs (particularly those that 
are national security systems) meet the threshold of a major 
defense acquisition program they should be managed under that 
acquisition pathway tailored where applicable to the specific 
needs of large software development programs under the DOD 5000 
series regulations. For business information technology systems 
the requirements of section 2222 of title 10, United State 
Code, would apply.

Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition program (sec. 832)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2430 of title 10, United States Code, that would revise 
the definition of a major defense acquisition program to 
exclude fixed-price prototypes not planned as part of an 
existing major defense acquisition programs and those programs 
or projects developed under the rapid fielding or rapid 
prototyping acquisition pathway authorized under section 804 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92).

Acquisition strategy (sec. 833)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2431a of title 10, United States Code to require that 
the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition 
program must also consider a comprehensive sustainment strategy 
which includes all aspects of the total life cycle management 
of the weapon system, including product support, logistics, 
product support engineering, supply chain integration, 
maintenance, acquisition logistics, and all aspects of software 
sustainment.

Improved life cycle cost control (sec. 834)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
several amendments to improve life cycle cost controls. First, 
this provision would amend section 804(c)(3) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), to require rapid fielding guidance from the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
to include direction on a process for identifying and 
exploiting opportunities to use the rapid fielding pathway to 
reduce total ownership costs. Secondly, this provision would 
amend section 805(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016 (NDAA) to include life cycle cost 
management as a procedure that the Secretary of Defense should 
establish for alternative acquisition pathways to meet national 
security needs. Thirdly, this provision would amend section 
833(e) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2016 to require the 
Secretary to also issue guidance on policies to maximize the 
use of fixed-price contracts and the ability to implement 
tradeoffs total cost of ownership, schedule, and performance. 
Finally, this provision would add a new section to chapter 144 
of title 10, United States Code, which would require 
sustainment reviews of acquisition programs 5 years after their 
operational capability--unless the program has failed to 
maintain its availability or reliability threshold or has 
breached its affordability cap before that time.
    Additionally, this provision would require the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a commercial operational and support 
saving initiative to insert existing commercial items or 
technology into military legacy programs through rapid 
development and fielding of prototypes in order to improve 
readiness and reduce operations and support costs.

Modification of certain Milestone B certification requirements (sec. 
        835)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2366b(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code to 
eliminate the need for waivers that are regularly submitted to 
the committee for programs that are executed at the beginning 
of the fiscal year but before the future years defense program 
(FYDP) has been submitted, and should receive Milestone B 
certification as long as there is funding in the current FYDP. 
This provision should reduce the number of required waivers and 
therefore reduce unnecessary staff burden.

Disclosure of risk in cost estimates (sec. 836)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
subsection (d) of section 2334 of title 10, United States Code, 
to remove the requirement for disclosure of confidence levels 
for baseline estimates of major defense acquisition programs. 
This provision would require the Director of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation and the Secretary of the military 
department concerned or the head of the defense agency 
concerned, if applicable, to: (1) issue guidance requiring a 
discussion of risk for the acquisition program; (2) ensure the 
required cost estimates are developed based on historical 
actual cost information and that the estimates provide a high 
degree of confidence that the program can be completed without 
a drastic adjustment to the program budget; and (3) that the 
information required by the new guidance on risk be included in 
any decision documentation approving a cost estimate.

Authority to designate increments or blocks of items delivered under 
        major defense acquisition programs as major subprograms for 
        purposes of acquisition reporting (sec. 837)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2430a(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to expand 
the authority to designate increments or blocks of items 
delivered under major defense acquisition programs as major 
subprograms.

Counting of major defense acquisition program subcontracts toward small 
        business goals (sec. 838)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to include a new 
section to include first and second tier subcontracts awarded 
by the Department of Defense (DOD) under major defense 
acquisition programs in the Department's overall count of small 
business goals. Major defense acquisition programs are 
developed by large contractors. Even at the first and second 
tier of subcontracts it is difficult to obtain small business 
participation. Counting small business participation at this 
level toward DOD's top level goal could provide a greater 
incentive for small business participation in these programs.

Use of economy-wide inflation index to calculate percentage increase in 
        unit costs (sec. 839)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2433(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require 
that unit costs be calculated in constant dollars a with an 
economy-wide inflation index, such as the Gross Domestic 
Product Price Index.

Waiver of notification when acquiring tactical missiles and munitions 
        above the budgeted quantity (sec. 840)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2308(c) of title 10, United States Code, to waive the 
requirement for the head of an agency to notify congressional 
defense committees of the decision to acquire a higher quantity 
of an end item for tactical missiles and munitions annual 
procurements. The committee notes that most of the Department 
of Defense's (DOD) tactical missile and munitions program are 
currently below their approved inventory objectives and are 
current warfighting priorities. The committee also notes that 
the effects of foreign military sales, multi-service 
procurements, Overseas Contingency Operations additions to the 
base budget, and improved manufacturing efficiencies, have 
resulted in DOD being able to procure end items above the 
annual budgeted quantity without required funding above the 
appropriated amount. The committee believes that removing this 
notification requirement would provide needed streamlining and 
lower costs by reducing administrative staffing and unnecessary 
compliance burdens.

Multiple program multiyear contract pilot demonstration program (sec. 
        841)

    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense the authority to conduct a multiyear 
contract for multiple defense programs that are produced at 
common facilities at a high rate, and which maximize 
commonality, efficiencies and quality, in order to provide 
maximum benefit and significant savings to the Department of 
Defense (DOD). The committee notes that this pilot has the 
potential to increase savings as compared to the process of 
having separate annual contracts under individual programs to 
purchase such units separately and at lower rates that raise 
costs.

Key Performance Parameter reduction pilot program (sec. 842)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to enact a pilot program aimed at 
decreasing the number of Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) on 
acquisition programs. The Secretary would be required to select 
one acquisition program from each of the services to determine 
if limiting the number of KPPs to three, at the most, leads to 
operational or programmatic improvements of outcomes.

Mission and system of systems of interoperability (sec. 843)

    The committee recommends a provision that would further 
enhance the Department of Defense's (DOD) efforts to adopt an 
open systems approach to defense acquisition. The provision 
would require the Secretary of Defense to implement modular 
open systems architecture in acquisition programs in specified 
mission areas when implementing section 801 of the Carl Levin 
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). The provision 
would require each multi-service and multi-program mission 
outlined in the provision to have a mission integration manager 
to act as the principal substantive advisor to the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff for all aspects of capability integration for the 
mission area.

B-21 bomber development program baseline and cost control (sec. 844)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
specific cost growth thresholds and cost controls for the Air 
Force's B-21 bomber program. The provision would also direct 
the Secretary of the Air Force to submit quarterly program 
performance data to the Comptroller General of the United 
States, who will, in turn, assess the data and provide 
quarterly assessments to the congressional defense committees 
of cost, schedule, and performance trends for the B-21 bomber 
program. Finally, the provision would direct the difference 
between the Department of Defense's annual program budget 
funding amount at the service cost position level, and the 
contract award annual funding profile amount, less other 
government costs to manage the B-21 bomber program or otherwise 
authorized or appropriated, to be transferred to the Defense 
Rapid Prototyping Fund, in conjunction with each subsequent 
fiscal year's budget submission.
    The committee is very concerned with the B-21 bomber 
program acquisition strategy of awarding the engineering and 
manufacturing development (EMD) phase contract using a cost 
plus/incentive fee (CPIF) structure. While the committee 
applauds the fixed-price and not-to-exceed price constructs for 
the low rate initial production and full rate production phases 
of the program, the committee remains concerned that 
performance shortfalls, schedule delays, and resultant cost 
increases during the EMD phase would expose the government and 
American taxpayers to excessive program risk, and in turn 
precipitate a situation such as previously experienced with the 
B-2 and F-22 programs. These programs far exceeded performance, 
schedule, and cost estimates in their developmental phases, 
resulting in affordability issues that ultimately delivered far 
fewer aircraft than the number required to meet combatant 
commander and defense strategy requirements.
    The committee understands unforeseen problems can arise in 
complex, challenging, and cutting-edge technology weapons 
systems programs. However, Congress needs frequent program 
performance reporting, expert assessments, and cost controls to 
properly exercise its oversight responsibilities and make 
critical funding adjustments, or when necessary, off-ramp 
termination decisions, as the steward of precious American 
taxpayer dollars.

        Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce


Improvement of program and project management by the Department of 
        Defense (sec. 851)

    The committee recommends a provision that would outline the 
responsibilities of the Department of Defense (DOD) under 
chapter 87 of title 10, United States Code for improving 
program and project management. This provision would require 
that not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act that 
the Secretary of Defense develop Department-wide standards, 
policies and guidelines for program and project management.

Authority to waive tenure requirement for program managers for program 
        definition and program execution periods (sec. 852)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 826(e) and 827(e) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to 
harmonize the waiver authorities granted in these sections to 
the Service Acquisition Executive or the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

Enhanced use of data analytics to improve acquisition program outcomes 
        (sec. 853)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Deputy 
Chief Management Officer, and the Chief Information Officer, 
and in coordination with the military services, to establish a 
set of activities that use data analysis, measurement, and 
other evaluation-related methods to improve the acquisition 
outcomes of the Department of Defense (DOD) and enhance 
organizational learning.

Purposes for which the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce 
        Development Fund may be used (sec. 854)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to expand the use 
of the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 
Fund. The provision would clarify that the fund could be used 
for the development of acquisition tools and methodologies and 
the undertaking of research and development of activities that 
could lead to acquisition policies and practices that will 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of defense acquisition 
efforts.
    The committee believes there are several areas where the 
Department should be using the Fund more effectively to achieve 
better acquisition outcomes and take advantage of new 
innovation in the commercial and global marketplaces. The 
committee directs that the Secretary of Defense shall review 
the adequacy of current acquisition training in the area of 
better accessing commercial vendors and the use of tools such 
as Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 contracts, Other 
Transactions Authority, Experimental Authority, Rapid 
Acquisition Authority, and other flexibilities in law and 
regulation and consider using the Defense Acquisition Workforce 
Development Fund to improve training of the Department of 
Defense Acquisition Workforce in the use of these authorities. 
The committee is particularly concerned with a lack of 
understanding of the flexibility of these authorities by 
contracting officers, the Office of the Inspector General, and 
the Defense Contract Management Agency.

           Subtitle E--Provisions Related to Commercial Items


Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of 
        commercial items and commercially available off-the-shelf items 
        (sec. 861)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2375 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
establishment of a list in the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement of inapplicable defense-unique statutes 
to contracts for commercial items and commercial-available off-
the-shelf items. These would be in addition to those 
inapplicable government-wide statutes currently listed in the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) pursuant to section 
1906(b) of title 41, United States Code.
    The committee is concerned by the growing number of 
government-unique contract clauses that are now required for 
FAR Part 12 commercial contracts. By industry estimates these 
clauses have grown since the mid-1990s from 13 to 63, and in 
some cases over 80, government-unique contract clauses today. 
With these requirements come additional costs and regulatory 
burden ultimately paid by the taxpayer while each added new 
clause limits the pool of potential commercial companies 
willing to act as defense suppliers. This limits the potential 
competition, innovation, and creativity that is necessary to 
reduce costs to the taxpayer and deliver cutting-edge equipment 
to the men and women of the armed forces. The committee intends 
that this provision be used by the Department of Defense to 
reduce unnecessary requirements on contractors providing 
commercial items that are identified in the report required by 
section 854 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163).

Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations (sec. 862)

    The committee recommends a provision that would exempt 
purchases of commercial off the shelf items by the Department 
of Defense from certain Executive Orders and give the Secretary 
of Defense waiver authority for other purchases. The committee 
is concerned about the increasing application of government 
unique mandates on defense contracting that do not apply to 
commercial vendors when they do business in the private sector. 
These government unique non-statutory requirements may serve as 
contractual barriers and cost drivers to commercial, small 
business, and innovative non-traditional contractors. 
Ultimately, these barriers may serve as disincentives for these 
firms from doing business with the Department of Defense (DOD).

Use of performance and commercial specifications in lieu of military 
        specifications and standards (sec. 863)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Department of Defense 
uses performance and commercial specifications and standards in 
lieu of military specifications and standards, including for 
procuring new systems, major modifications, upgrades to current 
systems, non-developmental and commercial items, and programs 
in all acquisition categories, unless no practical alternative 
exists to meet user needs. The committee is concerned that the 
Department over the last decade has moved away from the 
application of the so-called ``Perry Memo'' dated June 29, 1994 
on ``Specifications and Standards--A New Way of Doing 
Business'' and has returned to adopting defense-unique 
standards and specifications. This provision would codify 
portions of former Secretary of Defense William Perry's 
approach to adopting performance and commercial standards and 
specifications to the maximum extent practicable in defense 
operations.

Preference for commercial services (sec. 864)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to issue guidance pursuant to section 855 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92). This provision would ensure that no head 
of an agency would enter into a contract in excess of the 
simplified acquisition threshold for facilities-related 
services, knowledge-based services, equipment-related services, 
construction services, medical services, logistics management 
services, or transportation services that are not commercial 
services unless the head of the agency determines in writing 
that no commercial services are suitable to meet the agency's 
needs as provided in section 2377(c)(2) of title 10, United 
States Code. The committee continues to be concerned by the 
perfunctory market research being performed by Departmental 
officials that oftentimes results in purchasing inappropriate 
defense unique solutions that are often more expensive for the 
taxpayer. Guidance issued pursuant to this provision should 
ensure that commercial services are first determined to be 
unsuitable to the government's needs before purchasing a non-
commercial service and that conducted market research be used 
to inform price reasonableness determinations.

Treatment of items purchased by prospective contractors prior to 
        release of prime contract requests for proposals as commercial 
        items (sec. 865)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section to chapter 140 of title 10, United States Code, to 
treat the purchase of items valued less than $10,000 prior to 
the release of a government request for proposal (RFP) as a 
commercial item. There are many cases where contractors often 
place orders with subcontractors for material, supplies and 
parts that may be applicable to several commercial or 
government programs in advance of any government contract or 
RFP. Placing these ``advance release'' orders is often 
necessary to align subcontractor lead time (which, for some 
critical parts, can exceed 2 years) with government's funding 
and contracting cycles. This practice is in the government's 
interest because if prime contractors did not place such orders 
in advance--particularly in times of urgent need--required 
items would be delayed to the warfighter. Applying government-
unique accounting requirements after the fact to what are in 
essence commercial decisions and transactions is of limited 
value, and any reasonableness of price determinations on these 
items can be made using similar data and processes used to 
determine price reasonableness on a commercial item. The 
provision would still enable the Department of Defense to 
obtain information required for responsible program management.

Treatment of services provided by nontraditional contractors as 
        commercial items (sec. 866)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2380A of title 10, United States Code, to treat 
business units of nontraditional contractors that offer 
services as a commercial item, if the business unit uses the 
same personnel and similar pricing as offered to commercial 
customers. The Committee is concerned that Department personnel 
are not always open to the idea that services related to a 
traditional Federal Acquisition (FAR) Part 15 program could be 
considered commercial. The committee notes that increasingly 
contracting officers take the position that a service contract 
can be commercial only if it relates to a commercial item. This 
will present a serious challenge to obtaining services in 
today's digital economy. Many technology companies are not 
prepared to offer their services on a FAR Part 15 basis, but 
for DOD to compete in the information age against its potential 
adversaries it will need access to those services, in the form 
of digital offerings, consulting, and analytics, on its 
traditional acquisition programs. The committee believes this 
and other provisions proposed in this bill will remedy this 
situation and encourage commercial services providers to offer 
their solutions more readily to the defense market.

Use of non-cost contracts to acquire commercial items (sec. 867)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2377 of title 10, United States Code, to require that 
the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
shall include that firm fixed-priced contracts, fixed-price 
incentive contracts or fixed-price with economic price 
adjustment contracts be used to the maximum extent practicable 
for the acquisition of commercial items. Additionally, this 
provision would prohibit the use of cost-type contracts for 
commercial items. The committee is concerned that the 
regulatory environment for the use of fixed-price contracts is 
more restrictive than the current law outlined in section 
8002(d) of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
(Public Law 103-355). This provision will ensure that the 
Department of Defense practice will correspond to the 
flexibility inherent in the law and allow contracting officers 
when acquiring commercial items to use the full range of 
contracting tools available to the Department in Federal 
Acquisition Regulations Part 16 that are not cost contracts to 
include fixed-price incentive type contracts.

Pilot program for authority to acquire innovative commercial items, 
        technologies, and services using general solicitation 
        competitive procedures (sec. 868)

    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense the authority to carry out a pilot program 
to acquire innovative commercial items on a fixed-price basis 
using general solicitation competitive procedures and a peer 
review of such proposals. The committee believes that this 
authority will support the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
efforts to access technical innovations from non-traditional 
contractor sources.

                  Subtitle F--Industrial Base Matters


Greater integration of the national technical industrial base (sec. 
        871)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to reduce the barriers 
to the seamless integration between the persons and 
organizations that comprise the National Technical Industrial 
Base and expand the definition in section 2500 (1) of title 10, 
United States Code to include the United Kingdom and Australia. 
The committee is concerned about the barriers that current 
technology transfer rules, laws, and regulations pose to the 
incorporation of commercial technology into defense items and 
to the ability of defense contractors in the United States to 
work with other internal and external corporate entities in 
Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The committee is 
also concerned that universities, non-profit research entities, 
non-traditional and commercial contractors that now conduct the 
majority of global research and development are increasingly 
running up against the U.S. technology transfer regime and are 
choosing to conduct more research overseas so as to not trigger 
export control rules. If these trends continue innovation may 
be increasingly conducted overseas with technology more readily 
available to potential adversaries than to the U.S. military 
because of the lack of civil-military integration of the 
national technical industrial base.

Integration of civil and military roles in attaining national 
        technology and industrial base objectives (sec. 872)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2501(b) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that 
the Secretary of Defense when meeting the national security 
strategy for the national technology and industrial base shall 
engage in acquisition reform efforts that: (1) rely, to the 
maximum extent practicable, upon the commercial national 
technology and industrial base that is required to meet the 
national security needs of the United States; (2) reduce the 
reliance of the Department of Defense on technology and 
industrial base sectors that are economically dependent on 
Department of Defense business; and (3) reduce Federal 
Government barriers to the use of commercial products, 
processes, and standards.

Distribution support and services for weapon systems contractors (sec. 
        873)

    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense the authority to make available storage 
and distribution services support to weapons system support 
contractors in support of the performance of a contract related 
to the production, modification, maintenance, or repair of a 
Department weapons system. The committee believes that this 
provision would decrease Department of Defense costs associated 
with the logistical problems of redundant storage and 
distribution capabilities by allowing the integration of 
material used to support weapons systems into existing 
governmental facilities.

Permanency of Department of Defense SBIR and STTR programs (sec. 874)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 9(m) and 9(n)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
638(m)) in order to make the Small Business Innovation Research 
(SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology Transfer 
(STTR) program at the Department of Defense permanent.

Modified requirements for distribution of assistance under procurement 
        technical assistance cooperative agreements (sec. 875)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2413(c) of title 10, United States Code to conform the 
Procurement Technical Assistance Program with the Defense 
Logistics Agency current practice of using states as the 
geographic basis for cooperative agreement awards.

Nontraditional and small disruptive innovation prototyping program 
        (sec. 876)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
pilot program for nontraditional contractors and small 
businesses to prototype disruptive solutions that demonstrate 
new capabilities that could provide alternatives to existing 
acquisition program and assets. This pilot program would be 
funded out of the Rapid Prototyping Fund established under 
section 804(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).

             Subtitle G--International Contracting Matters


International sales process improvements (sec. 881)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
improvements to the management and use of fees collected on the 
transfer of defense articles under programs in which the 
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has administrative 
responsibilities. The provision would require The Secretary of 
Defense to develop a plan for improvements and to gather 
contractor input on the appropriateness of governmental pricing 
and availability estimates. Additionally, this provision would 
require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit 
a review to the congressional defense committees no later than 
180 days after the enactment of this Act on the management and 
use of fees collected by DSCA.
    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to review the management and use of fees collected on 
transfers of defense articles and services via sale, lease, or 
grant to international customers under programs over which the 
Defense Security Cooperation Agency has administration 
responsibilities and submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report on the review, including--
          (1) the dollar value of fees collected over the last 
        5 years associated with the process of transferring 
        defense articles and services via sale, lease, or 
        grant;
          (2) a description of how funds collected as a result 
        of the fees in paragraph (1) have been used and how the 
        Department of Defense plans to use these funds in the 
        future;
          (3) a determination of whether excess funds are being 
        generated;
          (4) a determination of whether fees are being used to 
        maintain inefficient staffing levels or are being spent 
        for purposes other than those associated with improving 
        efficient and effective administration of the process;
          (5) an assessment of the adequacy, both qualitatively 
        and quantitatively, of Department of Defense staffing 
        required to manage the process;
          (6) a determination of whether the Department's 
        process to administer the transfer of defense articles 
        and services via sale, lease, or grant to international 
        customers is adequate to meet wartime or contingency 
        needs of United States allies;
          (7) an assessment of the adequacy of information 
        technology processes needed to improve process 
        efficiency or effectiveness;
          (8) a determination of whether the fee structure and 
        additional costs associated with utilizing such a 
        process is causing United States contractors to lose 
        sales to foreign competitors; and
          (9) any other matters the Comptroller General 
        determines to be appropriate.

Working capital fund for precision guided munitions exports in support 
        of contingency operations (sec. 882)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish a working capital fund to 
finance inventories of supplies of precision guided munitions 
in advance of partner and allied forces requirements to enhance 
the effectiveness of overseas contingency operations conducted 
or supported by the United States. The inventories of munitions 
would be managed by the Defense Logistics Agency and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff to optimize the storage, distribution, and 
deployment of such precision guided munitions to improve the 
capability of partner and allied forces to contribute to 
overseas contingency operations conducted or supported by the 
United States.

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in 
        countries along major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 883)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 801(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to extend by 2 years the 
authority to acquire products and services produced in 
countries along the major route of supply to Afghanistan. 
Extending this authority is necessary given the ongoing U.S. 
mission in the region and the importance of maintaining 
relationships established in the Northern Distribution Network.

Clarification of treatment of contracts performed outside the United 
        States (sec. 884)

    The committee recommends a provision that would codify for 
Department of Defense contracts the longstanding exemption 
contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 19.000(b) that 
small business set-asides are not applied to overseas 
contracts. The committee is concerned about a recent 
conflicting regulation issued by the Small Business 
Administration that would undermine the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation. This regulation if implemented could potentially 
jeopardize counterinsurgency goals and undermine international 
agreements that the Department of Defense abides by and lead to 
increases in the level of bid protests and contract delays.

Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in Africa 
        in support of covered activities (sec. 885)

    The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 
Secretary of Defense authority to make a determination to limit 
competition or provide a preference for products and services 
produced in areas where the United States has long-term 
agreements with host nations in the African region. This 
provision would enhance necessary long-term agreements and 
stability in the African region by providing economic and 
employment opportunities for host nations and their citizens.

Maintenance of prohibition on procurement by Department of Defense of 
        People's Republic of China-origin items that meet the 
        definition of goods and services controlled as munitions items 
        when moved to the ``600 series'' of the Commerce Control List 
        (sec. 886)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to maintain the 
prohibition on procuring military items from China. Section 
1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 
Fiscal Year 2006 prohibits the Secretary of Defense from 
procuring goods or services, through a contract or any 
subcontract (at any tier), from any People's Republic of China 
military company if those goods or services are on the U.S. 
munitions list (USML) of the International Traffic in Arms 
Regulations. The executive branch has recently revised the USML 
by reclassifying and moving items that are not critical to 
maintaining a military or intelligence advantage or otherwise 
warrant such controls to the jurisdiction of the ``600 series'' 
of the Commerce Control List, with the aim of increasing allied 
access to such items.
    The committee agrees with the Department of Defense's (DOD) 
position that even though the items moved to the ``600 series'' 
are less-sensitive items, they are still military items and 
should remain prohibited for export to destinations subject to 
U.S. arms embargoes and, in the case of comparable People's 
Republic of China-origin items, should remain prohibited from 
procurement by the Department of Defense. As such this 
provision would include under the current prohibition military 
items moved from the USML to the ``600 series'' of the Commerce 
Control List. This would ensure the prohibition remains in 
place for the same universe of items as currently required 
under section 1211 and can be implemented in a change to 
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) 
Clause 225.770. This provision would not expand or narrow the 
scope of items subject to the current prohibition. The 
committee believes that without an amendment, DOD could not 
maintain the prohibition. As a result, legislation is necessary 
to maintain the current prohibition effectively and more 
efficiently and to ensure that Chinese-origin military items 
are not procured by DOD in order to protect the security of the 
supply chain for U.S. weapons systems and other defense 
programs.

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters


Contractor business system requirements (sec. 891)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section that would require the Secretary of Defense to develop 
and initiate a program to improve contractor business systems. 
The provision would clarify that this program would only apply 
to those contractors that do more than 30 percent of their 
business with the federal government and more than 1 percent of 
their business under cost type contracts. This should 
incentivize contractors that conduct more than 70 percent of 
their sales in the commercial market to utilize the same 
business systems they use in commercial marketplace.
    The committee is concerned that the current Department of 
Defense (DOD) business systems regulation focuses on ensuring 
contractors have compliant procedures in contrast to the 
practice in the commercial market where commercial business 
systems focus on achieving optimal outcomes. While prescribed 
business systems may add some value to contractors that perform 
mostly military work, they force predominantly commercial 
companies to either adopt the DOD approach for only a small 
portion of revenue, or split their functional-support 
operations into separate government and commercial groups. In 
either case, DOD effectively foregoes the benefits that accrue 
when the contractor leverages its commercial buying power to 
offer DOD best value and quality. The committee believes the 
Department should maximize the advantages of commercial 
business practices wherever it can and not pay for commercial 
companies to waste unnecessary resources in complying with 
unique defense business systems requirements.
    The committee is also concerned about cost to the 
Department in overseeing contractor earned value management 
systems (EVMS). On September 29, 2015, the Department of 
Defense released a study entitled ``Eliminating Requirements 
Imposed on Industry Where Costs Exceed Benefits''' that 
assessed a number of recommendations by industry for reducing 
the overhead and other costs associates with contracting with 
the Department of Defense. Among other areas, the report 
examined a number of suggestions for streamlining the costs 
associated with administering the earned value management 
systems (EVMS) required on all cost or incentive contracts 
valued over $20.0 million. Currently, for cost and incentive 
contracts valued above a certain threshold, the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) stipulates that the 
contractor must have an EVMS determined by the cognizant 
federal agency to be in compliance with ANSI/EIA-748 
guidelines. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) 
implements this requirement for DOD by conducting compliance 
reviews of contractors' EVMS and annual system surveillance of 
approved systems.
    At the time the report was prepared, the threshold contract 
value for mandatory EVMS compliance reviews and systems 
surveillance was $50.0 million. At this threshold, DCMA 
personnel were required at 142 sites to oversee EVM systems 
associated with 304 separate contracts with a total value of 
nearly $260.0 billion. The chart on page 59 of the report 
indicates that leaving the current EVMS requirements in place 
for contracts above $20.0 million, but increasing above $50.0 
million the contract value threshold for routine EVM systems 
compliance surveillance could result in significant overhead 
savings by reducing the number of sites and contracts requiring 
DCMA personnel and continuing oversight while having a 
relatively small impact on the total contract dollars covered. 
For example, raising the contract value threshold from $50.0 
million to $200.0 million would reduce the number of sites 
requiring DCMA personnel for this function from 142 to 85 and 
the number of contracts from 304 to 163. The total contract 
dollar coverage on the other hand would drop from $260.0 
billion to $245.0 billion, representing only a 5.7 percent 
reduction.
    On September 28, 2015, the DOD issued a DFARS deviation 
raising the contract value threshold from $50.0 to $100.0 
million for routine EVM systems surveillance. The committee 
believes the data show that a further increase of the threshold 
to $200.0 million is warranted and urges the department to take 
this additional step as soon as is practicable. The committee 
notes in doing so that the department would retain its full 
rights to review contractor EVMS whenever it believes that a 
contractor's data quality appears suspect.

Authority to provide reimbursable auditing services to certain non-
        defense agencies (sec. 892)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 893 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to provide an exception 
for the Defense Contract Audit Agency to provide audit support 
to the Nuclear Security Administration on a reimbursable basis.

Improved management practices to reduce cost and improve performance of 
        certain Department Of Defense by Defense organizations (sec. 
        893)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require all 
Department of Defense entities, with the exception of the 
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated 
pursuant to section 2474 of title 10, United States Code, which 
conduct commercial on non-inherently governmental work to 
establish cost baselines for their operations and begin to 
adopt best commercial and business management practices to 
reduce costs and improve the performance of such organizations. 
The committee expects that these organizations will be leading 
adopters of the cost accounting standards mandated in another 
section of this Act.

Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation (sec. 894)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 139 of title 10, United States Code, and section 196(g) 
of title 10, United States Code, that would refine the role of 
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. This provision 
would amend the sections so that the function of the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and 
Evaluation and the Director of Department of Defense Test 
Resource Management Center would be transferred to the Director 
of Operational Test and Evaluation.
    This provision would also clarify the role of the Secretary 
of Defense for Test and evaluation issues with regard to the 
service chiefs and the secretaries of the military departments.

Exemption from requirement for capital planning and investment control 
        for information technology equipment included as integral part 
        of a weapon or weapon system (sec. 895)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the milestone decision authority shall only apply the 
requirements of paragraphs (2) through (5) of section 11312(b) 
of title 40, United States Code, to national security systems 
upon a written determination that the application of these 
requirements is appropriate and in the best interests of the 
Department of Defense.

Modifications to pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative 
        technology projects (sec. 896)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 873 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to clarify that the use of 
a technical, merit-based selection procedure or the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program or Small Business 
Technology Transfer Program for the pilot program under this 
section are competitive procedures for the purposes of chapter 
137 of title 10, United States Code. The provision would also 
direct the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures under 
which a small business or a nontraditional contractor may 
engage an independent certified public accountant for the 
review and certification of its accounting system for the 
purposes of any audits required by this section.

Enhancement of electronic warfare capabilities (sec. 897)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806(c)(1) of the Bob Stump National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) to 
add a new subparagraph addressing the rapid acquisition of 
electronic warfare capabilities. This provision would enhance 
the abilities of the Secretary of Defense to respond to the 
increasingly urgent threat in the area of electromagnetic 
spectrum warfare and more quickly field critical electronic 
warfare technologies.

Improved transparency and oversight over Department of Defense 
        research, development, test, and evaluation efforts and 
        procurement activities related to medical research (sec. 898)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract, grant, 
or cooperative agreement for congressional special interest 
medical research programs under the congressionally directed 
medical research program of the Department of Defense unless 
there is sufficient transparency on cost accounting and other 
specified requirements.

Extension of enhanced transfer authority for technology developed at 
        Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 899)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to extend the 
authorization granted to the Secretary of Defense and service 
secretaries in the Act until 2020. The committee notes the 
importance of the ability for the Department of Defense (DOD) 
to license DOD-owned intellectual property that may not have 
been patented yet and to maintain associated royalties for the 
advancement of DOD laboratories and innovation.

Rapid prototyping funds for the military services (sec. 899A)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 804(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to authorize the Secretary 
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force each to establish service-
specific funds for acquisition programs under the rapid 
fielding and prototyping pathways established in this section.

Defense Modernization Account (sec. 899B)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2216 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 
authorizations for the Defense Modernization Account. The 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has in the past analyzed 
the limited use of the account in several reports and the 
committee included changes in the scope and application of the 
account to address GAO's findings.

                       Items of Special Interest


Defense industrial supply chain security

    The industrial base that supports the Department of Defense 
is a vital factor in our national security capability. For 
decades, the Department has partnered with industry to command 
a decisive advantage when it comes to innovation and 
manufacturing of military systems. Today's defense industrial 
base is more commercialized and more globalized than ever 
before. While these trends have yielded valuable advantages in 
cost and performance of military systems, they also pose new 
challenges in managing supply chain risk and maintaining the 
technological superiority of the U.S. military. The success of 
efforts to better align national resources with current and 
future needs will depend on a robust, technologically-advanced 
U.S. industrial base supporting our warfighters.
    The committee notes that the Department is already required 
to assess industrial base risk in making contract award 
decisions, including factors related to maintaining domestic 
capabilities. Therefore, the committee directs the Under 
Secretary Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to 
assess as part of the annual report requested by section 2504 
of title 10, United States Code, on the extent to which 
manufacturing capabilities of major defense contractors that do 
more than $250 million in business annually with the Department 
has been offshored. The review should identify those 
contractors that have offshored manufacturing capabilities that 
specifically support major defense acquisition programs, 
including offshoring by their U.S. based parent and subsidiary 
companies and U.S. based joint ventures that support the 
defense industrial base.

Expansion of eligible small business concerns The committee

    The committee is concerned that there is a disincentive for 
small businesses to grow their non-defense commercial business 
as they receive government contracts. The committee believes 
that one of the objectives of the small business contracting 
program should be to create entities that can eventually move 
beyond government contracting and compete in the broader 
commercial market. At the present time, a small business is 
penalized if it grows its commercial business by losing small 
business contracting benefits, and this fact serves as a 
disincentive to expanding into the commercial market. The 
committee requests that the Secretary of Defense review the 
advisability of being given the authority to continue to treat 
those small businesses that diversify into the commercial 
market as small business for a limited transition period and 
propose any legislative proposals necessary to encourage small 
business to be successful in both the defense and commercial 
markets.

Modification of commercial items definition

    The committee is concerned about the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) increasingly narrow interpretation of the 
definition of commercial items. The committee considered 
several outside proposals to expand the underlying statutory 
commercial item definition with regards to commercial products 
but at this time decided that it was premature to act as the 
current definition is appropriately broad enough to enable 
commercial companies to modify commercial products to meet DOD 
needs. If, however, the Department continues to inappropriately 
limit the scope of the commercial items definition and the 
committee continues to hear from non-traditional contractors 
from Silicon Valley and other innovative regions in the United 
States that the application of the commercial item definition 
continues to serve as a barrier to their participation in the 
DOD market the committee will reconsider whether to expand the 
statutory commercial item definition as it applies to DOD 
contracting.
    The current ``of a type'' and ``minor modifications'' 
language were intended by Congress to be broadly interpreted to 
expand access to items that were beyond commercial off the 
shelf items. If there is a problem with the definition it 
appears to be the Department's repeated attempts to narrow the 
definition to conform to an oversight strategy that will 
inadvertently lead to less competition, increased costs and a 
greater concentration of defense unique contractors. The 
committee believes the Department should focus more on 
developing the skills and capabilities to price items 
commercially rather than creating a new bureaucracy to 
adjudicate commercial item determinations. Ultimately, to 
protect the taxpayer the Department will need to focus on value 
rather than process when it determines whether it paid a fair 
and reasonable price for an item.

Preserving competition in the defense industry

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
has expressed concern over the negative impacts that defense 
industry consolidation may have on the ability to develop, 
procure, and sustain military capabilities in a cost effective 
manner. Reduced competition can lead to cost growth, 
monopolistic behavior, and reduced incentives for efficiency 
and innovation. The committee further notes that the 
Department's authorities to address potential industry 
consolidation are unclear and potentially inadequate because of 
statutory and regulatory constraints.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to engage an independent entity to analyze the adequacy of 
existing antitrust and foreign investment review authorities 
and the impact of DOD acquisition program strategies on defense 
industry consolidation. The independent entity should also 
examine the national security implications of mergers among 
major defense suppliers, as well as other mergers or changes in 
control activity within industry that may impact the national 
defense. The independent entity should make recommendations on 
possible actions by the executive branch and Congress to 
address issues in these areas.
    The committee directs the Secretary to review such 
recommendations and take appropriate actions to ensure that the 
national defense interest is not jeopardized through security 
risks or an alteration of the defense industrial base that 
would limit competition or create prohibitive costs for the 
Department of Defense.

Small business contract bundling

    The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense, 
where appropriate and to the maximum extent practicable, issue 
solicitations and task and delivery orders as set-asides for 
exclusive participation by small business concerns evenly 
across North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
codes. The committee also believes that the Secretary should 
limit excessive concentrations of small business within NAICS 
codes and limit the award of large contracts to small 
businesses that would force them to lose their small business 
status. While the committee is pleased to see the Department of 
Defense (DOD) meet its overall small business prime contracting 
goal, it is concerned about some of the means to achieve that 
goal. Excessive concentration of small business contracting in 
some business sectors is crowding out the middle tier of 
contractors and leaving very little room for small business to 
contract with the Department after they have graduated from 
being a small business. The committee is also concerned about 
the award of large contracts with small business that allow DOD 
to meet their contracting goals but are leading to a ``one and 
done'' outcome for small business who are no longer small 
businesses once they receive these large contracts. The 
committee expects the Secretary to establish small business 
policies that are designed to create a more diverse and robust 
industrial base and create opportunities and a pathway for 
small businesses to grow and compete for future DOD contracts 
as larger entities.

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

   Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related Matters

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and related 
        acquisition position in the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
        (sec. 901)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 133 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the 
position of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering. The Under Secretary for Research and Engineering 
would assist the Secretary by serving as the chief acquisition 
officer and the chief technology officer of the Department of 
Defense and the principal adviser on scientific, technological 
and acquisition matters to the Secretary and to the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense.
    The provision would also amend section 138 of title 10, 
United States Code, to consolidate certain Assistant Secretary 
of Defense positions and to establish a new position of 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Policy and 
Oversight. The provision would eliminate the statutory 
requirements that establish the positions of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, and the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and 
Environment, but would not disestablish the underlying 
positions. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to 
designate the positions and duties of such other Assistant 
Secretaries of Defense as best support the requirements of the 
Department. The provision would also repeal section 139b and 
139c, to eliminate the statutory requirements that establish 
the positions of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Developmental Test and Evaluation, the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering, and the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial 
Base Policy.
    The provision would also make conforming amendments and 
would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 
the Committees of Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, with recommendations for conforming and such other 
amendments as the Secretary considers appropriate to effect the 
amendments made by this provision.
    In the 1960s and the 1970s the Director of Defense for 
Research and Engineering which later became the Undersecretary 
of Defense for Research and Engineering in 1977 led 
technological innovation in the Department of Defense. The 
position was held by leaders such as Harold Brown and William 
Perry, each of whom later became Secretary of Defense. The 
USD(R&E) was the catalyst behind the Department's Second Offset 
program, which led to the development of stealth, precision 
guided munitions, and other revolutionary capabilities that 
advanced our nation's military technological dominance to this 
day.
    During a series of hearings on defense reform, the 
committee heard from a wide range of experts that the U.S. 
military was falling behind technologically and that the 
current acquisition structure and process were significant 
factors in the inability to access new sources of innovation. 
The committee believes that reestablishing the position of the 
USD(R&E) is particularly important in a time when U.S. 
technological dominance is eroding and innovation is 
increasingly being driven by commercial and global companies 
that are not a part of the traditional U.S. defense industrial 
base. The committee expects that just as previous USD(R&E) 
incumbents led the so-called ``Second Offset'' strategy, which 
successfully enabled the United States to leap ahead of the 
Soviet Union in terms of military technology, the new USD(R&E) 
would be tasked with driving the key technologies that must 
encompass what defense leaders are now calling a ``Third 
Offset'' strategy: cyber and space capabilities, unmanned 
systems, directed energy, undersea warfare, hypersonics, and 
robotics, among others.
    The existing Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, 
Chemical, and Biological Defense would be part of this new 
USD(R&E) because of the centrality of the nuclear modernization 
mission. In addition, the committee expects the USD(R&E) to 
leverage offices such as the Strategic Capabilities Office and 
the Rapid Capabilities Offices in the services, which have been 
created recently to move faster around the current acquisition 
system and to transition developed technologies more quickly 
from the laboratory to deployment. In addition, the committee 
anticipates that the USD(R&E) will be a unifying force to focus 
the efforts of the defense laboratories, as well as agencies 
with critical innovation missions, such as the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 
and the Missile Defense Agency on achieving and maintaining 
U.S. defense technological dominance.
    To enable the USD(R&E) to primarily focus on the innovation 
mission, this provision creates a new Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition Policy and Oversight under the USD(R&E) 
and transfers several agencies focused on the execution of 
acquisition functions to the Under Secretary for Management and 
Support. Continuing to maintain these functions under the 
USD(R&E) would likely divert needed senior management attention 
away from the impending threats that the nation faces and the 
necessity to advance innovation throughout the Department and 
with partners in the defense and commercial sector. In addition 
a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics and Sustainment was 
created to support the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition Policy and Oversight on these matters.
    The changes included in the provision are informed by the 
committee's observation that the official serving as the chief 
acquisition and technology officer should be focused on 
envisioning and developing the advanced technologies that the 
nation will need over the next decade or two to stay far ahead 
of our strategic adversaries. The committee believes that 
improving defense innovation requires a greater willingness to 
experiment and accept risk. Experimentation and even occasional 
failure cannot be stigmatized, so long as failure occurs 
quickly, cheaply, and leads to knowledge that can drive toward 
eventual success. That is a different kind of culture than the 
pervasive caution and slowness that currently exists across the 
Department of Defense acquisition and research enterprises.
    One former Deputy Secretary of Defense recently observed 
that the nation lost something important thirty years ago when 
USD(R&E) was folded together with all other acquisition 
functions under USD(AT&L). The numerous acquisition reform 
authorities contained in last year's National Defense 
Authorization Act, and the many more proposed in this year's 
Act, are largely focused on empowering the Secretary of Defense 
to work around DOD's slow and costly acquisition system, to 
access new centers of innovation and disruptive new 
technologies in our commercial economy, and to reclaim our 
eroding defense technological advantage. This was the mission 
that the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering once 
performed so effectively, and the committee believes should be 
empowered to do again.
Qualifications for appointment of the Secretaries of the military 
        departments (sec. 902)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 3013, 5013, 8013 of title 10, United States Code, to 
prescribe management experience of large and complex 
organizations as qualification required for individuals to 
serve as the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, 
respectively.
Establishment of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Information (Chief 
        Information Officer) in Office of Secretary of Defense (sec. 
        903)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
paragraph 8 of section 132(b) of title 10, United States Code, 
to establish the position of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Information. As the Chief Information Officer of the 
Department, the Assistant Secretary will report to the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense and be responsible 
for cyber and space policy, information network defense, 
policies and standards governing information technology systems 
and related information security activities of the Department, 
and oversight of the Defense Information Systems Agency.
Reduction in maximum number of personnel in Office of the Secretary of 
        Defense and other Department of Defense headquarters offices 
        (sec. 904)
    The committee recommends a provision that would:
          (1) amend section 143 of title 10, United States 
        Code, to limit the number of civilian and detailed 
        individuals authorized to be assigned to the Office of 
        the Secretary of Defense to 3,767;
          (2) amend section 155 of title 10, to limit the 
        number of personnel on the Joint Staff to 1,930 
        including not more than 1,500 Active-Duty 
        servicemembers;
          (3) amend section 3014 of title 10, to limit the 
        total number of members of the Armed Forces and 
        civilian employees of the Department of the Army 
        assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of 
        the Secretary of the Army and on the Army staff to 
        3,105; and to reduce the total number of general 
        officers assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the 
        Office of the Secretary of the Army and on the Army 
        staff from 67 to 50.
          (4) amend section 5014 of title 10, to limit the 
        total number of members of the Armed Forces and 
        civilian employees of the Department of the Navy 
        assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of 
        the Secretary of the Navy and on the Navy staff to 
        2,866; and to reduce the total number of flag officers 
        assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of 
        the Secretary of the Navy and on the Navy staff from 67 
        to 50.
          (5) amend section 8014 of title 10, to limit the 
        total number of members of the Armed Forces and 
        civilian employees of the Department of the Air Force 
        assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of 
        the Secretary of the Air Force and on the Air Force 
        staff to 2,639; and to reduce the total number of 
        general officers assigned or detailed to permanent duty 
        in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and on 
        the Air Force staff from 60 to 45.
    The provision would further clarify the exceptions to the 
personnel limits. It would allow the limits to be increased by 
15 percent during a national emergency.
Limitations on funds used for staff augmentation contracts at 
        management headquarters of the Department of Defense and the 
        military departments (sec. 905)
    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
amount of funds available for staff augmentation contracts at 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the headquarters of 
the military departments for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 to not 
more than the amount expended for those contracts in fiscal 
year 2016. The provision would further require a 25 percent 
reduction to the fiscal year 2016 funding for those contracts 
after fiscal year 2018.
Unit within the Office of the Secretary of Defense supporting 
        achievement of results in Department of Defense management 
        reform and business transformation efforts (sec. 906)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Secretary of Defense with the authority to establish a delivery 
unit that would report directly to the Secretary to provide 
expertise and support needed to deliver results on key reform 
and business transformation priorities across the Department 
for no more than four years beginning February 1, 2017. Such 
delivery unit may utilize the public-private talent exchange 
authorities available to the Secretary and consist of no more 
than 30 professionals with deep experience in management 
consulting, organization transformation, and data analytics. 
The delivery unit's mission is as follows: (1) help line 
managers develop and implement roadmaps to achieve reform 
targets set by the next Secretary of Defense and (2) enable the 
Secretary and Deputy to monitor progress and make course 
corrections in near real time for faster, data-driven decision 
making. Such delivery unit shall leverage on the Department's 
current exchange programs with the private sector to utilize 
proven data analytics and management consulting practices. An 
authorization of $30.0 million will be made available for the 
delivery unit and will not be available for expenditure until 
February 1, 2017.

                 Subtitle B--Combatant Command Matters

Joint Chiefs of Staff and related combatant command matters (sec. 921)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 151 and 153 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 
the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
key duties that this officer must perform on behalf of the 
joint force: providing advice on the military elements of 
defense strategy and the global integration of military 
activities, and advocating for the joint warfighter of today 
and tomorrow, especially with respect to developing joint 
capabilities, ensuring comprehensive joint readiness, and 
fostering joint force development. While the personalities of 
different Chairmen will always have a bearing on how they 
execute the duties of the position, this provision seeks to 
clarify that role and thereby set an expectation that the 
preponderance of any Chairman's time should be devoted to the 
key strategic, global, and joint duties that are the unique 
purview of the Chairman.
    The provision would also enhance the role of the other 
members of the Joint Chiefs, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a 
corporate body, to provide military advice to civilian leaders, 
including on the military elements of strategy. Current law 
leaves it at the Chairman's discretion how much to consult with 
the other Joint Chiefs and whether to inform civilian leaders 
of any difference of opinions or alternative military advice 
among them. This provision would seek to strike a better 
balance between enabling the Chairman to act energetically and 
quickly as the principal military adviser to civilian leaders.
    The provision would also strike the requirement that the 
Joint Chief provide advice to civilian leaders ``upon 
request.'' A statutory requirement that the Chiefs should 
follow orders strikes the committee as unnecessary. At the same 
time, the committee is concerned that this section of the law 
could be interpreted to suggest that the Joint Chiefs can only 
provide advice upon request. For that reason, the committee 
recommends removing the requirement.
    The committee also recommends a provision that would amend 
section 152 of title 10, to modify the term of service of the 
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At 
present, both officers serve two year terms with eligibility 
for a two year renewal, provided the consent of the Senate in 
both cases. The committee agrees with Secretary of Defense 
Robert Gates, who testified to the committee on October 21, 
2015, that the existing term of service created unintended and 
unnecessary adverse consequences, and that it should be 
replaced with single four-year terms, with the authority for a 
single two-year extension.
    At the same time, the committee recommends a provision that 
would amend section 154 of title 10, to require the Department 
of Defense to return to the staggered terms of service for the 
Chairman and Vice Chairman, which would prevent both officers 
from turning over at the same time, which has been the case 
since 2007 but was not as the law originally intended. The 
committee also recommends a provision that prohibit the Vice 
Chairman from being eligible to serve as the Chairman or any 
other position in the armed services. The committee believes 
that this adjustment to the law would ensure a high quality of 
military advice to civilian leaders, and ultimately strengthen 
civilian control over the military.
    The committee also recommends a provision that would amend 
section 164 of title 10, to more clearly define the role of the 
combatant commanders (COCOMs). The law that defines the COCOM's 
duties simply states that they shall perform the missions 
assigned by the Secretary and the President. It provides no 
guidance about the substance of those duties. This provision 
would establish that the primary duties of the COCOMs are to 
execute the national defense strategies in consultation with 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prepare and plan 
for conflict, to take necessary actions to deter conflict, and 
if directed by the Secretary, to command U.S. armed forces in 
combat. This provision would not prohibit the COCOMs from 
performing other missions, many of which are vitally important, 
but would rather seek to focus the COCOMs more clearly on their 
core missions of warfighting excellence, which is what the 
commands were established to do.
    Finally, the committee recommends a provision that would 
amend chapter 6 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a 
new section 163a that would create a Combatant Commanders 
Council, consisting of all the COCOMs, the Chairman and Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of 
Defense, who would convene the Council and set the agenda, but 
could delegate that authority to the Chairman. In the event 
that the Secretary did not attend a meeting of the Council, he 
could send a representative. The purpose of the Council would 
be to aid in the execution of defense strategy and the global 
integration of military activities across the regional and 
functional divisions of the COCOMs. This is increasingly 
important in light of the fact that the highest priority 
worldwide threats facing the United States increasingly span 
multiple COCOM areas and domains of responsibility and require 
their seamless integration.

Delegation to Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff of authority to direct 
        transfer of forces (sec. 922)

    The committee recommends a provision, requested by the 
Department of Defense, that would amend section 113 of title 
10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to 
delegate some authority to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff for the worldwide reallocation of limited military assets 
on a short-term basis, consistent with the Secretary's policy 
guidance and the national defense strategy. The Secretary would 
retain control over whether to delegate any authority--and if 
so, how much--and would be fully informed of any actions taken 
by the Chairman.
    At present, the Chairman is solely an advisor. He or she 
has no authority to command any forces or assets, which was one 
way that the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 guarded against over-centralizing 
military power in the Chairman's hands and protected civilian 
control of the military. As a result, any transfer from one 
COCOM area of responsibility to another of any military 
capability, be it an aircraft carrier or a military working 
dog, must be approved by the Secretary. In light of present and 
future transnational challenges, the committee is believes the 
law is overly restrictive, and leads to a less responsive and 
efficient global integration of defense strategy and military 
operations, which could become more pronounced and problematic 
during a crisis. The purpose of this provision would therefore 
be to strengthen the Chairman's ability to assist the Secretary 
with the global integration of military operations in order to 
address transregional, cross-functional, and multi-domain 
threats more effectively.

Organization of the Department of Defense for management of special 
        operations forces and special operations (sec. 923)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 138 and 167 of title 10, United States Code, to modify 
the roles and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD 
SOLIC) and the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM).
    The committee notes that since 2001, SOCOM has undergone 
significant growth. During that time, SOCOM personnel numbers 
(civilian and military) have nearly doubled, its budget nearly 
tripled, and overseas deployments of special operations forces 
(SOF) nearly quadrupled. At the same time, the office of the 
ASD SOLIC, which is responsible for ``the overall supervision 
(including oversight of policy and resources) of special 
operations activities,'' has increasingly focused attention on 
operational issues as well as assuming responsibilities for 
counter-narcotics programs, building partner capacity 
initiatives, and humanitarian and disaster relief efforts of 
the DOD, which have stretched the resources available to the 
office.
    As a result, ASD SOLIC's ability to provide appropriate 
``service secretary-like'' oversight of and advocacy for the 
``man, train, and equip'' aspects of SOCOM have become more 
difficult. Additionally, other civilian offices with greater 
seniority within the Department exercise related and, at times, 
overlapping responsibilities for aspects of SOF oversight, 
further complicating the ASD SOLIC's ``service secretary-like'' 
oversight responsibilities of SOCOM.
    To address these issues, the recommended provision would 
empower the ASD SOLIC with ``the overall supervision (including 
oversight of policy, program planning and execution, and 
allocation and use of resources) of special operations 
activities.'' Further, the provision would mirror the 
relationship between the service secretaries and the military 
services by defining the administrative chain of command for 
SOCOM as running through the ASD SOLIC to the Secretary of 
Defense for ``service-like'' issues impacting the readiness and 
organization of SOF, special operations-peculiar resources and 
equipment, and civilian personnel management. It would not 
impact the operational chain of command for SOF activities or 
the ``service-common'' responsibilities of the military 
services including personnel and other matters that are not 
special operations-peculiar. Additionally, the provision would 
establish a team, led by the ASD SOLIC, for the purposes of 
better integrating efforts of the various functional offices 
with responsibilities for SOF issues.
    Lastly, recognizing the growth and maturity of SOCOM and 
the responsibility of its commander for the overall readiness 
of SOF, the recommended provision would enhance the ability of 
the commander to coordinate with the military services on 
issues impacting the readiness of SOF, most notably 
assignments, retention, training, professional military 
education, and special and incentive pays.

Pilot program on organization of subordinate commands of a unified 
        combatant command as joint task forces (sec. 924)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to initiate a pilot program on organizing 
the subordinate commands of a unified combatant command in the 
form of joint task forces. The Secretary would be required to 
establish the pilot program in at least one unified combatant 
command. The Secretary would be required to develop, for each 
combatant command participating in the pilot program, a plan to 
disestablish subordinate commands, identify major threat-based 
missions and contingencies in the area of responsibility, and 
establish subordinate commands as joint task forces. The plans 
will be developed in consultation with the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander of the combatant 
command participating in the pilot program. The provision 
includes specific guidance on the objectives of each joint task 
force created, and how the creation of the joint task forces in 
general are intended to overcome problems in the organization, 
mission performance, planning and decision-making, and 
prioritization that can be improved through trans-regional, 
cross-functional, and multi-domain threats.
    The plans required to be developed under the provision 
shall be completed by March 1, 2017, and implemented not later 
than September 1, 2017. The Secretary shall submit the plans to 
the congressional defense committees. The Secretary shall 
provide a report on each plan so created not later than 
September 1, 2018.

Expansion of eligibility for deputy commander of combatant command 
        having United States among geographic area of responsibility to 
        include officers of the Reserves (sec. 925)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 164 of title 10, United States Code, to require that at 
least one deputy commander of the combatant command of the 
geographic area of responsibility which includes the United 
States be a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, 
unless a reserve component officer is serving as commander of 
that combatant command.

Subtitle C--Organization and Management of Other Department of Defense 
                          Offices and Elements


Organizational strategy for the Department of Defense (sec. 941)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement an organizational 
strategy for the Department of Defense (DOD). This strategy 
would enable the Department to focus its attention and 
resources on its most important missions and objectives through 
the introduction of mechanisms to integrate planning and 
decision-making across its functionally aligned organizations, 
accompanied by cultural changes in the Department to emphasize 
collaboration and teamwork.
    The provision would require the Secretary, in developing 
the strategy, to (1) identify the most important missions and 
other priority output of the Department; (2) reform the way 
that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) operates; (3) 
improve the management of relationships and processes involving 
OSD, the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, the military 
departments, and the defense agencies; and (4) improve support 
to the President and the National Security Council.
    The objectives of the strategy are to enable DOD to 
integrate the expertise and capacities of its functional 
components to effective and efficient accomplishment of the 
Department's most important missions, and to enable the 
Department to operate at higher efficiencies with reduced 
layers of management and staffing.
    The strategy is required to address, and be designed to 
overcome, a series of existing impediments, including (1) 
sequential, hierarchical planning and decision-making processes 
oriented around functional bureaucratic structures that are 
excessively parochial, duplicative, and resistant to integrated 
operations and solutions; and (2) layered management structures 
and processes that today serve as the only means of cross-
functional integration and decision-making, which results in 
most decisions being elevated to senior levels, consuming 
excessive time and leadership attention, diluting the influence 
of staff expertise, and contributing to outcomes based on 
lowest-common-denominator consensus rather than clear, 
coherent, efficacious courses of action.
    The strategy must address the underlying causes of these 
problems, including (1) a non-collaborative culture in DOD that 
lacks shared purpose and values; (2) structure, processes and 
leadership behaviors that value consensus more than clarity and 
reward effort rather than effectiveness, which thus empower 
components to easily block but not advance coherent initiatives 
and are a powerful disincentive to collaboration; (3) risk 
aversion arising from fear of the consequences of real or 
perceived failure and the lack of incentives and rewards for 
appropriate risk-taking; (4) lack of viable alternative 
mechanisms for integrating across the almost exclusively 
functionally aligned components of the Department. Finally, the 
provision would require that the Secretary's strategy 
establish, or take specific actions, to achieve (1) effective 
cross-functional mission teams to manage the major issues and 
other high-priority outputs of the Department that inherently 
cross functional boundaries; (2) a collaborative, team-
oriented, results-driven and innovative culture within the 
Department; (3) a simplified organizational structure with 
reduced layers of management and fewer duplicative staff 
elements; and (4) streamlined processes designed to improve 
performance and outcomes in less time.
    In support of the strategy, the provision would require the 
Secretary to establish cross-functional mission teams to 
produce comprehensive and fully integrated policies, 
strategies, plans, resourcing, and oversight; and to empower 
these teams to supervise the implementation of mission 
strategies.
    The Secretary would be required to issue a directive on the 
role, authorities, resourcing, manning, and operations of the 
mission teams, which must specify that the teams are decision-
making rather than advisory bodies, and provide clear direction 
that the leaders of DOD's functional components providing 
personnel to the teams (1) not interfere in the activities of 
the team; (2) shall instruct personnel assigned to the teams to 
faithfully represent the views and expertise of their 
functional components while contributing to the best of their 
ability to the success of the mission team concerned; and (3) 
shall be assessed for performance review purposes according to 
their support to, and cooperation with, the mission teams 
interacting with their functional components.
    In creating the cross-functional mission teams required by 
the provision, the Secretary would be required to consider all 
the major functions of the Department of Defense; that is, 
representation from OSD, the Joint Staff, the military 
departments, and the defense agencies in the functional areas 
of policy, strategy, intelligence, budget, research and 
engineering, procurement, manpower, logistics, cost assessment 
and program evaluation, test and evaluation, or any other 
functional area the Secretary deems appropriate given the 
team's assigned mission.
    The committee stresses that the mission teams must remain 
small and agile, numbering approximately 8-10 people. This is a 
critical point. One way that teams fail in DOD is that every 
organization that thinks its equities might be affected insists 
on having a representative on the group. This bloats and 
infiltrates the group with people who only care about 
protecting their parent organizations' equities.
    The provision would require that team leaders (1) be 
selected from among experienced and highly qualified military 
personnel in the grade of general or flag officer, or civilians 
from the Senior Executive Service, and report directly to the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense; (2) be delegated the 
authority to select members of their teams from among 
candidates of any grade or rank recommended by all components 
of the Department; (3) be delegated the authority to require 
the full-time support from team members as the team leader 
considers appropriate, and to co-locate the team physically; 
(4) ensure that team members are properly trained in teamwork, 
resolving healthy conflicts between competing perspectives, 
collaboration, and that team members understand their role in 
representing the views and expertise of their functional 
components without inappropriately pursuing the narrow 
interests of their home organizations; and (5) are made 
available to the congressional defense committees to provide 
testimony and other forms of updates on the progress of the 
mission teams they manage.
    The provision would require the Secretary to approve the 
charter and internal planning strategy of each team, and to 
specify what, if any, decision-making authority the Secretary 
shall retain regarding the team's activities. The more 
authority the Secretary retains the more the Secretary will 
have to be involved in the team's ongoing activities. Otherwise 
the Secretary delegates authority to the teams to make 
decisions both with regard to drawing upon the resources and 
information of functional components, and making substantive 
decisions regarding the formulation and execution of their 
strategies. In this regard, the committee stresses that the 
team leaders shall have presumptive authority to draw upon the 
resources and information of the functional components of the 
Department. Without this presumptive authority the teams will 
not succeed. However, the provision also includes a ``right of 
appeal'' for the heads of components who believe that a mission 
team decision might have very serious adverse consequences for 
their components. The committee emphasizes that this right of 
appeal should be limited to principled, substantive concerns, 
and is not at all a license to protect narrow bureaucratic 
interests. The committee expects the Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary to have little patience or tolerance for unprincipled 
appeals under this authority.
    The provision would require the Secretary to conduct a 
review of industry and government successes and failures with 
cross-functional teams, with the assistance of outside experts 
in organizational science and management to identify lessons 
learned for application to the Department's own mission teams.
    Regarding the challenge of changing the prevailing culture 
in the Department, the provision requires the Secretary to 
issue directives on (1) DOD's shared purposes, values, and 
principles that set forth the Secretary's expectations for a 
team-oriented, results-driven culture that supports DOD's key 
missions and cross-boundary collaboration; (2) the 
collaborative behavior the Secretary expects from all OSD 
personnel; (3) policies that establish cross-boundary 
collaboration as half of the performance review criteria for 
each official in leadership positions, including the mission 
team leaders and the heads of components providing personnel or 
other resources to the teams; and (4) policies requiring 
successful service as a leader or member of mission teams for 
promotion in the Senior Executive Service above a level to be 
specified by the Secretary. The Secretary would also be 
required to provide a course of instruction to all OSD 
officials who are Senate-confirmed in leadership, modern 
organizational practice, collaboration, and the proper 
functioning of successful cross-functional teams.
    The provision would require the next Secretary of Defense, 
within a year after Senate confirmation, to take such actions 
as the Secretary deems appropriate considering the progress and 
performance of mission teams, to streamline the organizational 
structure and processes of the Department, achieve a reduction 
in management layers, eliminate unnecessary duplication between 
OSD and the Joint Staff, and reduce the time required to 
complete standard processes and activities. In carrying out 
this requirement, the provision would require the Secretary to 
consult with the Defense Business Board and with outside 
individuals and organizations with recognized expertise in 
cross-functional teams, organizational science, and private-
sector best practices on horizontal integration and cross-
functional collaboration.
    The provision would require that nominees for Senate-
confirmed positions in OSD, as a condition of their 
confirmation, complete a course of instruction in leadership, 
modern organizational practice, collaboration, and the 
operation of mission teams. The President may waive this 
requirement for individuals if the Secretary of Defense 
determines in writing that the individual possesses through 
training and experience, the skills and knowledge otherwise to 
be provided by the course of instruction.
    Finally, the provision would require the Comptroller 
General to assess and report to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate on a 
bi-annual basis the actions taken by the Department of Defense 
under this provision during the previous six months and 
cumulatively since the date of enactment of this Act. This 
requirement would end on December 31, 2019.
    The committee has determined that the Department must 
transform itself to more effectively and efficiently carry out 
its missions in the complex, rapidly changing security 
environment of the 21st Century. The Department needs a 
comprehensive roadmap to guide this critical transformation--a 
roadmap that describes the desired future state of the 
Department's organizational capacities and agility, actions 
needed to achieve this future state, the priority and 
sequencing of each action, and the pace at which the Department 
can implement them. The organizational strategy mandated by the 
committee will provide this roadmap. The strategy should 
address the entire defense enterprise and all elements of 
organizational effectiveness. Foremost among these is shared 
values which encompasses a vision for the Department, 
identification of missions, and an articulation of the 
principles by which the department will operate. The strategy 
should also address processes, structure, core competencies, 
talent management, organizational culture, and leadership 
behavior. The committee expects each of these elements to be 
addressed in the organizational strategy and in an integrated 
manner, so that there is a good fit among the elements.
    Although the new administration's Secretary of Defense must 
produce and own this organizational strategy, preparatory work 
in support of this strategy effort should begin immediately. 
The current Secretary of Defense should initiate research and 
analyses in each element of organizational effectiveness, such 
as identifying the characteristics of the Department's current 
culture and subcultures.
    This provision represents the fulfilment of an unfinished 
goal of the original Goldwater-Nichols reform agenda from 30 
years ago. The 1985 staff report of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Defense Organization: The Need For Change, 
identified ``mission integration'' as the most important 
organizational problem facing the Department. The report noted 
that mission integration is critical at both the operational 
level, consisting of the combatant commands, and at the policy-
making level in the Washington headquarters organizations of 
the Department. Ultimately, the Goldwater-Nichols Act was able 
to address the joint, mission integration challenge only at the 
operational command level; correcting the mission integration 
problems in the Washington headquarters organizations proved to 
be, in the words of the principal author of the staff study, 
``a bridge too far.''
    This critical task went unmet not for lack of analysis and 
effort. The staff study makes clear that the committee thought 
deeply about how to alter the organization and culture in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and the processes 
through which OSD engaged with the Joint Chiefs, the Joint 
staff, the military services, and the combatant commands. The 
pursuit of a solution was ultimately deferred because the 
committee was not satisfied with the options available at the 
time. This conclusion was not surprising, because at that time 
even leading private-sector corporations had not determined how 
to effectively balance mission or ``product'' alignment against 
functional orientation, as the staff study observed. The 
committee evaluated mission-oriented organizational structures, 
matrix-management concepts, hybrid arrangements, and all manner 
of combinations thereof. Although the committee did not arrive 
at what it considered an effective solution, there is no doubt 
about the existence of a problem. The lack of mission focus and 
integration in DOD that existed 30 years ago has been only more 
acutely felt in the decades since, as national security 
challenges have become more varied, complex, and cross-cutting.
    The committee's indictment of DOD's almost exclusive 
functional organization and orientation in the mid-1980s 
retains its relevance today. The staff study observed that:
    The three principal organizations of the Washington 
Headquarters of DoD--the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Military 
Departments--are focused excessively on functional areas, such 
as manpower, research and development, and installations and 
logistics. This functional structure serves to inhibit 
integration of Service capabilities along mission lines, and, 
thereby, hinders achieving DoD's principal organizational goal 
of mission integration. The focus of organizational activity is 
on functional efficiency (or, in other terms, management 
control of functional activities) and not on major missions and 
their objectives and strategy. Without extensive mission 
integration efforts, numerous deficiencies occur:
    In colloquial terms, material inputs, not mission outputs, 
are emphasized.
    A sharp focus on missions, where DoD must compete with 
potential adversaries, is lost in the functional diffusion.
    Strategic planning is inhibited by the absence of an 
organizational focus on major missions and strategic goals.
    Service interests rather than strategic needs play the 
dominant role in shaping program decisions.
    Functions (e.g., airlift, sealift, close air support) which 
are not central to a Service's own definition of its missions 
tend to be neglected.
    Tradeoffs between programs of different Services that can 
both contribute to a particular mission are seldom made.
    Opportunities for non-traditional contributions to missions 
(e.g., Air Force contributions to sea control) are neither 
easily identified nor pursued.
    Headquarters organizations are not fully attuned to the 
operational, especially readiness, requirements of the unified 
commanders.
    Interoperability and coordination requirements of forces 
from the separate Services are not readily identified.
    Ultimately, the committee decided that none of the 
contemplated solutions to these problems was compelling enough 
to be mandated through the Goldwater-Nichols Act. Within a few 
years, however, new approaches to cross-functional integration 
developed by leading private-sector companies and industries 
began to sweep across the business world. Private-sector 
innovation with small but empowered ``cross-functional teams'' 
demonstrated that products and other critical company output 
could be developed much faster, and with significantly better 
results, than through sequential and iterative processes 
mediated by hierarchically structured functional silos. These 
new practices have also often eclipsed alternative approaches 
such as product lines that each incorporate functional 
capabilities, or complex matrixed solutions that combine 
functional and mission management. Industry use of small cross-
functional teams to enable integrated solutions does not 
supersede functional organization but rather builds on and 
complements the centers of functional expertise. The functional 
components grow and provide the experts and expertise that are 
the building blocks of integrated solutions.
    Industry success with this innovation in horizontal 
integration was neither easy nor guaranteed. Thorough cultural 
change was necessary to ensure a harmonious balance between 
functional and cross-cutting mission loyalties. Teams had to be 
given real authority to develop and implement strategies using 
the resources of the functional organizations, and functional 
leaders had to be convinced that their responsibility for 
providing functional capabilities remained critically 
important. Rewards and incentives had to be re-aligned to 
support teamwork among representatives of diverse functional 
components without diluting the career tracks that ensure 
functional excellence. Training in teamwork that allowed teams 
to resolve conflict productively proved to be a critical 
ingredient for success. Top management had to be fully 
committed to the work of the cross-functional teams, ensuring 
that they were not undermined by the managers of functional 
components, and making it clear that the integrated teams were 
decision-making bodies and not advisory ``committees.''
    Corporations learned that empowered cross-functional teams 
required complementary changes in organizational processes and 
culture, but also that once successful cross-cutting mechanisms 
were in place, they could manage large enterprises and complex 
processes with fewer management layers, less staff redundancy, 
and increased spans of control that permit end-to-end 
management of desired output (or outcomes) while increasing 
productivity and quality. Empowering integrated teams of 
experts with effective leadership eliminated the need for some 
management layers that previously served to progressively 
bridge functional silos to resolve disputes and make decisions. 
Instilling collaborative cultures improved information flow 
among organizational components so that there was less 
perceived need for functional redundancy (liaisons, various 
cross-cutting information sharing but powerless groups of one 
sort or another, or duplicative staff elements such as regional 
experts in each functional element, etc.). Initially adding 
cross-functional teams to existing functional structure seems 
more complicated, but over time it eliminates numerous 
ineffective organizational elements and thus reduces wasted 
staff time and simplifies the overall organizational construct.
    By the mid-1990s, Secretary of Defense Perry was aware of 
private-sector success with these horizontal integration 
mechanisms, and attempted to impose them in the Department of 
Defense. In 1995, he announced he was instituting a 
``fundamental change'' in DOD organization and culture by 
mandating the use of cross-functional/cross-organizational 
``Integrated Product Teams'' (IPTs). The ensuing directives 
establishing and defining these IPTs appear to be sound 
representations of industry practices. However, Secretary 
Perry's directives applied IPTs mainly to acquisition programs, 
and not to the missions--the core output--of DOD. In addition, 
and especially over time, the prerequisites for successful 
teams were not observed, so that they usually take the form of 
committees of individuals representing and defending the 
interests of their functional components.
    More broadly, the National Performance Review (NPR) that 
spanned both terms of President Clinton also took note of the 
global revolution in horizontal integration in the private 
sector. NPR reports decried the ``stovepiped'' functional 
structure and processes within individual departments and 
agencies, and noted that each department and agency of the 
government was in turn a functional stovepipe that inhibited 
effective interagency collaboration to achieve policy 
objectives. The NPR noted that the President was ill-served by 
this poor intra- and inter-agency collaboration, especially 
given that complex modern challenges inherently cut across 
organizational boundaries. The NPR called for empowered 
interagency teams and, within departments and agencies, cross-
functional teams to meet the need for integrated plans and 
actions.
    During the Bush Administration, General Pace, Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, initiated a study effort that 
eventually became the congressionally funded Project on 
National Security Reform (PNSR), led by the former committee 
staff lead for the Goldwater-Nichols Act. A fundamental 
conclusion of PNSR's comprehensive analysis of the national 
security system is that effective strategy formulation and 
policy implementation are stymied by the lack of mechanisms to 
integrate across functionally aligned departments, components 
and interests. A core element of the PNSR reform agenda is 
empowered cross-functional teams in the interagency space. 
Other government-sponsored reviews have echoed these findings, 
including the 2006 interagency ``Project Horizon'' study, which 
recommended interagency ``fusion cells,'' and the 2010 
congressionally-mandated independent panel critique of the 
Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review, which 
recommended standing interagency teams.
    In addition, the committee notes that the Central 
Intelligence Agency is currently in the implementation phase of 
a major organizational reform initiative, which is based on the 
creation of small, empowered cross-functional teams from the 
Agency's functional directorates to support and manage the 
Agency's most important missions and mission centers. The 
Agency is undertaking this large-scale organizational reform to 
remedy precisely the same organizational limitations detailed 
in this report.
    The committee determined that OSD's culture is misaligned 
with what is required for effective organizational performance 
in today's security environment. The culture is too rule-
oriented, bureaucratic, risk averse in decision-making, and 
competitive among components. OSD's culture is typical of most 
public-sector institutions. In this regard, OSD's culture must 
be reshaped to one that is collaborative, team-oriented, 
results-oriented, and innovative. Reshaping a culture will 
require numerous efforts to establish new norms and behaviors 
and eliminate counterproductive norms and behaviors. These 
efforts include well-articulated shared values, management 
actions and behavior, organizational and individual incentives, 
and education and training. To begin these actions, the 
provision mandates the issuance of a directive on purposes, 
values, and principles; a directive on collaborative behavior; 
and a directive on OSD and Joint Staff collaboration. The 
provision includes two incentives for individuals. It would 
specify that cross-boundary collaboration would constitute 50 
percent of the performance review criteria for individuals in 
leadership positions specified by the Secretary of Defense. The 
provision would also require successful service as a leader or 
member of a mission team as a condition for promotion in the 
Senior Executive Service as specified by the Secretary. Lastly, 
the provision would require a course of instruction in 
leadership, modern organizational practice, collaboration, and 
functioning of mission teams by Senate-confirmed officials in 
OSD.
    The committee found numerous problems in OSD's structure 
and processes. Most notably, Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries 
of Defense feel poorly supported by the OSD staff. The numbers 
of management layers and senior personnel have continued to 
increase and until recently there was steady growth in the 
number of OSD personnel. Processes are sequential, stove-piped, 
and Industrial Age, resulting in slow, cumbersome, and 
frequently overly centralized decision-making. As a result of 
these problems, OSD is increasingly hard to manage, unwieldy, 
and underachieving. To correct this unacceptable situation, the 
committee's provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
take appropriate action to streamline OSD's structure and 
processes within one year of the Secretary's appointment. The 
Secretary would also be required to report his or her proposed 
actions to the two Armed Services Committees.
    The committee's proposed provision for fundamentally 
reforming the culture and processes in the Department of 
Defense is informed by decades of consistent analyses of 
serious management problems, and common recommendations for 
corrective actions. In turn, these analyses are informed by the 
consistent, long-term, and widespread private-sector success 
with mission-oriented horizontal integration mechanisms coupled 
with cultural change. The committee's proposal rests on 
extensive real-world experience that is reflected in modern 
organizational sciences and practices.
    The proposed provision complements the original Goldwater-
Nichols reform in several ways. In addition to being rooted in 
historical experience and organizational analysis, the 
provision is fundamentally about empowering rather than 
constraining the Department of Defense. The Goldwater-Nichols 
Act enabled Combatant Commanders to direct mission integration 
in joint military operations. This complementary provision will 
enable the Secretary to direct functional integration in major 
Pentagon output, including the best possible policy, strategy, 
planning, and resource allocation decision-making. These 
reforms are certain to be just as controversial as the original 
legislation, but as proved true for the original legislation, 
less so as their merits are demonstrated in practice. The 
results will be less immediately operational but no less 
apparent in improved output and outcomes.
    Successful implementation will depend on the commitment of 
the leadership in DOD to faithfully execute the proposed 
reforms, supported by vigorous and sustained oversight by 
Congress. The committee faced the same challenge 30 years ago 
after Congress passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act, and to this 
day the committee ensures that every nominee seeking Senate 
confirmation has a full grasp of that historic legislation and 
his or her responsibilities to enforce and abide by the letter 
and spirit of the law. The committee intends to apply the same 
tenacious oversight to the current reform effort.

Department of Defense management overview by the Secretary of Defense 
        (sec. 942)

    The Department of Defense and the Congress have directed 
and launched multiple initiatives over the last 15 years to 
achieve cost savings and improve organizational effectiveness 
by downsizing personnel, streamlining bureaucracy, reducing 
institutional redundancy, and eliminating surplus 
infrastructure. While these efforts have met with some success, 
many of the results have been short-lived, fallen short of 
original goals, or failed to achieve their full potential. In 
an effort to streamline and move forward on reform initiatives, 
the Department of Defense leadership attempted to establish 
metrics and targets for downsizing and delayering. However, 
these efforts lacked a fundamental strategy for reform that 
would create an environment for change within the Department. 
The next administration will be challenged to implement key 
reforms to include headquarters reductions, major acquisition 
projects reform, implementing the new modernized military 
retirement system, delivering a military healthcare system that 
improves both access and care, and reforming the large, 
outdated structure designed with too many precautions and 
layers of bureaucracy. Major efforts must be undertaken to 
effectively manage the Department's large workforce. Business 
must be done differently as the Department of Defense and the 
Congress move forward with reforms.
    The committee recommends a provision that would require a 
series of management directives for the next Secretary of 
Defense. The next Secretary of Defense is directed to report 
back to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives by December 1, 2017 with updates no 
later than December 1st of the next five years through 2022 on 
the following items:
          (1) Human Capital Strategy Plan. The Secretary of 
        Defense must develop a human capital strategy plan to 
        address how the Department of Defense civilian 
        workforce is to be managed over a period of five years 
        from the date of submission. Such plan shall include an 
        assessment of the mix of military, civilian, and 
        contractor personnel across the department by function.
          (2) Savings Targets. The Secretary of Defense shall 
        establish savings targets in coordination with the 
        military departments for personnel cost reduction 
        across the Future Years Defense Programs. Such savings 
        targets shall encompass and possibly exceed those 
        established in the National Defense Authorization Act 
        for Fiscal Year 2016 and be applied across the full 
        organization based on individual mission requirements 
        and not percentage targets by each organization within 
        the Department. The Secretary is directed to use cost 
        and function and shall not impose cost savings by 
        billets or raw number of personnel in an attempt to 
        manage and optimize a functional mix of senior, mid-
        career, and entry-level personnel rather than 
        preserving simply an imbalanced and top-heavy upper-
        echelon staff based upon tenure alone.
          (3) Elimination of Functions. The Secretary of 
        Defense shall submit a report of the elimination of 
        functions within each Department of Defense component. 
        The Secretary shall work with the Congress to launch 
        component reviews on mission priorities in tandem with 
        the Comprehensive Review of Headquarters and 
        Administrative and Support Activities mandated by the 
        National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        2016.
          (4) Force Management Tools. The Secretary of Defense 
        shall submit legislative requests for additional force 
        management and shaping tools that necessitate 
        legislation and cannot be accomplished by policy. Such 
        management tools should be directed to accomplish the 
        savings targets and elimination of functions required 
        herein and should focus on rewarding talent, managing 
        hiring and divestiture of employees, and professional 
        development of employees.
          (5) Delayering and Organizations. The Secretary of 
        Defense shall develop a delayering process for 
        headquarters organizations across the Department of 
        Defense, to include the Office of the Secretary of 
        Defense, the Joint Staff, the defense agencies, the 
        combatant commands, and the Services. Such efforts 
        shall emphasize the use of cross-functional teams. The 
        Secretary shall submit plans for this delayering 
        process to include reorganizational plans and charts 
        that reflect the new structure and an assessment of 
        low-priority or redundant functions to be eliminated 
        and any organizations to be consolidated.

Modification of composition and mission of Joint Requirements Oversight 
        Council (sec. 943)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 181 to clarify and modify the joint and service 
specific requirements setting process. This provision would 
also ensure that the service chief of the relevant military 
service is responsible for all service-specific requirements, 
and Joint Requirements Oversight Council's validation is not 
required before commencing a service specific acquisition 
program, except in those cases that the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff decided that service-specific requirement 
should be a joint requirement and still subject to the 
oversight of the Oversight Council, or in the case the program 
for meeting the requirement would be a major defense 
acquisition program.
    Additionally, this provision would require that the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff determine whether a major 
defense acquisition program may meet joint requirements before 
that program or subprogram may receive Milestone A approval or 
otherwise be initiated prior to Milestone B.
    The committee recognizes that the current organic 
capability of the Joint Staff to perform operations research 
analysis needed to inform making trade-offs among life-cycle 
cost, schedule, and performance objectives is not sufficient to 
the task. The Vice Chairman should rely upon the analytical 
support provided by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation in the Director's role as an advisor to the JROC. In 
the longer term, the Vice Chairman should also ensure that the 
Joint Staff selects officers for analytical support positions 
within the Joint Staff who are academically and professionally 
qualified to fill those positions.
    The committee heard testimony from numerous sources who 
indicated that the JROC process was broken. These assessments 
were frequently based on the fact that definitions and 
approvals of requirements have taken too long. There have also 
been charges that difficulties in coordinating principals' 
schedules have been a significant factor in forestalling timely 
JROC consideration and approval of requirements. This provision 
would shift the responsibility for making recommendations about 
military capabilities to meet applicable requirements from the 
JROC as a whole to the Vice Chairman alone. However, the Vice 
Chairman would have to inform the Chairman of dissenting 
opinions among the members of the JROC. This change in 
responsibility would allow the Vice Chairman to make a 
recommendation to the Chairman in a timely manner as well as 
when there is no consensus among the other members of the 
Council. This change would also be consistent with the 
principles of the Goldwater-Nichols Act--the Vice Chairman 
would be the principal advisor to the Chairman on military 
requirements, just as Goldwater-Nichols made the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff the principal military advisor to the 
President and the Secretary of Defense.

Enhanced personnel management authorities for the Chief of the National 
        Guard Bureau (sec. 944)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1058 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance the 
personnel management authority of the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau by authorizing the Chief to program for, appoint, 
employ, administer, detail, and assign federal civilian 
employees to provide full-time support to the non-federalized 
National Guard. This provision clarifies that state adjutants 
general will continue the exercise their authority to hire, 
employ, and supervise the federal civilian employees providing 
full-time support to their state.
    The Chief of the National Guard Bureau would also have the 
authority to delegate to the adjutants general the authority to 
appoint, employ, and administer federal civilian employees 
within the 54 states and territories with authority to conduct 
all personnel actions for employees except in the case of any 
appeal right or complaint filed by an employee appointed under 
this section. If such an appeal or complaint arises, the 
adjutant general shall be considered the head of the agency for 
the purposes of any appeal rights or complaint filed and the 
National Guard of the jurisdiction concerned shall defend such 
an appeal or complaint and promptly implement all aspects of 
any final administrative or judicial order, judgement or 
decision. The payment of any costs associated with such 
decisions would be paid out of federal funds appropriated to 
the jurisdiction concerned. Further, in the case of a civil 
action or proceeding brought in any court arising from an 
action under this provision, the United States shall be the 
sole defendant or respondent.

Management of Defense clandestine human intelligence collection (sec. 
        945)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of 
National Intelligence, to carry out a pilot program to assess 
the feasibility and advisability of establishing a military 
division within the Directorate of Operations of the Central 
Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Director 
of National Intelligence would be required to assess whether it 
is more effective and efficient to contain the defense human 
intelligence capability within the Department of Defense or 
within the Central Intelligence Agency as a consolidated 
clandestine human intelligence collection organization.

Repeal of Financial Management Modernization Executive Committee (sec. 
        946)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 185 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the 
Department of Defense Financial Management Modernization 
Executive Committee.
    The committee notes that the Financial Management 
Modernization Executive Committee's original purpose has been 
functionally replaced by the Defense Business Systems 
Management Committee.

Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family Policy and Office 
        of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs 
        (sec. 947)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1781(a) and 1781(c) of title 10, United States Code, 
to reorganize and redesignate the Office of Family Policy into 
the Office of Military Family Readiness Policy and the Office 
of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs 
into the Office of Special Needs. The provision would 
reorganize the Office of Special Needs under the Office of 
Military Family Readiness Policy. The provision would also 
require the director of the Office of Military Family Readiness 
Policy to be a member of the Senior Executive Service or a 
general or flag officer.

Pilot programs on waiver of applicability of rules and regulations to 
        Department of Defense science and technology reinvention 
        laboratories and DARPA to improve operations and personnel 
        management (sec. 948)

    The committee has long recognized the unique contribution 
made by the defense laboratories to ensuring technological 
battlefield superiority for our fighters. While the committee 
has provided increased authorities and flexibilities for the 
laboratories to help them maintain their scientific pre-
eminence, these authorities must be implemented by the services 
in a manner that makes them useful. Equally significant, 
enhancing laboratory effectiveness also depends on the common 
sense removal of roadblocks such as inappropriate or 
counterproductive regulations, policies, and practices. With 
this in mind, the committee recommends a provision that would 
allow laboratory directors, as well as the director of the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, with the approval of 
appropriate management officials, to waive on a temporary basis 
regulations, instructions, publications, policies, and 
procedures of the Department of Defense that the director 
believes appropriate.
    In recommending this waiver authority through this 
management demonstration pilot program, the committee 
emphasizes that lab management is not a centralized management 
function. Rather, the committee believes that in almost all 
cases, a laboratory director is best suited to determine which 
regulations and policies will make their organization most 
efficient and which will hamper its ability to function. The 
management demo recommended in this provision would identify 
and remove obstacles and fix improper implementation of 
legislative authorities so as to improve laboratory operations. 
Furthermore, the provisions would accomplish all of this within 
each service, thereby precluding direct involvement of the 
broader Department of Defense.

 Subtitle D--Whistleblower Protections for Members of the Armed Forces


Improvements to whistleblower protection procedures (sec. 961)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
numerous amendments to section 1034 of title 10, United States 
Code, to clarify and expand the types of adverse personnel 
actions prohibited under the military whistleblower protection 
program, to include retaliatory investigations and failures of 
superiors to respond to retaliatory actions in certain 
circumstances, as prohibited personnel actions reviewable under 
that statute. The provision would also require inspectors 
general (IG) to notify the secretary concerned if, during the 
IG's preliminary investigation, the IG determined there were 
reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel 
action occurred, and that the action would result in an 
immediate hardship to the service member, and would authorize 
the secretary concerned to take action, as appropriate, in such 
cases. The provision would require an IG to provide periodic 
updates to whistleblowers on the progress of investigations, to 
include an estimate of the time remaining until an 
investigation was complete. Finally, the provision would 
require the Department of Defense Inspector General, within 1 
year of enactment of this Act, to prescribe uniform standards 
for the conduct of military whistleblower investigations and 
for the training of staffs conducting such investigations.

Modification of whistleblower protection authorities to restrict 
        contrary findings of prohibited personnel action by the 
        Secretary concerned (sec. 962)

    The committee recommends a provision that amends section 
1034 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that when the 
secretary of the military department concerned receives a 
report from an inspector general that substantiates that a 
prohibited personnel action occurred, the secretary may 
consider whether to take corrective action but may not make a 
determination in such cases that a prohibited personnel action 
did not occur.

Improvements to authorities and procedures for the correction of 
        military records (sec. 963)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1552(a) of title 10, United States Code, to require 
that boards for correction of military records (BCMRs) notify 
claimants of what specific information or documents are needed 
to make their claim reviewable by the board, if such 
information or documents are missing, and would require the 
BCMR to make reasonable efforts to obtain missing records when 
they cannot be obtained by a claimant. The provision would 
require the BCMR to consider any request for reconsideration of 
a determination of a BCMR when new information is provided by a 
claimant, not previously considered. The provision would 
reaffirm that claimants may seek judicial review of BCMR 
decisions, and would require BCMRs to publish final decisions 
with personally identifiable information redacted. The 
provision would require each secretary concerned to develop, 
within 1 year of enactment of this Act, a comprehensive 
training curriculum for members of BCMRs, and would require the 
Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security to 
ensure such curricula are uniform. Finally, the provision would 
require each secretary concerned to submit to Congress within 
18 months of enactment a report setting forth the training 
curriculum established under this section.

Comptroller General of the United States review of integrity of 
        Department of Defense whistleblower program (sec. 964)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an 
assessment of the integrity of the Department of Defense (DOD) 
whistleblower program, to include an assessment of the extent 
to which the DOD whistleblower program meets executive branch 
policies and goals for whistleblower protections, the adequacy 
of procedures to address whistleblower complaints submitted by 
employees of the Office of the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense (OIG), the extent to which there have 
been violations of confidentiality standards, the extent to 
which there have been retaliatory investigations within OIG, 
the extent to which whistleblower complaints against Senate-
confirmed civilian officials of DOD have been substantiated and 
reported to Congress in the past 10 years, and the ability of 
the inspectors general of DOD and the military services to 
access agency information necessary to the execution of their 
duties, including classified and other sensitive information, 
and of the adequacy of security procedures to safeguard such 
information. The provision would require the Comptroller 
General to report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives within 1 year of enactment 
of this Act on the results of this review.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Modification of requirements for accounting for members of the Armed 
        Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as 
        missing (sec. 971)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 1501, 1505, and 1513 of title 10, United States Code, 
to elevate oversight of recovery policy and operations for 
current conflicts from the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency 
(DPAA) to the Secretary of Defense, and to clarify that the 
DPAA director retains authority to establish policy and execute 
recovery operations for missing persons from past conflicts. In 
addition, this provision would clarify that the Department is 
required to account for missing persons only to the extent 
practicable upon discovery of remains of missing personnel.

Modification of authority of the Secretary of Defense relating to 
        protection of the Pentagon Reservation and other Department of 
        Defense facilities in the National Capitol Region (sec. 972)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2674 of title 10, United States Code, to update the 
authority of the Secretary of Defense to appoint law 
enforcement personnel to protect the Pentagon reservation and 
Department of Defense activities in the National Capital 
Region, and to set the rates of basic pay for law enforcement 
and security personnel whose permanent duty station is the 
Pentagon reservation.

Enhanced security programs for Department of Defense personnel and 
        innovation initiatives (sec. 973)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to take actions to allow the Defense 
Security Service to conduct before October 1, 2017, all 
personnel background and security investigations adjudicated by 
the Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Department of 
Defense (DOD). This provision would also strengthen inside 
threat detection programs by streamlining requirements for the 
collection, storage, and retention of information and would 
allow the Department to seek solutions from commercial 
companies and improve the process for the reciprocity of 
security clearances. The committee is encouraged by this 
reciprocity effort and expects that a path forward will be 
established for recently retired service members with security 
clearances to transfer their security clearances to their new 
positions rather than undergo duplicative background 
investigations.

                       Items of Special Interest


4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division

    Since 2012, the Army has been on course to reduce the 
Active component from 570,000 to 450,000 service members. In 
2015, as a part of the reduction in end-strength, the Army 
recommended that the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th 
Infantry Division (4-25 IBCT ABN) be converted to an airborne 
infantry battalion task force.
    The Army has continued to reassess its force structure 
requirements in light of the dynamic security environment and 
the evolving threats around the world. On March 21, 2016, the 
Army announced that it would postpone the conversion of the 4-
25 IBCT (ABN) citing the unit's readiness, capability, and 
strategic location to rapidly deploy to deter aggression from 
Russia, North Korea, and ISIL.
    The committee is aware that the senior leadership of the 
Army, and the current commanders of U.S. Northern Command, U.S. 
European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command, in testimony before 
the committee, have publicly supported delaying the unit's 
conversion. The committee affirms that forward-deployed and 
rapidly responsive ground forces, including the 4-25 IBCT 
(ABN), help deter aggression and provide reassurance to our 
allies and partners. The committee encourages the Army to 
continue to reassess its force structure based on available 
resources and the changing global security environment.

Amendment on National Guard Apache recommendations

    The committee recognizes the efforts of the commissioners 
and staff for their completion of the National Commission on 
the Future of the Army (NCFA) report and recommendations. Among 
other recommendations, the committee supports the 
recommendation of the NCFA to retain four Attack Reconnaissance 
Battalions (ARBs) in the National Guard as part of the Aviation 
Restructuring Initiative. The committee believes that this 
approach achieves the right balance in addressing the Army's 
current needs and providing the strategic depth of Army 
Aviation in the Army National Guard. The committee expects the 
Army to plan and program accordingly based on available 
resources across the Future Years Defense Program.

Enhancing Army Military Intelligence Support to the Warfighter

    The Army provides a Military Intelligence Brigade-Theater 
(MIB-T) to each geographic combatant command. Operational 
Control (OPCON) of the MIB-Ts is delegated to the Army Service 
Component Commands, with administrative control (ADCON) 
assigned to the Army's Intelligence and Security Command 
(INSCOM). INSCOM's ADCON role for assigned MIB-Ts is to provide 
authorities, policy compliance, and reach-back support. The 
committee is concerned that the ADCON relationship is not as 
efficient as it needs to be, and notes that INSCOM headquarters 
has been growing as personnel are being reduced in the MIB-Ts. 
INSCOM's other roles and missions within the Army are no doubt 
important and demanding, but support to the combatant commands 
through assigned MIB-Ts is critical, especially in light of 
increasing threats to combatant command missions and personnel.
    Consistent with the committee's mandate to reduce 
management headquarters across the Department of Defense, the 
committee strongly urges the Army to streamline INSCOM's 
command and support relationship with the MIB-Ts and the 
commands they directly support to reduce administrative 
overhead, and to better align its military intelligence 
brigades with the warfighters they directly support and are 
often collocated with at the same installation.
    The committee strongly urges the Army to take actions to 
enhance military intelligence support across the spectrum in 
the U.S. European Command area of operations to more 
effectively provide military support to force protection, 
defeat transnational terrorism, enhance relationships with our 
NATO and non-NATO partners, and deter and defeat Russian 
aggression.

Unjustified expansion of the Army Reserve Military Intelligence 
        Readiness Command

    The committee has directed the Department of Defense to 
take steps to eliminate overlapping and duplicative functions 
to better support the warfighter. The committee is concerned 
that there may be unnecessary overlap and duplication in the 
roles and responsibilities of the Army Reserve Component 
Military Intelligence Readiness Command (MIRC) and the Army's 
Intelligence and Security Command. In addition, the committee 
is concerned about the justification for planned growth in the 
MIRC headquarters and subordinate headquarters.
    The committee is informed that the Army plans to increase 
the size of MIRC headquarters from a one-star to a two-star 
headquarters and create two new brigade headquarters elements 
subordinate to the MIRC. The committee questions the need for 
such an expansion and for the creation of new brigade 
headquarters elements when the size of the reserve component 
continues to shrink, and when the committee has directed the 
Department to reduce the size wherever possible of headquarters 
organizations.
    The committee directs the Army to review the MIRC as a part 
of its headquarters reduction plan.
    Furthermore, the committee recommends the Army include its 
ongoing efforts to enhance active and reserve integration as a 
consideration of the MIRC within its headquarters reduction 
plan.

                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of fiscal 
year 2017 funds authorized in division A of this Act to 
unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal 
reprogramming procedures. Transfers of funds between military 
personnel authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar 
limitation in this provision.
Increased use of commercial data integration and analysis products for 
        the purpose of preparing financial statement audits (sec. 1002)
    The committee is concerned that over the last two decades, 
the Department has spent billions of dollars attempting to 
configure commercial-off-the-shelf information technology 
systems and build interfaces to hundreds of legacy information 
systems in order to prepare auditable financial statements. One 
of the many reasons for the Department's long-standing failure 
to pass an audit is its inability to produce transaction-level 
information for auditors.
    This provision would require the Department to 
competitively and rapidly procure information technology 
services, including non-relational database, data analysis, and 
data integration platforms to address the problems identified 
by auditors of Department of Defense financial statements.
    The committee notes that non-relational databases are 
database systems designed to process unstructured data and do 
not adhere to the traditional relational database management 
system structures, and may represent a useful approach to 
addressing these issues.
    The committee directs the Chief Financial Officer and Chief 
Management Officer to prepare a report to the defense 
committees on the status of this program. This report shall be 
delivered not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act.
Sense of the Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that the statutory budget caps imposed by 
the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) remain an unreasonable and 
inadequate budgeting tool to address the Nation's fiscal 
challenges. The committee remains concerned about the harmful 
impacts of sequestration on our national defense, to include 
non-defense agencies that contribute to our national security. 
This provision acknowledges that relief from the BCA should 
include both defense and non-defense spending.

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities

Codification and modification of authority to provide support for 
        counter-drug activities and activities to counter transnational 
        organized crime of civilian law enforcement agencies (sec. 
        1006)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
new section in title 10, United States Code, to codify section 
1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1991 (Public Law 101-510), as most recently amended by section 
1012 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291). The provision would also make modifications to the types 
of support that may be provided with respect to foreign law 
enforcement.
Extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and 
        counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1007)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 4 
years section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as 
most recently amended by section 1011 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
    The committee strongly supports the vital partnership 
between the United States and Colombia and notes the remarkable 
security gains the Government of Colombia has achieved over the 
last 15 years. The committee believes that an enduring security 
relationship between the U.S. and Colombia is essential to 
sustaining and building upon these gains and urges the 
Department of Defense, in coordination with the interagency, to 
ensure its security cooperation programs and authorities 
reflect the evolving security environment in Colombia and the 
region.

                Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of cruisers or 
        dock landing ships (sec. 1011)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
fiscal year 2017 funds from being used to retire, prepare to 
retire, or inactivate a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, Whidbey 
Island-class dock landing ship, or Harpers Ferry-class dock 
landing ship, unless prescribed criteria are met.
    First, the Chief of Naval Operations would be required to 
certify to the congressional defense committees the requirement 
for operational cruisers, dock landing ships, and ballistic 
missile defense-capable cruisers from fiscal year 2017 through 
2030.
    Second, funds within the Ship Modernization, Operations, 
and Sustainment Fund (SMOSF) could only be used for 11 
Ticonderoga-class cruisers (CG-63 through CG-73) and 3 Whidbey 
Island-class dock landing ships (LSD-41, LSD-42, and LSD-46).
    Third, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to 
retain the current inventory of 22 cruisers and 12 dock landing 
ships until the end of their service lives with the following 
restrictions. Through fiscal year 2030, the Navy would be 
required to maintain not less than the Chief of Naval 
Operations' requirement for operational cruisers or 11 
operational cruisers, whichever is greater. The Navy would be 
required to maintain no less than the Chief of Naval 
Operations' requirement for dock landing ships or 9 operational 
dock landing ships, whichever is greater. The Navy would be 
authorized to conduct phased modernization of not more than 11 
cruisers and 3 dock landing ships.
    Fourth, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to 
adhere to five requirements and five restrictions during the 
phased modernization period.
    Fifth, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to 
submit an annual report with the President's budget on the 
status of the phased modernization program.
    Sixth, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to 
notify the congressional defense committees in writing 30 days 
prior to executing any deviations to the plans provided in the 
most recent annual report.
    The committee does not support a smaller fleet and notes 
the Navy stands at 272 ships this year, far below the 308 ship 
requirement. However, the committee does recognize the fiscal 
pressure the Navy is under to maintain the readiness of the 
current force while continuing to modernize for future threats, 
including the requirement to procure the Ohio-class replacement 
submarine program. The committee also notes the Navy has fully 
funded this budget request's phased modernization plan, unlike 
past budget submissions. The committee would not be supportive 
of any effort to decommission any cruiser or dock landing ship 
earlier than provided for in this provision and views this 
provision as necessary to ensure the ships that enter phased 
modernization are returned to service.
Prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy maritime mine 
        countermeasures platforms (sec. 1012)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
funds from being used to retire, prepare to retire, transfer, 
or place in storage any Avenger-class mine countermeasures 
ship, MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopter, or associated equipment, as 
well as make any reductions to the manning levels of any 
Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship or Sea Dragon squadron 
or detachment.
    The Secretary of the Navy may waive this prohibition by 
certifying to the congressional defense committees that: (1) a 
replacement capability and the necessary quantity of such 
systems to meet all combatant commander mine countermeasures 
operational requirements that are currently being met has been 
identified, (2) all replacement systems have achieved initial 
operational capability (IOC), and (3) the Navy has deployed a 
sufficient quantity of replacement systems that have reached 
IOC to continue to meet or exceed all combatant commander mine 
countermeasures operational requirements currently being met.
    The committee is concerned that the Navy's current plan to 
reach IOC of replacement mine countermeasures systems is not 
scheduled to occur until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
2020. However, the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for 
the current Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships to begin 
retiring in fiscal year 2019. The committee is concerned a 
capability gap in a critical warfighting mission area may 
result if current mine countermeasures systems are not 
maintained until operationally effective and suitable 
replacements are fielded.
    The committee looks forward to reviewing the Navy's plan to 
transition from legacy mine countermeasures systems, which is 
included in the mine countermeasures master plan required by 
section 1090 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). This plan is required to 
be submitted annually beginning with the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2018.

                      Subtitle D--Counterterrorism

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of 
        individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
        Bay, Cuba, to the United States (sec. 1021)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until December 31, 2017, the prohibition on the use of funds 
provided to the Department of Defense to transfer or release 
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, to the United States. The provision would expire on 
December 31, 2017.
Extension on 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 (sec. 
        1022)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until December 31, 2017, the prohibition on the use of funds 
provided to the Department of Defense to construct or modify 
facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred 
from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 
provision would expire on December 31, 2017.
Designing and planning related to construction of certain facilities in 
        the United States (sec. 1023)
    The committee recommends a provision to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to use amounts authorized to be 
appropriated for the Department of Defense for designing and 
planning related to the construction or modification of 
facilities in the United States to house individuals detained 
at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Authority to transfer individuals detained at United States Naval 
        Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States temporarily 
        for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1024)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the temporary transfer of individuals detained at United States 
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States for 
necessary medical treatment that is not available at 
Guantanamo.
Authority for article III judges to take certain actions relating to 
        individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
        Bay, Cuba (sec. 1025)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
judge of the United States District Court to have jurisdiction 
to use video teleconferencing to arraign, accept a plea to a 
charge from, and enter a judgment of conviction and sentencing 
against individuals held at Guantanamo. The provision would 
also authorize the Attorney General to transfer detainees to 
third countries to serve their sentences.

Extension on prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to 
        certain countries of individuals detained at United States 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1026)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until December 31, 2017, the prohibition on the use of funds 
provided to the Department of Defense to transfer or release 
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, to Libya, Somalia, Syria, or Yemen.

Matters on memorandum of understanding between the United States and 
        governments of receiving foreign countries and entities in 
        certifications on transfer of detainees at United States Naval 
        Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1027)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require any 
certification by the Secretary of Defense provided pursuant to 
Section 1034(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) to 
include a requirement that the United States and the government 
of the foreign government of transfer have entered into a 
written memorandum of understanding regarding the transfer of 
the individual and the memorandum of understanding has been 
provided to the appropriate congressional committees.

Limitation on transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station, 
        Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending a report on their terrorist 
        actions and affiliations (sec. 1028)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require, 
prior to transferring any individual detained at United States 
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to any foreign government 
or entity, that the Secretary of Defense submit to appropriate 
committees of Congress a report on the individuals' previous 
terrorist activities, memberships in, affiliations, or 
associations with terrorist organizations, and a description of 
the individuals' support or participation in attacks against 
the United States or U.S. allies.

Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of individuals 
        detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
        to countries covered by Department of State travel warnings 
        (sec. 1029)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of funds to transfer any individual held at Guantanamo 
to a foreign country that is the subject of a State Department 
travel warning with certain exceptions.

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment of forces at 
        or closure of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
        (sec. 1030)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until December 31, 2017, the prohibition on the use of funds 
provided to the Department of Defense to close or abandon 
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo; to relinquish control 
of Guantanamo Bay to the Republic of Cuba; or to implement a 
material modification to the Treaty between the United States 
of America and Cuba signed at Washington, D.C. on May 29, 1934, 
that constructively closes United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay.

              Subtitle E--Assured Access to Space Matters


Restrictions on use of rocket engines from the Russian Federation for 
        space launch of national security satellites (sec. 1036)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from launching any national security 
satellite with a launch vehicle requiring a rocket engine 
designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation.
    The provision would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense 
from certifying any entity to bid for the award or renewal of a 
contract for the procurement of property or services for space 
launch activities for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
program if that entity would use a rocket engine designed or 
manufactured in the Russian Federation.
    The committee believes that the continued use of Russian 
rocket engines is detrimental to national security and directs 
the Department of Defense to meet its space launch requirements 
by utilizing launch vehicles that do not require Russian rocket 
engines.
    The committee notes that the provision would explicitly 
exempt the nine Russian rocket engines allowed by section 
1608(c) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 
Law 113-291; 10 U.S.C. 2271 note) from the prohibition that 
would be established by this provision.

Limitations on use of rocket engines from the Russian Federation to 
        achieve assured access to space (sec. 1037)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2273(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require 
that assured access to space be achieved without the use of 
rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian 
Federation.
    In testimony before the committee, the Secretary of 
Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the 
Secretary of the Air Force each confirmed to the committee that 
the United States can meet its assured access to space 
requirements without the use of Russian rocket engines. 
According to the Department of Defense Office of Cost 
Assessment and Program Evaluation, the steady-state cost of 
meeting assured access to space requirements without the use of 
Russian rocket engines should be similar to what we pay today. 
The committee believes that once the nine Russian rocket 
engines allowed by section 1608(c) of the Carl Levin and Howard 
P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 10 U.S.C. 2271 note) are 
expended, the Defense Department is capable of meeting its 
assured access to space requirements by utilizing launch 
vehicles that do not require rocket engines designed or 
manufactured in the Russian Federation.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision 
that would allow for up to half of the funds made available for 
the development of a replacement launch vehicle or launch 
propulsion system to be made available for offsetting any 
increase in launch costs as a result of prohibitions on Russian 
rocket engines. With $1.2 billion budgeted from fiscal year 
2017 to fiscal year 2021 for the launch replacement effort and 
$453.4 million already appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and 
fiscal year 2016, the committee believes there is more than 
sufficient funding available and budgeted for either a 
replacement propulsion system or launch vehicle and also to 
offset any additional costs required in meeting our assured 
access to space requirements without the use of Russian rocket 
engines.

Repeal of provision permitting the use of rocket engines from the 
        Russian Federation for the evolved expendable launch vehicle 
        program (sec. 1038)

    The Committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 8048 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
Fiscal Year 2016 (division C, Public Law 114-113; 129 Stat. 
2363).

         Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations


Assigned forces of the combatant commands (sec. 1041)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 162 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
secretaries of the military departments, at the direction of 
the Secretary of Defense, to assign forces under the 
jurisdiction of the secretaries concerned to the combatant 
commands to perform missions assigned to the combatant 
commands. Forces that are not so assigned shall remain under 
the direction and control of the respective military department 
secretaries for purposes of carrying out the secretaries' 
responsibilities under sections 3013, 5013, and 8013 including 
organizing, training, and mobilizing of all United States 
military forces.

Quadrennial independent review of United Sates military strategy and 
        force posture in the United States Pacific Command area of 
        responsibility (sec. 1042)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
an independent review of United States policy in the Indo-Asia-
Pacific region, beginning in 2018 and occurring every four 
years thereafter. The report will be conducted by an 
independent organization with credentials and expertise in 
national security and military affairs.
    The independent review will include an assessment of the 
risks to United States national security interests in the 
United States Pacific Command area of responsibility, an 
assessment of the current and planned United States force 
posture adjustments in the region, an evaluation of any key 
capability gaps and shortfalls of the United States in the 
region, an analysis of the willingness and capacity of allies, 
partners, and regional organizations to contribute to the 
security and stability of the region, an appraisal of the 
Arctic ambitions of regional actors, an evaluation of theater 
security cooperation efforts, an evaluation of the seams 
between the United States Pacific Command and adjacent 
geographic combatant commands, and the views of noted policy 
leaders and regional experts.
    The committee recommends that the report be submitted to 
the Secretary of Defense no later than 180 days after the 
commencement of the review. The report should be submitted in 
unclassified form but may include a classified annex. No more 
than 90 days after the report is submitted to the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary will submit it to the congressional 
defense committees with any comments the Secretary considers 
appropriate.

Designation of a Department of Defense Strategic Arctic Port (sec. 
        1043)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require not 
later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Commanding General of the United States 
Army Corps of Engineers, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and 
the Administrator of the Maritime Administration, to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees assessing the 
future security requirements for one or more strategic ports in 
the Arctic. The provision would further require the Secretary 
to establish designation criteria for a Department of Defense 
``Strategic Arctic Port'' and submit recommendations for the 
designation of one or more such ports, including estimated 
costs for sufficient construction to initiate and sustain 
expected operations.

Modification of requirements regarding notifications to Congress on 
        sensitive military operations (sec. 1044)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 130f in title 10, United States Code.

Reconnaissance Strike Group matters (sec. 1045)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
to oversee the modeling of an alternative Army design and 
operational concept for the Reconnaissance Strike Group (RSG). 
The committee also would require a report no later than one 
year after the enactment of this bill that explicitly addresses 
the value of a follow-on pilot program to test further any 
promising alternative force designs and concept of operation.
    Emerging trends in technology and changes in the 
international security situation suggest that the Department of 
Defense should question the strategic assumptions that have 
underpinned its ground force structure and warfighting concepts 
for at least 25 years. Testing requires innovation. Innovation 
employs mature, off-the-shelf technology in creative, new and 
effective ways. The committee assesses the RSG has the 
potential, as designed, to be a testbed for full spectrum rapid 
prototyping--organizing construct, human capital strategy and 
equipment. As a prototype formation the RSG testbed is designed 
to explore new capabilities with smaller inventories of new 
systems before larger, Army-wide, investments are made.
    The provision requires, not later than 60 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, that the Secretary of 
Defense shall direct an appropriate combatant commander to 
establish an office for the testing, evaluation, development 
and validation of the RSG's joint warfighting concepts, 
required platforms and structure. The selected combatant 
commander will submit a report describing the office structure, 
as well as, its programmatic goals and funding needs to the 
Armed Services Committees of the Senate and of the House of 
Representatives not later than 90 days after the establishment 
of the office and on a periodic basis to be determined at that 
time.
    The committee's recommendation is informed by the findings 
of the National Commission on the Future of the United States 
Army. Like the commission, the committee believes the Army 
should innovate and modernize. The Reconnaissance Strike Group 
is a concept that is fundamentally designed to be fully 
integrated in an expeditionary joint task force. It is 
organized and equipped for rapid deployment, reconnaissance, 
agile maneuver in dispersed formation, massed joint fires, 
sustainment, and survivability.

Transition of Air Force to operation of remotely piloted aircraft by 
        enlisted personnel (sec. 1046)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Air Force, by September 30, 2019, to transition all remotely 
piloted aircraft (RPA) operations to an organizational model 
that uses enlisted personnel for the preponderance of RPA 
operators.
    The committee is concerned that the Air Force has struggled 
for nearly a decade to integrate the medium-altitude 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) mission 
into its training infrastructure and organizational culture, 
and has taken the approach of organizing for the RPA mission 
and career field similarly to its manned combat aircraft 
squadrons. While divestments of combat aircraft over the past 
several years provided a temporary increase in available rated 
officers to operate RPAs, overall rated pilot shortages, 
especially for fighter aircraft, continue to plague the Air 
Force, and pilot shortages are anticipated to increase 
significantly as the commercial airline industry increases its 
pilot hiring.
    An April 2014 Government Accountability Office recommended 
the Air Force consider the use of enlisted personnel to operate 
its fleet of MQ-1 and MQ-9 aircraft, but the Air Force rejected 
that recommendation because, ``it decided that the 
responsibilities of piloting an RPA were commensurate with the 
rank of officers instead.'' Since that time, the Air Force 
still has not alleviated the manning shortfall for RPA pilots, 
causing its RPA pilot community to be overworked, feel 
underappreciated, and negatively impacting their morale. By the 
Air Force's own admission, these problems are creating a 
situation where reduced retention of its RPA pilot force is 
anticipated as RPA pilots reach the end of their service 
commitments in the coming years.
    Additionally, the committee believes the Air Force's 
rationale for rejecting enlisted RPA operators does not comport 
with the organizational construct used by the Army in their 
unmanned aircraft system operations, where enlisted personnel 
operate RPAs during both ISR and live-fire strike missions 
under the supervision of warrant officers and commissioned 
officers. The use of enlisted RPA operators opens a larger pool 
of potential applicants, reduces overall personnel costs as 
compared to using commissioned officers, and with the use of 
appropriate RPA control technologies, reduces the length of the 
training pipeline.
    Finally, the committee expects the Air Force to allow 
officers currently serving as RPA operators to continue to 
serve in those roles, if necessary, while transitioning to 
enlisted operators over time as new operators are accessed and 
trained, and to ensure that such officers continue to have 
opportunities for career progression and service.

Prohibition on divestment of Marine Corps Search and Rescue Units (sec. 
        1047)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation of appropriated funds to retire, prepare to 
retire, transfer or place in stowage any aircraft in Marine 
Corps Search and Rescue Units (SRU). The provision would also 
prohibit the reduction in manning levels with respect to any 
Marine Corps Search and Rescue unit.

Modification of requirements relating to management of military 
        technicians (sec. 1048)

    The committee recommends a provision that would delay the 
implementation date of section 1053 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) 
until October 1, 2017 and align the date of conversion for 
military technicians (non-dual status) with military 
technicians (dual status). This provision would also clarify 
that the positions to be converted are to 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.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to 
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives by March 1, 2017, a report 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 provision of law. The 
report shall include the following: (a) An analysis of the 
fully-burdened costs of the conversion taking into account the 
new modernized military retirement system; and (b) An 
assessment of the ratio of members of the Armed Forces 
performing active Guard and Reserve duty and civilian employees 
of the Department of Defense under title 5, United States Code, 
required to best contribute to the readiness of the National 
Guard and the Reserves.

Support for the Associate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency 
        for Military Affairs (sec. 1049)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence to ensure that the Associate Director of the 
Central Intelligence Agency (ADMA) has access to, and support 
from, offices, agencies, and programs of the Department 
necessary for the ADMA to achieve its intended function. In the 
wake of the first Gulf War, the predecessor to the office of 
the ADMA was created to better integrate the Department of 
Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Since that 
time, the office, which is typically led by a general or 
admiral chosen by the Secretary of Defense, has played a key 
role in coordinating and communicating support between the two 
organizations. A strong and cooperative relationship is vital 
to the national security interests of the United States. This 
provision would enhance the Department's support to the 
position and confirm the importance of the enduring 
relationship between the CIA and the Department.

Enhancement of interagency support during contingency operations and 
        transition periods (sec. 1050)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to enter 
into an agreement allowing each Secretary to 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 purpose of the provision would be to ease bureaucratic 
hurdles to interagency support and therefore increase both 
effectiveness and efficiencies in the provision of such 
support.

Enhancement of information sharing and coordination of military 
        training between Department of Homeland Security and Department 
        of Defense (sec. 1051)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that the information 
needs of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) relating to 
civilian law enforcement activities in proximity to the borders 
of the United States are identified and communicated to the 
Secretary of Defense for the purposes of planning and executing 
military training. The provision would require the Secretary of 
Defense to ensure that such military training conducted in 
proximity to the borders of the U.S. is coordinated with DHS. 
Further, the provision would require the Secretary of Homeland 
Security and the Secretary of Defense to create joint guidance 
to ensure information relevant to drug interdiction or other 
civilian law enforcement matters that is collected by the U.S. 
military during the normal course of military training or 
operations is provided promptly to civilian law enforcement 
officials in accordance with section 371 of title 10, United 
States Code.
    The committee notes that the U.S. military engages in 
realistic military training activities around the U.S. to 
simulate real world operational environments. The committee 
believes that in addition to supporting the readiness of U.S. 
military forces, such training can provide a secondary benefit 
to civilian authorities, particularly as it relates to 
increased situational awareness that would increase the 
effectiveness of drug interdiction and border security 
operations conducted by civilian law enforcement.
    The committee notes that section 371 of title 10, United 
States Code authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in accordance 
with other applicable law, to ``provide to Federal, State, or 
local civilian law enforcement any information collected during 
the normal course of military training or operations that may 
be relevant'' and further states that ``the needs of civilian 
law enforcement officials for information shall, to the maximum 
extent practicable, be taken into account in the planning and 
execution of military training or operations.''
    The committee is concerned that the mechanisms through 
which the Department of Defense (DOD) is made aware of the 
information needs of DHS and civilian law enforcement agencies 
as well as DOD's ability to coordinate its training operations 
is informal and ad hoc in nature. Accordingly, the committee 
believes that establishing a formal mechanism for the sharing 
of information and increasing coordination of military training 
operations along the borders with DHS is warranted.

Notification on the provision of defense sensitive support (sec. 1052)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
provision of defense sensitive support to non-Department of 
Defense departments and agencies until the Secretary of Defense 
determines and notifies the congressional defense committees 
that the support does not interfere with the mission and 
functions of the Department, or if it does so interfere, that 
it is in the national security interest of the United States. 
Additional guidance is provided in the classified annex that 
accompanies this bill and report.

Modification of authority to transfer Department of Defense property 
        for law enforcement activities (sec. 1053)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2576a of title 10, United States Code to modify the 
availability of defense items eligible for transfer and 
notification requirements.

Exemption of information on military tactics, techniques, and 
        procedures from release under Freedom of Information Act (sec. 
        1054)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 130e of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to exempt information related to military 
tactics, techniques, and procedures from public disclosure if 
the information could reasonably be expected to risk impairment 
of the effective operation of the Department of Defense by 
providing an advantage to an adversary or potential adversary, 
and the public interest consideration in the disclosure of such 
information does not outweigh preventing the disclosure of such 
information.

Treatment of certain sensitive information by State and local 
        governments (sec. 1055)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 128 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to designate information as being 
Department of Defense critical infrastructure security 
information to ensure that such information is not disseminated 
without authorization. Certain Department of Defense critical 
infrastructure security information that is provided to a state 
or local government would remain under the control of the 
Department of Defense, and a state or local law authorizing or 
requiring a state or local government to disclose such 
information would not apply to such information, and any 
request for disclosure of such information must be provided to 
the Secretary to determine whether to exempt the information 
from disclosure.
    Certain sensitive but unclassified information, designated 
as critical infrastructure security information (CISI), is 
related to Department of Defense critical infrastructure. If 
CISI is disclosed and exploited, it would likely result in 
significant disruption, destruction, or damage of or to 
Department operations, property, or facilities. CISI can be 
shared with state and local governments to facilitate 
coordination during incidents, normal operations, or emergency 
response.

Recovery of excess firearms, ammunition, and parts granted to foreign 
        countries and transfer to certain persons (sec. 1056)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Army to acquire from any person any firearm, 
ammunition repair parts, or other supplies which were provided 
to any country on a grant basis.

Sense of the Senate on development and fielding of fifth generation 
        airborne systems (sec. 1057)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate on the definition of and need for continued 
prioritization, development, and fielding of fifth-generation 
airborne capabilities.

Technical and conforming amendments (sec. 1058)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
technical and clerical corrections to the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 11492) and 
section 2431b of title 10, United States Code.

   Subtitle G--National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
                                Service


Purpose and scope (sec. 1066)

    The committee recommends a series of provisions that would 
create an independent National Commission on Military, 
National, and Public Service, including a provision to 
establish the purpose and scope of this Commission to consider: 
(1) the need for a military selective service process, 
including a continuing need for a mechanism to draft large 
numbers of replacement combat troops; (2) the means by which to 
foster a greater attitude and ethos of service among United 
States youth, including an increased propensity for military 
service; (3) the feasibility of modifying the military 
selective service process to obtain for military, national, and 
public service individuals with skills for which the Nation has 
a critical need, without regard to age or gender; and (4) the 
feasibility of including in the military selective service 
process, as so modified, an eligibility for one or more Federal 
benefits to incentivize the necessary education, training, and 
service to fulfill such critical needs.

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (sec. 
        1067)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
Service as an independent commission. The provision would 
prescribe the manner and timing in which the Commission would 
be appointed, its composition, pay rates for members and staff, 
and would provide sundry other authorities attending to the 
operation of the Commission as an independent entity.

Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1068)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service 
to conduct public hearings (except classified hearings) on 
recommendations under consideration, and that such hearings be 
noticed on a public website at least 14 days in advance. The 
provision would require the Commission to hold its first 
meeting withing 30 days after all members have been 
appointment.

Principles and procedure for Commission recommendations (sec. 1069)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
President, within 3 months after the establishment date of the 
National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, 
to establish and transmit to the Commission and Congress 
principles for reform of the military selective service 
process, including the means by which to best acquire skills to 
meet the military, national, and public service requirements of 
the country. The provision would require these Presidential 
principles to address: (1) whether, in light of the current 
global security environment, there continues to be a need for a 
selective service process designed to produce large quantities 
of combat troops, and if so, whether that system should include 
mandatory registration by citizens and residents regardless of 
gender; (2) the need, and how best to meet the need, of the 
Nation, the military, the Federal civilian sector, and the 
private sector (including the non-profit sector) for 
individuals possessing certain critical skills and abilities, 
and how to best employ individuals with those skills and 
abilities; (3) how to foster within the nation, particularly 
among the nation's youth, an increased sense of service and 
civic responsibility to enhance the acquisition of critically 
needed skills through education and training, and how best to 
acquire those skills for military, national, and public 
service; (4) how to increase propensity among the nation's 
youth for service in the military, or alternatively in national 
or public service, including how to increase the pool of 
qualified applicants for military service; (5) the need in 
government to increase interest, education, and employment in 
certain critical fields, including particularly science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics, national security, 
cyber, linguistics and foreign language, education, health 
care, and the medical professions; and (6) how military 
national, and public service may be incentivized, including 
through educational benefits, grants, Federally-insured loans, 
Federal or State hiring preferences, or other mechanisms the 
President considers appropriate. The provision would require 
certain cabinet officials and other officials or experts to 
transmit to the Commission and Congress recommendations for the 
reform of the military selective service process, and military, 
national, and public service in connection with that process.

Executive Director and staff (sec. 1070)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the National Commission on Military, National, and Public 
Service to appoint, and fix the rate of pay of, an Executive 
Director and staff. The provision would limit detailees from 
Executive Branch agencies to no more than one-third of the 
personnel employed by the Commission, and would prohibit the 
detail of executive branch employees to the Commission who in 
the year prior to the detail were substantially involved with 
the development of recommendations provided to the Commission.

Judicial review precluded (sec. 1071)

    The committee recommends a provision that would preclude 
the actions of the President, cabinet officials and other 
individuals required to provide recommendations under this 
subtitle, and the Commission on Military, National, and Public 
Service from judicial review of their actions taken under this 
subtitle.

Termination (sec. 1072)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the termination of the National Commission on Military, 
National, and Public Service no later than 36 months after the 
Commission establishment date.

Funding (sec. 1073)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2017, $15.0 million be 
available to the National Commission on Military, National, and 
Public Service until expended to carry out its duties under 
this subtitle.

                    Subtitle H--Studies and Reports


Annual reports on unfunded priorities of the Armed Forces and the 
        combatant commands (sec. 1076)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
military service chiefs and the commanders of the individual 
functional and geographic combatant commands to submit to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives a list, in priority order, of the unfunded 
requirements for each individual service branch or combatant 
command no later than 25 days after the date on which the 
budget for a fiscal year is submitted to Congress pursuant to 
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code. This provision 
would repeal section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).

Assessment of the joint ground forces of the Armed Forces (sec. 1077)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
to oversee a comprehensive assessment of the joint ground 
forces. The committee would require this report no later than 
one year after the enactment of this act. The report should 
explicitly address capability and capacity gaps that threaten 
the successful execution of decisive, operational-maneuver in a 
joint context.
    The committee's recommendation is informed by the findings 
of the National Commission on the Future of the United States 
Army (NCFA) and the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) 
report of April, 2016. The committee notes that both the 
commission and GAO identified critical capability gaps needed 
for operational theaters.
    The committee is concerned our ground forces are not 
properly balanced and are incurring unacceptable risks to 
mission and forces. The committee is also concerned the 
drawdown in Army end strength is fomenting much of this loss of 
capability and capacity. Further, the committee is concerned 
that reported readiness levels of both the Army and Marine 
Corps make this potential situation more complicated. It may 
impact the United States' ability to rapidly deploy a campaign 
quality force with available forces.
    This assessment and report must identify gaps in critical 
combat capabilities. The committee is concerned about potential 
gaps in armed reconnaissance, armor, combat engineers, cluster 
munitions, and long range field artillery capable of standoff 
attack and counter fires. Of particular concern is 
comprehensive air defense. The committee would like to know if 
our forces have the capability to protect themselves from all 
aerial threats from enemy aircraft and theater ballistic 
missiles to remotely piloted vehicles.
    The committee also requires the assessment to address gaps 
in essential combat support and service support capabilities, 
including electronic warfare, chemical, biological, 
radiological, and nuclear reconnaissance, detection and 
decontamination, water and fuel distribution, military police, 
and transportation. The committee shares the NCFA's concern 
about the lack of transportation assets to move the equipment 
of combat and construction engineer battalions. Also, given the 
amount of infantry units across the Army and Marine Corps, the 
committee is concerned about the adequacy of available ground 
transportation to move and sustain these light forces.
    Given the comprehensive nature of the report the committee 
would also like to be made aware of any redundancies and 
obsolete capabilities. In the end, the committee would be 
interested in recommendations to rebalance the joint force to 
maximize total available end strength, force structure and 
technology. This assessment should be made within the context 
of current force demands, current and emerging threats, forces 
available, and readiness. The committee intent is to ensure our 
ground forces have the needed capabilities and capacities to 
execute successful operational, all arms maneuver with all 
needed theater-level sustainment and support.

Report on independent assessment of the force structure of the Armed 
        Forces to meet the national defense strategy (sec. 1078)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to obtain and submit to Congress a report 
by an independent organization that assesses the threats to the 
United States, potential conflicts arising from those threats, 
likely Department of Defense responses to those threats, and 
the Department of Defense force posture, systems, and programs 
required to execute such responses. The report would also 
require an assessment of the ability of the forces to meet the 
day-to-day requirements of the commanders of the combatant 
commands.

Annual report on observation flights over the United States under the 
        Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1079)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the previous year's 
observation flights over the United States under the Open Skies 
Treaty. The report should include (a) a description of the 
flight path of the observation flight; (b) an analysis of 
whether any critical infrastructure of the United States was 
subject of image capture activities of the observation flight; 
and (c) a description of the costs imposed on the Department of 
Defense and other relevant agencies by the observation flight.

Reports on programs managed under alternative compensatory control 
        measures in the Department of Defense (sec. 1080)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to provide certain reports and 
notifications regarding programs that DOD manages under 
alternative compensatory control measures (ACCM).
    The Department of Defense typically uses the ACCM system to 
manage program of lesser sensitivity or programs with a less 
enduring life than the programs that it manages under special 
access (SAP) program channels.
    The committee believes that DOD needs to provide more 
rigorous oversight of and reporting on ACCM programs. Despite 
several directions from Congress to the DOD to produce better 
information and inventories of these programs, DOD has failed 
to do so.
    Therefore, the committee sees no alternative but to include 
legislation on the matter.

Requirement for notice and reporting to Committees on Armed Services of 
        certain expenditures of funds by Defense Intelligence Agency 
        (sec. 1081)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add the 
Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives to a reporting requirement under 50 U.S.C. 
3038(c) that allows the Defense Intelligence Agency to use 
limited funds without regard to the provisions of law or 
regulation relating to the expenditure of U.S. Government 
funds.

Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements for which 
        statutory requirement is from an amendment made by an annual 
        national defense authorization Act (sec. 1082)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirements for several reports that are mandated by an annual 
National Defense Authorization Act and by other public laws.

Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements for which 
        statutory requirement is specified in an annual national 
        defense authorization Act (sec. 1083)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
several requirements for the Department of Defense to provide 
reports that have been added by an annual National Defense 
Authorization Act.

Repeal of requirements relating to efficiencies plan for the civilian 
        personnel workforce and service contractor workforce of the 
        Department of Defense (sec. 1084)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 955 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).

                       Subtitle I--Other Matters


Military service management of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 
        1086)

    The committee recommends a provision that would 
disestablish the F-35 Joint Program Office and devolve relevant 
responsibilities to the Air Force and the Navy. The committee 
believes the current management structure of the F-35 Joint 
Strike Fighter program is in need of change. The F-35 program's 
original operational requirements called for 70-90 percent 
commonality between the three variants. In reality, even the 
Program Executive Officer of the F-35 Joint Program Office, 
General Christopher Bogdan, recently admitted the variants are 
only 20-25 percent common, primarily in their cockpits. The Air 
Force, Navy, and Marine Corps each fly primarily a single 
variant and have different roles and missions, concepts of 
operations, and deployment requirements, all leading to highly 
different priorities for F-35 capabilities, capacity, 
maintainability, and follow-on modernization. International 
partners have needs and priorities that differ even further 
from the U.S. military services. These forces, coupled with the 
lack of commonality, have led to a situation in which, as 
General Bogdan stated in 2013, ``We have three airplane 
programs running in parallel.'' Indeed, as recently as April 
2016, in reference to the 2,590 Joint Program Office and 
Integrated Test Force personnel, General Bogdan stated ``I 
don't know if that's enough or not, or if it's too much. It's 
what we have. You ought to look at the F-35 numbers and 
remember that we're building three variants for 14 customers, 
so maybe it's not a bad size for three programme offices.''
    The committee is concerned the program management structure 
currently in place was established for a commonality in 
variants that never materialized, is ill-suited to meet the 
current and future requirements and priorities of the services 
and international partners, and prevents the true alignment of 
responsibility and accountability within the services and the 
Department of Defense as a whole.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 
not later than 6 months after the F-35 Milestone C decision 
(currently scheduled for April 2019) to disestablish the Joint 
Program Office and devolve relevant responsibilities to the 
Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy. The 
Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy 
shall establish separate program offices to manage the 
production, sustainment, and modernization of their respective 
aircraft. The Air Force shall manage all aspects related to the 
F-35A variant and the Navy will manage all aspects related to 
the F-35B and F-35C variants. The Air Force and Navy will 
establish processes to coordinate on issues where commonality 
exists. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense, 
not later than February 1, 2017, to submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report outlining the Department's 
implementation plan. Additionally, the committee directs the 
Governmental Accountability Office to review the Department's 
plan and to brief the congressional defense committees on their 
findings within 90 days of the report's submission.
    The committee believes that the current consensus-driven 
management structure of the Joint Strike Fighter program is 
ill-suited to what are in essence three separate aircraft 
programs, has led to aircraft that do not fully meet its 
customers' needs, and stifles the proper alignment of 
responsibility and accountability. The committee believes the 
Department must act now to begin implementing necessary 
changes.

Treatment of follow-on modernization for the F-35 joint strike fighter 
        as a major defense acquisition program (sec. 1087)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense to treat the F-35 Follow-on Modernization 
program as a separate Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP). 
The committee strongly supports the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
program and efforts to ensure F-35 capabilities outmatch any 
potential adversary for the decades the F-35 will be in our 
tactical aviation force. However, the committee is concerned 
that the decision by the Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to manage F-35 Block 4 
development under the existing F-35 acquisition program will 
limit the transparency, accountability, and oversight required 
for a program as large and as important to our future combat 
capability as the F-35.
    The first increment of modernization, Block 4.1, is 
scheduled to enter the fleet in fiscal year 2020, with 
subsequent increments following every 2 years through delivery 
of increment 4.4 in fiscal year 2026. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) estimates the Department will spend 
nearly $3.0 billion on F-35 follow-on development efforts over 
the next 6 years alone, easily exceeding the statutory and 
regulatory thresholds for a MDAP. The committee believes the 
reporting and oversight mechanisms required of a MDAP, such as 
a business case analysis and cost, schedule, and performance 
reporting, are necessary for Congress and our international 
partners in the Joint Strike Fighter program to provide quality 
oversight for a long-term, multi-billion dollar program.
    The committee believes the F-22 Raptor program offers an 
instructive lesson in the dangers of managing an expensive and 
complicated modernization program under an existing program 
baseline. The committee believes the Department should heed 
that lesson and avoid repeating mistakes of the past.

Reduction in minimum number of Navy carrier air wings and carrier air 
        wing headquarters required to be maintained (sec. 1088)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5062 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the 
number of air wings required to be maintained and fully staffed 
from 10 to 9.
    While the committee does not believe cutting naval aviation 
infrastructure is advisable in the current security 
environment, inadequate funding for defense prevents the 
Department of the Navy from funding all necessary requirements. 
Should adequate funding become available, the committee intends 
to repeal this provision.

Streamlining of the National Security Council (sec. 1089)

    The committee recommends a provision that would streamline 
the statutory requirements of the National Security Council 
(NSC) and limit the size of the NSC professional staff to no 
more than 150 individuals, which includes detailees and 
assignees from other agencies and contractors. The purpose of 
this provision is to return to the intended statutory purpose 
of the NSC and to correct constitutional separation of powers 
concerns when the NSC staff, which is presently shielded from 
congressional oversight, conduct operations or activities that 
are appropriate for departments led by individuals holding 
Senate-confirmed positions.
    The National Security Council was established by the 
National Security Act of 1947 (P.L. 235-61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 
402) and amended by the National Security Act Amendments of 
1949 (63 Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) By establishing the 
NSC in statute, Congress sought to create an enduring 
institutional structure to assist the president in setting 
strategic guidance, coordinating U.S. foreign and defense 
policy, and facilitating interagency cooperation and 
integration on national security matters. The statute also 
specifically authorized a NSC staff to be headed by a civilian 
executive secretary appointed by the President.
    Since its establishment, NSC internal meeting structures 
and processes of the NSC have varied, reflecting the decision-
making style and leadership of the president. Yet, over the 
last couple decades, one attribute has remained true under 
administrations of both parties: the size of the NSC staff has 
consistently grown.
    That growth has been influenced by additional committees 
and participation requirements created in statute for the NSC. 
These congressional additions have only added to the growth of 
the NSC staff. The growth in staff and statutory requirements 
has not, however, resulted in a more effective decision-making 
process. In fact, the enlarged staff and burdensome statutory 
requirements have undermined the original congressional intent 
of the statute, which was to provide a mechanism for strategic 
and coherent national security policy making. Indeed, a larger 
NSC staff has created bureaucratic inefficiencies, incentivized 
staff involvement in operational and tactical national security 
decisions, weakened national security prioritization, and 
undermined the strategic guidance that the country's national 
security apparatus requires to integrate and implement policy 
successfully.
    The personnel limitations in this provision would not apply 
to staff that are designated as wholly administrative or 
technical support staff.

Form of annual national security strategy report (sec. 1090)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
each national security strategy report as required by section 
108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3043) to be 
transmitted in classified form. Such report may contain an 
unclassified summary.

Border security metrics (sec. 1091)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to develop metrics to measure 
the effectiveness of security at ports of entry, between ports 
of entry, and in the maritime environment not later than 120 
days after the enactment of this Act.
    The committee believes that the establishment of such 
metrics will enhance the ability of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) to assess its progress in securing the borders 
of the United States by using consistent, regular and robust 
border security performance measures. Additionally, the 
committee believes that the creation of such metrics will not 
only enhance the ability of DHS to more accurately measure the 
effectiveness of its operations along the borders, but also 
will better inform its coordination with, and requests for 
support from the interagency, including the Department of 
Defense.

Consolidation of marketing of the Army within the Army Marketing 
        Research Group (sec. 1092)

    The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 
all marketing functions of the Regular Army, Army Reserve, and 
Army National Guard within the Army Marketing Research Group no 
later than October 1, 2017.
    The committee notes that the National Commission on the 
Future of the Army recommended consolidation of marketing 
functions under the authority of the Army Marketing Research 
Group to ensure unity of effort across all three Army 
components.
    The committee strongly supports the Commission's 
recommendation. The committee believes that marketing of the 
United States Army should be a Secretariat responsibility as 
the authority, direction, and control for all three Army 
components rests with the Secretary of the Army. Additionally, 
consolidation of marketing functions will allow for unity of 
effort, as identified by the Commission, and also ensures a 
strategic approach to marketing to maximize efficiencies, 
eliminate duplication and cross-messaging, provide appropriate 
oversight of advertising initiatives, and continue to build 
upon one Army message to the American public.
    The committee understands that marketing is an important 
component of the Army's ability to increase and sustain public 
understanding of military service and to articulate the value 
of service in the Army in defense of our nation. The committee 
notes that marketing plays an important role in the recruitment 
of soldiers, particularly during the last 14 years of conflict.

Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare Command insignia 
        (sec. 1093)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 7882 to title 10, United States Code, to prohibit a 
person from using any covered Naval Special Warfare insignia in 
connection with any promotion, service or other commercial 
activity when a particular use would be likely to suggest a 
false affiliation, connection, or association with, endorsement 
by, or approval of, the United States, the Department of 
Defense, or the Department of the Navy, and to authorize the 
Attorney General to initiate civil proceedings to prevent 
unauthorized use of such insignia.

Program to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Tomb of the Unknown 
        Soldier (sec. 1094)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a program to commemorate the 
100th anniversary of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Sense of Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the KC-46A aircraft 
        (sec. 1095)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Congress regarding the basing of KC-46A tanker 
aircraft outside of the continental United States.

Replacement of quadrennial defense review with national defense 
        strategy (sec. 1096)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 118 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense 
committees, in January of each year, a national defense 
strategy. The new national defense strategy would replace the 
report known as the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The 
committee concluded that the length of time needed to develop 
the QDR made the report irrelevant to actual national security 
decision-making because the national security environment 
evolved more quickly than the review process.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide the congressional defense committees a defense 
strategy, in classified form, that addresses the highest 
priority missions for the Department of Defense, the most 
critical and enduring threats to the national security of the 
United States and its allies posed by states or non-state 
actors, and the strategies that the Department will use to 
counter those threats. The report would also have to discuss a 
strategic framework to prioritize these missions and threats as 
well as discuss the major investments that the Department will 
make over the following five-year period to match that 
strategic framework. The Secretary would be required to seek 
the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 
preparing each defense strategy. An unclassified summary would 
accompany the strategy.
    The more frequent review and development of a classified 
guiding strategy document would more rapidly develop the 
necessary level of detail on threat actors and corresponding 
strategies, resource requirements, and programmatic, readiness, 
and posture needs, and would therefore provide Department 
officials greater and more timely guidance in the execution of 
the strategies laid out in the report and the broader 
furtherance of their duties. The requirements in statute for 
the National Defense Panel would remain, but be required every 
four years rather than every two years to provide an 
independent assessment of the Department's threat assessments, 
strategies, and frameworks linking ends, ways, and means.

                       Items of Special Interest


Air Force training with partner nations

    The committee is aware that the German Air Force recently 
decided to terminate its contract with the U.S. Air Force that 
has allowed the German Air Force to operate a tactical training 
center at Holloman Air Force Base (AFB) . The current contract 
will end in 2019. The German Air Force presence peaked in 2005 
with 850 personnel and 38 Tornado aircraft.
    The German Air Force presence in the United States 
supported the strategic alliance between our two nations and 
created unique and valuable training opportunities between our 
two militaries. Given that the current arrangement is ending, 
the committee encourages the Department of Defense to explore 
other ways in which the German Air Force might continue its 
presence at Holloman AFB.
    If the Department and the German Air Force are unable to 
achieve an understanding about a long-term presence by the 
German Air Force in the United States, the committee encourages 
the Department to examine training opportunities with other 
partner nations that would utilize the weather, terrain, 
airspace, and infrastructure available at Holloman AFB.

Arctic Search and Rescue

    The committee is aware of the expanding access to the 
Arctic region due to diminishing sea ice, including an increase 
in shipping traffic along the Northern Sea Route, the Northwest 
Passage, and potentially, a transpolar route. The committee is 
concerned with the limited capabilities of the United States to 
conduct search and rescue operations throughout the Arctic 
region. The committee understands the Alaska National Guard has 
developed an air-dropped, palletized, Arctic Sustainment 
Package (ASP) to enable the survival of twenty-five individuals 
for three days in harsh Arctic conditions. This package is 
deployable over vast distances--both over water and over land--
and is suitable to sustain life in the High Arctic environment. 
The Alaska National Guard currently possesses two ASPs, but 
additional units could be beneficial.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to develop a plan for identifying Arctic search and rescue 
requirements, resourcing such capabilities, including those 
like the ASP, and developing the tactics, techniques, and 
procedures required to employ these capabilities. The committee 
directs the Secretary to provide both a written plan and 
briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than 
180 days following the enactment of this Act.

Army Modernization Strategy

    The committee directs the Chief of Staff of the United 
States Army to develop a comprehensive modernization strategy 
for the total Army. This strategy should explicitly address the 
Army's vision, end-state, key objectives, war fighting 
challenges, and risks. It should be sufficiently descriptive to 
drive requirements, set priorities, identify opportunity costs, 
and establish time lines. The committee assesses that a 
comprehensive strategy would give strategic purpose to existing 
acquisition programs and branch specific strategies. It could 
also provide the Army an understanding of potential long term 
costs beyond the future year defense program and aid in the 
decision-making process to terminate unneeded or 
underperforming programs. The committee directs this strategy 
to be submitted with the Presidential Budget for the National 
Defense Authorization act for Fiscal Year 2018.
    The committee is concerned the Army is woefully behind on 
modernization. The committee believes the Army must modernize 
for the harsh realities of 21st century warfare. Our soldiers 
must be trained, organized and equipped for an increasingly 
diverse and complex range of threats. They must be able to win 
against peers in highly lethal, combined arms maneuver; against 
near peers in hybrid warfare conditions; and against 
determined, unconventional insurgents. The committee notes 
other armies, including potential adversaries, are modernizing 
at a rapid pace.
    The committee notes that the Army has published numerous 
strategies for specific programs such as small arms, tracked 
combat vehicles, wheeled vehicles and aviation. Yet the Army 
does not possess an all-encompassing modernization strategy 
that provides purpose and priority to the above. Given that the 
Army expends tens of billions of dollars on procurement, 
research, development, testing and evaluation each year, the 
committee views a comprehensive Army modernization strategy as 
essential.
    The committee acknowledges the Army remains engaged in 
active operations across the world and accordingly has made 
readiness its first priority. However, the committee assesses 
modernization as a critical requirement for readiness in the 
very near future. Modernizing while supporting operational 
demands is not easy, but it has been done before. Army leaders 
like General Abrams transformed the Army before. They restored 
the discipline and morale of the force in the aftermath of the 
Vietnam War. They transitioned the Army to an All-Volunteer 
Force while revolutionizing training doctrine. And they built 
an Army that won the Cold War and removed Saddam Hussein from 
Kuwait.

Army Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

    The committee notes the Department of Defense's plans to 
meet the needs of the combatant commanders by increasing the 
number of Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Combat Air Patrols 
(CAPs) in part through an increase of Army UAS units to 
accommodate as many as 16 Army UAS CAPs.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army 
submit to the congressional defense committees not later than 
120 days after the enactment of this Act a report on how the 
Army plans to increase its training resources for its Shadow 
and Gray Eagle platforms, improve facilities, and protect its 
training ranges to support the growth of Army UAS CAPs. This 
report shall also include an analysis on the need for the Army 
to re-establish an Army UAS Center of Excellence given the 
increased role for Army UAS training and operations.

Comptroller General assessment of national defense implications of the 
        next generation air traffic management system

    The committee is concerned with the potential national 
defense implications of the next generation air traffic 
management system, specifically with the main component of the 
system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast 
(ADS-B).
    The committee recognizes the significant safety, cost, and 
efficiency advantages of ADS-B operations over the legacy 
system of air traffic control radar surveillance of air 
traffic. ADS-B enhances system situational awareness, collision 
avoidance, runway and airport airspace incursion avoidance, and 
the ability to implement air traffic control in non-radar 
environments, such as sparsely populated areas and oceanic 
surveillance. ADS-B also contributes to more direct aircraft 
routing and optimized departures and approaches, which increase 
capacity and save time and fuel. Finally, ADS-B infrastructure 
relies on simple ground and airborne radio equipment that is 
significantly cheaper to install and maintain than the 
mechanical infrastructure associated with traditional radar 
ground stations.
    The committee is concerned that many of the characteristics 
that give ADS-B operations its significant advantages also 
expose potential vulnerabilities for exploitation by entities 
or individuals with nefarious intent. An inexpensive software-
defined radio, a laptop computer, and a small nondescript 
antenna are all that are needed to monitor and potentially 
exploit extremely accurate, real-time aircraft position and 
operations details that are continuously broadcast using 
unencrypted digital encoding.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct a study, with preliminary 
observations due no later than March 3, 2017 and a final report 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives to follow. The assessment by the Comptroller 
General should include:
          (1) Implications for ADS-B operations on detection, 
        identification, cueing, and targeting for air 
        sovereignty and air defense operations against airborne 
        threats;
          (2) Effect of ADS-B operations on integrated tactical 
        warning and attack assessment decision-making processes 
        and authorities;
          (3) Vulnerabilities from cyber attack against ADS-B 
        related network operations and potential impacts to 
        military operations;
          (4) Susceptibility of ADS-B to meaconing, intrusion, 
        jamming, and interference and potential impacts to 
        military operations;
          (5) Implications for ADS-B operations on force 
        protection and operational security for military 
        airborne assets operating en route between and on 
        military installations;
          (6) Options for mitigating potential vulnerabilities; 
        and
          (7) Other information such that the Comptroller 
        General considers appropriate to include in the report.

Comptroller General assessment of priorities and processes for 
        operational support airlift and executive airlift by Department 
        of Defense aircraft

    The committee is aware senior federal government officials, 
including the President, Vice President, cabinet members, other 
high-ranking executive branch officials, general and flag 
officers, and members of Congress are authorized to fly on 
military aircraft. Moreover, certain officials are required to 
use military aircraft under circumstances where they require 
security, continuous access to secure communications, or have 
exceptional scheduling demands. This high priority movement of 
senior government officials, known as operational support 
airlift and executive airlift (OSA/EA), is accomplished with a 
fleet of aircraft assigned to the Air Force's 89th Airlift 
Wing, located at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Additionally, 
certain other high ranking government officials assigned 
throughout the United States and around the world also rely on 
military airlift using aircraft based in many locations and 
operated by other services and agencies of the Department of 
Defense.
    The committee recognizes the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) has previously reported the number of OSA/EA 
missions increased steadily from fiscal years 2008 through 
2012, with a concomitant increase in costs. The authorization 
to use government aircraft on OSA/EA missions is governed by 
guidance that includes a priority order based on civilian 
seniority and military rank. The committee desires to ensure 
the guidance and priority order are implemented effectively and 
fairly.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 
the United States to review the implementation of relevant 
government guidance specifying the prioritization, scheduling, 
and execution of OSA/EA missions, or other uses of military 
aircraft for passenger travel. Preliminary observations will be 
provided no later than March 3, 2017 to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, 
with a final report to follow. The assessment by the 
Comptroller General should include:
          (1) The guidance governing the use of military 
        aircraft for OSA/EA missions or other uses of military 
        aircraft for passenger travel;
          (2) How the priority order for use of military 
        aircraft for passenger travel is developed and 
        distributed;
          (3) The number of requests, fulfillments, and denials 
        for use of military aircraft for OSA/EA support 
        occurred from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, and the 
        reasons for any denials or nonfulfillments;
          (4) How effectively the Department of Defense (DoD) 
        implemented the relevant guidance and used management 
        controls to ensure OSA/EA missions are properly 
        approved, scheduled, and executed, including the basis 
        for any waivers or deviations from the guidance; and
          (5) Other information such that the Comptroller 
        General considers appropriate to include in the report.

Domain awareness in the Arctic

    The committee notes that on May 15, 2015, the Secretary of 
Defense stated that ``the Arctic is going to be a major area of 
importance to the United States, both strategically and 
economically in the future.'' The committee further notes that 
there has been an increase in commercial and military activity 
in the Arctic region by other nations, including China and 
Russia. As activity in the Arctic has increased, the committee 
is concerned that Department of Defense capabilities that 
support communications and domain awareness in the region, 
including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) 
assets, remain limited. The committee encourages the 
Department, in coordination with the U.S. interagency and 
foreign partners, to explore multi-domain, multi-service, cost 
effective ISR capabilities and interoperability in order to 
respond effectively to future contingencies and to fulfill the 
Department's strategic objectives in this important region.

Night vision technology for the southern border

    The Committee notes that, while authorities currently exist 
to allow the transfer of certain excess equipment, such as 
night vision technology, from the Department of Defense to 
other federal agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
continues to lack critical night vision technology on the 
southern border. Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary 
of Defense to accelerate the transfer of any excess inventory 
of modernized and serviceable night optical devices and thermal 
viewers, to the extent practicable, to U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection for the purposes of enhancing border security.

Predictable Funding for the National Guard Counterdrug Program

    The National Guard Counterdrug Program (NGCP) is a 
federally-funded program that provides military-specific skill-
sets to law enforcement agencies and community based 
organizations to battle the supply and demand for illicit 
drugs. Reductions in funding and the timing of funding 
continues to be a limiting factor for the NGCP. Such factors 
impede the effective sustainment of relationships with 
supported agencies and impacts the retention of highly-trained 
individuals.
    The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to work with the National Guard to develop a 
process to ensure more consistent and predictable funding to 
mitigate gaps or delays. The committee expects that this effort 
should result in increased predictability of funding, improve 
long-term planning, stabilize analytic support to law 
enforcement agencies, increase flexibility to respond to 
emerging drug-related threats, reduce repetitive initial 
training and ramp up of personnel, and the ability to continue 
mission support without interruption.

Study on Article III trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees

    The committee notes that certain charges, including 
conspiracy and material support to terrorism, may not be 
available as charges before Military Commissions. The committee 
is interested in understanding the range of options available 
for individuals held at Guantanamo that the United States 
believes are guilty of such offenses. Accordingly, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General of the 
United States, to study options for bringing such charges 
against individuals held at Guantanamo in Article III courts. 
The study shall review the feasibility of trying such 
individuals remotely via teleconference and locating an Article 
III court near the detention facility on Guantanamo Naval Base, 
Cuba. The feasibility study should detail the practical, 
security, and constitutional limitations of such options.

Total Army end strength

    The Committee remains concerned about the appropriate size 
of the Army, to include both the Active and Reserve Component, 
and its readiness posture. As a result of the Budget Control 
Act, the Army has drawn down its end strength with a goal of 
450,000 soldiers by the end of Fiscal Year 2018.
    General Mark Milley, the Chief of Staff of the Army, stated 
at the Army Posture hearing that the budget caps have resulted 
in a significant reduction in funding for modernization and 
research and development. He also emphasized that readiness is 
the top priority for the Army. In light of the threats 
confronting our nation, to include Russia, China, North Korea, 
Iran, and ISIS, the Army has accepted high military risk to 
meet the requirements of the National Security Strategy and the 
Defense Planning Guidance. But as General Milley also stated 
before this committee, we will ``make the most efficient and 
effective use of the Army that we have.''
    The Committee supports the Army's efforts to increase 
readiness levels throughout the force, and recognizes the need 
to reassess the Army 's size in conjunction with available 
funding sources and the threats facing our country.

                  TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

          Subtitle A--Department of Defense Matters Generally

Civilian personnel management (sec. 1101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
Section 129 of title 10, United States Code to remove 
restrictions on managing civilian personnel within the 
Department of Defense on the basis of man years, end strength, 
full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number of employees. 
The provision would add a new section requiring a report no 
later than February 1 of each year from the Secretary of 
Defense to the congressional defense committees on the 
management of the civilian workforce of the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense and the Defense Agencies and Field 
Activities. The Secretary of each military department would 
also be required to submit a report on the management of the 
civilian workforce under the jurisdiction of each Secretary 
which provides for the projected size of the civilian workforce 
in the current year and for each year in the future-years 
defense program to include a justification of any projected 
increases.
Repeal of requirement for annual strategic workforce plan for the 
        Department of Defense (sec. 1102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
reporting requirement for the Department of Defense to submit a 
biennial strategic workforce plan, as contained in section 115b 
of title 10, United States Code.
Temporary and term appointments in the competitive service in the 
        Department of Defense (sec. 1103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
statutory provisions to allow the Department of Defense to 
develop more strategic outreach efforts to recruit the talent 
needed to address a critical hiring need. The Department of 
Defense would determine recruitment sources, including 
processes for the solicitation of applications, and agencies 
would continue to be held responsible for merit-based hiring 
decisions, consistent with other employment requirements.
Personnel authorities related to the defense acquisition workforce 
        (sec. 1104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 1762 of title 10, United States Code, and create a new 
section 1763 of title 10, United States Code to provide a 
permanent authority that would allow the Secretary of Defense 
to establish and adjust a special system of personnel programs 
for employees in the Department of Defense civilian acquisition 
workforce and supporting personnel assigned to work directly 
with that workforce. Specifically, this provision would change 
the Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration 
Project (AcqDemo) from an indefinite project to a permanent 
system under the sole authority of the Secretary. This 
provision would retain for the new system the current 
authorities applicable to the demonstration project and provide 
the ability to expand coverage of acquisition organizations and 
personnel so that all of the acquisition workforce and the 
supporting personnel assigned to work directly with that 
workforce may participate.
    The AcqDemo was designed to experiment with the necessary 
personnel flexibilities and tools that can function in a 
dynamic acquisition environment to improve Department of 
Defense managers' ability to manage the acquisition workforce 
and its productivity effectively. Since the AcqDemo 
implementation in fiscal year 1999, the classification, 
contribution assessment, and compensation flexibilities have 
become essential within the acquisition cadre of workforce 
management tools. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
provision that would make permanent the system of acquisition 
personnel programs containing tested and accepted flexibilities 
needed by the acquisition workforce to better support the 
warfighters under a single organization within the Department 
of Defense.
Direct hire authority for financial management experts into the 
        Department of Defense workforce (sec. 1105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
each secretary of a military department with the authority to 
appoint qualified candidates possessing a finance, accounting, 
management, or actuarial science degree to financial 
management, accounting, auditing, and actuarial positions 
within the Department of Defense workforce. This authority is 
limited to 10 percent of the total number of finance, 
accounting, management, or actuarial science degree to 
financial management positions within each military department 
that are filled as of the close of the fiscal year last ending 
before the start of such calendar year. This authority expires 
on January 1, 2023.
Direct hire authority for the Department of Defense for post-secondary 
        students and recent graduates (sec. 1106)
    The committee recommends a provision that would would 
establish a Department of Defense (DoD) civilian on-campus 
recruiting authority under title 10 as an alternative to the 
federal government-wide Pathways program (established by 
Executive Order 13562) and other Title 5 hiring authorities. 
This proposal would facilitate DoD recruiters' efforts to 
recruit students directly to civilian positions using a new 
hiring authority expressly designed for this purpose. Hiring 
managers and recruiters, who already travel to specific schools 
with programs they want to target, would be able to involve 
candidates in a rigorous interview process, and make 
conditional offers on the spot. This would allow DoD to compete 
for highly qualified students and recent graduates. This 
authority would be limited to no more than 15 percent of the 
total number of hires made into professional and administrative 
occupations of the Department at the GS-11 level and below 
annually and would sunset four years after the date on which 
the Secretary first appoints a recent graduate or current post-
secondary student to a position under this section.
Public-private talent exchange (sec. 1107)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow 
Department of Defense employees to work in the private sector 
and for private industry employees to work within the 
Department of Defense. Exchanges would encourage Department of 
Defense employees to gain skills that align with functional 
communities or occupational specialties. As this authority 
would build on programs like the Intergovernmental Personnel 
Act (IPA), the committee understands that the Department of 
Defense has established procedures for monitoring and 
controlling salaries and expenses for the IPA program, 
including a limitation on salaries that may be paid or 
reimbursed for IPAs, and expects that such constraints will be 
applied to the pilot authorized by this provision.
Training for employment personnel of Department of Defense on matters 
        relating to authorities for recruitment and retention at United 
        States Cyber Command (sec. 1108)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
training for employment and human resources personnel at the 
Department of Defense on special recruitment, hiring, special 
pays, and retention authorities for positions at United States 
Cyber Command. In addition to training, written guidance would 
also be required to inform such employees of the Department of 
Defense on which authorities are available and how to use those 
authorities.
    The committee recommends a report to be completed by the 
Secretary of Defense no later than 180 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act. The report shall include a 
description of the training that the Secretary intends to 
provide to each of the employees described and the frequency 
with which the Secretary intends to provide such training.
Increase in maximum amount of voluntary separation incentive pay 
        authorized for civilian employees of the Department of Defense 
        (sec. 1109)
    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the maximum amount of separation pay authorized for Voluntary 
Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP) from the current ceiling of 
$25,000 to $40,000 for civilian employees of the Department of 
Defense. This increased maximum amount would adjust for 
inflation from when VSIP was first authorized for the 
Department of Defense in 1993. The Chief Human Capital Officers 
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) provided government-wide 
authority to provide VSIP. The maximum payable amount has not 
been adjusted since VSIP was first authorized.
Repeal of certain basis for appointment of a retired member of the 
        Armed Forces to Department of Defense position within 180 days 
        of retirement (sec. 1110)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3326 of title 5, United States Code, to repeal 
subsection (b)(3) which allows the Secretary concerned to waive 
the restriction on the appointment of retired members of the 
armed forces to positions in the civil service in the 
Department of Defense within 180 days of their retirement based 
on a state of national emergency.
    The committee notes with concern the conclusions of the 
United States Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in its 
report ``Veteran Hiring in the Civil Service: Practices and 
Perceptions,'' concerning the effect of the national emergency 
waiver since 2001 on the application of this so-called ``180-
day rule.'' The purpose of the law, enacted over 50 years ago, 
was to ensure that retired military members were not given 
civil service positions for reasons other than merit, a 
practice that can, over time, lead to unhealthy results for the 
civil service, and more immediately undermine long-standing 
merit principles that seek to ensure the most-qualified 
individuals are considered for federal employment.
    The committee appreciates the unique and broad experience 
military retirees bring to the civil service, but the committee 
also recognizes the virtues afforded by career civil servants. 
Most military retirees and other veterans already receive 
hiring preferences in recognition of their service. Beyond 
that, the committee believes veterans and retirees should 
compete on equal footing with other qualified applicants. As 
the report noted, between September 14, 2001, and the report's 
publication in August 2014, 41,630 military retirees were hired 
by the Department within the 180-day window. More than one-
third of those appointments were made prior to the member's 
effective retirement date, and more than half occurred within a 
single pay period after retirement. These figures strongly 
imply a significant number of these members were hired directly 
into the offices which they supported while in the military. 
While not improper, per se, it does, as the MSPB report noted, 
create suspicions.
    Finally, the committee is concerned about the affect this 
practice has on diversity within the Department, not just in 
terms of diversity as it is traditionally defined, but also on 
diversity of thought, experience, and background within the 
Department that is desirable in any organization.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives no later than February 
1, 2017 with data concerning the extent military retirees are 
hired by the Department. Such report shall include the 
following elements: (1) the number of military retirees hired 
by the Department in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 prior to or 
within 180 days of their retirement; (2) the total number of 
military retirees hired by the Department during fiscal years 
2014 and 2015 broken down by whether those individuals served 
as officers or enlisted personnel; (3) the number of non-
military retiree veterans hired by the Department during fiscal 
years 2014 and 2015 who were beneficiaries of the veteran 
preference; (4) the number and categories of non-veteran 
preference, preference eligible candidates hired by the 
Department during fiscal years 2014 and 2015; (5) the number of 
female applicants who did not qualify for preference eligible 
points hired by the Department during fiscal years 2014 and 
2015; and (6) the number of male applicants who did not qualify 
for preference eligible points hired by the Department during 
fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Finally, the Secretary shall 
provide an assessment of how application of the veteran's 
preference since 2001 in the case of military retirees has 
impacted diversity within the Department, and the ability of 
the Department and the military services to consistently hire 
best-qualified individuals for federal service.

Pilot programs on career sabbaticals for Department of Defense civilian 
        employees (sec. 1111)

    The committee recommends a provision that would create a 
pilot program on career sabbaticals for Department of Defense 
civilian employees. The pilot program would be limited to 300 
full-time civilian employees of each military department who 
may be selected during each of calendar years 2017 through 2022 
to participate. Sabbaticals would be for 1 year and are 
intended to provide the Department of Defense an opportunity to 
respond to the personal, familial, and professional needs of 
individual members of its civilian workforce.

Limitation on number of SES employees (sec. 1112)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
number of employees at the Department of Defense who are in the 
Senior Executive Service (SES). The limitation in this 
provision would reduce by 25 percent the number of covered SES 
employees of the Department, which were employed on December 
31, 2015. The reduction required by this provision would be 
effective on January 1, 2019. Covered SES employees would not 
include ``Highly Qualified Experts,'' which the provision 
limits to 200. The limitation would not apply to those 
employees of the Department who are appointed by the President 
and confirmed by the Senate.

No time limitation for appointment of relocating military spouses (sec. 
        1113)

    The committee recommends a provision that would clearly 
articulate that there is no time limitation on a relocating 
spouse's eligibility for noncompetitive appointment from the 
date of the service member's permanent change of station orders 
to the spouses' permanent appointment per duty station.

 Subtitle B--Department of Defense Science and Technology Laboratories 
                          and Related Matters


Permanent personnel management authority for the Department of Defense 
        for experts in science and engineering (sec. 1121)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Chapter 81 of Title 10, United States Code, to support efforts 
by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to 
attract, recruit, and employ world class scientific, technical, 
and engineering talent to manage and oversee the innovative 
research and technology development programs of the Agency. The 
recommended provision would make permanent the current 
experimental personnel authority that the agency has quite 
successfully employed, as well as preserve the Agency's ability 
to compete with the private sector for technical talent through 
flexibility in setting compensation levels. The provision would 
also make permanent similar authority to the Department of 
Defense research labs, as well as the office of Operational 
Test and Evaluation.
    The committee notes that the agency's experimental 
personnel authority was originally authorized by Congress in 
section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (PL 105-261). Since 
then, the Agency has used this authority effectively to bring 
innovative and talented program managers into public service. 
This authority has allowed the Agency to use more rapid and 
flexible personnel practices to hire talented individuals into 
term positions in support of broader national security efforts.
    The committee notes that these ``1101'' employees and their 
programs have made breakthrough contributions in areas as wide-
ranging as robotics, unmanned systems, cybersecurity, 
artificial intelligence, and the development of advanced 
prosthetics currently being used by military veterans. These 
managers have overseen ground-breaking technological advances 
and investments in cutting-edge research, technologies, and 
prototypes that support current and future military 
capabilities. As an example, the committee highlights that 
technological advances made by the Agency have been fielded in 
operational systems used extensively over the last decade in 
successful operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In total, the 
Agency is now leading efforts to develop critical military 
capabilities for the future.
    The committee notes that on April 12, 2016, the 
subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities received 
testimony on the Agency's current efforts to support the 
Secretary's Third Offset Strategy, which is designed to 
maintain the military's technological superiority over peer 
adversaries through work in areas such as hypersonics, space 
systems, and robotics. During that testimony, the Agency's 
director highlighted the value of the Agency's personnel 
system, stating ``Of course, at the center of DARPA's success 
is an abiding commitment to identify, recruit and support 
excellent program managers who are extraordinary individuals 
who are at the top of their fields and who are hungry for the 
opportunity to push the limits of their disciplines during 
their limited terms at DARPA. The 1101 experiment has now been 
running since 1999 and has clearly proven its benefits to DARPA 
and the nation. After 16 years of annual uncertainty about its 
ongoing availability, we would appreciate your support to make 
this authority permanent.''

Permanent extension and modification of temporary authorities for 
        certain positions at Department of Defense research and 
        engineering laboratories (sec. 1122)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
    The committee notes that each year the science and 
technology reinvention laboratories of the Department of 
Defense hire hundreds of students with the expectation and hope 
that the laboratories can then successfully recruit the next 
generation of the best and brightest scientists and engineers. 
To expedite this critical process, the Congress has provided in 
previous years a direct hire authority for a limited number of 
students each year. The committee understands, however, that 
even this limited authority has not been sufficient to meet the 
needs of the laboratories over the past several years. 
Consequently, the committee recommends a provision that would 
increase the limit on the total number of students eligible for 
direct hire by the laboratories.
    The committee notes with dismay that students that are 
brought onto the federal workforce on a temporary basis are 
considered laboratory employees only for the time that they are 
still enrolled in school, plus 120 days, at which point, they 
are effectively let go from their positions. The committee 
understands that oftentimes this separation occurs against the 
wishes of the student and of the laboratory director, who has 
no specific authority to retain that employee. In previous 
years, Congress has provided the authority for the labs to 
permanently hire some of these students upon graduation by 
converting them non-competitively to full-time status. The 
committee believes that expanding this direct hire authority to 
hire a greater number of students, and making the authority 
permanent, would allow directors to more effectively recruit 
the most talented students.

Direct hire authority for scientific and engineering positions for test 
        and evaluation facilities of the Major Range and Test Facility 
        Base (sec. 1123)

    The committee recommends a provision that would give 
certain hiring authorities to test and evaluation centers.
    In previous years, the committee has given the directors of 
the science and technology laboratories of the Department of 
Defense broad authority to shape their own workforce, including 
the ability to make direct hires. The committee is pleased to 
learn that, because of these authorities, lab directors report 
that they are now able to recruit and retain a workforce that 
is of a significantly higher quality. Directors are now able to 
compete more effectively with the private sector for top 
scientific and engineering talent. Recognizing that a talented, 
high-quality workforce is also vital to the mission of the test 
and evaluation facilities of the Department, the committee 
recommends a provision that would give the directors of these 
facilities the same direct hire authorities.
    Just as it has done for laboratory scientists and engineers 
in previous years, the committee recognizes that scientists and 
engineers employed by the Defense test and evaluation 
facilities are a valuable national resource that ensure that 
cutting-edge technologies meet the needs of and are adequately 
tested for those that engage in our nation's frontline 
conflicts. These needs are continually evolving and as a 
result, the test and evaluation facilities across the 
enterprise are constantly called upon to prepare technologies 
and systems for deployment. In this regard, giving the 
directors for these facilities the authority to more freely 
shape their own workforces is in direct support of the national 
security needs of the nation.

Permanent authority for the temporary exchange of information 
        technology personnel (sec. 1124)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 1110 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
    The committee notes that since it was established by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84), the Information Technology Exchange Program has 
been used by the Defense Department to temporarily bring on 
board private-sector experts in information technology and its 
management. The committee believes that this program has been 
helpful in modernizing the Defense Department's information 
technology capabilities and also in providing the Department 
with access to best practices and technologies. The committee 
also notes that this exchange program is still considered a 
pilot program, but that Congress has extended the authorization 
each time it has been required. Consequently, the committee 
recommends a provision that would make the Information 
Technology Exchange Program permanent.

Pilot program on enhanced pay authority for certain research and 
        technology positions in the science and technology reinvention 
        laboratories of the Department of Defense (sec. 1125)

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
an enhanced compensation pilot program.
    The committee notes that the workforce authorities Congress 
has provided to the Department of Defense science and 
technology laboratories in previous years have already proven 
to be quite beneficial in terms of recruiting and retaining a 
strong and talented science and engineering workforce that is 
ready to tackle the challenges of modern warfare. However, the 
committee is also aware that the laboratories continue to have 
difficult recruiting scientists at the very top of their 
fields, those that are bona fide global experts in their 
professions who command top salaries from their employers. The 
committee notes that thus far, laboratories have been powerless 
to compete for these individuals against the private sector. To 
help address this issue, the committee recommends a provision 
that would give service laboratories the authority to offer 
compensation above the maximum amount normally allowed by the 
executive schedule.
    This provision would set strict limits on the types of 
positions that are eligible for enhanced pay authority, 
restricting them to positions that require expertise of an 
extremely high level and that are critical to the successful 
completion of an important laboratory mission. In addition, the 
authority could only be exercised with the approval of the 
relevant service acquisition executive, or higher depending on 
the level of authority exercised. As the provision would 
establish a pilot program for enhanced compensation, the 
authority would be limited to five positions in each service 
and only for term positions of less than 5 years. The committee 
believes that these limitations will allow for an assessment on 
the effectiveness of this authority over the first several 
years.
    The committee notes that highly-skilled subject matter 
experts are often in high demand in their fields, not only in 
the private sector but in non-profit research organizations and 
private labs, as well as in the government. The committee 
believes that allowing the defense laboratories to compete on a 
more level playing field will help to enhance the quality of 
the technical workforce in the defense research enterprise and 
ultimately be of benefit for our national security interests.

Discharge of certain authorities to conduct personnel demonstration 
        projects (sec. 1126)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 342(b)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-37).
    The Department of Defense laboratory demonstration program 
was established by section 342 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337), 
and all decision-making authority regarding this program was 
granted to the Secretary of Defense by the Floyd D. Spence 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public 
Law 106-398). These provisions granted the Secretary the 
ability to make waivers for the demonstration program based on 
enhanced laboratory performance. Since then, despite numerous 
recommendations and internal disagreement, the Secretary opted 
to give exclusive jurisdiction over the program's waiver 
authorities to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness. To remedy this situation, the committee recommends a 
provision that would ensure that the authorities granted to the 
Secretary to conduct laboratory demonstration programs are 
discharged through the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The provision also 
indicates that in the exercise of such authorities, an emphasis 
shall be placed on enhancing efficient operations of the 
laboratory.
    The committee notes with dismay that over the past several 
years, the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness has often declined proposals from the 
laboratories for demonstration programs. The committee believes 
that these denials have occurred because the office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness lacks 
the technical expertise that would be necessary to fairly 
evaluate demonstration program proposals. In response to this 
situation, the Congress has continued to pass statutes 
broadening these authorities, including statutes requiring the 
Secretary to fully implement laboratory authorities and 
granting laboratories broad authorities to shape their own 
workforces.
    The committee believes that transferring the decision-
making authority to the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would re-focus the 
implementation of the demonstration program statutes on 
initiatives designed to enhance laboratory performance. The 
committee also believes that the Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics organization is most suited to provide legal 
interpretation on demonstration program proposals.

                  Subtitle C--Government-Wide Matters


Expansion of personnel flexibilities relating to land management 
        agencies to include all agencies (sec. 1131)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 96 of title 5, United States Code, to expand the 
personnel flexibilities available to land management agencies 
to include all agencies government-wide, to include the 
Department of Defense.

Direct hiring for Federal wage schedule employees (sec. 1132)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Director of the Office of Personnel Management to permit 
certain agencies to use the direct-hire authority of permanent 
and non-permanent positions in the competitive service for 
prevailing rate employees when there is a severe shortage of 
candidates or a critical hiring need for such positions.

Appointment authority for uniquely qualified prevailing rate employees 
        (sec. 1133)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
head of an agency to appoint an individual to a prevailing rate 
position at such a rate of basic pay above the minimum rate of 
the appropriate grade in cases where there is an unusually 
large shortage of qualified candidates for employment, unique 
qualifications of a candidate of employment, or a special need 
of the Government for the services of a candidate for 
employment.

Limitation on preference eligible hiring preferences for permanent 
        employees in the competitive service (sec. 1134)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
application of points for preference eligible hiring to the 
first appointment of a preference eligible candidate in a 
permanent position in the competitive service.

Authority for advancement of pay for certain employees relocating 
        within the United States and its territories (sec. 1135)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the use of advance payment of basic pay for current employees 
who relocate within the United States and its territories to a 
location outside the employee's current commuting area. Advance 
payment of basic pay under this provision would be limited in 
amount to not more than two pay periods.

Elimination of the foreign exemption provision in regard to overtime 
        for federal civilian employees temporarily assigned to a 
        foreign area (sec. 1136)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 5542 and 5544 of title 5, United States Code, to allow 
overtime pay equal to one and one-half times the hourly rate of 
basic pay for nonexempt Federal civilian employees assigned to 
temporary duty travel in exempt areas as defined by the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium 
        pay and aggregate limitation on pay for federal civilian 
        employees working overseas (sec. 1137)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as 
most recently amended by section as amended by section 1108 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92), to extend through 2017 the authority of 
heads of executive agencies to waive limitation on the 
aggregate of basic and premium pay of employees who perform 
work in an overseas location that is in the area of 
responsibility of the commander, U.S. Central Command 
(CENTCOM), or a location that was formerly in CENTCOM but has 
been moved to an area of responsibility for the Commander, U.S. 
Africa Command, in support of a military operation or an 
operation in response to a declared emergency.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters


Modification of flat rate per diem requirement for personnel on long-
        term temporary duty assignments (sec. 1151)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to take such action as may be necessary to 
provide that, to the extent that regulations implementing 
travel and transportation authorities for military and civilian 
personnel of the Department of Defense impose a flat rate per 
diem for meals and incidental expenses for authorized travelers 
on long term temporary duty (TDY) assignments that is at a 
reduced rate compared to the per diem rate otherwise 
applicable, the Service Secretary concerned may waive the 
applicability of such reduced rate and pay such travelers 
actual expenses up to the full per diem rate for such travel in 
any case when the Secretary concerned determines that the 
reduced flat rate per diem for meals and incidental expenses is 
not sufficient under the circumstances of the TDY assignment. 
The provision would allow a Service Secretary to delegate this 
authority to any commander or head of an agency, component, or 
systems command of the Department of Defense at the level of 
lieutenant general or vice admiral, or above, or civilian 
equivalent thereof and would permit an agency, component, or 
systems command to which the authority has been delegated to 
waive any requirement for the submittal of receipts to receive 
the full per diem rate in instances in which such commander, or 
head of an agency, component, or systems command personally 
certifies that such requirement will negatively affect mission 
performance, create an undue administrative burden, or result 
in significant additional administrative processing costs.
    In the report accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-49), the 
committee stated that it wanted to ensure that the TDY ``policy 
does not discourage some DOD personnel--including civilian 
workers at shipyards and depots--from volunteering for 
important TDY assignments'' and directed the department to 
``monitor closely the effect of this new policy to avoid 
unintended disincentives and ensure that those who volunteer 
for mission essential travel are fully supported and 
encouraged.'' Congress, in section 623 of that Act, directed a 
review of the impact this policy has on affected employees, 
particularly those at public shipyards.
    The committee notes that civilian public shipyard workers 
play a critical role in maintaining naval ships and submarines, 
ensuring combatant commanders have the safe and combat ready 
naval vessels they require. The committee also notes that the 
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) has expressed concerns that 
the long-term temporary duty (TDY) per diem policy of the 
Department is having a negative impact on ship and submarine 
maintenance and the civilian employees of naval shipyards 
traveling for direct labor in support of off-yard work.
    In a January 19, 2016 letter, the Commander of NAVSEA wrote 
that the new policy ``has already had a negative impact on the 
Naval Shipyards' ability to effectively and efficiently conduct 
Navy ship maintenance.'' The commander also wrote that the 
policy ``is jeopardizing the successful execution of off 
station availabilities and costing the Navy more than the 
intended savings'', and that ``civilian employee desire to 
voluntarily travel has significantly declined.'' The commander 
requested that these shipyard workers be ``exempt from Long 
Term Flat Rate Per Diem.'' On April 5, 2016, the Commander, 
NAVSEA reiterated his concerns in his testimony before the 
Senate Armed Services Readiness and Management Support 
Subcommittee. On March 15, 2016, the Vice Chief of Naval 
Operations also expressed concern in her testimony before the 
committee about the long-term TDY policy and its impact on 
public shipyard workers.
    It is the committee's understanding and expectation that 
the Navy would delegate the authority to NAVSEA to waive the 
reduced TDY rate and waive any requirement for the submittal of 
receipts at a minimum for cases related to naval shipyard 
civilian employees traveling on TDY in support of off-yard 
work. The committee also understands and expects that, 
consistent with Commander, NAVSEA's letter and Navy testimony, 
NAVSEA would utilize this authority to ensure that naval 
shipyard employees traveling on long term TDY in support of 
off-yard work would not be subject to the reduced TDY rate and 
would not be required to submit receipts in order to receive 
the full per diem rate if so certified by such commander in 
accordance with the provision.

One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances, 
        benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty 
        in a combat zone (sec. 1152)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 
year the discretionary authority of the head of a federal 
agency to provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities 
comparable to those provided to members of the Foreign Service 
to an agency's civilian employees on official duty in a combat 
zone.

                       Items of Special Interest


Furlough of Department of Defense civilian employees

    The committee notes that in the rare case of an 
administrative furlough, the Department of Defense should 
consider mission first in making furlough decisions, with great 
consideration given to unit readiness.

Performance metrics relative to procedures for reduction in force of 
        Department of Defense civilian personnel

    Section 1101 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) requires the Secretary of 
Defense to establish procedures to provide that performance be 
the primary factor in determining which employees be separated 
under a reduction in force of civilian positions of the 
Department of Defense. Subsequent to the enactment of this 
requirement, the Department implemented the New Beginnings 
performance management system, which includes two performance 
metrics, a summary rating and the rating of record. The 
Committee believes that the Department, in implementing the 
requirements of section 1101, should use the performance metric 
that best differentiates the performance of civilian employees 
for these purposes. The Committee directs the Secretary to 
provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives a report detailing its implementation 
plan for section 1101 by no later than September 1, 2016.

Report on automatic step increases for Department of Defense civilians

    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 
later than March 1, 2017, on the feasibility of using a minimum 
of satisfactory performance as the metric required for step 
increases for Department of Defense civilians rather than the 
current time-in-grade system. The report should include an 
analysis of how such a change could enhance the ability of 
civilian personnel managers to manage those employees whose 
performance is below satisfactory and improve their 
performance.

             TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                  Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

Three-Year Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program (sec. 
        1201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2019 the Commanders' Emergency Response 
Program (CERP) in Afghanistan under section 1201 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112-81) as amended. The provision would also expand the 
authorization to make certain payments to redress injury and 
loss in Iraq in accordance with section 1211 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) to Afghanistan and Syria.
Increase in size of the Special Defense Acquisition Fund (sec. 1202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the amounts available for the Special Defense Acquisition Fund. 
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense, with 
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to submit a plan for 
the use of such increased amounts as well as an annual spending 
plan and quarterly updates on certain transactions associated 
with the fund.
Codification of authority for support of special operations to combat 
        terrorism (sec. 1203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
new section 127e in title 10, United States Code, to codify 
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 
provision would increase the annual cap on the authority from 
$85.0 million to $100.0 million and would limit the amount 
available to support any particular military operation under 
the authority to $10.0 million in a fiscal year as well as 
modify notification requirements.
Prohibition on use of funds to invite, assist, or otherwise assure the 
        participation of Cuba in certain joint or multilateral 
        exercises (sec. 1204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Defense from using any funds to invite, 
assist, or otherwise assure the participation of the Government 
of Cuba in any joint or multilateral exercise or related 
security conference between the United States and Cuba until 
the Secretary, in coordination with the Director of National 
Intelligence, submits to Congress certain assurances. The 
provision would provide an exception to the prohibition for any 
joint or multilateral exercise or operation related to 
humanitarian assistance or disaster response.

        Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan

Extension and modification of authority to transfer defense articles 
        and provide defense services to the military and security 
        forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1211)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through December 31, 2017, the authority under section 1222 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112-239) to transfer defense articles being drawn 
down in Afghanistan, and to provide defense services in 
connection with such transfers, to the military and security 
forces of Afghanistan. The provision would also extend through 
fiscal year 2017 the exemption for excess defense articles 
(EDA) transferred from Department of Defense stocks in 
Afghanistan from counting toward the annual limitation on the 
aggregate value of EDA transferred under section 516 of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195). The 
provision would also convert certain quarterly reports into an 
annual report.
Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition 
        nations for support (sec. 1212)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify and 
extend for 1 year 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).
Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and projects of the 
        Department of Defense in Afghanistan that cannot be safely 
        accessed by United States Government Personnel (sec. 1213)
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the obligation or expenditure of amounts available to the 
Department of Defense for a construction or other 
infrastructure project in Afghanistan that is initiated on or 
after the date of the enactment of this Act if military or 
civilian personnel of the United States Government or their 
representatives with authority to conduct oversight cannot 
safely access it. The provision also provides for certain 
waivers.
Reimbursement of Pakistan for security enhancement activities (sec. 
        1214)
    The committee notes that Pakistan has been a long-standing 
strategic partner of the United States and believes that the 
bilateral relationship between the United States and Pakistan 
will continue to be strong and enduring. The committee also 
recognizes that since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001, Pakistan has been a vital partner in U.S. efforts to 
combat terrorism in South Asia. The committee believes that 
stability in the region cannot be achieved without stability in 
Pakistan itself and that fostering a strong, stable, and secure 
Pakistan is consistent with the national security goals of the 
United States.
    The committee recognizes that some have criticized security 
assistance for Pakistan in recent years. However, the committee 
believes that security and stability within the borders of 
Pakistan is vital to the stability of the region and to 
transregional efforts to combat terrorism more broadly. In this 
context, the committee notes with concern that terrorist 
attacks continue to plague Pakistan and strongly supports 
efforts by the Government of Pakistan to take steps to degrade 
and defeat terrorist networks and activities within its own 
borders. For these reasons, the committee believes that 
security assistance for Pakistan should continue.
    To ensure sustainability and viability over the long-term, 
the committee also believes that security assistance for 
Pakistan should transition to a bilateral program focused on 
the stability and security of Pakistan, rather than the more 
narrow previous focus of Coalition Support Funds, which were 
based on the country's support for coalition operations in 
Afghanistan. The committee notes that the coalition presence 
and mission in Afghanistan continue to evolve, leading to the 
criticism referenced above. The committee is concerned that, if 
left unchanged, continued reliance on Coalition Support Funds 
for the provision of security assistance to Pakistan could 
negatively impact U.S. support of Pakistani operations to 
combat terrorism.
    In recognition of the critical importance of the bilateral 
U.S.-Pakistan relationship and the need for enhanced security 
and stability in Pakistan, the committee recommends a provision 
that would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to 
reimburse Pakistan up to $800.0 million in fiscal year 2017 for 
certain activities that enhance the security situation in the 
northwest regions of Pakistan and along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border. The provision would also make $300.0 million 
of this amount contingent upon a certification from the 
Secretary of Defense that Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps 
against the Haqqani Network in Pakistan.
Improvement of oversight of United States Government efforts in 
        Afghanistan. (sec. 1215)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Lead Inspector General for Operation Freedom's Sentinel, in 
coordination with certain other inspectors general, to submit a 
report on oversight activities in Afghanistan to optimize the 
utilization of oversight resources through planning, 
coordination, and reduction of redundancies in oversight 
activities.
    Inspectors general play a crucial role in helping to ensure 
appropriate oversight and enhancing the efficiency of federal 
programs. Oversight is especially critical to help ensure 
appropriate use of federal resources in challenging 
environments, including Afghanistan. At the same time, the 
inspectors general operating in Afghanistan need to work 
together to ensure oversight occurs, but at minimal burden to 
U.S. force operations there. The committee is concerned that 
such coordination may not be occurring as effectively as 
possible.
    In addition to the provision above, the committee directs 
the Comptroller General of the United States to review the 
authorities and activities of the statutory offices of 
inspectors general at the Department of State, the Department 
of Defense, the Agency for International Development, and the 
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction 
regarding their oversight of the expenditure of U.S. funds in 
Afghanistan since January 1, 2015. This review shall include, 
at a minimum, the following:
          (1) A general description of the oversight activities 
        and primary areas of focus of each inspector general;
          (2) An analysis of the enabling legislation and 
        directive guidance that outlines the oversight mandate 
        of each inspector general;
          (3) An identification of any overlap or gaps in 
        oversight among the mandates of each inspector general, 
        as prescribed by their enabling legislation or other 
        directive guidance; and
          (4) Any other matters deemed relevant by the 
        Comptroller General.

             Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iraq and Syria

Extension and modification of authority to provide assistance to the 
        vetted Syrian Opposition (sec. 1221)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 
modify the authority under section 1209 of the Carl Levin and 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3541) to 
assist the vetted elements of the Syrian opposition for certain 
purposes to December 31, 2019, as well as strike the prior 
approval reprogramming requirement and replace it with a 
notification requirement before carrying out new initiatives.
Extension of authority to provide assistance to counter the Islamic 
        State of Iraq and the Levant (sec. 1222)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority under section 1236 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3559) to military and 
other security forces of or associated with the Government of 
Iraq, including Kurdish and tribal security forces, with a 
national mission, to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and the 
Levant (ISIL)to December 31, 2019. The provision would also 
extend the requirement for an assessment and authority to 
assist directly certain covered groups as authorized under 
section 1223 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Extension of authority to support operations and activities of the 
        Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1223)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2017 the authority under section 1215 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81) as amended, for the Secretary of Defense to 
support the operations and activities of the Office of Security 
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). The provision would authorize the 
use of up to $60.0 million in fiscal year 2017 to support OSC-I 
operations and activities.

                  Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Iran

Additional elements in the annual report on the military power of Iran 
        (sec. 1226)
    The committee recommends a provision that would add certain 
additional elements to the annual report on the military power 
of Iran required under section 1245 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

         Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation

Extension and enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative 
        (sec. 1231)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2019 the authority under section 1250 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) for the Secretary of Defense, in 
coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide security 
assistance and intelligence support to military and other 
security forces of the Government of Ukraine. The provision 
would authorize the use of up to $500.0 million in fiscal year 
2017 to provide security assistance to Ukraine.
    The provision would prohibit the obligation or expenditure 
of half of the funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal 
year 2017 under this authority until the Secretary of Defense, 
in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies that 
Ukraine has taken substantial action to make defense 
institutional reforms and outlines areas where further work may 
remain. The committee is concerned that progress in the area of 
defense institutional reform has been slow and uneven and notes 
that such reforms are critical to sustaining capabilities 
developed using security assistance provided under this and 
other authorities.
    The committee notes that the authority granted in this 
provision would not authorize the use of the United States 
Armed Forces on the ground in Ukraine for the purpose of 
conducting combat operations.
    The committee remains deeply concerned by the continuing 
aggression of Russia and Russian-backed separatists that 
violate ceasefire agreements. The committee continues to 
emphasize the importance of providing security assistance and 
intelligence support, including lethal military assistance, to 
the Government of Ukraine to build its capacity to defend its 
territory and sovereignty and to support the integrity of the 
ceasefire agreement.
    The committee notes the successful completion of training 
for the initial tranches of Ukrainian security forces using the 
authority under section 1207 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), as 
amended, for the Global Security Contingency Fund and supports 
the expansion of this program to additional units of the 
Ukrainian Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defense. The 
provision would also add certain additional activities to the 
list of appropriate security assistance and intelligence 
support.
    As the Department of Defense continues the provision of 
support to the Ukrainian people under the Ukraine Security 
Assistance Initiative, the committee notes the importance of a 
comprehensive approach, including consideration by the 
Secretary of Defense of the feasibility and advisability of 
utilizing U.S. private sector entities to augment government 
efforts to develop the capability and capacity of the 
Government of Ukraine and its security forces.
Extension and modification of authority on training for Eastern 
        European national military forces in the course of multilateral 
        exercises (sec. 1232)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2018 the authority under section 1251 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) for the Secretary of Defense, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide multilateral 
or regional training, and pay the incremental expenses of 
participating in such training, for countries in Eastern Europe 
that are a signatory to the Partnership for Peace Framework 
Documents but not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) or became a NATO member after January 1, 
1999. The provision would also add the authority to utilize 
under this section amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
certain purposes under the European Reassurance Initiative. The 
committee notes the purpose of such training is to promote 
interoperability, improve the ability of participating 
countries to respond to external threats including from hybrid 
warfare, and increase the ability of NATO to take collective 
action when required.
Additional matters in annual report on military and security 
        developments involving the Russian Federation (sec. 1233)
    The committee recommends a provision that would add 
additional elements to the annual report on Russian military 
and security developments required under section 1245 of the 
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). 
The additional elements include an assessment of Russian 
operations in Ukraine and an analysis of the nuclear strategy 
and associated doctrine of Russia.
European investment in security and stability (sec. 1234)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
(NATO) allies and European partners are indispensable to 
addressing global security challenges and that their investment 
in developing and employing robust security capabilities in 
Europe should meet or exceed U.S. efforts in this regard. The 
provision also requires an accounting of current and planned 
security investments by NATO allies and European partners.
    The committee recognizes the 2016 NATO Summit being held in 
Warsaw, Poland as a meeting of important consequence and an 
inflection point for the future of the NATO Alliance. The 
committee notes the recent NATO proposal of four battalions, 
totaling 4000 troops, to be deployed in Eastern Europe, as well 
as the subsequent announcement by the Russian government that 
it will deploy three divisions of troops along its western 
border.
    In light of this continued military buildup in Eastern 
Europe and Western Russia, the committee strongly encourages 
the Secretary of Defense to prioritize the enhancement of NATO 
forward presence capabilities among NATO allies and European 
partners both at the Warsaw Summit and in any future 
interactions with NATO allies and partners. This should include 
the identification of specific areas of defense investment and 
modernization that will assist NATO allies to rapidly develop 
the forward presence capabilities to deter threats to Eastern 
Europe and enhance long-term stability in that region.
    The committee expects that progress on enhancing the 
forward presence capabilities of NATO allies be included in 
subsequent reports, testimonies, and briefings from the 
Department of Defense to the committee on the European 
Deterrence Initiative and any other programs or policies 
pertaining to European security.
Sense of Senate on the European Deterrence Initiative (sec. 1235)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that the European Deterrence Initiative 
will bolster efforts to deter further Russian aggression by 
providing resources to train and equip military forces of North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and non-NATO partners, 
enhance the capability to defend territorial integrity and 
preserve regional stability, and improve the agility and 
flexibility of military forces to address threats across the 
full spectrum of warfighting requirements and diverse 
geographic locations. The provision would also express the 
sense of the Senate that such efforts as the European 
Deterrence Initiative should be in the base budget of the 
Department of Defense to address long-term stability on the 
European continent, reassure our European allies and partners, 
and deter further Russian aggression.

        Subtitle F--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region

Annual update on Department of Defense Freedom of Navigation Report 
        (sec. 1241)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives setting forth an update on the most current 
Freedom of Navigation Report. The report will document the 
types and locations of excessive claims that the United States 
armed forces have challenged in the previous calendar year, the 
geographic location of the claim, and the specific legal 
challenge asserted under the Freedom of Navigation program.

Inclusion of the Philippines among allied countries with whom United 
        States may enter into cooperative military airlift agreements 
        (sec. 1242)

    The committee recommends a provision that would include the 
Republic of the Philippines in the term ``allied country'' in 
section 2350(c) of title 10, United States Code, which 
authorizes the Department of Defense to enter into cooperative 
military airlift agreements.

Military exchanges between the United States and Taiwan (sec. 1243)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out a program of exchanges of 
senior military officers and senior officials between the 
United States and the Government of Taiwan designed to improve 
military-to-military relations. These exchanges will be 
conducted in both the United States and Taiwan and will focus 
on threat analysis, military doctrine, force-planning, 
logistical support, intelligence collection and analysis, 
operational tactics, techniques, and procedures, and 
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
    The provision also recommended a sense of the Senate that 
the Department of Defense should extend an invitation to Taiwan 
to participate in advanced aerial combat training exercises. 
The committee believes that the military forces of Taiwan, in 
accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8), 
should be permitted to participate in bilateral training 
activities hosted by the United States that increase the 
credible deterrent capabilities of Taiwan. Specifically, the 
committee believes the Government of Taiwan would benefit if 
the Taiwan military were invited to attend advanced aerial 
combat training exercises alongside the United States Air Force 
upon the completion of the upgrades to their 45 F-16A/B fighter 
aircraft.
    The committee believes that Taiwan must strive to invest at 
least 3 percent of its annual gross domestic product on 
defense. The committee is concerned that, absent a change in 
defense spending, Taiwan's military will continue to be under-
resourced and unable to make the investments necessary to 
maintain a credible deterrent across the Taiwan Strait.

Sense of Senate on Taiwan (sec. 1244)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express a 
sense of the Senate that the United States should strengthen 
and enhance its long-standing partnership and strategic 
cooperation with Taiwan, with the objective of reinforcing its 
commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act and the ``Six 
Assurances.'' To do this, the United States should conduct 
regular transfers of defense articles and defense services, 
support the efforts of Taiwan to integrate innovative and 
asymmetric capabilities, including undersea warfare 
capabilities optimized for the defense of the Taiwan Strait, 
assist Taiwan in building an effective air defense capability 
consisting of a balance of fighters and mobile air defense 
systems, and permit Taiwan to participate in bilateral training 
activities hosted by the United States that increase the 
credible deterrent capabilities of Taiwan.

Sense of Senate on enhancement of the military relationship between the 
        United States and Vietnam (sec. 1245)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that it would further the United States' 
national security interests if the prohibition on lethal 
military equipment to Vietnam were removed. The sales should be 
monitored to ensure that the Government of Vietnam is 
continuing to make progress on human rights and the arms sold 
are not being used in ways that violate the rights and freedoms 
of civilians in Vietnam.
    The provision also encourages the United States to expand 
military-to-military relations with Vietnam, including 
increased participation in bilateral and multilateral naval 
exercises, more frequent naval port visits by the United States 
to Vietnam, increased International Military Education and 
Training (IMET) and Expanded-IMET (E-IMET) for military 
officers in Vietnam, the establishment of bilateral 
arrangements to support increased cooperation on humanitarian 
assistance, disaster relief, and joint personnel accounting 
cooperative activities, and seeking opportunities to promote 
military observation and participation by Vietnam in regional 
exercises such as the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise, the 
COBRA GOLD multinational exercises in Thailand, and the 
BALIKATAN exercise of the United States and the Philippines.

Redesignation of South China Sea Initiative (sec. 1246)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1261 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to redesignate the South 
China Sea Initiative as the Southeast Asia Maritime Security 
Initiative.
    The committee strongly supports the Southeast Asia Maritime 
Security Initiative. The committee encourages the Department to 
continue a robust effort to build the maritime capabilities of 
Southeast Asian countries that are committed to an inclusive 
maritime order where all states have access to the open seas.

    Subtitle G--Reform of Department of Defense Security Cooperation


Sense of Congress on security sector assistance (sec. 1251)

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
Sense of the Congress on the security cooperation programs and 
activities of the Department of Defense, as well as the broader 
security sector assistance activities of the U.S. government.
    The committee believes the United States' security sector 
assistance (SSA) programs and activities must be executed as a 
shared responsibility across all of the United States 
Government departments and agencies operating with a shared 
commitment to agility and effectiveness. The committee 
recognizes that the Department of State is the lead agency 
responsible for the policy, supervision, and general management 
of the United States' SSA programs and activities. The 
committee also believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
plays a critical role in SSA, particularly as it relates to its 
responsibility to ensure United States' SSA programs and 
activities are synchronized with the nation's defense strategy 
and policy, and in the areas of strategic planning, assessment, 
program design, implementation, and support to the interagency 
by providing critical enabling capabilities. The committee also 
believes it is critical that DOD utilize its SSA programs and 
activities to address gaps in contingency plans.

Enactment of new chapter for defense security cooperation (sec. 1252)

    The committee recommends a provision that would create a 
new chapter in title 10, United States Code on security 
cooperation, and would transfer, modify, and codify security 
cooperation related provisions from elsewhere in title 10 and 
public law to this new chapter. Of note, the committee 
recommends a provision that would repeal numerous existing so-
called ``train and equip'' authorities and would replace the 
repealed authorities with one provision that incorporates all 
of the Department's existing ``train and equip'' authorized 
activities, including those relating to: (1) counterterrorism; 
(2) counter-weapons of mass destruction; (3) counter-illicit 
drug trafficking; (4) counter-transnational organized crime (5) 
maritime and border security; (6) military intelligence 
operations in support of lawful military operations; (7) 
humanitarian and disaster assistance; (8) support to stability 
operations; and (9) national territorial defense. All of the 
activities under the committee's recommended proposal would 
continue to require: (1) the concurrence of the Secretary of 
State; (2) observance of and respect for the law of armed 
conflict; and (3) respect for civilian control of the military.
    The committee notes that over the last 15 years, the 
Department's engagement with national security forces of 
friendly foreign countries has expanded substantially in 
response to changing strategic requirements. Correspondingly, 
the number and complexity of authorities and associated funding 
provided to the Department to conduct security cooperation 
programs has expanded significantly. A recent report by the 
RAND Corporation entitled ``From Patchwork to Framework,'' 
stated: ``The large set of authorities for security cooperation 
has become known as a ``patchwork'' because of the need to 
patch together multiple authorities and associated yet 
unsynchronized processes, resources, programs, and 
organizations to execute individual initiatives with partner 
nations.'' This is the result of security cooperation 
authorities being dispersed widely throughout title 10 and 
public law. This architecture has led to a confusing and 
unwieldy security cooperation enterprise that undermines the 
ability of the Department--particularly its senior civilian and 
military leaders--to effectively prioritize, plan, execute, 
allocate, and oversee these activities. Critically, it has also 
resulted in near constant change for the security cooperation 
professionals attempting to implement these security 
cooperation programs and activities. This undoubtedly has 
resulted in suboptimal outcomes and missed opportunities.
    Further, the committee believes the complex patchwork of 
authorities and sources of funding hinders appropriate public 
transparency and complicates robust congressional oversight of 
a key mission for the Department.
    As such, the committee believes that consolidating the 
various security cooperation authorities under a single 
security cooperation chapter will provide greater clarity about 
the nature of scope of the Department's security cooperation 
programs and activities to those who plan, manage, implement, 
and conduct oversight of these programs.
    Moreover, consolidation of a single ``train and equip'' 
authority will ensure that the Department has adequate 
flexibility to meet its evolving strategic objectives, without 
being forced to bend its strategy to meet the contours of 
available narrowly tailored authorities. Nevertheless, this 
consolidation is not intended to create a Department of Defense 
mission that competes with security assistance overseen by the 
State Department. Rather, a consolidated ``train and equip'' 
authority should enable the Department to meet its own defense-
specific objectives in support of broader defense strategy and 
plans, as well as to better integrate title 10 security 
cooperation activities into the broader United States 
Government approach to security sector assistance.
    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer to 
the new chapter 16 on security cooperation in title 10, United 
States Code, the authority for the Secretary of Defense to 
administer the Regional Centers for Security Studies. The 
provision would reduce the number of regional centers to 3, and 
would modify the authority to provide the Secretary with 
increased flexibility in assigning the areas of focus for the 
centers.

Military-to-military exchanges (sec. 1253)

    The committee recommends a provision that would combine 
existing security cooperation authorities permitting the 
exchange of military and defense personnel with allies of the 
United States and other friendly foreign countries.

Consolidation and revision of authorities for payment of personnel 
        expenses necessary for theater security cooperation (sec. 1254)

    The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 
and modify similar authorities permitting the payment of 
personnel expenses of allied or partner countries during 
theater security cooperation activities.

Transfer and revision of authority on payment of expenses in connection 
        with training and exercises with friendly foreign forces (sec. 
        1255)

    The committee recommends a provision that would combine and 
modify similar authorities for paying for the expenses of 
partner nations when conducting training for U.S. Armed Forces 
and for the expenses of developing countries when participating 
in exercises.

Transfer and revision of authority to provide operational support to 
        forces of friendly foreign countries (sec. 1256)

    The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 
and modify section 127d of title 10, United States Code, and 
section 1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended, relating to 
the provision of operational support to partners and allies in 
combined operations with U.S. Armed Forces or in military 
operations that support U.S. national security interests.

Department of Defense State Partnership Program (sec. 1257)

    The committee recommends a provision that would codify and 
make permanent the Department of Defense State Partnership 
Program (section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), as amended by section 
1203 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016 (Public Law 114-92)).

Modification of regional defense combating terrorism fellowship program 
        (sec. 1258)

    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer to 
the new chapter 16 on security cooperation in title 10, United 
States Code, the regional combating terrorism fellowship 
program (section 2249c of title 10, United States Code) and 
modify the program to authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out a program under which the Secretary may pay costs 
associated with the education and training of national-level 
security officials of friendly foreign nations. Such a 
modification would enable the Department to address diverse 
security challenges beyond the narrow mission of 
counterterrorism.

Consolidation of authorities for service academy international 
        engagement (sec. 1259)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate 
international engagement authorities for the service academies 
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
    The committee notes that under current law, there are nine 
separate authorities that determine the selection of, funding 
for, and conditions for international students attending the 
service academies of the Army, Navy, or Air Force. The 
committee believes consolidating these authorities would 
provide consistency by creating a single, common authority for 
use by the service academies to select international students 
and conduct exchange programs with foreign military academies.

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1260)

    The committee recommends a provision that would create a 
central fund for the security cooperation programs and 
activities of the Department of Defense, known as the Security 
Cooperation Enhancement Fund (SCEF).
    Like many observers, the committee has found it increasing 
difficult to oversee, monitor, and evaluate the array of 
military service and defense-wide funding sources for the 
Department's security cooperation programs and activities. The 
committee believes that, without any changes to this 
arrangement, the long-term prospects of the Department's 
security cooperation programs and activities, particularly its 
``train and equip'' activities, are not sustainable. The 
committee believes that consolidating funding for the 
Department's security cooperation programs and activities will 
increase public transparency, flexibility, and congressional 
oversight.
    Further, and of particular importance, the committee also 
believes that a central fund will allow the Department's senior 
civilian and military leaders to make strategic choices with 
respect to the allocation of security cooperation resources 
against strategic priorities. For too long, the Department's 
activities in this area have been too diffuse and have lacked 
strategic coordination--both regionally and functionally. The 
committee notes that there are currently few nations in which 
the Department does not actively conduct security cooperation; 
some estimates have suggested that the Department is engaged in 
over 180 countries globally. The committee expects the 
Department to leverage a newly established central fund to 
prioritize engagements according to strategic imperatives and 
clearly identified objectives.
    Further, beginning in fiscal year 2018, the provision would 
require the Secretary to transfer all unobligated balances from 
the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, the Iraq Train and Equip 
Fund, the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative, and any 
account or fund of the Department of Defense for security 
cooperation programs and activities into the SCEF. In addition, 
beginning in fiscal year 2019, the provision would require the 
Secretary to transition the execution of all security programs 
and activities to the authorities contained in chapter 16 of 
title 10, United States Code.

Consolidation and standardization of reporting requirements relating to 
        security cooperation authorities (sec. 1261)

    The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 
and standardize the Department's reporting on security 
cooperation authorities and programs in an annual report.
    Critically, the committee notes that it has retained nearly 
all of the notification requirements with respect to the 
Department's security cooperation activities. Coupled with the 
requirement for an annual budget submission that appears 
elsewhere in this Act, this approach relieves the Department of 
an overly burdensome reporting regime while maintaining the 
transparency and accountability required for appropriate 
oversight and real-time monitoring of the Department's most 
significant new programs.

Requirement for submittal of consolidated annual budget for security 
        cooperation programs and activities of the Department of 
        Defense (sec. 1262)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
budget of the President for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
2018, as submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to 
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, to include as a 
separate item the amounts requested for the Department of 
Defense (including those funds in the budgets of the military 
departments) for such fiscal year for all security cooperation 
programs and activities of the Department, including the 
specific amounts, if any, and the specific country or region, 
to the maximum extent practicable, for such programs and 
activities for the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund, which 
is authorized elsewhere in this Act.
    Similar to the committee's recommended provisions with 
respect to a consolidated ``train and equip'' authority and 
transfer fund, the committee's recommended action is intended 
to enhance the ability of the congressional defense committees 
to conduct rigorous oversight of the Department's security 
cooperation programs and activities, as well as better 
understand how the Department is utilizing security cooperation 
programs and activities to fill gaps in its contingency plans; 
enable foreign partners against a common threat or enemy; and 
align funding with the department's strategic objectives. This 
approach in intended to better enable public transparency.

Department of Defense security cooperation workforce development (sec. 
        1263)

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to create a Department of Defense security 
cooperation workforce program (``Program'') to oversee the 
development and management of a professional workforce 
supporting security cooperation programs of the Department of 
Defense as well as the execution of security assistance 
programs and activities under the Foreign Assistance Act and 
the Arms Control Act by the Department of Defense.
    The committee is concerned that, as the Department has 
increased its emphasis on security cooperation programs and 
activities in furtherance of its strategic objectives, the 
Department has not devoted sufficient attention and resources 
to the development, management, and sustainment of the 
Department's security cooperation workforce. Building security 
capabilities of a partner nation through security cooperation 
requires a specialized set of skills and the current system 
neither develops those skills among its workforce nor 
rationally assigns its workforce to match appropriate skills 
with requirements. The committee believes increased attention 
and resourcing must be focused on the recruitment, training, 
certification, assignment, and career development of the 
security cooperation workforce in order to ensure the effective 
planning, monitoring, execution, and evaluation of security 
cooperation programs and activities.

Coordination between the Department of Defense and Department of State 
        on certain security cooperation and security assistance 
        programs and activities (sec. 1264)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State not later than 
90 days after enactment of this Act to establish interim 
regulations and, not later than 270 days after enactment of 
this Act, final regulations to establish a formal process for 
the two Departments on all matters relating to the policy, 
planning, and implementation of security cooperation programs 
and activities as specified in the Act.
    The committee believes it is critical to ensure unity of 
effort across the security sector assistance enterprise with 
U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives. Further, 
the committee believes joint planning early in the process will 
ensure efficiency and effective balance with regard to our 
broader interests.

Repeal of superseded, obsolete, or duplicative statutes relating to 
        security cooperation authorities (sec. 1265)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
superseded, obsolete, or duplicate statutes relating to 
security cooperation as part of its efforts to streamline and 
rationalize the authorities of the Department to conduct 
security cooperation.

          Subtitle H--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters


Free trade agreements with Sub-Saharan African countries (sec. 1271)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 116 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 
U.S.C. 3723).

Extension and expansion of authority to support border security 
        operations of certain foreign countries (sec. 1272)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through 2019 and expand the authority under section 1226 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92; 129 Stat. 1056; 22 U.S.C. 2551 note) to provide 
assistance to the Governments of Tunisia and Egypt to support 
efforts to enhance security along borders with Libya.

Modification and clarification of United States-Israel anti-tunnel 
        cooperation authority (sec. 1273)

    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the annual limitation of the authority under section 1279 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(P.L. 114-92) for the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Secretary of State, to carry out research, 
development, test, and evaluation, on a joint basis with Israel 
to establish anti-tunnel defense capabilities to detect, map, 
and neutralize underground tunnels. The provision would clarify 
certain requirements associated with the authority.
    The committee continues to support the anti-tunnel 
cooperation program with Israel and notes the potential 
benefits to support efforts to: restrict the flow of drugs 
including heroin and fentanyl, under our southern border; 
protect forward deployed troops; and secure Israel's borders. 
The committee notes that in testimony to the committee on March 
10, 2016, Admiral Gortney, the Commander of United States 
Northern Command, highlighted and endorsed the benefits of 
anti-tunnel cooperation with Israel to the United States. The 
committee encourages the department to fully utilize the 
authorities provided in section 1279 and seek opportunities to 
maximize anti-tunnel research, development, test, and 
evaluation cooperation with Israel.
    The committee expects the department to include in the 
semiannual report required under subsection (d) a list of the 
technologies being supported and to keep the committee informed 
regarding the potential and actual applications of such 
technologies.

Modification and extension of authorization for non-conventional 
        assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1274)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority of the Department of Defense to establish, develop, 
and maintain non-conventional assisted recovery (NAR) 
capabilities for three additional years and modify the 
eligibility of personnel for whom such support may be provided.
    The committee directs the Department to ensure that the 
planning, initiation, sustainment, and utilization of NAR 
capabilities are fully coordinated and de-conflicted with other 
U.S. departments and agencies who may also play a role in the 
recovery of designated individuals overseas. The committee also 
notes that non-conventional assisted recovery is a traditional 
military activity and the authority modified and extended by 
this provision should not be construed as an authorization to 
conduct intelligence activities.

Assessment of proliferation of certain remotely piloted aircraft 
        systems (sec. 1275)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require an 
independent assessment directed by the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff to report on the impact to United States 
national security interests of the proliferation of remotely 
piloted aircraft. The assessment would include an analysis of 
the threat posed to the United States as a result of the 
proliferation of such aircraft to adversaries as well as the 
impact of such proliferation on the combat capabilities of and 
interoperability with partners and allies of the United States 
as well as the potential benefits and risks of continuing to 
limit exports of such aircraft.
    The committee notes that the proliferation of remotely 
piloted aircraft has significantly changed the context of the 
international security environment since the origination of the 
Missile Technology Control Regime that proscribes a ``strong 
presumption of denial'' for the export of such aircraft.

Efforts to end modern slavery (sec. 1276)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to implement policies and procedures to 
ensure Armed Forces personnel engaged in partnership activities 
with foreign nations receive education and training on human 
slavery, and to ensure the United States Armed Forces maximize 
efforts to appropriately assist in combatting trafficking in 
persons. The provision also authorizes grants to support 
transformational programs and projects that seek to achieve a 
measurable and substantial reduction of the prevalence of 
modern slavery in target populations within partner countries.

                       Items of Special Interest


Asia-Pacific force posture resiliency

    The committee is supportive of the Department of Defense's 
effort to realize a U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific 
region that is more geographically distributed, operationally 
resilient, and politically sustainable. The committee believes 
this sustained effort is a necessary response to adjust the 
legacy posture of U.S. forces in the region to meet the demands 
of a shifting political and security environment.
    The committee also values the strong alliances and 
partnerships the United States maintains in the region that 
enable and support a sustained U.S. forward-presence. The 
committee acknowledges the immense benefits that a forward-
deployed military has provided the United States since the end 
of the Second World War, including the direct contribution to a 
more stable global economic and security environment, the 
ability to respond quickly to threats in different regions, and 
the ability to respond to humanitarian disasters.
    In particular, the committee supports the U.S.-Australia 
Force Posture Agreement that is establishing a rotational 
presence of United States Marines and Air Force assets in 
Northern Australia. The committee is hopeful the United States 
and Australia will promptly conclude ongoing cost-sharing 
agreements related to these initiatives and move to develop new 
opportunities for future access, including the potential 
rotation of U.S. Navy vessels.
    The committee was also encouraged by the recent Republic of 
the Philippines Supreme Court decision to approve the 2014 
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). This agreement 
will deepen the U.S.-Philippines alliance, expand engagement 
with the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and further enhance 
our presence in Southeast Asia. Further, the committee welcomes 
the annex of five agreed locations in the Philippines where 
United States forces can conduct a variety of activities.
    In Japan and the Republic of Korea, the committee continues 
to support the realignment of U.S. forces, including 
construction at Camp Humphreys, the Futenma Replacement 
Facility at Camp Schwab, and Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni. 
The committee also appreciated the significant financial 
contributions the Government of Japan and the Republic of Korea 
are making for the construction of these facilities.
    The committee recognizes the importance of other presence 
and force posture initiatives being implemented or developed 
with Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
    Finally, the committee finds merit in many of the posture 
recommendations made in the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies' (CSIS) report, ``Asia-Pacific Rebalance 
2025,'' that was completed as a response to section 1059 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 
Law 113-291). In particular, the committees believes it is 
appropriate to further consider the recommendations of 
deploying additional surface combatants to the theater, moving 
additional attack submarines to Guam, further diversifying 
operating locations, enhancing theater missile defenses to 
protect critical assets, stockpiling critical munitions and 
investing in munitions-related infrastructure, enhancing 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities and 
cooperation with allies and partners in the region, and 
addressing the challenges associated with conducting logistics 
operations in a denied environment.

People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) participation in Rim of the 
        Pacific exercise

    The committee is concerned by China's ongoing reclamation 
and militarization of the South China Sea. Despite President Xi 
Jinping's assurances in September 2015 that ``China does not 
intend to pursue militarization'' of the South China Sea, the 
committee is aware that China is now constructing runways, 
radar facilities, hangars, and other infrastructure that will 
enable the sustainment of military capabilities in the Spratly 
Islands. The committee notes the assessment of Director of 
National Intelligence James Clapper that ``China will continue 
to pursue construction and infrastructure development at its 
expanded outposts in the South China Sea. Based on the pace and 
scope of construction at these outposts, China will be able to 
deploy a range of offensive and defensive military capabilities 
and support increased People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and 
Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) presence beginning in 2016.''
    The committee notes that the United States invited China to 
participate in the 2014 Rim of the Pacific exercise (RIMPAC). 
The committee is aware that China sent four surface vessels to 
join the official exercise, in addition to a Dongdiao-class 
Auxiliary General Intelligence (AGI) surveillance ship. The 
committee recognizes that the inclusion of this vessel at an 
exercise designed to build trust and cooperation between global 
navies undermined the spirit of the exercise. The committee 
acknowledges the Department of Defense's desire to build 
cooperative relationships through participation in bilateral 
and multilateral maritime exercises and the potential benefits 
to regional security gained through military engagements. 
However, the committee believes that military engagements such 
as RIMPAC should be routinely evaluated to identify the value 
of each individual exercise to U.S. national interests.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
which may include a classified portion, not later than July 1, 
2016, regarding the merits of continued Chinese participation 
in RIMPAC 2016, the intended scope of PLA participation in 
RIMPAC 2016, and the compliance of PLAN participation in RIMPAC 
2016 with the 12 operational areas that were prohibited for 
military-to-military contact between the Department of Defense 
and PLA consistent with Section 1201(a) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65).

                TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would define the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, define the funds as 
authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act and 
authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal 
years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$325.6 million, the amount of the budget request, for the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program.

                       Items of Special Interest


Long term threat outlook for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program

    The Cooperative Threat Reduction program's mission is to 
reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) well 
before it has reached a weaponization stage or in certain 
urgent cases where existing stockpile must be destroyed. Within 
the last 5 years, the program has been credited with destroying 
large quantities of mustard agent in Libya, the Syrian 
stockpile of nerve and mustard agent and recently placing rapid 
diagnostic laboratories in Liberia during the Ebola outbreak. 
Key to the program's success is identifying future threats of 
emergent areas where weapons of mass destruction might be 
developed or used. Given the rapidly evolving nature of WMD 
threat, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to 
produce not later than March 31 2017, a 5-year, 10-year, and 
long term (15-20 years) threat projection for WMD use. While 
the out years of such a projection will have large variables, 
it typically serves to guide the near term of the first 5-10 
years which are the planning years for this program.

                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                     Subtitle A--Military Programs

Working capital funds (sec. 1401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for the defense working capital funds at the 
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions 
Destruction, Defense, at levels identified in section 4501 of 
division D of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide (sec. 1403)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug 
Activities, Defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of 
the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities at the 
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1406)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund 
activities at the levels identified in section 4501 of division 
D of this Act.

                 Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile

National Defense Stockpile matters (sec. 1411)
    The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the 
Department of Defense (DOD), that would amend the Strategic and 
Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c) to provide 
greater flexibility in the management of the National Defense 
Stockpile (NDS). Specifically, the provision would provide NDS 
the authority to recover, acquire, recycle, and manage the 
disposal of excess and recyclable strategic and critical 
materials containing rare earth elements (REE) from other 
federal agencies, including DOD. For example, NDS has 
identified germanium on its list of materials shortfalls since 
2011. The Army typically generates at least 500 kilograms of 
excess germanium a year in components such as windshields. This 
provision would enable the NDS to collaborate on a REE recycle 
program with the Army to recover and transfer this germanium to 
the NDS.
    The provision would also amend the Strategic and Critical 
Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c) to enable the NDS 
Manager to fund the qualification of domestically-produced 
strategic materials and REE, which would provide significant 
cost savings to DOD compared to traditional and overseas 
stockpiling of REE, along with an enhanced domestic strategic 
stockpiling capability for REE. For example, aerospace grade 
rayon is a synthetic fiber used in applications such as solid 
rocket motor nozzles and heat shields, and currently the U.S. 
relies solely upon foreign sources for such rayon. However, a 
domestically-produced alternative to rayon fiber exists and 
under this provision could be used in place of aerospace grade 
rayon to meet DOD specifications and requirements, saving $7.2 
million in just one year. The committee strongly believes that 
enabling the NDS to qualify domestic materials and create 
substitutions could provide a significant risk mitigation for 
DOD's supply chain and reduce the reliance upon foreign-sourced 
REE, along with cost-effective domestic and strategic 
alternatives.
    The committee strongly encourages DOD to use its authority 
to recycle their unclassified electronic waste, fluorescent 
lamps, batteries, magnets, and thermal barrier coatings in 
order to extract, reclaim, and reuse critical materials and REE 
to address DOD requirements. Lastly, the committee strongly 
encourages DOD to determine and appropriately invest in optimal 
methods and emerging products for destroying electronic media 
in a manner that minimizes risk of exposure, leaks, or improper 
use of information residing within the electronic media, and 
exposes data.
Authority to dispose of certain materials from and to acquire 
        additional materials for the National Defense Stockpile (sec. 
        1412)
    The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the 
Department of Defense (DOD), that would require the National 
Defense Stockpile (NDS) Manager to dispose of excess materials 
in order to acquire seven new materials and rare earth elements 
(REE) that have been identified by DOD as essential to meet 
military requirements. The committee notes these REE 
acquisitions would alleviate DOD supply chain vulnerability and 
mitigate the risk of foreign reliance for REE and critical 
materials. Specifically, the seven materials and REE are: high 
modulus and high strength carbon fibers, tantalum, germanium, 
tungsten rhenium metal, boron carbide powder, europium, and 
silicon carbide fiber. Additionally, the committee recognizes 
the strategic value of the NDS and its critical material 
locations across the United States: Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama, 
Virginia, West Virginia, New York, Indiana, Ohio, Utah, Nevada, 
California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
    Lastly, the committee remains very concerned that despite 
DOD identifying dysprosium metal as an REE shortfall and in a 
category at a higher risk for a supply disruption since at 
least 2011--and despite the NDS having the authority to acquire 
dysprosium metal since the FY14 NDAA--the NDS has failed to 
acquire any dysprosium metal and has no planned acquisitions 
for fiscal year 2017 and 2018. Similarly, the committee remains 
very concerned that the NDS has no planned acquisitions for 
yttrium oxide in fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
    Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the NDS to 
acquire the appropriate amount of dysprosium metal in fiscal 
year 2017 and beyond that is necessary to address critical and 
strategic requirements.

             Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters

Authority to destroy certain specified World War II-era United States-
        origin chemical munitions located on San Jose Island, Republic 
        of Panama (sec. 1421)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to destroy eight chemical munitions on 
San Jose Island, Panama. The use of these funds shall not take 
effect until there is an agreement between the United States 
and Panama that such munitions are termed ``old chemical 
weapons'' and not ``abandoned chemical weapons'' and that the 
United States is under no legal obligation to destroy any 
additional chemical munitions, munitions constituents, and 
associated debris that may be located on San Jose Island as a 
result of research, development, and testing activities 
conducted on San Jose Island during the period of 1943 through 
1947.

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-
        Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
        Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois 
        (sec. 1431)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $122.4 million from the 
Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
Fund created by section 1704 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) for 
the operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health 
Care Center.

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 
        1432)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
an appropriation of $64.3 million for fiscal year 2017 for the 
operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

                              Budget Items


Defense Health Program

    The budget request included $33.5 billion for Defense 
Health Program. The amount authorized to be funded for the 
Defense Health Program includes the following changes from the 
budget request.

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]
 
 
 
Reduction for unauthorized fertility treatment                     -38.0
 benefits.............................................
Pilot program on health insurance for reserve                      +20.0
 component members....................................
Incorporation of value-based health care into TRICARE              +24.5
 program..............................................
Reduction for unjustified travel expenses.............              -6.5
Reimbursement rate for Comprehensive Autism Care                   +40.0
 Demonstration........................................
Military health system reform.........................            +400.0
    Total.............................................            +440.0
 

    The committee recommends a total increase in the Defense 
Health Program of $440.0 million. This amount includes 
reductions of $38.0 million to reflect costs avoided by the 
Department of Defense relative to its plan to conduct a pilot 
program to cryopreserve oocytes and sperm and $6.5 million for 
unjustified travel expenses for the Defense Health Agency. The 
committee recommends an increase of $44.5 million to conduct a 
pilot program on health insurance for reserve component members 
and to incorporate value-based health care into the TRICARE 
program. The committee also recommends an increase of $40.0 
million to maintain reimbursement rates under the Comprehensive 
Autism Care Demonstration program at those rates established 
prior to April 1, 2016. Finally, the committee recommends an 
increase of $400.0 million for overall military health system 
reform.

Foreign currency fluctuation

    The budget request included $33.5 billion for Defense 
Health Program.
    The committee believes that when foreign currency 
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of 
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, 
particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 
million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
informed the committee that as of March 2016, the Department 
does not plan to transfer in any prior year unobligated 
balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2016. GAO 
analysis projects that the Department will experience a net 
gain in fiscal year 2017 due to favorable foreign exchange 
rates.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.5 
million from Defense Health Program for FCF.

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund

    The budget request included $496.8 million in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency, of which $270.2 million is for the Global 
Train and Equip Program, $58.6 million for the Regional 
Centers, $21.8 million is for the Wales Initiative Fund/
Partnership for Peace, $26.8 million for the Combatting 
Terrorism Fellowship Program, $25.6 million for the Defense 
Institution Reform Initiative, $9.2 million for the Ministry of 
Defense Advisors program, $2.6 million for the Defense 
Institute of International Legal Studies, and $730.1 million in 
Title XIV for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 
Line 010. The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act, the 
committee recommends a provision that would create a new budget 
line entitled the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (SCEF). 
Commensurate with that provision, the committee recommends a 
transfer of $414.8 million from the Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency, and a transfer of $258.3 million from Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities to the SCEF.

Department of Defense Inspector General Financial Statement Audit 
        Support

    The budget request included $32.5 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $322.0 million was 
for SAG 4GTV Office of Inspector General.
    The committee notes that within this request was $7.3 
million to hire an additional 50 civilian personnel to conduct 
financial statement audits. The committee further notes the 
clear requirement in section 1005 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) for 
the Department of Defense to utilize independent external 
auditors, not additional Department of Defense Inspector 
General auditors, for financial statement audits of defense 
agencies.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $7.3 
million for SAG 4GTV Office of Inspector General in OMDW.

                       Items of Special Interest


Rare earth elements critical to national security

    The committee notes that the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) found that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 
identified certain materials and rare earth elements (REE) as 
critical, but that DOD's approach was not comprehensive. 
Specifically, the GAO found that three DOD organizations 
separately identified five different lists of REE during 2011 
to 2015 using their own definitions. The committee notes that 
weapon system officials at the military departments told GAO 
that they had identified what they considered as critical REE 
in their systems, but that this information is not reported 
consistently or DOD-wide. GAO found that these officials did 
not have a definition for critical materials nor do they have 
an agreed upon DOD-wide list of critical REE. Additionally, GAO 
found that Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy (MIBP) 
within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics identified heavy REE as 
at risk for a supply disruption, but has a strategy that is 
reactive, waiting for a supply disruption to occur and relying 
on the market to respond. GAO also found that MIBP has not 
defined the metrics for evaluating the extent of risk and the 
effectiveness of its strategy, making it difficult to monitor 
and adjust its mitigating actions.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
February 1, 2017 with a comprehensive assessment that: (1) 
designates which, if any, REE are critical to national security 
in order to provide a common DOD-wide understanding of those 
materials and focus resources; (2) analyzes the effect of 
unavailability of REE designated as critical to national 
security and develop a strategy to help ensure a secure supply 
for those designated critical; and (3) defines reliable and 
secure sources of supply for REE in measurable terms and 
provide metrics to determine the effectiveness of its actions 
to better ensure continued availability.

   TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS 
                         CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

         Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations

Purpose (sec. 1501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
this title and make authorization of appropriations available 
upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in 
addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act.
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would designate 
authorization of appropriations in this section as overseas 
contingency operations.
Procurement (sec. 1503)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriation for procurement activities at the 
levels identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriation for research, development, test, 
and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 
4202 of division D of this Act.
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for operation and maintenance 
activities at the levels identified in section 4302 of division 
D of this Act.
Military personnel (sec. 1506)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for military personnel activities 
at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this 
Act.
Working capital funds (sec. 1507)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for the Defense Working Capital 
Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of 
this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide (sec. 1508)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for the Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the levels identified 
in section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector 
General of the Department of Defense identified in section 4502 
of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program 
activities identified in section 4502 of division D of this 
Act.
Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1511)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for the Security Cooperation 
Enhancement Fund at the levels identified in section 4502 of 
division D of this Act.

                     Subtitle B--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)

    The committee recommends a provision that would state that 
the amounts authorized to be appropriated in this title are in 
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by 
this Act.

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $3.5 billion of overseas 
contingency operation funding authorized for fiscal year 2017 
in this title to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance 
with normal reprogramming procedures. This transfer authority 
would be in addition to the authority provided to the Secretary 
elsewhere in this Act.

          Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters


Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund and would 
thereby provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to 
investigate, develop and provide equipment, supplies, services, 
training, facilities, personnel, and funds to assist in the 
defeat of improvised explosive devices for operations in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other operations or military 
missions designated by the Secretary.

Extension and modification of authorities on Counterterrorism 
        Partnerships Fund (sec. 1532)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify and 
extend for 1 fiscal year section 1534 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces 
Fund (ASFF) for fiscal year 2017 continue to be subject to the 
conditions specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section 
1513 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as amended.
    Furthermore, the provision would extend the authority under 
subsection 1532(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to accept certain 
equipment procured using ASFF funds and to treat such equipment 
as Department of Defense stocks. Lastly, the provision would 
continue the goal of using $25.0 million to support, to the 
extent practicable, the efforts of the Government of 
Afghanistan to recruit, train and integrate women into the 
Afghan National Security Forces and the requirement for a 
report on the plan to promote the security of Afghan women as 
required by section 1531 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-92) as well as adding the 
requirement for a plan to address the development of 
accountability mechanisms for Afghan National Security Forces 
who violate codes of conduct relating to protecting children 
from sexual abuse.

                              Budget Items


Spider network munitions reduction

    The Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) budget request 
included $301.5 million for Procurement of Ammunition, Army 
(PAA) of which $10.4 million was for LIN 9680E95900 Spider 
Network Munitions.
    The committee understands that the entirety of the OCO 
Spider Network Munitions request is ahead of need.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease to PAA OCO 
of $10.4 million for LIN 9680E95900 Spider Network Munitions.

Coalition Support Funds

    The budget request included $1.4 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency, SAG 4GTD, of which $1.1 billion is for 
Coalition Support Funds (CSF). The committee recommends a 
reduction of $100.0 million from CSF for reimbursements to 
Pakistan for support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan 
in recognition of the evolving nature of the mission there. The 
committee notes that a separate authority for reimbursements to 
Pakistan for security activities is created elsewhere in this 
Act to more directly address the importance of Pakistan to U.S. 
and regional security interests. Additionally the committee 
recommends a transfer of $820.0 million from CSF to the 
Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund in Title 15 of this Act 
and $180.0 million to the Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the 
Levant Fund in Title 15 of this Act.

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund

    The budget request included $1.0 billion in Overseas 
Contingency Operations funding for the Counterterrorism 
Partnerships Fund (CTPF), Line 090. The committee recommends a 
reduction of $150.0 million to the CTPF due to insufficient 
justification. The committee recommends a transfer of $200.0 
million from the CTPF to the Counter Islamic State in Iraq and 
the Levant Fund in title 15 of this Act and recommends a 
transfer of $650.0 million from the CTPF to the Security 
Cooperation Enhancement Fund in title 15 of this Act.

Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund

    The budget request included $630.0 million in the Iraq 
Train and Equip Fund. The committee recommends a transfer of 
$630.0 million to the Iraq Train and Equip Fund commensurate 
with a decrease of $250.0 million to the Syria Train and Equip 
Fund, a decrease of $200.0 million to the Counterterrorism 
Partnerships Fund (SAG 090), and a decrease of $180 million to 
coalition support (SAG 4GTD).
    The Iraq Train and Equip Fund account may be used for 
activities authorized under section 1209 of the Carl Levin and 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), section 1236 of the 
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), 
and section 1226 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
    The committee recommends the name of the ``Iraq Train and 
Equip Fund'' be changed to the ``Counter Islamic State in Iraq 
and the Levant Fund'' to reflect the associated authorized 
activities and the consolidation of funds.

Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq

    The overseas contingency operations (OCO) budget request 
included $9.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force 
(OMAF), of which $141.9 million was for SAG 042G Other 
Servicewide Activities.
    The committee understands that this request included $85.1 
million to support operations and activities of the Office of 
Security Cooperation in Iraq. The committee believes this 
request is unjustified.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OCO 
OMAF of $25.1 million for SAG 042G Other Servicewide 
Activities.

Syria Train and Equip Fund

    The budget request included $250.0 million in the Syria 
Train and Equip Fund. The committee recommends a decrease of 
$250.0 million in the Syria Train and Equip Fund and a 
commensurate increase of $250.0 million to the Iraq Train and 
Equip Fund which the committee recommends renaming the 
``Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund'' to 
reflect the associated authorized activities and the 
consolidation of funds.

Nuclear force readiness in Europe

    The budget request included $9.5 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Overseas Contingency 
Operation, of which $1.3 billion was for SAG 011A Primary 
Combat Forces.
    According to the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), 
``U.S. nuclear forces contribute to deterring aggression 
against U.S. and allied interests in multiple regions, assuring 
U.S. allies that our extended deterrence guarantees are 
credible, and demonstrating that we can defeat or counter 
aggression if deterrence fails.'' Alluding to Russia's 
``escalate to de-escalate'' nuclear doctrine, the QDR states 
that ``U.S. nuclear forces help convince potential adversaries 
that they cannot successfully escalate their way out of failed 
conventional aggression against the United States or our allies 
and partners.'' ``Effective deterrence,'' according to Admiral 
Haney, the commander of United States Strategic Command, 
``requires planning, exercises, coordination with the regional 
commands, and a force posture capable of carrying out 
strikes.'' Referring to NATO's nuclear deterrent, the commander 
of U.S. European Command, General Breedlove, has said ``it is 
important that we make sure it is ready, capable, and 
credible.''
    The committee notes that while the European Reassurance 
Initiative is aimed at assuring allies and reinforcing 
conventional deterrence and defense, deterring Russian 
aggression in Europe includes an important nuclear component. 
To increase the credibility of NATO's nuclear deterrent, the 
United States must continue the ongoing modernization of U.S. 
nuclear forces and ensure that nuclear forces assigned to the 
NATO mission are survivable, well-exercised, and increasingly 
ready to counter Russian nuclear doctrine, which calls for the 
first use of nuclear weapons. Such measures are consistent with 
the administration's emphasis on ``the introduction of 
deterrence measures to better set European posture in the wake 
of Russian aggression.''
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $28.0 
million for SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces to enhance the 
readiness and capability of U.S. nuclear forces assigned to 
support the NATO nuclear deterrence mission. These funds may be 
used for the following purposes and any other activities deemed 
necessary by the Department of Defense to support the nuclear 
mission in Europe: enhancing the readiness, training, and 
exercising of dual-capable aircraft (DCA); in support of and to 
promote additional allied nuclear burden-sharing activities; in 
support of regional nuclear command and control capabilities; 
and for the development and exercising of a concept of 
operations to improve DCA alert status and readiness through 
dispersal. The Secretary of Defense shall provide a report to 
the Defense Committees within 90 days of the enactment of this 
Act detailing how the additional funding will be allocated.

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund

    The budget request included in Overseas Contingency 
Operations funding $1.1 billion for Coalition Support Funds 
(CSF),and $1.0 billion for the Counterterrorism Partnerships 
Fund (CTPF).
    The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act, the 
committee recommends a provision that would create the Security 
Cooperation Enhancement Fund (SCEF). Commensurate with that 
provision, the committee recommends a transfer of $820.0 
million from CSF, and $650.0 million from the CTPF to the SCEF. 
The committee notes that the transfer from CSF includes a 
reduction of $100.0 million and the transfer from CTPF includes 
a reduction of $150.0.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities

    The budget request included $215.3 million for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities.
    The committee is increasingly concerned about the 
production and trafficking of heroin, fentanyl, and other 
illicit drugs. Accordingly, of the amounts available for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, not less than $191.5 
million shall be available to enable operations to counter the 
production and trafficking of illicit drugs including but not 
limited to heroin and fentanyl (and precursor chemicals).

     TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS

                      Subtitle A--Space Activities

Requirement that pilot program for acquisition of commercial satellite 
        communications services demonstrate order-of-magnitude 
        improvements in satellite communication capabilities (sec. 
        1601)
    The committee recommends a provision that 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) to prohibit the obligation or expenditure of any 
funding made available until the Secretary of Defense submits 
to the congressional defense committees a plan to demonstrate 
that the pilot program will achieve order-of-magnitude 
improvements in satellite communications capability.
    The committee is disappointed that, despite numerous 
requests to the Air Force for its plan to meet the requirement 
for section 1605 in carrying out the pilot program, the Air 
Force has not only failed to meet the statutorily imposed 
requirement to provide a briefing on that pilot program at the 
same time as the President submitted to Congress the budget 
request for fiscal year 2017, but has also been nonresponsive 
to requests for information relating to that requirement.
Plan for use of allied launch vehicles (sec. 1602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Commander of the Air Force Space Command to develop a 
contingency plan for using allied space launch vehicles to meet 
assured access to space requirements should the Department of 
Defense not be able to meet those requirements without the use 
of rocket engines designed or manufactured within the Russian 
Federation.
    The committee is concerned by the volatility associated 
with the use of Russian rocket engines. To hedge against that 
risk, the committee believes it prudent for the Commander of 
Air Force Space Command to assess what national security 
satellites, if any, the Commander believes could be launched on 
an allied launch vehicle in the event assured access to space 
cannot be met, for a limited period of time, without the use of 
space launch vehicles requiring rocket engines designed or 
manufactured in the Russian Federation.
    The provision would explicitly prohibit the consideration 
of space launch vehicles from Russia, China, Iran, and North 
Korea.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision 
requiring that assured access to space be achieved without the 
use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian 
Federation.
Long-term strategy on electromagnetic spectrum for warfare (sec. 1603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Commander of United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to 
develop a unified strategy for availability, use, and 
protection of electromagnetic spectrum in wartime.
Five-year plan for Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center 
        (sec. 1604)
    The committee recommends a provision that requires no later 
than 180 days after the date of enactment the Secretary of 
Defense submit a 5-year plan for the Joint Interagency Combined 
Space Operations Center.
Independent assessment of global positioning system next generation 
        operational control system (sec. 1605)
    The committee recommends a provision that requires the 
Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with a 
federally funded research and development center to review the 
acquisition strategy for the Next Generation Operational 
Control System for the Global Positioning System.
Government Accountability Office assessment of satellite acquisition by 
        National Reconnaissance Office (sec. 1606)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an 
assessment, for calendar year 2017 and each calendar year 
thereafter, of the cost, schedule, and performance of each 
program of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) for 
developing, acquiring, launching, and deploying satellites or 
overhead reconnaissance systems that receive funding from the 
Military Intelligence Program or is supported by personnel of 
the Department of Defense. The provision would also direct the 
director of the NRO to provide the Comptroller General access, 
in a timely manner, to the information the Comptroller General 
requires to conduct the assessment.
    The committee is concerned that limitations on the 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) access to NRO space 
acquisition programs have impeded oversight of some of the most 
costly items the federal government procures. The committee is 
concerned that because of the lack of GAO access, NRO programs 
may be at greater risk of program mismanagement, cost overruns, 
schedule delays, and avoidable acquisition challenges.
Cost-benefit analysis of commercial use of excess ballistic missile 
        solid rocket motors (sec. 1607)
    The committee is aware that the Air Force spends 
approximately $17 million each year to store and maintain 
approximately 800 decommissioned Minuteman and Peacekeeper 
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) motors and associated 
equipment at Camp Navajo, Arizona and Hill Air Force Base, 
Utah. The committee is also aware that the Department of 
Defense is able to provide excess motors to United States 
launch providers in support of national security launch 
missions; however, current law and policy prohibit these motors 
from being used in commercial launch missions. In response to 
inquiries by committee members, the Air Force asserted that 
they have minimal readiness concerns regarding a change in 
statute that would allow them to competitively sell excess 
motors to commercial launch providers. The committee believes 
commercial use of decommissioned motors could increase the 
proficiency of the government infrastructure base, making crews 
better able to execute government launches, and improve 
knowledge on rocket motor performance, while reducing the need 
for the Air Force to store and eventually destroy these motors.
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an analysis 
of the cost and benefits of allowing the use of excess 
ballistic missile solid rocket motors for commercial space 
launch purposes. This analysis would include an evaluation of 
the effect of allowing such use on national security, the 
Department of Defense, the solid rocket motor industrial base, 
the commercial space launch market, and any other areas the 
Comptroller General considers appropriate.
Assessment of cost-benefit analysis by Department of Defense of use of 
        KA-band commercial satellite communications (sec. 1608)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General to assess the types of analyses the 
Department of Defense has conducted to understand the costs and 
benefits of the use of KA-band commercial satellite 
communications by the department. The assessment would require 
the Comptroller General of the United States to determine 
whether the department has evaluated how KA-band satellite 
communications technologies compare to other commercially 
available communication satellite waveforms. The assessment 
would also evaluate the Defense Department's review of these 
technologies based on total cost, capabilities, and 
interoperability with existing or planned military terminals, 
as well as any other matter the Comptroller General considers 
appropriate.
Limitation on use of funds for Joint Space Operations Center Mission 
        System (sec. 1609)
    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
use of funds for increment 3 of the Joint Space Operations 
Center Mission System until the Secretary of the Air Force 
submits to the congressional defense committees a report 
setting forth a strategy for acquiring a common software and 
hardware framework for battle management, communication, and 
control.
Limitation on availability of fiscal year 2017 funds for the global 
        positioning system next generation operational control system 
        (sec. 1610)
    The committee recommends a provision that would restrict 
the obligation or expenditure of amounts authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal year 2017 and available for the current 
product development contract for the Global Positioning System 
Next Generation Operational Control System (GPS-OCX) until the 
Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the certification 
required under section 2433a(c)(2), title 10, United States 
Code, commonly referred to as a Nunn-McCurdy certification.
    The committee is strongly concerned with the current state 
of the GPS-OCX program. This program, which was recently 
referred to by a senior Air Force leader as the Air Force's 
``number one troubled program'' was expected to deliver initial 
capability by the end of 2016, but is currently not expected to 
do so for another 5 to 7 years. The program has also 
experienced cost growth in excess of 250 percent with 
continuing cost growth expected. The committee is concerned 
that the Air Force and the office of the Undersecretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) have 
artificially restricted the identification of that future cost 
growth by delaying the re-baselining of the GPS-OCX program 
and, therefore, artificially postponed the reviews required 
with a Nunn-McCurdy certification.
    While the committee believes the Defense Department would 
not take actions to impede transparency and oversight, the 
committee does not support efforts to artificially prevent 
Nunn-McCurdy reviews, which, in this case, the Department 
appears to have done by delaying the release of the Air Force's 
cost position. With contract cost growth of more than 250 
percent of the program's original business case, persistent 
unresolved technical issues, and a schedule that appears 
unachievable, the committee believes that the Department and 
the Air Force need to conduct the reviews necessary to 
determine the best path forward and provide Congress with the 
assurances necessary to warrant program continuation. The 
committee feels strongly that the Air Force must replace the 
existing GPS ground segment to improve on the capability and 
robustness of the GPS architecture. However, continuation of 
the existing program at any cost is unacceptable.
    The committee is also concerned that despite a willingness 
by the contractor to convert the GPS-OCX program to a fixed 
price contract vehicle, the Undersecretary for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics opted not to limit risk to the 
taxpayer by converting the contract to fixed cost, opting 
instead to proceed under the existing cost-plus contracting 
arrangement without reasonable justification. The committee is 
also concerned that the Undersecretary for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics chose to ignore the recommendation of 
the Air Force to add 4 additional years to the program opting 
instead to extend the program by only 2 years and assume 
significantly higher program risk.
    The GPS-OCX program should serve as a lesson in developing 
complicated ground systems decoupled in acquisition from the 
actual satellite program they are to support, especially with 
respect to evolving issues such as information assurance and 
integration of this system with both the current GPS II and 
future GPS III constellation. The committee expects that the 
Department should have developed as part of this ongoing 
program review a series of off ramps should the ongoing effort 
prove that it cannot stabilize the agreed upon milestones 
between the Department and the contractor.
Availability of certain amounts to meet requirements in connection with 
        United States policy on assured access to space (sec. 1611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow for 
up to half of the funds made available for a replacement space 
launch propulsion system or new launch vehicle in fiscal years 
2016, 2017, or any future fiscal year, be made available for 
meeting the requirements in connection with United States 
policy on assured access to space (section 2273(b), title 10, 
United States Code) as amended by this Act.
    Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision 
that would amend section 2273(b) of title 10, United States 
Code, by prohibiting launch vehicles requiring rocket engines 
designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation from 
satisfying assured access to space requirements.
    The committee believes that up to half of the funds made 
available for the development of a replacement launch vehicle 
or launch propulsion system can be made available for 
offsetting any increase in launch costs as a result of 
prohibitions on Russian rocket engines. With $1.2 billion 
budgeted from fiscal year 2017 to 2021 for the launch 
replacement effort and $453.4 million already appropriated in 
fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, the committee believes 
there is more than sufficient funding available and budgeted 
for either a replacement propulsion system or launch vehicle 
and also to offset any additional costs required in meeting our 
assured access to space requirements without the use of Russian 
rocket engines.
Availability of funds for certain secure voice conferencing 
        capabilities (sec. 1612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
up to $10.2 million in Air Force research, development, test, 
and evaluation funds from fiscal year 2015 or 2016 for the 
Presidential and National Voice Conferencing Program and the 
Advanced Extremely High Frequency Extended Data Rate, 
worldwide, secure, survivable voice conferencing capability for 
the President and national leaders.
    The Department of Defense requested $10.2 million, on 
behalf of the Air Force, for a new start authorization for the 
Presidential and National Voice Conferencing Program on March 
3, 2016. According to the reprogramming documentation (DOD 
Serial Number FY 16-08PA) provided to the committee, without 
this funding, the ``Air Force will be unable to fulfill its 
enduring mission to provide command and control of nuclear 
forces by the President and national senior leaders.''
    The committee supports the modernization of the Nuclear 
Command and Control (NC2) architecture and the integration of 
enhanced voice conferencing on the fleet of presidential 
aircraft. The committee also notes that while these upgrades 
are necessary, legacy presidential communications capabilities 
are effective and ensure the president's access to secure and 
survivable communications. The committee believes requests for 
new start authorizations through the reprogramming process 
should be limited only to the most urgent circumstances and 
should be directly linked to an urgent war fighting need as 
identified by a combatant commander or the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff through an urgent operational needs or similar request. 
While the reprogramming request did not reach that threshold, 
the committee does believe the request has merit and meets 
validated requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends it 
be authorized in this bill.

  Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities

Department of Defense-wide requirements for security clearances for 
        military intelligence officers (sec. 1621)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that each military intelligence 
officer serving in military intelligence leadership positions 
has an active security clearance.
    The services' senior military intelligence officers are 
responsible for advising service secretaries on intelligence 
matters, leading their service intelligence professionals, as 
well as formulating policy, planning, programming, budgeting, 
managing and overseeing the intelligence activities of their 
respective services.
    The committee urges the services to enhance their military 
intelligence capabilities and oversight through the positioning 
of officers with extensive and long-term military intelligence 
experience as the service senior adviser for intelligence.

     Subtitle C--Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related Matters

Cyber Protection Support for Department of Defense Personnel in 
        Positions Highly Vulnerable to Cyber Attack (sec. 1631)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to provide cyber protection support to 
personnel who are determined by the Secretary to be of highest 
risk of vulnerability to cyber attacks on their personal 
devices, networks, and persons.
    The committee is concerned that the employees to be 
protected under the authority in this provision, have an 
important obligation to refrain from any use of a personal data 
communication, networks, or storage devices in the performance 
of official duties. The committee also expects the Department 
to also provide reasonable and appropriate access to 
communication devices for official purposes directly related to 
a nominee's participation in activities of the Department to 
prepare the individual for Senate confirmation.
Cyber mission forces matters (sec. 1632 )
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
interim authorities to the Secretary of Defense to enhance the 
Department's ability to hire and retain civilian personnel with 
the high-level of skill and aptitude necessary to provide 
critical technical support to the Cyber Mission Teams that are 
now nearing full operational capability. The provision also 
would direct the Principal Cyber Advisor to (1) supervise the 
development of training standards and capacity to train 
civilian cyber personnel to develop tools and weapons for the 
Cyber Mission Forces (CMF), and (2) ensure that sufficient 
priority exists for the timely completion of security clearance 
investigations and adjudications for such personnel.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) provided authority to the Secretary of 
Defense to establish an excepted service personnel system for 
civilians supporting the Department's cyber mission. This 
authority was directly modeled on the existing excepted service 
personnel system for Defense intelligence civilian personnel. 
The committee has learned that it will take the Department 4 
years to convert most of the CMF positions covered by 
legislation. The Commander of United States Cyber Command 
emphasized to the committee that near-term action is necessary 
to address skill shortfalls in the civilian workforce until the 
new system is fully implemented.
    The CMF includes 1,260 civilian positions that are spread 
across the military services' individual DCIPS excepted service 
programs, but many positions reside in the competitive service 
system, particularly in the Cyber Protection Teams. The interim 
authorities proposed in this provision will enable the 
Department to manage the personnel recruited for these 
positions more effectively to enhance the readiness and 
capabilities of the CMF.
Limitation on ending of arrangement in which the commander of the 
        United States Cyber Command is also Director of the National 
        Security Agency (sec. 1633)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that the arrangement (commonly referred to as 
a ``dual-hat arrangement'') under which the Commander of the 
United States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) also serves as the 
Director of the National Security Agency is in the national 
security interests of the United States. The provision would 
also prohibit the Secretary of Defense from taking action to 
end the ``dual-hat arrangement'' until the Secretary and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly determine and 
certify to the appropriate committees of Congress that ending 
that arrangement will not pose unacceptable risks to the 
military effectiveness of CYBERCOM. The provision would also 
require the establishment of conditions-based criteria for 
assessing the need to sustain the ``dual-hat arrangement.''
Pilot program on application of consequence-driven, cyber-informed 
        engineering to mitigate against cyber-security threats (sec. 
        1634)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries 
of the military departments, to carry out a pilot program to 
assess the feasibility and advisability of applying 
consequence-driven, cyber-informed engineering methodologies to 
military installation operating technologies, including 
industrial control systems, to increase resilience against 
cybersecurity threats. The committee notes that protecting all 
systems to the same degree to preserve the integrity of every 
mission at a given military installation is impractical, and 
that traditional mission assurance planning augmented by a 
realistic assessment of existing and emerging cyber threats 
targeting vulnerable operating technologies will assist in 
prioritizing limited resources to protect the most critical 
assets. A consequence-driven, cyber-informed engineering 
approach is based on an evaluation of the operating environment 
that discriminates between targeted and indiscriminate attacks, 
analyzes vulnerabilities beyond traditional Information 
Technology security, and addresses systems created to control 
critical infrastructure that were designed primarily to meet 
engineering requirements with little or sometimes no 
consideration of security requirements.
Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of F-35 aircraft and support 
        systems (sec. 1635)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify a 
provision from the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), requiring the Secretary 
of Defense to evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of every major 
Department of Defense weapons system by not later than December 
31, 2019. The provision would do so by requiring that a 
complete evaluation of the F-35 aircraft and its support 
systems, such as the Autonomic Logistics Information System, be 
completed before February 1, 2017. The provision would require 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the F-35 cyber 
vulnerability evaluation to the congressional defense 
committees no later than February 28, 2017. The provision would 
also allow for funding to be used for the development of tools 
that improve cyber vulnerability assessments, non-recurring 
engineering for the design of mitigation solutions, and 
Department-wide information repositories to share assessment 
findings and mitigation solutions.
    The committee remains concerned by the overall lack of 
awareness of cyber vulnerabilities in Department of Defense 
weapons systems and is concerned in particular that the 
fielding of the F-35 may not be fully informed by the potential 
threats posed by malicious cyber activity or the mitigation 
options available to limit those threats. The committee notes 
that the F-35 has more than 8 million lines of code, more than 
any jet in history. Given the complexity of its software, 
unless appropriate steps are taken to identify and fully 
understand these cyber vulnerabilities, the F-35 could present 
our adversaries with potential cyber exploitation 
opportunities. The F-35 also relies on an Autonomic Logistics 
Information System which will modernize aircraft maintenance. 
However, unless protected properly, it too may present 
potential cyber exploitation opportunities given its dependence 
on less secure networks.
Review and assessment of technology strategy and development at Defense 
        Information Systems Agency (sec. 1636)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to 
develop a technology strategy. Further, it would require that 
this strategy be developed in coordination with the 
Undersecretary for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and 
the Chief Information Officer. The committee notes with concern 
that DISA has reduced its emphasis on research and technology 
innovation. The committee further notes that DISA does not 
coordinate its activities with the rest of the DOD science and 
technology community, especially given its unique information 
technology mission. Finally, the committee notes that DISA does 
not make use of the Department's successful Small Business 
Innovation Research program, laboratory expertise, or 
university research programs, in order to gain better access to 
leading edge technologies and top technical talent.
Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense critical 
        infrastructure (sec. 1637)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of 
Department of Defense critical infrastructure by not later than 
December 31, 2020.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, 
identifying the Department of Defense critical infrastructure 
that will be evaluated and an estimate of the funding required 
for conducting the assessments. The provision would require the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prioritize the order 
of evaluations based on the criticality of supporting 
infrastructure to the employment of forces and threats.
    The provision would require that the assessments build upon 
and not duplicate existing efforts regarding the identification 
and mitigation of cyber vulnerabilities of major weapon systems 
and Department of Defense critical infrastructure. The 
provision would require the Secretary to keep the congressional 
defense committees regularly apprised of the activities 
underway, to include the number of completed evaluations and 
the number of evaluations remaining. For the purpose of 
conducting the required assessments, the provision would 
authorize the Secretary to develop tools, conduct non-recurring 
engineering for the design of mitigation solutions, and 
establish department-wide information repositories for sharing 
the findings of assessments and mitigation solutions.
    The provision would also define Department of Defense 
critical infrastructure as any asset of the Department of 
Defense of such extraordinary importance to the functioning of 
the Department and the operation of the military that its 
incapacitation or destruction from a cyber attack would have a 
debilitating effect on the ability of the department to fulfill 
its missions.
    The committee notes that this provision would complement 
the requirement from the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) that the Secretary of 
Defense evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of every major 
Department of Defense weapons system by not later than December 
31, 2019.
Plan for information security continuous monitoring capability and 
        comply-to-connect policy (sec. 1638)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense and the 
Commander of United States Cyber Command, in coordination with 
the Principal Cyber Adviser, to jointly develop a plan for a 
modernized, enterprise-wide information security continuous 
monitoring capability and a comply-to-connect policy.
    The provision would require the Chief Information Officer 
and the Commander of United States Cyber Command to issue 
directives for implementation of the plan in time for 
Department of Defense components to request the necessary 
resources for implementing those plans in the fiscal year 2019 
budget request.
    The provision would also require for the plan and policy 
required by this provision to enable compliance with the 
software license inventory requirements of the plan issued 
pursuant to section 937 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 10 U.S.C. 2223 
note) and updated pursuant to section 935 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66; 10 U.S.C. 2223 note).
    The provision would limit the obligation or expenditure of 
any funds for a software license for which the Department would 
spend more than $5.0 million annually unless the Department is 
able through automated means to both count the number of 
licenses in use and determine the security status of each 
instance of use of the software licensed.
Report on authority Delegated to Secretary of Defense to conduct cyber 
        operations (sec. 1639)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees specifying in detail the authorities that 
have been delegated by the President to the Secretary for 
conducting cyber operations. The report would require the 
Secretary to detail the standing authorities and limitations 
that authorize or limit the Secretary in conducting cyber 
operations and how those authorities compare to the authorities 
delegated to the Secretary for activities in non-cyber domains.
    The committee is concerned that the President has withheld 
delegating critical authorities for cyber operations that in 
other warfighting domains would be delegated to the Secretary 
of Defense. As a result, the committee is concerned that the 
Defense Department may not be appropriately postured to defend 
and respond to malicious cyber behavior. As the Commander of 
U.S. Cyber Command testified to the committee on April 5, 2016, 
to date cyber policy decisions have been made on a ``case-by-
case basis.'' The committee believes that more must be done in 
advance of a major cyber attack, on the homeland or U.S. 
interests abroad, to ensure that the Defense Department is best 
postured to defend and respond to such attack in a cyber-
relevant timeframe.
Deterrence of adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 1640)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit to the 
President and the congressional defense committees a report on 
the military and nonmilitary options available to the United 
States to deter Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and terrorist 
organizations in cyberspace. The provision requires the report 
to include an assessment of the effectiveness of the deterrence 
options available. It also requires that the Chairman provide 
an integrated priorities list of cyber deterrence capabilities 
of the Department of Defense that identify, at a minimum, high 
priority capability needs prioritized across armed forces and 
functional lines, risk areas, and long-term strategic planning 
issues.
    The provision would also require within 60 days of 
receiving the report from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, that the President submit to the congressional defense 
committees a separate report identifying when an action carried 
out in cyberspace constitutes an act of war against the United 
States. The report should include (1) identification of what 
actions carried out in cyberspace constitute an act of war 
against the United States; (2) identification of how the law of 
war applies to the cyber operations of the Department of 
Defense; (3) identification of the circumstances required for 
responding to a cyber attack against the United States; and (4) 
a declaratory policy on the use of cyber weapons by the United 
States. In preparing this report, the President must also 
consider (1) whether a cyber attack must demonstrate a use of 
force to be considered an act of war; (2) the ways in which the 
effects of a cyber attack may be equivalent to the effects of 
an attack using conventional weapons, including with respect to 
physical destruction or casualties; (3) intangible effects of 
significant scope, intensity, or duration; and (4) how the law 
of neutrality applies, how the utilization or exploitation of 
communications infrastructure in neutral States applies, and 
what limitations, if any, apply in exercising the right of the 
United States to act in self-defense though a cyber-operation.
    Section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) required the President to 
develop a deterrence policy for reducing cyber risks to the 
United States and our allies. The report was provided to the 
committee more than a year-and-a-half past the required 
submittal date. The committee is concerned by the delayed 
report's lack of seriousness and focus and its failure to 
define fundamental deterrence policy questions or present 
effective options for imposing costs on our cyber adversaries. 
The report disappointingly repackaged the same rhetoric and 
recycled the same pronouncements that have failed to impose any 
consequences on those seeking to undermine the national 
security of the United States in cyberspace. The committee 
hopes the President will approach this new cyber deterrence 
requirement with a heightened level of seriousness and urgency.

                       Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental ballistic 
        missile fuzes (sec. 1651)
    The committee recommends a provision that gives the 
Department of Defense the authority to buy intercontinental 
ballistic missile fuze parts pursuant to 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).
Modification of report on activities of the council on oversight of the 
        National Leadership Command, Control and Communications System 
        (sec. 1652)
    The committee recommends a provision that adds a reporting 
requirement to the annual report of the Council on Oversight of 
the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications 
System for readiness.
Review by the Comptroller General of the United States of 
        recommendations relating to nuclear enterprise of Department of 
        Defense (sec. 1653)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General to review the Department of Defense's 
nuclear enterprise review process to ascertain whether 
recommendations are adequately being implemented.
Sense of Congress on nuclear deterrence (sec. 1654)
    The committee recommends a provision which states the sense 
of Congress that the nuclear forces of the United States 
continue to play a fundamental role in deterring aggression 
against the interests of the United States and its allies. It 
also states that the prevention of war through effective 
deterrence requires survivable and flexible nuclear forces that 
are well exercised and ready to respond to nuclear escalation 
if necessary. In support of a strong and credible nuclear 
deterrent, the United States must: maintain a nuclear force 
with a diverse range of nuclear yields and delivery modes; 
afford the highest priority to the modernization of the nuclear 
triad; and ensure the broadest participation of United States 
allies in nuclear defense planning and training. Finally, it 
states that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) must 
make it clear at the NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland in July 2016 
that NATO has taken steps to address the nuclear provocations 
of the Russian Federation.

                  Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs

Required testing by Missile Defense Agency of ground-based mid-course 
        defense element of ballistic missile defense system (sec. 1661)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to administer a 
flight test of the ground-based mid-course defense element of 
the ballistic missile defense system not less frequently than 
once each fiscal year. The Director should ensure that each 
test provides, when possible, one or more of the following: (1) 
validation of technical improvements made to increase system 
performance and reliability; (2) evaluation of the operational 
effectiveness of the ground-based mid-course defense element of 
the ballistic missile defense system; (3) use of threat-
representative targets and critical engagements conditions; (4) 
evaluation of new configurations of interceptors before they 
are fielded; (5) satisfaction of the ``fly before buy'' 
acquisition approach for new interceptor components or 
software; and (6) evaluation of the interoperability of the 
ground-based mid-course defense element with other elements of 
the ballistic missile defense system.
Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system codevelopment and 
        coproduction (sec. 1662)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
not more than $42.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency to 
provide to the Government of Israel to procure Tamir 
interceptors for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense 
system through co-production of such interceptors in the United 
States. Before disbursing to the Government of Israel the 
funding for Iron Dome, the Director of the Missile Defense 
Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics must certify that the March 5, 2014 
bilateral international agreement concerning Iron Dome, as 
amended, is being implemented. The provision would also limit 
the funding available to the Government of Israel for the 
David's Sling Weapon System until the appropriate congressional 
committees receive the plan required by subsection (d) of 
section 1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (129 Stat.1135; Public Law 114-92).

Non-terrestrial missile defense intercept and defeat capability for the 
        ballistic missile defense system (sec. 1663)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 1685 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 129 Stat.1142) by adding 
at the end a new subsection stating that not later than 60 days 
after the submittal of the report required by subsection (c), 
the Director may commence coordination and activities 
associated with research, development, test, and evaluation on 
the programs described in subsection (c)(2). The provision 
would also update the annual budget information required in 
subsection (c)(2).

Review of pre-launch missile defense strategy (sec. 1664)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff to jointly conduct a review of the Department of Defense 
strategy and capabilities for countering missiles before they 
are launched, including for both regional and homeland defense, 
to defeat both cruise and ballistic missiles, and considering 
the range of capabilities including active, passive, kinetic, 
and non-kinetic measures. The results of this review shall be 
submitted to the congressional defense committees in the form 
of a report not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

Modification of National Missile Defense policy (sec. 1665)

    The committee recommends a provision that would remove the 
word ``limited'' from Section 2 of the National Missile Defense 
Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-38; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note). The Act 
would read as follows: It is the policy of the United States to 
deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective 
National Missile Defense system capable of defending the 
territory of the United States against ballistic missile attack 
(whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding 
subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the 
annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.

Extension of prohibitions on providing certain missile defense 
        information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1666)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 130h(d) of title 10, United States Code, by striking 
``2017'' and inserting ``2018''.

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters


Survey and review of Defense Intelligence Enterprise (sec. 1671)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to conduct a review of the Defense 
Intelligence Enterprise, including the defense intelligence 
agencies and intelligence elements of the combatant commands 
and military departments, to assess the capabilities and 
capacity of such Enterprise to meet present and future defense 
intelligence requirements. The provision would also require the 
Chairman to conduct a survey of each geographic combatant 
command to determine how each prioritizes and allocates its 
intelligence resources. The provision would also require the 
chairman to report the findings of the review and survey to the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and to the 
congressional defense committees. The report should include a 
detailed analysis of how each combatant command uses the 
intelligence resources available to each command and provide 
recommendations for improving the Defense Intelligence 
Enterprise to fulfill operational military requirements.

Milestone A decision for Conventional Prompt Global Strike (sec. 1672)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to make a Milestone A decision for 
Conventional Prompt Global Strike no later than September 30, 
2020, or 8 months after the successful completion of the 
Intermediate Range Flight 2 test.

Cyber Center for Education and Innovation and National Cryptologic 
        Museum (sec. 1673)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish at Fort George G. Meade 
the ``Cyber Center for Education and Innovation and the 
National Cryptologic Museum'' and to enter into an agreement to 
build and accept the Center with the National Cryptologic 
Museum Foundation.

                       Items of Special Interest


Additional Atlantic radar capability

    The committee supports the administration's plans to expand 
and modernize the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, 
which defends the homeland against limited long range ballistic 
missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. 
The committee agrees with Missile Defense Agency (MDA) analysis 
that ``additional missile defense sensor discrimination 
capabilities are needed to enhance the protection of the United 
States homeland against potential long-range ballistic missiles 
from Iran,'' which is why the Congress included a provision 
(section 1684) in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) that directed deployment, 
by December 31, 2020, of a long-range discrimination radar or 
other appropriate sensor capability to support the defense of 
the homeland against Iran.
    U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) Commander, Admiral William 
Gortney, has stated in written testimony that ``Iran may be 
able to deploy an operational ICBM by 2020 if the regime 
chooses to do so.'' Furthermore, Iran has launched multi-stage 
space launch vehicles and continues to test ballistic missiles 
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 
1929.
    The committee understands that the MDA, NORTHCOM, and U.S. 
Pacific Command (PACOM) have prioritized the defense of Hawaii 
from the existing North Korean threat. However, the committee 
has concerns with the Department of Defense's implementation of 
section 1684. According to the MDA, the Department of Defense 
has begun a siting study to determine the feasibility of 
certain East Coast locations for home-porting the Sea-Based X-
Band Radar (SBX) platform. However, a March 11, 2016 response 
from the Missile Defense Agency to a congressional request for 
information concludes: ``no decision has been made to deploy 
SBX to the Atlantic or to develop and construct an additional 
missile defense discrimination sensor, and no funds are 
budgeted for these purposes.''
    The committee believes that if the administration intends 
to continue to rely on the current ground-based interceptors 
deployed in Alaska to defend the U.S. against a potential 
Iranian ICBM, then it is important that there is an additional 
discrimination sensor directed against Iran in the near-term. 
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and the Director 
of MDA to continue their efforts to determine the best sensor 
capability for coverage of the Atlantic and to continue to 
update the committee on steps taken to implement section 1684 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

Air Force Global Strike Command's management of the National Airborne 
        Operations Center

    The National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) consists of 
four specially modified E-4B Boeing 747-200 aircraft, which 
perform a number of national security missions for U.S. senior 
leadership. Given the expanded role of the Air Force Global 
Strike Command (AFGSC) as part of the Force Improvement Program 
and Nuclear Enterprise Review, it has come to the attention of 
the committee that the AFGSC will manage certain operations of 
the four aircraft, which so far have been managed by the Air 
Combat Command. No later than February 28, 2017, the Secretary 
of the Air Force shall describe the management roles of the Air 
Force Global Strike Command as well as the Air Combat Command 
with respect to the NAOC so that the committee understands what 
each major command is responsible for and to ensure there are 
no gaps or seams in this new management construct. This shall 
include staffing, advocating for resources, maintenance, 
relationship with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Air Combat 
Command, as well as the role of the AFGSC with the Mission Area 
Analysis that is being conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
and in particular the Commander of the AFGSC designated role as 
advocating in the Air Force for all nuclear command and 
control.

Air Force Seismic Technologies Program

    The committee notes with concern the continuing threat of 
nuclear proliferation as evidenced by North Korea's recent 
fourth nuclear weapons test.
    The committee feels the Air Force Research Laboratory's 
seismic technologies program is a key component in efforts to 
identify and monitor nuclear activity. The committee strongly 
supports the laboratory's efforts to continue to develop 
seismic technology needed to sustain and improve the capability 
of the United States to monitor nuclear tests. The Committee 
requests that the Air Force keep it appraised of this important 
research program.
    The committee also recommends the Air Force ensure the Air 
Force Research Laboratory's seismic technologies program 
participates fully in the Air Force's Small Business Innovative 
Research Program. The U.S.'s monitoring capability will benefit 
greatly from the innovative ideas and research that small 
businesses can bring to bear to advance the U.S.'s capability 
to detect and characterize small nuclear tests in rogue 
countries to help ensure the Air Force continues to meet its 
operational monitoring requirements.

Ballistic Missile Defense System

    The committee recognizes that the current Ballistic Missile 
Defense System (BMDS) protects the entire United States 
homeland, including Hawaii, against the threat of limited 
ballistic missile attack from North Korea. However, the 
committee acknowledges that North Korea is developing advanced 
missile technologies and claims to have tested several of them. 
By expanding persistent sensor discrimination capabilities, the 
BMDS would be better enabled to respond to emerging ballistic 
missile threats, including those with countermeasures and 
decoys. The committee is aware that, in response to a provision 
in the committee's report that accompanied the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the Missile Defense 
Agency has assessed several options for improving the BMDS 
sensor architecture for the defense of Hawaii.
    The committee also notes that the Department of Defense is 
conducting a Global BMDS Sensors Analysis of Alternatives. 
Within the context of that analysis, the committee urges the 
Department to consider the most effective sensor capabilities 
for the defense of Hawaii, including those that maximize 
improved performance of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 
element.

Commercial cloud implementation in the Department of Defense

    The committee continues to urge the adoption of commercial 
cloud computing capabilities throughout the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to achieve cost savings, increased efficiency, 
and improved security. To reach this objective, the DOD must 
develop appropriate security requirements to ensure that 
sensitive missions, data, and the DoD Information Network 
(DODIN) itself are protected from evolving cyber threats. The 
committee appreciates the Chief Information Officer's (CIO) 
continuing efforts to examine how barriers to the adoption of 
commercial cloud services can be removed. However, the 
committee highlights the following specific issues that the 
Department must address to better enable commercial cloud 
adoption:
           Updating physical and logical security 
        requirements for off-premise commercial cloud 
        offerings;
           Determining the computer network defenses 
        necessary to protect the DODIN from potential 
        intrusions inside commercial cloud offerings;
           Updating the security screening process 
        required to address risks at DODIN access points;
           Addressing the latency and network 
        throughput issues experienced with current Cloud Access 
        Point (CAP) approaches; and
           Acquiring the next-generation perimeter and 
        endpoint security tools that align with commercial 
        cloud providers' environments to enable apples-to-
        apples cost comparisons and ease transitions to cloud 
        services.

Commercial off the shelf procurement for ICBM launch control centers

    It has come to the attention of the committee that given 
the special electronic protections needed within the launch 
control centers, commercial off the shelf (COTS) procurement of 
simple items such as video screens can take a year or more to 
certify, by which time the COTS item has been discontinued, or 
worse, there are so few that the demand signal by the Air Force 
increases its price several fold. The result is that items for 
daily use in the launch control center break or simply become 
worn down, which then becomes a quality of life issue. Given 
the irritating nature of this COTS issue with the combat crews, 
which spend 24 hours in the capsules, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to examine how to procure rapidly, 
COTS items for use in the launch control centers and report to 
the congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 
2017 on how such a remedy will be implemented.

Comptroller General Review of the ground based strategic deterrent 
        system

    The Air Force plans to design, develop, and field the 
ground based strategic deterrent (GBSD) over the next decade to 
replace the current intercontinental ballistic missile 
Minuteman III weapon system beginning in the fiscal year 2028 
time frame. The Air Force plans to request approval to begin 
technology maturation and risk reduction activities at a 
milestone A review before the end of fiscal year 2016, and 
expects to spend more than $3.0 billion on early development 
activities between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2021. As a 
result, the committee requests that the Comptroller General of 
the United States review the Air Force's GBSD technology 
development, acquisition approach, and investment plan, and 
brief the congressional defense committees on the results of 
that review on an annual basis from fiscal year 2017 to 2021 
with periodic updates as agreed to with the Government 
Accountability Office.

Conventional prompt global strike

    The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's 
commitment to the conventional prompt global strike activity 
shown in the fiscal year 2017 budget submission. The committee 
notes that the request seeks to substantially increase the 
Department's investment in prompt global strike technology 
development activities. The committee looks forward to the 
successful execution of the upcoming Navy Intermediate Range 
Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) flight experiment, and to 
working closely with the Department to prioritize continued 
development of the materials and technologies required to 
support near term operational system development efforts.
    As the CPGS activity continues working toward a milestone 
development decision, the committee would like to understand 
factors that may delay the Initial Operational Capability of a 
future program of record, as well as considerations regarding a 
Limited Operational Capability across the military services. 
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a CPGS integrated master plan describing CPGS research 
and development activities including the Army, Navy and Air 
Force, as the Secretary determines appropriate, which enable an 
operational CPGS capability.
    The Secretary must provide a report on this plan to the 
congressional defense committees no later than January 1, 2017. 
The report should include a description of the coordination and 
collaboration among the various agencies working hypersonic 
activities in support of the CPGS capability and must identify 
high risk areas associated with long lead items or technologies 
that could be mitigated prior to a major milestone development 
decision, including the need for adequate test facility 
infrastructure. The report shall also address whether there are 
warfighter requirements or integrated priorities lists-
submitted needs for a limited conventional prompt global strike 
capability and options across the military services for 
supporting such requirements or integrated priorities lists 
submissions.

Cyber protection for the ballistic missile defense system

    The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the Missile 
Defense Agency (MDA) to ensure that the Ballistic Missile 
Defense System (BMDS) is protected against cyber threats, in 
compliance with the Department of Defense's regulation DFARS 
252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and 
Cyber Incident Reporting. However, in testimony to Congress, 
the Director of MDA, Vice Admiral James Syring, expressed 
concern over the vulnerabilities of cleared defense contractors 
who are under contract to work with MDA. The committee is 
concerned that future years funding may be inadequate to 
address the full range of credible cyber risks to the BMDS and 
its supply chain. Accordingly, the committee urges the 
Department to provide proper priority towards assessing the 
BMDS, including its supply chain, in the context of the cyber 
vulnerability evaluations required by section 1647 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92) and directs the Principal Cyber Advisor to the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the committee on 
the plan for conducting a cyber vulnerability evaluation of the 
BMDS no later than October 1, 2016.

Cyber security on military installations

    The committee is concerned that, despite some promising 
activity, the level of effort and funding necessary to ensure 
that industrial control systems needed to protect military 
installations and facilities from cyber-attack is insufficient 
to meet the growing threat. To assist the Department's efforts 
to address this issue as a matter of priority, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to collate and analyze, within 
180 days, the actions that have already been taken by the 
Department to increase the security of its industrial control 
systems and command and control systems, including the 
installations and systems already secured; the systems 
remaining to be secured; the plan by which the remaining 
systems will be secured and the expected time it will take to 
make them secure; the organizational and financial resources 
estimated to be required to implement the plan; and the manner 
in which the success of the plan is to be assessed.

Department of Defense report on nuclear enterprise funding and 
        management

    The committee notes that the Congress has stressed the 
vital importance that the triad of strategic nuclear delivery 
systems plays in ensuring the national security of the United 
States. The committee has consistently supported and emphasized 
to the Department of Defense (DOD) the importance of effective 
and efficient planning and management of the programs critical 
to the nuclear deterrent of the United States and the 
personnel, systems, and infrastructure that comprise such 
deterrent. The committee notes that re-capitalizing the aging 
legs of the strategic triad has a significant fiscal impact. 
For example, the Navy's Ohio-class strategic ballistic missile 
submarine replacement program is intended to carry 70 percent 
of our nation's strategic weapons, and the fiscal investments 
in this program will make it one of the largest acquisition 
efforts in the Department of Defense. Similarly, Air Force 
programs to support the land-based and air-based legs of the 
strategic triad involve several major programs, including, 
among others, modernization of the intercontinental ballistic 
missile force and development of the long-range strategic 
bomber.
    The committee appreciates the Department's consideration of 
ideas to help manage these major programs. The Congress has 
continued to support these efforts by providing planning and 
budget flexibility wherever possible. The committee is aware 
that the Navy intends to use these and other authorities to 
improve fiscal stability and program management of the Ohio 
replacement program. The committee believes the Secretary of 
Defense should consider the value and impact of such 
flexibility throughout the nuclear enterprise. In addition, the 
committee notes that effective planning and program management 
for such critical support structures as nuclear command, 
control, and communications networks is equally as important as 
the delivery systems for maintaining the viability of strategic 
deterrence.
    The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to 
assess the viability of options for improving the program 
management and fiscal stability of the key modernization 
programs for the nuclear enterprise, to include delivery 
systems and the nuclear command, control, and communications 
systems. The Department submit a report to the Committees on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
on the results of the assessment no later than March 1, 2017. 
The assessment should include:
          (1) options and potential authorities to improve 
        funding stability and reduce cost;
          (2) options and actions to improve program and 
        financial management planning for nuclear delivery and 
        nuclear command, control, and communications systems;
          (3) options for combining fund transfer flexibility 
        at the Secretary of Defense level (e.g., joint or 
        cross-service funds) for the entire nuclear enterprise, 
        including an explanation of how financial management 
        accountability and transparency would be maintained 
        related to funds moving in to and out of any such 
        mechanisms; and
          (4) other funding and program management 
        considerations the Secretary of Defense deems 
        appropriate.

E-4B Recapitalization Plan

    The Air Force's fleet of four E-4B aircraft, based on the 
Boeing 747-200 airframe, provides the National Airborne 
Operations Center (NAOC) for the President, the Secretary of 
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other 
senior leaders. It is a critical component of airborne layer of 
the National Military Command System (NMCS).
    The E-4 first entered service in 1974 and will approach the 
end of its service life in the 2020s. With the likely closing 
of the Boeing 747 production line (the only domestic line still 
producing large four engine jet aircraft) in the early 2020s it 
is important for the committee to understand the range of 
options under consideration for recapitalizing the critical E-
4B capabilities, and whether sustaining those capabilities will 
require another large four engine jet or can be accomplished on 
a smaller twin-engine platform. In November 2015, the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided the congressional defense 
committees with an interim report on the status of a nuclear 
command and control (NC2) capabilities-based assessment (CBA) 
and a NMCS airborne fleet mission area analysis (MAA). The 
committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 
submit the final CBA and MAA reports to the congressional 
defense committees no later than September 30, 2016.

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent

    The committee is concerned regarding progress towards a 
Milestone A certification for the Ground Based Strategic 
Deterrent (GBSD). However, the committee understands work in 
fiscal year 2017, specifically the request for proposal (RFP) 
for technology maturation and risk reduction activities (TMRR) 
and the associated contract award, scheduled for the third 
quarter of FY 2017, is in support of achieving program goals 
and objectives in reducing and retiring technological risk. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends full funding for the 
program.
    Additionally, the committee appreciates and supports the 
expressed intention of the Air Force and the Department to 
obtain Milestone A certification in FY 2016. The committee 
believes it is important to achieve this goal and, therefore, 
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the 
Congressional Defense Committees no later than August 1, 2016, 
on progress in achieving Milestone A certification before the 
end of fiscal year 2016. The report should also include an 
assessment of the adequacy of the current staff levels at the 
relevant System Program Office (SPG).

Inclusion of the Army National Guard Cyber Protection Teams in the 
        Department of Defense Cyber Mission Force

    In 2016, the National Guard Bureau announced the 
establishment of ten Army National Guard Cyber Protection Teams 
(CPTs). The Army did not include these teams in the forces that 
the Army would provide for the Department of Defense Cyber 
Mission Force (CMF), while the Air Force did include its 
National Guard CPTs in its force presentation plans. However, 
the committee understands that the Army is quite close to a 
decision that these CPTs will become part of the overall Army 
CMF. The committee requests that the Commander of Army Cyber 
Command and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau determine, 
prior to conference on the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2017, how the Army National Guard CPTs will be 
incorporated into the CMF. This determination should include a 
timeline for integration, a description of the teams' mission 
sets, how they will be funded, when they will be trained and 
what additional authorities might be necessary to allow them to 
carry out Title 32 missions in support of state and civil 
operations. The committee was disappointed to see that training 
for these CPTs was not funded in the budget request for fiscal 
year 2017 and requests that appropriate steps be taken to fund 
the teams in fiscal year 2017 prior to conference.

Space situational awareness technologies

    As space becomes more contested, there is a need for 
enhancing space situational awareness. It is critical that 
appropriate ground-based infrastructure is in place to monitor 
the condition, survivability, and actions of assets in space. 
The committee believes that having ground-based capability may 
also provide a credible layer of accountability for behavior in 
space.
    However, most ground-based techniques require active 
illumination of assets in space and that doing so requires 
government-to-government agreement. The committee notes that an 
alternative in development, intensity interferometry, provides 
a passive technique that can be used to interrogate any 
geosynchronous object without illumination.
    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has 
already invested $66.1 million in developing a passive, ten-
element intensity interferometer that will demonstrate 
significant image resolution in geosynchronous orbit. The 
committee believe a ground-based capability may be a cost-
effective means to conduct mission surveillance of space 
assets, and that a proof-of-concept capability of intensity 
interferometer is necessary to demonstrate viability of the 
investment already incurred.
    The committee therefore directs the department to provide a 
briefing to the defense committees by December 31, 2016 that 
explains the utility of passive techniques for space 
situational awareness such as intensity interferometry versus 
active illumination. The committee also directs the Department 
to provide in the briefing a plan on how it intends to 
establish a proof-of-concept capability for intensity 
interferometry.

Space system software review

    Department of Defense (DOD) space systems are highly 
dependent on software to conduct or enable a wide range of 
functions, such as satellite command and control, mission 
management, data processing, and protecting communications from 
cyber attacks, among others. Unfortunately, DOD does not have a 
good track record in its efforts to acquire software-intensive 
space systems and information assurance and other cyber 
hardening requirements will continue to exacerbate the 
complexity and challenges going forward. Current examples 
include the Global Positioning System Next Generation 
Operational Control System (OCX) and the Joint Space Operations 
Center Mission System, both of which are space-related ground 
systems that have experienced significant development 
challenges leading to, in the case of OCX, cost increases of 
hundreds of millions of dollars and years of schedule delays. 
Prior examples include challenges with fixing the flight 
software for Space Based Infrared System satellites, also 
leading to poor cost and schedule results. Additionally, not 
having interdependent space-related segments in place at the 
right time--whether they are the satellites, ground systems, or 
user terminals--delays delivery of needed capabilities to the 
warfighter and wastes millions of dollars of investment in the 
form of opportunity costs for the segments that are fielded, 
but underutilized.
    Therefore, the committee directs the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office to conduct a review of DOD software-
intensive space system acquisition efforts to determine (1) the 
primary causes of software development challenges and the 
extent to which DOD has or is addressing them, and (2) how 
DOD's acquisition practices for software-intensive systems 
compare with industry best practices. The review should be 
provided in the form of a briefing to the congressional defense 
committees no later than March 31, 2017.

Strategic missile commonality

    The committee notes that both ballistic missile legs of the 
nuclear Triad will require recapitalization in the coming 
decades to ensure their continued viability. The Air Force has 
recently started the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) 
program to replace the Minuteman III and the Navy will need to 
recapitalize the Trident II (D5) strategic weapon system in the 
longer-term. The committee supports the Department's efforts to 
incorporate common components and technologies to enhance 
affordability and risk reduction across both intercontinental 
ballistic missiles and submarine launched ballistic missiles.
    The committee would like to understand how the Department 
is incorporating commonality into the acquisition strategy for 
GBSD. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to brief the 
committee no later than August 1, 2016, on how options for GBSD 
components and sub-systems are being evaluated with the overall 
affordability of the Triad in mind. Specifically, the briefing 
should address how the Department is prioritizing development 
efforts that will jointly benefit the Air Force's GBSD program 
in the near-term and the Navy's recapitalization in the longer-
term.

The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports

    The committee continues to recognize the unique importance 
of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports and when appropriate, 
encourages the use of such spaceports and launch and range 
complexes for mid- to low inclination orbits or polar high-
inclination orbits in support of national security space 
priorities. The committee recognizes that these federally-
licensed, non-federally owned launch facilities, including the 
Pacific Spaceport Complex--Alaska (PSCA), the Mid Atlantic 
Regional Spaceport (MARS), and Oklahoma Air & Space Port--are 
available to meet the requirements for the national security 
space program from the Department of Defense (DOD), Air Force 
Space Command, Operationally Responsive Space Office, and 
Missile Defense Agency.
    The PCSA has supported numerous launches for Air Force 
Space Command including specific national security launches. It 
remains the only commercial polar launch range available in the 
United States. A state-of-the-industry spaceport on Kodiak 
Island, Alaska, PCSA provides access to space for vital 
government and commercial interests. The Mid Atlantic Regional 
Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops Island, Virginia provides medium-
class and small-class launch capabilities for the Department. 
It has launched numerous missions for DOD with is agency 
partners, Air Force Space Command, ORS, and MDA. MARS provides 
assured/responsive access to mid-to-low inclination orbits for 
payloads up to 14,000 lbs. The Oklahoma Air & Space Port, near 
Bums Flat, Oklahoma, is the only space port in the United 
States to have a civilian FAA approved Space Flight Corridor in 
the National Airspace System. This Space Flight corridor is 
unique because it is not within Military Operating Areas or 
within restricted airspace, which provides an operational 
capability for space launch operations and associated 
industries specialized in space-related activities.
    The committee believes that these three facilities can be 
used, when appropriate, to support the national security space 
program.

Training for cyber mission forces

    The Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 2013 directed the 
standup of the Cyber Mission Forces (CMF) and provided funds 
for U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the service cyber 
components to establish the teams and fund the training of 
personnel and units. The funding provided by the Secretary for 
training covered fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2016. During 
this period of central funding, the services, under the 
supervision of CYBERCOM, the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Joint Staff, were supposed to come to an 
agreement on a joint, federated training program funded by the 
services for training of the CMF. This federated training 
program was to be an equitable division of labor that avoided 
duplication and built on the expertise of each service. The 
committee is concerned that the services were not able to come 
to an agreement on a joint training program for the CMF for the 
budget submission for fiscal year 2017. The committee expects 
this issue to be resolved in the current budget planning cycle 
for fiscal year 2018, and expects to be kept informed of 
progress towards this goal in the coming months.

Weather imagery for U.S. Central Command

    The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is 
facing a significant gap in weather information over the U.S. 
Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). The 
committee commends the Department for its coordination with 
European partners and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) to ensure continuity of coverage for 
cloud characterization and theater weather imagery over the 
Indian Ocean. However, the committee is concerned that these 
are short-term solutions that will provide an estimated two to 
five years of weather imagery. Unless the Department takes 
near-term action to address impending gaps, the military may be 
left without critical information for strategic and tactical 
missions.
    The committee understands the Department is considering 
multiple options to provide long-term coverage over the CENTCOM 
AOR, including both material and non-material solutions. In 
assessing non-material solutions, the committee urges the 
Department to prioritize operational support to combatant 
commanders, including maintaining the geographic area coverage, 
as well as the reliability and refresh rate of weather imagery. 
The committee notes there are multiple material solutions 
available, including purchasing an electro-optical/infrared 
(EO/IR) imager either directly under a firm, fixed price 
contract or from NOAA, and launching this sensor as a hosted 
payload on a communications satellite or on a Department of 
Defense infrared satellite system. The Department may also 
consider an alternative, commercial acquisition model where the 
Department does not bear the costs of ownership but instead 
purchases the required data.
    The committee encourages the Department to fully consider 
all available options and directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the congressional defense committees a strategy 
(material and non-material acquisition) for a persistent 
theater weather imagery capability to meet CENTCOM AOR weather 
data requirements. This strategy shall be submitted concurrent 
with the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request. Should the Department 
require Fiscal Year 2017 funds for the procurement of long lead 
items to support this strategy, the committee expects the 
Department to submit a reprogramming request.

            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of funding tables
    Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military 
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It 
includes funding authorizations for the construction and 
operation of military family housing as well as military 
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, 
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure 
accounts that fund military construction, environmental 
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the 
decisions in base closure rounds.
    The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level 
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized 
in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by 
account.
    The fiscal year 2017 budget requested $7.4 billion for 
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, 
$6.1 billion was requested for military construction, $1.3 
billion for the construction and operation of family housing, 
and $205.2 million for base closure activities.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations 
for military construction, housing programs, and base closure 
activities totaling $7.4 billion. The total amount authorized 
for appropriations reflects the committee's continuing 
commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities 
and infrastructure.
Short title (sec. 2001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would designate 
division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.''
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by 
        law (sec. 2002)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military 
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing 
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2019, 
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2020, whichever is later.
Effective date (sec. 2003)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide an 
effective date for titles XXI through XXVII of October 1, 2016 
or the date of enactment of this Act.

                 TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $522.4 million for military construction and $526.6 million 
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2017.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$526.6 million for military construction and $460 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
    The budget request included $33.0 million for a mass 
migration facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The committee 
recommends no funding for this project and applies the savings 
to higher priority unfunded military construction projects in 
fiscal year 2017.
    Additionally, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to 
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such 
savings to high priority unfunded military construction 
projects in fiscal year 2017.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes the Army has identified significant 
unfunded military construction priorities, including a company 
operations facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The committee 
notes that this project was identified as the top priority of 
the Chief of Staff of the Army. Funding for this project has 
been added as outlined in the tables in sections 2101 and 4601.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the active component of the 
Army for fiscal year 2017. The authorized amounts are listed on 
an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Army for fiscal year 2017. This provision would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and 
storage facilities.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2017. This provision would also 
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the active 
component of the Army. The state list contained in this report 
is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 
        (sec. 2104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) for construction of an aircraft 
maintenance hangar at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington to 
include an aircraft washing apron.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 
        2105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239) for two projects 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.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 
        2106)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) for three projects 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.

                 TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.1 billion for military construction and $394.9 million 
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal 
year 2017.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.2 billion for military construction and $394.9 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2017.
    The budget request included $6.1 million for a microgrid in 
Balboa that would support non-essential functions. The 
committee does not recommend funding for this project.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes the Navy has identified significant 
unfunded priorities for military construction including a 
parking apron to support the stationing of the F-35 at Miramar, 
California; a communications complex at Miramar, California; 
and the recapitalization of weapons magazines at Norfolk, 
Virginia. The committee notes that these projects were 
identified as top priorities of the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations. Funding for these 
projects has been authorized as outlined in the tables in 
sections 2201 and 4601.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 
year 2017. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Navy for fiscal year 2017. This provision would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and 
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to improve existing family housing 
units of the Department of the Navy in an amount not to exceed 
$11.1 million.

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy 
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2017. This 
provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 
authorized for military construction and family housing 
projects for the active components of the Navy and the Marine 
Corps. The state list contained in this report is the binding 
list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 
        (sec. 2205)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2201 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) for construction of a water transmission 
line at Pearl City, Hawaii to include a 591-meter long, 16-inch 
diameter water transmission line as part of the network 
required to provide the main water supply to Joint Base Pearl 
Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 
        2206)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2201 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239), for various projects 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.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 
        2207)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2201 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66), for seven projects 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.

              TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.6 billion for military construction and $335.1 million 
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2017.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.6 billion for military construction and $335.1 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2017.
    Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $22.3 
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to 
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such 
savings to high priority unfunded military construction 
projects in fiscal year 2017.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes the Air Force has identified 
significant unfunded military construction priorities including 
an E3 mission and flight simulator at Tinker Air Force Base, 
and a consolidated communications center at Joint Base Andrews. 
The committee notes that these projects were identified as the 
top priorities of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Funding 
for these projects has been added as outlined in the tables in 
sections 2301 and 4601.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 
        2301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2017. 
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Air Force for fiscal year 2017. This provision would 
also authorize funds for facilities that support family 
housing, including housing management offices, housing 
maintenance, and storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to improve existing family 
housing units of the Department of the Air Force in an amount 
not to exceed $150.7 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2017. This provision would also 
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the active 
component of the Air Force. The state list contained in this 
report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized 
at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016 project 
        (sec. 2305)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2301 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) for 
a tactical response force alert facility at Malstrom Air Force 
Base, Montana to include the construction of an emergency power 
generator system.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 
        2306)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military 
Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 
113-66) for various projects 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.

           TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $2.1 billion for military construction for the defense 
agencies and $59.2 million for family housing for the defense 
agencies for fiscal year 2017.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$2.0 billion for military construction and 59.2 million for 
family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2017.
    The budget request included $12.1 million for upgrades to 
the Pentagon Metro Entrance. The committee does not recommend 
funding for this project.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes the Department of Defense has 
identified significant unfunded military construction 
priorities including a battalion complex for the Special 
Operations Command. The committee notes that this project was 
identified as the top priority of the Commander of the Special 
Operations Command. Funding for this project has been added as 
outlined in the tables in sections 2401 and 4601.
    Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $132.2 
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to 
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such 
savings to high priority unfunded military construction 
projects in fiscal year 2017.
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the defense agencies for 
fiscal year 2017. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation 
projects. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-
by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the military construction and family housing 
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction 
for fiscal year 2017. This provision would also provide an 
overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the defense 
agencies. The state list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 
        (sec. 2404)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authority contained in section 2401 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) for the construction of a high school at 
Royal Air Force Base Lakenheath, United Kingdom to allow the 
construction of a combined middle/high school.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 
        2405)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239) for two projects 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.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 
        2406)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) for ten projects until October 1, 2017, 
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for the 
military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later.

                   TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $177.9 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2017 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
(NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends 
the requested amount.
    Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to 
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such 
savings to high priority unfunded military construction 
projects in fiscal year 2017.

  Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
                                Program

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an 
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized 
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due 
to the United States for construction previously financed by 
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations of $177.9 million for the U.S. contribution to 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
Program for fiscal year 2017.

             Subtitle B--Host Country In-Kind Contributions

Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to accept 19 military construction 
projects totaling $684.1 million from the Republic of Korea as 
in-kind contributions.

            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $672.6 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2017 for facilities for the National Guard and 
reserve components.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$719.1 million for military construction in fiscal year 2017 
for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. 
The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state 
list table included in this report.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes the National Guard and Reserve 
forces have identified significant unfunded military 
construction priorities, including an Army Reserve Center in 
Phoenix, Arizona and a Guard Readiness Center at Fort Carson, 
Colorado. The committee notes that these projects were 
identified as the top unfunded priorities for the reserve 
forces by the Chief of Staff of the Army. Funding for these 
projects has been added as outlined in the tables in this title 
and section 4601.

Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorizations of Appropriations

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for 
fiscal year 2017. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal 
year 2017. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land 
        acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2017. The authorized amounts are 
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for 
fiscal year 2017. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for 
fiscal year 2017. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the reserve component military construction 
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2017 in 
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 
the amount authorized for military construction projects for 
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The 
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the 
specific projects authorized at each location.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 
        (sec. 2611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) for construction of a new Army Reserve 
Center at Bullville, New York to allow the Secretary of the 
Army to add to or alter the existing Army Reserve Center at 
that location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project 
        (sec. 2612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorizations contained in section 2603 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B 
of Public Law 113-291), for construction of a Reserve Training 
Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to allow the acquisition of 
approximately 8.5 acres of adjacent land necessary to construct 
road improvements and associated supporting facilities to 
provide required access to that site.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec. 
        2613)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2603 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239) for one project 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.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 
        2614)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in sections 2602, 2603, 2604, and 2605 
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) for six projects 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.

          TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

Summary and explanation of tables
    The budget request included $205.2 million for the ongoing 
cost of environmental remediation and other activities 
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 
1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. The 
committee recommends this amount. The detailed funding 
recommendations are contained in the state list table included 
in this report.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure 
        activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure 
        Account (sec. 2701)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for ongoing activities that 
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 
1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure 
        (BRAC) round (sec. 2702)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make clear 
that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a 
future Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Elsewhere in 
the Act, the committee recommends a reduction of $4.0 million 
for BRAC planning activities.

         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and 
        maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas 
        outside the United States (sec. 2801)
    The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 
contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the 
United States for an additional year.
Limited authority for scope of work increase (sec. 2802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Department of Defense to increase the scope of military 
construction projects by up to 10 percent above the amount 
authorized by Congress after notifying the appropriate 
congressional committees.
    The committee notes the emerging requirements for power 
redundancy and other security requirements that have led to 
scope increases in recent years and believes that the 
additional flexibility will allow the Department to proceed 
with similar projects without requiring legislative changes.
Permanent 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 (sec. 2803)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
permanent the authority to accept contributions from the 
Government of Kuwait for certain infrastructure projects that 
are mutually beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait 
Military Forces.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

Authority to carry out military construction projects for energy 
        resiliency and security projects not previously authorized 
        (sec. 2811)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2914 of title 10, United States Code, by placing a 
higher funding priority on energy resiliency and security, in 
addition to conservation, within the energy conservation 
investment program.
    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
(DOD) is not adequately addressing national security threats 
and costs of electricity grid outages and failures as part of 
the electricity procurement process. The result is a DOD 
electricity procurement policy which favors the lowest-cost 
form of energy, but does not include costs associated with 
energy resiliency capabilities, or the value of electricity to 
achieve mission assurance in the calculation for purchasing 
energy.
    The committee recognizes the value of energy conservation 
and payback periods. However, the committee believes that DOD 
and the military services' ability to accomplish their missions 
through enhanced energy resiliency and security, ultimately 
should have a higher priority above conservation.
    The committee believes the Department should place greater 
emphasis on energy resiliency projects to critical mission 
operations that can withstand threats from cyber, climate, and 
physical attacks through improved systems in energy generation, 
transmission, and distribution.
    Additionally, the committee believes the Department should 
pursue life-cycle cost-effective energy resiliency solutions 
that provide mission assurance and prioritize critical energy 
loads of the installation beyond standby generators with 
potential solutions, including but not limited to cyber 
security, redundancy, micro-grids, distributed energy 
resources, islanded power plants, site security, demand 
response, renewable energy, diversified fuel sources, advanced 
metering, event detection, sensors, predictive analytics, 
automatic transfer switching, black-start capabilities, and 
electromagnetic pulse protection.
Authority of the Secretary concerned to accept lessee improvements at 
        government-owned/contractor-operated industrial plants or 
        facilities (sec. 2812)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2535 of title 10, United States Code, to allow a 
service secretary to accept facility improvements of the leased 
plant or facility if necessary for the development or 
production of military weapon systems, munitions, components, 
or supplies. Upon completion of the improvement the Department 
of Defense would assume ownership.
Treatment of insured depository institutions operating on land leased 
        from military installations (sec. 2813)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
Secretary concerned to treat all Federal or State chartered 
insured depository institutions to be treated equally with 
regard to certain financial arrangements.
    The committee recognizes that certain Federal or State 
chartered insured depository institutions in good standing that 
have been selected to operate on military installations are 
able to do so with highly favorable lease terms given the value 
these institutions provide to service members. The committee 
agrees that these institutions should provide important 
benefits to service members, and this provision is intended to 
ensure that no Federal or State chartered insured depository 
institution is treated differently than another as a 
consequence of its organization type.

                      Subtitle C--Land Conveyances

Land acquisitions, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2821)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to acquire by whatever means the 
Secretary determines is sufficient for the expansion of 
Arlington National Cemetery in order to maximize the number of 
interment sites and the compatible use of adjacent properties.
Land conveyance, Campion Air Force Radar Station, Galena, Alaska (sec. 
        2822)
    The committee includes a provision that would authorize the 
Secretary of the Air Force to convey the former Campion Air 
Force station to the town of Galena, Alaska.
Land conveyances, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program 
        facility and adjacent property, Gakona, Alaska (sec. 2823)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to convey a portion of the 
property that was used for the High Frequency Active Auroral 
Research Program near the Gulkana Village to the University of 
Alaska for consideration that the Secretary determines is 
appropriate. The provision would authorize the Secretary of the 
Air Force to convey another portion of the property, for 
consideration, the Ahtna Alaska Native Corporation from which 
the property was purchased by the Secretary.
Transfer of Fort Belvoir Mark Center Campus from the Secretary of the 
        Army to the Secretary of Defense and applicability of certain 
        provisions of law relating to the Pentagon Reservation (sec. 
        2824)
    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer 
the administrative jurisdiction of the Fort Belvoir Mark 
Center, where the Washington Headquarters Service is located, 
from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Defense.
Transfer of Administrative Jurisdictions, Navajo Army Depot, Arizona 
        (sec. 2825)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of property at 
Navajo Army Depot, Arizona, to the Department of the Army for 
the purposes of continued military operations.

            Subtitle D--Utah Land Withdrawals and Exchanges

  Part I--Authorization for Temporary Closure of Certain Public Land 
              Adjacent to the Utah Test and Training Range

Short title (sec. 2831)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow for 
the section to be cited as the ``Utah Test and Training Range 
Encroachment Prevention and Temporary Closure Act''.
Definitions (sec. 2832)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
definitions for BLM Land, Secretary of the Interior, the State 
of Utah, and the Utah Test and Training Range.
Memorandum of agreement (sec. 2833)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Interior to 
enter into a memorandum of agreement that authorizes the 
Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Secretary 
of the Interior, to impose limited closures of specific Bureau 
of Land Management land for military operations and national 
security and public safety purposes at the Utah Test and 
Training Range.
Temporary closures (sec. 2834)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Secretary 
of the Interior, to determine necessary temporary closures 
related to the military operations, public safety, or national 
security.
Liability (sec. 2835)
    The committee recommends a provision that would hold 
harmless the United States, including all departments, 
agencies, officers, and employees and not be liable for any 
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 conduction on BLM 
Land.
Community resource advisory group (sec. 2836)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
establishment of the Utah Test and Training Range Community 
Relations Advisory Group not later than 90 days after enactment 
of this Act.
Savings clauses (sec. 2837)
    The committee recommends a provision that would outline the 
limitations of this act on current agreements.

  Part II--Bureau of Land Management Land Exchange With State of Utah


Definitions (sec. 2841)

    The committee recommends a provision that would define the 
terms Exchange Map, Federal Land, Non-Federal Land, Secretary, 
and State.

Exchange of federal land and non-federal land (sec. 2842)

    The committee recommends a provision that would outline the 
manner in which the exchange of federal land and non-federal 
land would take place.

Status and management of non-federal land acquired by the United States 
        (sec. 2843)

    The committee recommends a provision that would stipulate 
the management of non-federal land acquired by the United 
States.

Hazardous materials (sec. 2844)

    The committee recommends a provision that would stipulate 
the responsible party for any costs related to the cleanup of 
hazardous materials.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters


Certification of optimal location for 4th and 5th generation combat 
        aircraft basing and for rotation of forces at Naval Air Station 
        El Centro or Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay (sec. 2851)

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the expenditure of any funds for the construction of hangars, 
housing, maintenance or related facilities to support any 
current or future F/A-18 or F-35 squadrons at Naval Air Station 
Lemoore until an analysis of operational requirements confirms 
that Naval Air Station Lemoore is the optimal location for 
those squadrons.

Replenishment of Sierra Vista Subwatershed regional aquifer, Arizona 
        (sec. 2852)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Interior to enter 
into a cooperative agreement with the Cochise Conservation 
Recharge Network, Arizona, in support of efforts to replenish 
the regional aquifer identified under Section 321(g) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public 
Law 108-136).

                       Items of Special Interest


Concurrent use of repair and new construction

    The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense 
laboratories represent a unique national security capability 
and believes that these laboratories should have maximum 
flexibility to use resources available to them to discharge 
their mission. In previous years, the Congress has permitted 
laboratories access to increased levels of minor military 
construction from funds available for operation and maintenance 
or from funds authorized to be made available under section 
219(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
    The committee notes with concern that the infrastructure at 
many of these laboratories is prohibitively old and in need of 
serious repair and refurbishment. While the use of repair funds 
for new construction is not permitted, per section 2811(c) of 
title 10 United States Code, the committee understands that 
there is no legislative barrier to using military construction 
funds or funds available for minor military construction 
conjunctively or concurrently with repair funds for facility 
repair and refurbishment initiatives. Concurrent use of funds 
in this manner would ensure that that the utilization of an 
existing facility can be cost effectively maintained, improved, 
and/or expanded by the partial addition of new construction.
    The committee believes that this could significantly 
enhance the capability of repair and refurbishment efforts and 
provide a cost effective utilization of funds to improve 
existing older facilities for necessary state-of-the-art 
research work. In this regard, the committee directs the 
Department of Defense to maximize the use of these 
conjunctively-funded projects. In addition, the committee 
expects that the Department will keep the committee updated 
appropriately on its usage in improving the laboratories' 
infrastructure.
    The committee also recognizes that while there are no 
legislative barriers to the use of funds conjunctively or 
concurrently in this manner, there may still exist policies or 
regulations that restrict such action. Consequently, the 
committee directs the Department to identify, with a view 
toward eliminating, any service or local policies, regulations, 
or restrictions that discourage or inhibit such conjunctive use 
of funds. The committee directs that this identification and 
elimination of policies, regulations, and restrictions be 
completed no later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act.

Cybersecurity risk to Department of Defense facilities

    The committee finds that Department of Defense facilities 
are transitioning to smart buildings increasingly utilizing 
wireless controls for heating, ventilation and air 
conditioning, security systems, lighting, electrical power, 
fire alarms, elevators, visitor controls, cellular 
communications, Wi-Fi networks, first responder communications 
and other systems are increasing interconnected and online. 
This higher connectivity has increased the threat and 
vulnerability to cyber-attacks, particularly in ways existing 
DOD regulations were not designed to consider.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to deliver to the congressional defense committees a report 
that: (1) Delineates the structural risks inherent in control 
systems and networks, and the potential consequences associated 
with a system compromise through a cyber event; (2) Assesses 
the current vulnerabilities to cyber attack initiated through 
Industrial Control Systems (ICS) at Department of Defense 
installations worldwide, for the purpose of determining risk 
mitigation actions for current and future implementation; (3) 
Proposes a common, Department-wide implementation plan to 
upgrade and improve the security of control systems and 
networks to mitigate identified risks; (4) Assesses the extent 
to which existing Department of Defense military construction 
directives, regulations, and instructions require the 
consideration of cybersecurity vulnerabilities and cyber risk 
in pre-construction design processes and requirements 
development processes for military construction projects; and 
(5) the capabilities of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command, the Air Force Civil Engineer 
Center, and other construction agents, as well as participating 
stakeholders, to identify and mitigate full-spectrum cyber-
enabled risk to new facilities and major renovations.
    For the purposes of this legislation, ICS include, but are 
not limited to, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 
Systems, Building Automation Systems Utility Monitoring and 
Energy Management and Control Systems.
    Such report shall include an estimated budget for the 
implementation plan, and shall be delivered no later than 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Extension of the runway at Pope Army Airfield

    The committee recognizes that Pope Army Airfield is a 
frequently-used airfield, including for the purposes of the 
Global Response Force (GRF). The mission of the GRF is to have 
units of the Army 18th Airborne Corps anywhere in the world 
within 48 hours' notice. The committee understands that the 
current length of Pope Army Airfield is 7,500 feet with 1,000 
feet of hardened overruns, providing 8,500 feet for the take-
off of aircraft. The committee notes that a C-17 aircraft at 
its maximum gross take-off weight requires 10,500 feet for 
take-off, while a C-5 aircraft requires 11,500 feet for take-
off when loaded to its maximum gross take-off weight of 769,000 
pounds. The committee understands that C-17 and C-5 aircraft 
cannot currently depart Pope Army Airfield fully fueled and 
with a full load of troops and require air refueling.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act. The report should include an analysis of the necessity of 
extending the runway at Pope Army Airfield, any operational 
impacts to not extending the runway, and a timeline for any 
plans to extend the runway.

Military Ocean Terminal, Concord infrastructure impacts on readiness

    The committee recognizes the strategic importance of the 
Military Ocean Terminal, Concord (MOTCO) for the delivery of 
ammunition to the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility. 
The committee understands that no other facility on the west 
coast of the United States can meet the ammunition throughput 
capacity or net explosive weight limits of MOTCO. Although 
MOTCO can meet current mission requirements, significant 
infrastructure improvements are required to support operations, 
including a rebuild of Pier 2 in order to maintain operational 
readiness.
    Due to the poor condition of critical, mission-related 
infrastructure, the committee commends the approximately $205.0 
million in military construction and Sustainment, Restoration 
and Modernization funding that has been programmed by the 
Department. The committee understands that in addition to the 
$205.0 million, infrastructure projects will be required 
between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2024 at an estimated 
cost of $122.0 million. The committee understands that these 
projects would directly support the operations (roads, bridges 
and dredging) in addition to a variety of safety, security, 
force protection, and utility projects which allow MOTCO to 
safely and securely conduct its mission. The committee also 
recognizes that MOTCO Pier 3 must be repaired and sustained to 
eliminate the potential for a capability gap, along with the 
timely rebuild of Pier 2 that is essential to preserve required 
ammunition resupply capability to the Pacific.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department to 
continue to request the appropriate funding necessary to make 
infrastructure improvements to address years of deferred 
maintenance and repair at MOTCO.

Ordnance Plant recapitalization

    The Committee notes the Department of Defense does not have 
a long-term strategic capital improvement plan in place to 
support its aging Ordnance Plants. These facilities are 
supporting a multitude of DoD urgent requirements, yet these 
activities will come to an abrupt halt if basic infrastructure 
needs, such as heating and cooling, safety, and environmental 
hazards, are not addressed in the near future. The Committee 
strongly encourages the Secretary of the Defense to develop a 
multi-year recapitalization plan for the Ordnance Plants, 
including the Industrial Reserve, that can be shared with the 
Committees of jurisdiction in advance of the next budget cycle, 
and include the required funds in future budget requests based 
on the most urgent needs identified.

Treatment of stormwater as wastewater

    The committee notes that there has been some continued 
confusion about whether the definition of a utility system for 
the treatment of wastewater includes the treatment of 
stormwater.
    The committee believes that section 2813 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) addresses this issue and that the treatment of wastewater 
includes the treatment of stormwater.

   TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 
year 2017 for overseas contingency operations. The authorized 
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 
        2902)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2017 
for overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are 
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2903)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for military construction in the overseas 
contingency operations account for fiscal year 2017.

 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

                                Overview

    Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
2017, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 
plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear 
weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration 
and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses 
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). This title authorizes 
appropriations in three categories: (1) National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA); (2) defense environmental 
cleanup; and (3) other defense activities.
    The committee recommends a provision allocating funding 
consistent with the funding allocations in section 4701. The 
committee notes that recent actions taken at the Waste 
Isolation Plant (WIPP) and its projected initial operating date 
of December 2016, instead of the original March 2016 date, 
necessitate quarterly reporting to the congressional defense 
committees on actions taken towards bringing WIPP towards full 
operational status, including key milestones, status of any 
capital projects under Department of Energy (DOE) Order 413.1 
as well as obligations and expenditures of fiscal year 2016 
funding. Such reporting shall be due within 30 days of the 
quarter it is reporting for. The committee further requests the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) review these quarterly 
updates and report to the congressional defense committees on 
significant findings and trends in the above tasks.
    The committee further directs the GAO to continue its 
ongoing evaluation of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant in the 
areas of cost-schedule performance, technology readiness 
levels, contractor assurance system, and other areas to be 
mutually agreed upon, with a briefing to the committee due no 
later than February 28, 2017.

         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
total of $12.9 billion for the Department of Energy for fiscal 
year 2017 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to 
carry out programs necessary for national security.
Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$5.3 billion for fiscal year 2017 defense environmental cleanup 
of contaminated facilities, soil, ground, and surface water and 
the treatment and disposal of radioactive and other waste 
generated through the production of nuclear weapons and weapons 
materials.
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$791.6 million for other defense activities for fiscal year 
2017, including funds for health, safety, and security and the 
Office of Legacy Management and Nuclear Energy.
Nuclear energy (sec. 3104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funds for the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2017 as 
specified in the funding table in section 4701.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Common financial systems for the nuclear security enterprise (sec. 
        3111)
    The committee is encouraged by recent steps the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has taken to implement 
common financial systems for the nuclear security enterprise, 
including establishing a program director for financial 
integration, but the committee remains concerned about the 
potential obstacles such improvement and integration of the 
financial systems may face, including the availability of 
resources, implementation of an effective information 
technology solution, and the development of a standardized 
reporting framework.
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Administrator of NNSA to complete implementation of a common 
financial system for the nuclear security enterprise no later 
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. This 
common financial system should include, among other things, 
common data reporting requirements for work performed with NNSA 
funding; a common NNSA work breakdown structure that aligns to 
the NNSA budget structure; NNSA definitions and methodologies 
for identifying costs for programs of record and base 
capabilities; and a capability to use historical costing data 
with the Department of Defense's Defense Cost Analysis Resource 
Center.
    The Administrator shall also submit to the congressional 
defense committees an annual report on progress towards 
implementing this common financial system. These reports shall 
be due by March 1 of each year, beginning March 1, 2017, and 
shall end after submission of the report in which the 
Administrator concludes that the common financial system has 
been fully implemented. These reports should include a summary 
of activities, accomplishments, and challenges associated with 
implementation of the common financial system in the prior 
year; a summary of planned activities for the upcoming year; 
and any expected modifications to the schedule for implementing 
the common financial system, including an update on possible 
risks or challenges.
Industry best practices in operations at National Nuclear Security 
        Administration facilities and sites (sec. 3112)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
National Nuclear Security Administration to review how to 
implement industry best practices at its sites consistent with 
maintaining or reducing risks and preserving and protecting 
health, safety, and security.
Limitation on acceleration of dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons 
        (sec. 3113)
    The committee notes that the fiscal year 2016 stockpile 
stewardship and management plan (SSMP) outlines a schedule and 
funding profile that will allow the elimination of nuclear 
weapons retired prior to fiscal year 2009 to be completed by 
fiscal year 2022, and the committee believes that this schedule 
establishes an appropriate rate for weapon dismantlement and 
disposition. The committee therefore recommends a provision 
that would limit the rate at which the National Nuclear 
Security Agency is authorized to dismantle weapons to the 
schedule and funding profile put forth in the fiscal year 2016 
SSMP. This limit may be relaxed if the President certifies an 
exception exists based on (a) a need to meet certain treaty 
obligations or (b) a need to obtain critical components from 
retired weapons that cannot be reasonably acquired through 
other means for use in support of life extension, weapon 
alteration, or weapon modification programs as described in the 
fiscal year 2016 SSMP.
Contract for Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility construction project 
        (sec. 3114)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Energy (Secretary) to enter into an arrangement 
with the Chief of Engineers (Chief) to act as an owner's agent 
for the Department of Energy (Department) with respect to its 
Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) construction 
project. Due to ongoing management problems with the MFFF 
project, increasing cost and schedule estimates, and 
increasingly heated disagreements between the Department and 
its MFFF contractor over the status of construction and the 
expected final costs, the committee lacks confidence that the 
current management and contractual structure of the project 
provides reasonable assurance that the Department and the MFFF 
contractor will be able to complete the project at a cost, or 
in a timeframe, acceptable to the committee.
    Therefore, no later than 30 days after the enactment of 
this act, the Secretary shall enter into an arrangement with 
the Chief to obtain owner's agent support. Under this 
arrangement, the Chief shall assess the contractual, technical, 
and managerial risks associated with the MFFF. The Chief shall 
furthermore assess the existing MFFF contract and determine 
what elements of that contract may reasonably be changed to a 
fixed price provision, a fixed price incentive fee provision, 
or a similar contractual provision that would minimize risk and 
cost associated with the MFFF. As part of the MFFF contract 
assessment, for each contract element that may reasonably be 
changed, the Chief shall assess any damage fees that may be 
incurred by such a change as well as the milestone, cost, and 
schedule changes that would occur.
    The Chief shall furthermore use these assessment to make 
recommendations to the Secretary on a set of changes to the 
MFFF contract that would reduce risk and cost to the Department 
while preserving an overall contract with terms that are fair 
and reasonable. For elements of the contract that the Chief 
does not recommend changing to a fixed price, fixed price 
incentive fee, or similar, provision, the Chief shall assess 
the risks and costs associated with that element along with a 
description of why that contract element should not be changed 
to another provision type.
    In carrying out work as the owner's agent under this 
arrangement, the Chief should, as appropriate, consult with the 
Secretary, the contractor, and other knowledgeable parties. No 
later than 30 days after entering into this arrangement, the 
Chief shall submit a report to the Secretary describing the 
assessments performed and the recommendations on changes to the 
MFFF contract.
    The Secretary shall review the report provided by the Chief 
and shall work with the contractor on determining the 
feasibility of enacting the recommended changes to the 
contract. No later than 60 days after receiving the Chief's 
report, the Secretary shall provide to the congressional 
defense committees and the Comptroller General of the United 
State a copy of the report along with any comments the 
Secretary wishes to provide, a summary of correspondence with 
the contractor related to enacting the recommended changes, a 
determination of whether the contractor will agree to the 
recommended changes to the contract, and, if the contractor 
will not agree to such changes, a description of the reasons 
given for the contractor's decision.
    The Comptroller General shall assess the actions taken by 
the Secretary in response to the Chief's report. The 
Comptroller General's assessment shall be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees no later than 30 days after 
receiving the items from the Secretary described in the 
previous paragraph.
    The committee hopes that the work directed by this 
provision will repair the working relationship between the 
Department and the MFFF contractor while providing better cost 
and schedule control by converting as much of the contract as 
possible to a fixed price (or similar) structure. However, we 
acknowledge that this effort may not succeed for a variety of 
reasons. The committee therefore expects the Department to also 
continue its analysis of alternative options for carrying out 
the plutonium disposition program, including the downblending 
or dilute and dispose option and other options as appropriate. 
Despite direction in the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 
2016 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 114-92), we 
note several questions related to alternative options remain 
unresolved. We therefore expect to receive more detailed 
information on these options.
Unavailability for general and administrative overhead costs of amounts 
        specified for certain laboratories for laboratory-directed 
        research and development (sec. 3115)
    The committee recommends a provision that would remove the 
overhead burden on National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) laboratories for Laboratory Directed Research and 
Development (LDRD). These funds, which come from amounts set 
aside of up to 7 percent of all laboratory research, are highly 
sought after in internal laboratory competitions each year. The 
ideas that are funded become the seed corn for further 
innovation throughout the weapons cycle, including new computer 
codes to model the weapons, new component designs, and 
experimental apparatus. The funds are used to attract the best 
and brightest post-doctoral students to the laboratories who 
later move on to senior positions as weapons designers. 
Numerous scientific awards are generated each year from the 
research on these programs. Prestigious studies advocate for 
the importance of retaining the LDRD program. The Commission on 
the Review of the Effectiveness of the National Energy 
Laboratories noted that since the funds come from amounts set 
aside on existing research programs, administering the overhead 
burden on the LDRD program lessens the buying power of these 
highly sought after funds and, in effect, is a double tax. This 
provision would limit the overhead burden on the LDRD program.
Increase in certain limitations applicable to funds for conceptual and 
        construction design of the Department of Energy (sec. 3116)
    The committee recommends a provision that would update 
older statutory ceilings for construction design that require 
authorization.

                     Subtitle C--Plans and Reports

Estimate of total life cycle cost of tank waste cleanup at Hanford 
        Reservation (sec. 3121)
    Uncertainty surrounding the Department of Energy's (DOE) 
overall tank waste cleanup schedule adds doubt to the 
reliability of its life-cycle cost estimates. Cleanup costs 
stem directly from cleanup duration, and lengthening of the 
cleanup duration can lead to significant cost increases. 
According to present Tri-Party Agreement milestones, DOE is 
required to complete cleanup by 2047. In recent years, however, 
DOE's estimate of when it expects to complete tank waste 
cleanup and treatment has shifted repeatedly, and the 
completion date is at risk of sliding 5 to 10 years or more 
into the future.
    The committee requires DOE's Office of Environmental 
Management to provide a rough order-of-magnitude estimate of 
the total lifecycle cost of the Waste Treatment and 
Immobilization Plant (WTP) project and tank waste management 
and treatment operations within one year of enactment of this 
Act. This lifecycle cost estimate shall include estimates for 
the following:
          (A) The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, 
        assuming full startup and commissioning in 2036;
          (B) Operations of the Waste Treatment and 
        Immobilization Plant for two scenarios, assuming 
        operations continue to 2047 and assuming operations 
        continue to 2057; and
          (C) Tank waste management and treatment operations 
        for two scenarios, assuming operations continue through 
        2047 and assuming operations continue through 2057.
    The lifecycle cost estimate shall also consider the 
following possibilities and their effects on the cost estimates 
described above:
          (A) Anticipated increases in the volume of tank 
        waste;
          (B) Construction of a second, supplemental low-
        activity waste treatment facility;
          (C) The effects of extending the schedule for cleanup 
        of tank waste at Hanford Reservation from 2047 to 2057;
          (D) High-level waste canister temporary storage, 
        transportation, and permanent disposal; and
          (E) Construction of any additional facilities that 
        may be needed to treat tank waste at Hanford 
        Reservation.
    This lifecycle cost estimate shall be developed in 
accordance with the cost estimating best practices of the 
Government Accountability Office.
Analysis of approaches for supplemental treatment of low-activity waste 
        at Hanford Nuclear Reservation (sec. 3122)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement with a federally 
funded research and development center (FFRDC) to conduct an 
analysis of supplemental waste treatment options at the Hanford 
site. The Secretary would also enter into an agreement with the 
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to 
conduct a peer review of the FFRDC analysis. This peer review 
should review key methodology approaches selected by the 
analysis team and any key findings (1) early in the analysis, 
(2) periodically during the analysis as appropriate, and (3) 
upon completion of the analysis, such that findings by the 
Academies' peer review may inform and improve the analysis. 
This analysis shall assess options for supplemental treatment 
of low-activity waste. At a minimum, the options shall include 
vitrification, grouting, and steam reforming, and the further 
processing to remove long-lived waste constituents such as 
technetium-99. The analysis shall use risk assessment practices 
such as probabilistic risk assessment, per section 3161 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 
Law 112-239), and shall identify risks, benefits, life-cycle 
costs, schedules, regulatory compliance, and other factors that 
may inhibit the ability of the Department to pursue each 
option. This analysis, the peer review results, and any 
comments from the Department of Energy shall be due to the 
congressional defense committees no later than 2 years after 
the enactment of this Act, and a briefing on the progress of 
this analysis should be provided to the committees every 6 
months after the date of enactment.
    The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), itself 
a complex construction project that continues to face technical 
and management challenges, is only currently intended to 
immobilize, by vitrification, approximately a third of the low-
activity waste (LAW) in the Hanford tank farms. The remaining 
two-thirds of the LAW would need to be treated with a 
supplemental treatment approach, and the Department of Energy 
(DOE) has not yet finalized its preferred supplemental 
treatment approach for this waste. In a 2013 Record of 
Decision, the Department stated that it believed it is 
beneficial to study further the potential cost, safety, and 
environmental performance of supplemental treatment 
technologies.
    The committee is concerned that the Department may not use 
an adequately risk-informed process to select a preferred 
supplemental treatment approach, as suggested by findings by 
the National Academy of Science and by a DOE-commissioned 
committee. These groups reported that the Department does not 
utilize a sufficiently risk-informed approach for supporting 
decisions about waste disposal. Similarly, for decades the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that DOE has 
not set cleanup priorities based on systematic evaluation of 
risks and, in some cases, lacks comprehensive risk information. 
These reports generally noted that, by not using risk-informed 
approaches, the Department's cleanup efforts may not be 
executed efficiently and may prioritize lower-risk activities 
over higher-risk activities. However, the committee is 
encouraged that one example of a risk-informed cleanup approach 
shows that there is the potential for cost savings. At the 
Savannah River Site, the Department used a risk-based approach 
to identify LAW that could be treated using grout, rather than 
vitrification. The Department estimated that this approach 
avoided a cost increase of several tens of billions of dollars 
while still meeting clean-up obligations.
    To provide further study of supplemental treatment 
technologies, and to support and to provide the basis for a 
risk-informed decision on the supplemental treatment approach 
at Hanford, the Department's analysis shall consider, in 
addition to other approaches the Department may decide to 
include, four waste treatment approaches, including 
vitrification using an expanded WTP and three approaches with 
supplemental facilities using bulk vitrification, grouting, and 
steam reforming, and the analysis should incorporate knowledge 
gained through waste treatment activities across the 
Department's sites and internationally over the last several 
decades. In addition to considering these waste treatment 
approaches, the analysis should consider the processing of the 
supplemental LAW to remove long-lived radioactive constituents 
such as technetium-99 and iodine-129. Because some waste forms 
have been found to be relatively poor for retaining these 
isotopes, it is important to consider the potential benefit of 
removing them prior to LAW treatment. The committee expects the 
analysis to include these approaches independent of current 
regulatory or legal restrictions or authorizations.
    For each approach the analysis shall use state-of-the-art 
probabilistic risk assessment techniques to estimate risks to 
the environment and to human health, during processing and 
during disposal, to on-site workers, and to off-site 
populations. It should also consider major programmatic risks 
each approach may face. The analysis should develop cost and 
schedule ranges using best practices when possible, and should 
clearly establish and identify estimates and uncertainties when 
needed. The potential relative benefits of each approach should 
be considered, both with respect to efficiency and with respect 
to disposition approaches. The compliance of each approach with 
applicable standards and regulations should be considered, and 
the analysis should include potential means by which an 
approach can be modified and brought into full compliance if 
needed. Finally, the analysis shall consider what factors might 
inhibit the Department in pursuing each approach and, where 
possible, identify and assess potential means to address these 
factors.
Analyses of options for disposal of high-level radioactive waste (sec. 
        3123)
    The committee is concerned about the Department of Energy's 
(DOE) announcement in March 2015 that the Department will 
pursue development of a separate defense high-level waste 
repository without conducting a total life-cycle cost estimate 
or assessing and quantifying the benefits and risks of the 
Department's plan.
    In a common repository commercial radioactive waste, in the 
form of spent nuclear fuel, is stored together with defense 
high-level radioactive waste. The Department's separate defense 
waste repository approach, however, would require construction 
of two repositories--one to store defense high-level 
radioactive waste and another to store commercial spent nuclear 
fuel. At this time, the Department has only produced cost 
estimates for this separate defense waste repository approach 
that are highly uncertain and do not include full life cycle 
costs. Even with these uncertain and incomplete cost estimates, 
DOE's analysis indicates that the defense waste repository plan 
would potentially have higher total costs than a single common 
repository, in large part because of the need to construct two 
repositories, as well as higher costs to be funded by 
discretionary defense funds. These estimates were provided in 
the Department's October 2014 report, Assessment of Disposal 
Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent 
Nuclear Fuel.
    In addition, in this report, DOE makes certain assumptions 
about the likelihood that its separate defense waste repository 
approach would succeed, but it does not provide evidence for 
these assumptions. For example, DOE assumes that it could more 
easily find a community to host a defense waste repository than 
a common repository because of the lower radiation and heat 
levels of the defense waste, but it provides no evidence that 
this would be the case. Moreover, DOE has not assessed what the 
risks might be in trying to develop two repositories 
concurrently, such as resource constraints or the effect of 
adverse public reaction of one repository effort on the other 
repository.
    In this budget constrained environment, the committee 
expects the Department to (1) develop and provide to the 
committee more definitive cost and schedule estimates for the 
options it considered in the Department's October 2014 report, 
and (2) assess the benefits and risks of these options before 
it further pursues a separate defense waste repository. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
require the Secretary of Energy to enter into an arrangement 
with a federally funded research and development center to 
conduct analyses of options referenced in the Department's 
October 2014 report. These analyses shall include comprehensive 
system life cycle cost and schedule estimates conducted using 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) best practices and 
covering all phases of work, from site selection and 
characterization to site closure and monitoring. These analyses 
should also include benefit and risk assessments. In addition 
to comparing the costs and schedules for the options referenced 
in the Department's October 2014 report, the committee suggests 
that a comparison to Yucca Mountain cost and schedule estimates 
be included, as a license application is still pending review 
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for that common 
repository.
    The benefit and risk assessments for each option should use 
sensitivity analysis and other techniques, as appropriate, to 
determine potential effects on the cost and schedule estimates 
for each option. These assessments should, among other things, 
consider technical benefits and risks, the effects one 
repository's development may have on a second repository's 
development, and the social/political factors inherent in 
selecting the site of a repository, particularly because 
social/political opposition has consistently been the most 
significant challenge to siting a permanent disposal facility, 
as the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future and 
the GAO, among others, have reported. The assessments should 
also take into account potential adverse effects on temporary 
and permanent disposition efforts related to non-DOE-managed 
high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.
    The federally funded research and development center's 
analyses and any Department comments on the analyses shall be 
provided to the congressional defense committees and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States no later than a year 
after enactment of this Act. Within 60 days of receipt of the 
analyses, the Government Accountability Office shall provide a 
review of the design, methodology, and conclusions of the 
analyses to the defense committees.
    The Department shall not obligate or expend any 
discretionary defense funds on the development of a separate 
defense waste repository, except as needed to execute this 
arrangement, until the GAO review has been provided to the 
committees.
    GAO shall also periodically review the Department's 
activities related to spent fuel management, repository siting, 
and development of a consent-based siting program. GAO shall 
provide annual reports to the congressional defense committees 
on the Department's expenditures and grants related to these 
activities, in particular for those activities that could be 
interpreted as lobbying by grantees under applicable statutes. 
These annual reports shall be due to the committees no later 
than February 1 of each year, beginning February 1, 2017, and 
ending February 1, 2021.

Elimination of duplication in reviews by the Comptroller General of the 
        United States (sec. 3124)

    The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate 
duplicate reviews of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's budget.

Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the United States 
        report on the program on scientific engagement for 
        nonproliferation (sec. 3125)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal a 
reporting requirement by the Comptroller General as the 
underlying program has been terminated.

                              Budget Items


Environmental management at Los Alamos National Laboratory

    The fiscal year 2017 budget request included $185.6 million 
for environmental management at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
The committee proposes an increase of $10.0 million to 
accelerate cleanup activities.

Stockpile Responsiveness Program

    The fiscal year 2017 budget request contained no funding 
for section 3112 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) ``Stockpile Responsiveness 
Program.'' The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 
for this effort. The committee notes that the scientific 
personnel and expertise in weapons design at the laboratories 
is an equally important element of deterrence as the platforms 
that carry the weapon. This program is designed to exercise 
that expertise.

Defense uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning

    The committee notes that a legislative assumption 
accompanies the budget request of $155.0 million for the 
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, to 
reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (P.L. 
102-48) for industry contributions. As in fiscal year 2016, 
this legislation was not reauthorized, and the committee 
assumes it will not be reauthorized again this year. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends redistributing the $155.0 
million associated with this assumption to other higher 
priority needs in the Department.

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

    The fiscal year 2017 budget request included $257.2 million 
for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The committee recommends 
an increase of $10.0 million to operations in order to 
accelerate reconstitution activities from the fire and drum 
explosion in order to meet an initial operating date of 
December 31, 2016.

Weapons dismantlement and disposition

    The committee notes the provision limiting the acceleration 
of the dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons in title 31, 
subtitle b of this Act. The committee, therefore, recommends a 
decrease of $12.7 million for the weapons dismantlement and 
disposition effort. Based on the fiscal year 2016 Stockpile 
Stewardship and Management Plan, adjusted for 1 year of 
inflation and with the addition of $7.0 million to support the 
lithium strategy, the resulting authorized level of $56.2 
million for fiscal year 2017 will provide the necessary support 
to allow the elimination of weapons retired prior to fiscal 
year 2009 to be completed by fiscal year 2022.

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility

    The budget request for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) contained $270.0 million in 
Nonproliferation Construction for the MOX Fuel Fabrication 
Facility (MFFF). According to the budget request, this funding 
is for activities in support of a decision to terminate the 
MFFF project in fiscal year 2017. Out-year funding for the 
Nonproliferation Construction program will total $884.0 million 
for fiscal year 2018 through fiscal year 2021.
    The committee is disappointed in the progress made on MFFF, 
despite repeated concerns regarding its cost and management by 
Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and other 
independent groups. The Department's failure to provide an 
updated performance baseline for MFFF as directed in the 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016 
is particularly troubling. Meanwhile, the committee is 
concerned about the lack of specificity in the proposed dilute 
and disposal alternative despite direction to address several 
aspects of this approach in report language accompanying the 
Senate passed version of the Fiscal Year 2016 NDAA.
    In light of the failure of the Department of Energy to 
substantiate the viability of its alternative to MFFF, the 
committee recommends an additional $70.0 million in 
Nonproliferation Construction for the MFFF and directs the 
Department of Energy to continue construction. Additional 
measures pertaining to MFFF are contained in Title 31 of this 
Act.

                       Items of Special Interest


Comptroller General review of the National Nuclear Security 
        Administration's depleted uranium management program

    Depleted uranium is used in component manufacturing 
operations in the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA). Until recently the existing life extension programs did 
not have a need to use depleted uranium. Recent life extension 
programs now are requiring a re-start of this manufacturing 
operation. Many of the skills associated with depleted uranium 
science, engineering, and manufacturing were lost with 
personnel attrition in the 1990s. The committee directs the 
Comptroller General of the United States to assess the ability 
of the NNSA to plan, procure, and stockpile the material, as 
well as perform engineering and manufacturing operations with 
it in support of upcoming life extension programs, in 
compliance with applicable program management orders (including 
Department of Energy order 413) and cost estimation practices, 
and whether such a re-start will be properly timed to support 
these life extension program need dates. The GAO will brief its 
findings on this re-start effort with periodic updates upon a 
mutually agreed upon schedule with the committee.

Long term planning for H-Canyon

    The H-Canyon facility at the Savannah River Site, while 
providing a unique capability for the United States and the 
Department of Energy (DOE), is aging. H-Canyon began operations 
in 1955, when it provided chemical separations capabilities for 
nuclear materials in support of defense programs. Since then it 
has been an asset for other DOE activities, including the safe 
disposition of nuclear materials by down blending enriched 
uranium and supporting plutonium disposition. More recently H-
Canyon is expected to provide feed material for the Mixed Oxide 
Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), currently under construction 
at the Savannah River Site. Because of the unique nature of H-
Canyon, it may also be used to test new technologies for 
monitoring fuel cycle activities or for other research and 
development projects. While modifications and repairs allow H-
Canyon to continue operations and provide flexibility in the 
facility's missions, the committee is concerned that the 
Department may not be fully utilizing this facility or may not 
have a comprehensive, integrated plan for managing the aging 
facility's maintenance, modification, and mission planning.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to 
report to the congressional defense committees no later than 
February 24, 2017, on the Department's plans for the use of H-
Canyon through fiscal year 2027. This report should reflect the 
relative needs and priorities between the DOE components that 
may use the H-Canyon capabilities, including, for example, the 
National Nuclear Security Administration's plutonium 
disposition or nonproliferation programs; Office of 
Environmental Management's cleanup of legacy materials; Office 
of Nuclear Energy's fuel cycle work; or potential lab-directed 
research activities. The report should also consider the 
maintenance needs of H-Canyon over this time frame as well as 
potential modifications or upgrades that may be needed to 
support Department missions, including for infrastructure 
supporting H-Canyon operations, such as evaporators or other 
tank farm facilities.

Management of the project design phase at the National Nuclear Security 
        Administration

    The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) has struggled to manage most of its 
complex major capital asset construction projects. Among other 
challenges, NNSA has not had success in moving some of these 
projects out of the design phase and into construction.
    In particular, since 2012, NNSA has cancelled the design of 
three major nuclear facilities in favor of new alternatives 
after spending more than a decade and hundreds of millions of 
dollars on the design of each of these facilities. In 2012, 
NNSA announced its decision to cancel the Pit Disassembly and 
Conversion Facility (PDCF) at its Savannah River Site after 
having spent 12 years and more than $730.0 million on the 
facility design. This facility was to operate in tandem with 
another planned major nuclear facility, the Mixed Oxide Fuel 
Fabrication Facility, as part of NNSA's Plutonium Disposition 
Program. In cancelling PDCF, NNSA explained that other 
alternatives had been identified that would better meet mission 
needs. Also in 2012, after spending 8 years and approximately 
$400.0 million in the design phase, NNSA announced that it was 
cancelling the design of its Uranium Processing Facility at its 
Y-12 complex in Oak Ridge in favor of a new facility design. 
Since 2012, NNSA has continued to work on the new design and 
estimates that it may spend more than $1.8 billion on designing 
this facility. Further, in 2014, after spending more than 10 
years and $500.0 million on facility design, NNSA announced 
that it was cancelling another proposed major nuclear facility, 
the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility at 
its Los Alamos laboratory, in favor of a revised approach.
    In light of the amount of time and money spent on designing 
these facilities before cancelling them in favor of other 
options, these decisions raise significant questions regarding 
the process NNSA relies on to manage and oversee the design 
phase of these projects. The committee is concerned about a 
lack of proper oversight to ensure that projects do not 
languish in the design phase and to ensure that the need for 
these projects remains viable. To better understand the 
management approach used by NNSA during the project design 
phase, the committee directs the Government Accountability 
Office to investigate the following issues and provide a report 
to the committee by a mutually agreed upon date:
          (1) How does NNSA plan and execute the project design 
        phase for its capital asset projects prior to the start 
        of the construction phase?
          (2) What policies, guidance, and requirements, 
        including those specified in DOE's project management 
        order and associated guidance, does NNSA rely on for 
        its contractors to efficiently manage the capital asset 
        design phase, and what degree of oversight do NNSA 
        officials conduct during this phase?
          (3) What are the roles and responsibilities of NNSA 
        staff, including the Federal Project Directors, during 
        the design phase?
          (4) What have been the results of any recent peer 
        reviews that have been conducted on NNSA projects 
        currently in the design phase?

Microlab implementation

    The committee supports the continuing efforts at NNSA's 
laboratories to promote technology transfer and 
commercialization as a mission activity. The NNSA enterprise is 
responsible for over 50% of DOE's technology transfer 
activities. NNSA's facilities have special security 
requirements related to access and clearances that create 
unique challenges to the labs' collaboration with industry and 
academia.
    As authorized in sec. 3120 of the NDAA for FY16, the 
committee is aware NNSA is currently developing ``microlabs,'' 
including the Center for Collaboration and Commercialization 
(C3) and the Livermore Valley Open Campus (LVOC), to help 
create an environment that nurtures collaboration and 
entrepreneurship at the labs. These collaboration and 
commercialization campuses enhance mission delivery, 
cooperation with regional research groups, accelerate 
technology transfer to the marketplace and promote regional 
economic and workforce development. Additional benefits to NNSA 
include leveraging knowledge and resources to enhance mission 
capabilities while also promoting recruitment and retention of 
lab staff. The committee urges NNSA to continue to support 
efforts to establish microlabs such as C3 and LVOC.

Plutonium strategy

    The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) is pursuing a revised strategy for its 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) project 
after spending $500.0 million on the design of the original 
project and cancelling it in 2014. The revised project includes 
renovating two existing facilities at NNSA's Los Alamos site 
and installing plutonium research equipment to support the 
plutonium work conducted by NNSA and other DOE offices. NNSA is 
also pursuing the Proposed Modular Approach project to provide 
additional space for plutonium work at Los Alamos.
    The committee is pleased that NNSA has adopted a strategy 
that maximizes the space within existing facilities and that it 
has adopted a modular approach to adding new lab space rather 
than the previous strategy that relied on a ``big box'' 
solution by trying to fit everything into one large monolithic 
structure. At the same time, the Committee is concerned that 
NNSA may still have not properly specified project requirements 
for both the CMRR and the Plutonium Modular Approach projects. 
In particular, NNSA has not specified in project documentation 
for either project the need to ramp up its nuclear warhead pit 
production capacity to achieve a production rate of 30 pits per 
year starting in 2026, and the need to increase that number to 
50 to 80 pits by 2030. Without specifying this rate of 
production, the committee is concerned that NNSA cannot 
adequately identify the necessary amount of research equipment 
it needs to support pit production, where all this equipment 
will be located, and whether this equipment will be available 
when needed.
    NNSA's current schedule for its revised CMRR project is not 
reliable because the schedule does not include most of the 
relevant work activities to complete the project and NNSA did 
not complete actions to determine whether the estimated 
completion dates are reasonable to achieve. As a result, NNSA 
cannot have confidence that it can meet its schedule estimates, 
including its commitment to move plutonium operations out of 
the aging Chemistry and Metallurgy Research building at Los 
Alamos by the end of 2019. More specifically, GAO reviewed the 
project schedule and found that the activities included in the 
schedule comprise just 10 percent of the total cost of the 
project. According to best practices, an agency should maintain 
a schedule that includes the entire scope of work required for 
a project's successful execution because, among other things, 
it provides a way to measure progress and identify potential 
problems in meeting milestones. NNSA officials said they 
limited the activities in the schedule to those already under 
contract because it allows them to focus attention on managing 
near-term performance, among other things. By creating and 
managing a limited schedule that includes contracted work 
through 2017, NNSA has little insight into how current 
performance affects future goals, including estimated 
completion dates.
    To prevent further cost increases and schedule delays with 
these projects, the Committee directs NNSA to take the 
following actions and report back to the congressional defense 
committees on the status of such actions no later than December 
31, 2016:
          (1) Update the program requirements document for the 
        CMRR project to identify all relevant key performance 
        parameters that the project is to meet, including the 
        minimum and desired pit production levels that the 
        project should support, and to clarify the extent to 
        which the revised CMRR project will be able to 
        adequately support pit production requirements of 30 
        pits per year starting in 2026, and 50 to 80 pits by 
        2030;
          (2) Specify the key performance parameters for the 
        Proposed Modular Approach project and clarify the 
        extent to which the Proposed Modular Approach will 
        include plutonium research equipment to support meeting 
        pit production requirements;
          (3) Objectively consider all alternatives without 
        preference for a particular solution as it proceeds 
        with the Proposed Modular Approach analysis of 
        alternatives. Such steps could include clarifying the 
        statement of mission need for the project so that it is 
        independent of a particular solution and eliminating 
        the statement that building two modular facilities is a 
        specific requirement for the project; and
          (4) Develop and maintain an integrated master 
        schedule that includes all project activities under all 
        subprojects prior to approving the first subproject's 
        schedule baseline and that is consistent with 
        scheduling best practices.

Report on future-year funding needs

    The committee is concerned that future-year funding needs 
of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for its 
weapons activities are not fully supported by the Office of 
Management and Budget or may exceed available funds. 
Specifically, recent reporting indicates the Secretary of 
Energy has voiced concerns about the NNSA budget, suggesting 
that an additional $5.2 billion would be needed over the 2018-
2021 timeframe beyond what is included in future year 
information in the fiscal year 2017 budget request. Likewise, a 
December 2015 Government Accountability Office report noted 
that the Department's fiscal year 2016 weapons activities 
budget estimates for the fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 
2025 timeframe totaled $4.2 billion more than budget estimates 
provided by the President's Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB). The differences in future year funding, if not resolved, 
could result in budget instability, cut or deferred programs, 
costly program ``stretchouts,'' and increased risk to the 
nation.
    The committee therefore directs the Administrator of NNSA 
to prepare a report identifying and addressing the current and 
future-year differences between the Stockpile Stewardship and 
Management Plan and the long range budget estimates maintained 
by OMB. The report should provide a prioritized list of the 
programs and projects that will need to be cut or delayed if an 
additional $5.0 billion is not provided during fiscal years 
2018 to 2021. The report should also provide a risk assessment 
for each program or project if this additional funding is not 
provided. This report should be provided to the congressional 
defense committees no later than February 28, 2017.

Report on high-level risks to the B61-12 Life extension program

    It is critical that the B61-12 life extension program (LEP) 
begin production in 2020 and finish by 2024 in order to uphold 
the United States' commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization's (NATO) nuclear deterrent. However, a recent 
Government Accountability Office report noted that the LEP 
schedule is constrained, which may prove challenging to the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and to Air 
Force risk management plans for the B61-12 LEP. In particular, 
the committee is concerned that high-level joint risks, so-
called ``red'' joint risks, may affect later stages of the B61-
12 LEP and adversely affect the United States' commitments to 
NATO. For example, one such risk is the compatibility of the 
B61-12 with the still-developing F-35 aircraft.
    The committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA to 
provide a report on the status of high-level joint risks to the 
B61-12 LEP and the effect of these risks on the LEP schedule. 
This report shall be due to the congressional defense 
committees no later than February 24, 2017.

Report on interoperable warhead-1

    The committee recognizes the critical need to maintain the 
readiness of scientists, engineers, and production staff during 
the delay of the start of work on Interoperable Warhead-1 (IW-
1) until fiscal year 2020. One approach for maintaining staff 
readiness may be to challenge them to use the delay to address 
crucial technical issues facing the IW-1, the first 
interoperable nuclear package for use with both Air Force and 
Navy ballistic missile systems as part of the Nuclear Weapon 
Council's ``3+2'' approach. For example, integration of the IW-
1 into different Air Force and Navy missiles with different 
space, weight, and operation requirements, while assuring 
accuracy in both systems, could be problematic. This and other 
concerns may also pertain to other life extension programs. For 
example, the general goal of enhancing the surety of stockpile 
systems increases technical challenges, as does optimizing 
system designs to best meet space, weight, operation, and 
accuracy requirements. Technical questions also surround pit 
reuse, which may become a key aspect of future life extension 
programs, as well as pit production capability and capacity 
issues.
    The committee directs the Administrator of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to report to the 
congressional defense committees no later than February 24, 
2017 on anticipated technical challenges facing the IW-1 
program, in particular any challenges that may arise related to 
staff readiness as a result of delaying the start of the IW-1 
until fiscal year 2020 with a first production unit scheduled 
for fiscal year 2030. This report should include planned 
approaches for addressing these challenges and a notional 
schedule for addressing these challenges. In light of the 
recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine report titled ``Peer Review and Design Competition in 
the NNSA National Security Laboratories'', the Administrator's 
report should also assess the value of establishing a design 
competition for the IW-1 as a means to help maintain staff 
readiness.

Responsive capabilities program

    The committee directs the Administrator of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to provide a report to 
the congressional defense committees describing how existing 
NNSA activities meet the requirements of the responsive 
capabilities program, as described in section 3112 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92). The committee acknowledges that the requirements 
for the responsive capabilities program may be met, in part, 
through existing activities taking place within the NNSA. 
However, to ensure that existing activities are fully 
exercising the technical capabilities of the NNSA for all 
stages of the design, testing, and production of nuclear 
weapons, the Administrator shall prepare this report to compare 
existing NNSA activities to the requirements of the program.
    In particular, this report should determine the degree to 
which existing activities meet the required program objectives, 
including (1) exercising all capabilities required to support 
all phases of the joint nuclear weapons life cycle process; (2) 
transferring knowledge and skills to the newer generations of 
nuclear weapon designers and engineers; (3) demonstrating 
stockpile responsiveness, including production of prototypes, 
development of flight ready hardware, flight testing or the use 
of appropriate simulated environments or concepts similar to 
those used by joint test demonstrations, and developing 
certification plans; (4) shortening design, certification, and 
manufacturing cycles; and (5) exercising the integration and 
coordination of elements and processes of the Administration 
and Department of Defense. The report should identify any gaps 
or shortcomings existing activities have in meeting the program 
goals and include a plan for addressing these gaps. The report 
shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later 
than February 1, 2017.

          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization (sec. 3201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funding for the Defense Facilities Nuclear Safety Board at 
$31.0 million consistent with the budget request.

   TITLE XXXIII--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION THIRD CLASS MEDICAL 
             REFORM AND GENERAL AVIATION PILOT PROTECTIONS

Short title (sec. 3301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow for 
this section to be cited as the ``Pilot's Bill of Rights 2''.
Medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots (sec. 3302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would create an 
exemption, under specified circumstances, to the Federal 
Aviation Administration's (FAA) current third-class airman 
medical certification requirements for general aviation (GA) 
pilots. This section would direct the FAA to issue or revise 
regulations to ensure that an individual may operate as a pilot 
of a ``covered aircraft'', if certain conditions are met, as 
articulated in the section.
Expansion of Pilot's Bill of Rights (sec. 3303)
    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
several amendments to the Pilot's Bill of Rights (Public Law 
112-153; 49 U.S.C. 44703 note), which allows individuals denied 
an airman certificate to appeal that denial to U.S. District 
Court after it has been upheld under the normal National 
Transportation Safety Boards appeals process. This section 
would expand the scope of that provision to allow individuals 
who have had their airman certificates suspended or revoked to 
avail themselves of the same appeals process, and would modify 
the standard of review for appeals in U.S. District Court to 
ensure a case is reviewed de novo.
Limitations on reexamination of certificate holders (sec. 3304)
    The committee recommends a provision that would only apply 
to reexaminations that are ordered due to the fault of the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It would prohibit the 
FAA from reexamining a general aviation (GA) pilot holding a 
student, sport, recreational, or private pilot airman 
certificate unless the agency has reasonable grounds to: (1) 
establish a lack of qualification on the part of the pilot; or 
(2) demonstrate that the certificate was obtained through fraud 
or an exam that was inadequate. Before taking action to 
reexamine a pilot, the FAA would be required to provide a GA 
pilot the reasonable basis for the reexamination and relevant 
information that formed that basis.
Expediting updates to NOTAM program (sec. 3305)
    The committee recommends a provision that would would amend 
the Pilot's Bill of Rights (Public Law 112-153) to require the 
NOTAM Improvement Program to be maintained in a public 
repository that is accessible on the Internet, machine 
readable, and searchable. It also would require the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) to include temporary flight 
restrictions within the NOTAM Improvement Program. The FAA 
would be prohibited from enforcing NOTAM violations, within 180 
days after the date of enactment of this bill, until the FAA 
certifies to Congress that it has implemented the changes to 
the NOTAM system required by this section; however, an 
exception for national security is provided.
Accessibility of certain flight data (sec. 3306)
    The committee recommends a provision that would impose 
requirements on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with 
regard to certain records related to certificate actions. 
Specifically, when the FAA receives a written request for a 
flight record (as defined in the Pilot's Bill of Rights, Public 
Law 1112-153) from an individual who is the subject of an 
investigation initiated by the FAA, and the covered flight 
record is not in the possession of the FAA, the Administrator 
would be required to request the relevant record from the 
contract tower or other contractor of the FAA that possesses 
such flight record.

Authority for legal counsel to issue certain notices (sec. 3307)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Federal Aviation Administration to revise its regulations to 
authorize legal counsel to close certain enforcement actions 
with a warning notice, letter of corrections, or other 
administrative action.

                  TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would re-
authorize certain aspects of the Maritime Administration.
National security floating dry docks (sec. 3502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would change the 
date specified in section 55122(a)(1)(C) of title 46, United 
States Code, to December 19, 2017.

                       DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and 
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this 
Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established 
procedures.
    Consistent with the previously expressed views of the 
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by 
an agency head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a 
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on 
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based 
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of 
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and 
other applicable provisions of law.
    SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                         SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
                                            (In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2017                         Senate
                                                                      Request      Senate Change    Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
              DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
 
                                           NATIONAL DEFENSE BASE BUDGET
 
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)
 
DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
 
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY......................................      3,614,787          26,000       3,640,787
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY.......................................      1,519,966               0       1,519,966
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY......................................      2,265,177         129,000       2,394,177
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY.................................      1,513,157         -27,700       1,485,457
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY.........................................      5,873,949        -311,886       5,562,063
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................     14,109,148          50,800      14,159,948
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY.......................................      3,209,262          61,170       3,270,432
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC..................................        664,368          -6,500         657,868
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY...............................     18,354,874          71,800      18,426,674
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY.........................................      6,338,861          69,800       6,408,661
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS.......................................      1,362,769               0       1,362,769
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................     13,922,917         390,600      14,313,517
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE..................................      2,426,621               0       2,426,621
SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE....................................      3,055,743               0       3,055,743
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................      1,677,719               0       1,677,719
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE....................................     17,438,056               0      17,438,056
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE.......................................      4,524,918          10,300       4,535,218
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND.............................         99,300               0          99,300
SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT..................................    101,971,592         463,384     102,434,976
 
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................      7,515,399         -59,463       7,455,936
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................     17,276,301         -71,816      17,204,485
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF..........................     28,112,251        -468,600      27,643,651
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW..........................     18,308,826         431,300      18,740,126
OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE................................        178,994                         178,994
UNDISTRIBUTED...................................................              0           4,000           4,000
SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION..     71,391,771        -164,579      71,227,192
 
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY...................................     33,809,040         225,820      34,034,860
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES...............................      2,712,331          67,800       2,780,131
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG...................................      6,825,370         163,600       6,988,970
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY...................................     39,483,581         -84,290      39,399,291
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS...........................      5,954,258         136,270       6,090,528
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES...............................        927,656           5,800         933,456
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.............................        270,633           5,500         276,133
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE..............................     37,518,056         -86,610      37,431,446
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.............................      3,067,929          40,700       3,108,629
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG....................................      6,703,578          57,200       6,760,778
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.........................     32,571,590        -480,480      32,091,110
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....................................      1,474,466               0       1,474,466
UNDISTRIBUTED...................................................              0          20,000          20,000
SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..................    171,318,488          71,310     171,389,798
 
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel Appropriations...............................    128,902,332      -1,250,890     127,651,442
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions.............      6,366,908                       6,366,908
SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL..........................    135,269,240      -1,250,890     134,018,350
 
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND............................................      1,371,613               0       1,371,613
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.............................        551,023               0         551,023
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF....................        844,800        -258,300         586,500
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................................        322,035          -7,300         314,735
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM..........................................     33,467,516         433,530      33,901,046
SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF)....................              0         673,100         673,100
SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................     36,556,987         841,030      37,398,017
 
TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.........    516,508,078         -39,745     516,468,333
 
DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
 
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY............................................................        503,459         -35,900         467,559
NAVY............................................................      1,027,763          95,517       1,123,280
AIR FORCE.......................................................      1,481,058          53,700       1,534,758
DEFENSE-WIDE....................................................      2,056,091         -79,911       1,976,180
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD.............................................        232,930                         232,930
AIR NATIONAL GUARD..............................................        143,957                         143,957
ARMY RESERVE....................................................         68,230          30,000          98,230
NAVY RESERVE....................................................         38,597                          38,597
AIR FORCE RESERVE...............................................        188,950                         188,950
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM................................        177,932         -30,000         147,932
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.................................      5,918,967          33,406       5,952,373
 
FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY..............................................        200,735                         200,735
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY.................................        325,995                         325,995
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.............................         94,011                          94,011
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS................        300,915                         300,915
CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE.........................................         61,352                          61,352
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............................        274,429                         274,429
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.........................         59,157                          59,157
IMPROVEMENT FUND................................................          3,258                           3,258
SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING........................................      1,319,852               0       1,319,852
 
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
ARMY............................................................         14,499                          14,499
NAVY............................................................        134,373                         134,373
AIR FORCE.......................................................         56,365                          56,365
SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE..........................        205,237               0         205,237
 
TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.........      7,444,056          33,406       7,477,462
 
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051).    523,952,134          -6,339     523,945,795
 
                            ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)
 
DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS
 
                                       DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS
ENERGY PROGRAMS
NUCLEAR ENERGY..................................................        151,876                         151,876
SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS.......................................        151,876               0         151,876
 
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES..............................................      9,243,147          -7,750       9,235,397
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION................................      1,807,916          70,000       1,877,916
NAVAL REACTORS..................................................      1,420,120                       1,420,120
FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES...................................        412,817                         412,817
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..............     12,884,000          62,250      12,946,250
 
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP...................................      5,382,050        -135,100       5,246,950
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................................        791,552                         791,552
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES............      6,173,602        -135,100       6,038,502
 
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS...................     19,209,478         -72,850      19,136,628
 
INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION
DEFENSE FACILITIES NUCLEAR SAFETY BOARD.........................         31,000                          31,000
SUBTOTAL, INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION..............         31,000               0          31,000
 
TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND        19,240,478         -72,850      19,167,628
 INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS......................
 
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)......     19,240,478         -72,850      19,167,628
 
 
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST............    543,192,612         -79,189     543,113,423
 
                                       NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST
 
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)
 
PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY......................................        313,171                         313,171
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY.......................................        632,817                         632,817
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY......................................        153,544                         153,544
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY.................................        301,523         -10,353         291,170
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY.........................................      1,373,010                       1,373,010
JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND............................        408,272                         408,272
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................        393,030                         393,030
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY.......................................          8,600                           8,600
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC..................................         66,229                          66,229
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY.........................................        124,206                         124,206
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS.......................................        118,939                         118,939
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................        859,399                         859,399
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE..................................        339,545                         339,545
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................        487,408                         487,408
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE....................................      3,696,281                       3,696,281
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE.......................................        238,434                         238,434
SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT...........................................      9,514,408         -10,353       9,504,055
 
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................        100,522                         100,522
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................         78,323                          78,323
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF..........................         32,905                          32,905
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW..........................        162,419                         162,419
SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION............        374,169               0         374,169
 
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY...................................     15,310,587                      15,310,587
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES...............................         38,679                          38,679
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG...................................        127,035                         127,035
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND................................      3,448,715                       3,448,715
COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND...............        630,000         630,000       1,260,000
SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND......................................        250,000        -250,000               0
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY...................................      6,827,391                       6,827,391
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS...........................      1,244,359                       1,244,359
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES...............................         26,265                          26,265
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.............................          3,304                           3,304
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE..............................      9,498,830           2,900       9,501,730
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.............................         57,586                          57,586
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG....................................         20,000                          20,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.........................      5,982,173      -1,100,000       4,882,173
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE..........................              0         350,000         350,000
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................     43,464,924        -367,100      43,097,824
 
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS...............................      3,562,258                       3,562,258
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL....................................      3,562,258               0       3,562,258
 
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND............................................        140,633                           2,500
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF....................        215,333                         215,333
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................................         22,062                          22,062
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM..........................................        331,764                         331,764
COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND..............................      1,000,000      -1,000,000               0
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE..........................              0       1,470,000       1,470,000
SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................      1,709,792         470,000       2,179,792
 
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY............................................................         18,900                          18,900
NAVY............................................................         59,809                          59,809
AIR FORCE.......................................................         88,740                          88,740
DEFENSE-WIDE....................................................          5,000                           5,000
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.................................        172,449               0         172,449
 
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO BUDGET REQUEST     58,798,000          92,547      58,890,547
 
 
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050)...................    601,990,612          13,358     602,003,970
 
 
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XIV--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME (FUNCTION 600)..........         64,300                          64,300
 
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
TITLE X--GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY.............................     [5,000,000]                     [4,000,000]
TITLE XV--SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY............................     [4,500,000]                     [3,500,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

              NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
                        (In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    FY 2017       Senate       Senate
                                    Request       Change     Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
                        ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
 
NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY,   523,952,134       -6,339   523,945,795
 BASE BUDGET (051).............
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE              19,240,478      -72,850    19,167,628
 ACTIVITIES (053)..............
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS    58,798,000       92,547    58,890,547
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)..   601,990,612       13,358   602,003,970
 
     OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE
   JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE OR ALREADY AUTHORIZED
 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT                 44,000                     44,000
 PURCHASES.....................
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL OF         8,175                      8,175
 DOD REAL PROPERTY.............
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF           36,587                     36,587
 DOD REAL PROPERTY.............
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-       88,762            0        88,762
 MILITARY (051)................
 
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES               103,000                    103,000
 REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM.......
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE       103,000            0       103,000
 ACTIVITIES (053)..............
 
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS...     7,814,000                  7,814,000
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED           7,814,000            0     7,814,000
 ACTIVITIES (054)..............
 
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE                8,005,762            0     8,005,762
 DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS
 (050).........................
 
             DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
 
NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY   582,838,896       86,208   582,925,104
 (051).........................
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE              19,343,478      -72,850    19,270,628
 ACTIVITIES (053)..............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES          7,814,000                  7,814,000
 (054).........................
TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET       609,996,374       13,358   610,009,732
 AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 050....
 
     NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE)
 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL          6,886,000                  6,886,000
 PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY
 RETIREMENT FUND...............
REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD      1,415,000                  1,415,000
 MANDATORY.....................
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS............    -1,856,000                 -1,856,000
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-    6,445,000            0     6,445,000
 MILITARY (051)................
 
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL       1,152,000                  1,152,000
 ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
 AND OTHER.....................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE     1,152,000            0     1,152,000
 ACTIVITIES (053)..............
 
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION        62,000                     62,000
 TRUST FUND....................
PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND        514,000                    514,000
 AND OTHER.....................
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED             576,000            0       576,000
 ACTIVITIES (054)..............
 
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE             8,023,000            0     8,023,000
 MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050)......
 
      DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
 
DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY   589,283,896       86,208   589,370,104
 (051).........................
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE              20,495,478      -72,850    20,422,628
 ACTIVITIES (053)..............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES          8,390,000                  8,390,000
 (054).........................
TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY           618,169,374       13,358   618,182,732
 IMPLICATION (050).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
 


SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2017 Request              Senate Change              Senate Authorized
 Line           Item        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Qty          Cost           Qty           Cost           Qty          Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        FIXED WING
    1   UTILITY F/W                   3          57,529                                        3          57,529
         AIRCRAFT..........
    3   MQ-1 UAV...........           0          55,388                                        0          55,388
        ROTARY
    6   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK           48         803,084                                       48         803,084
         IIIA REMAN........
    7   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK            0         185,160                                        0         185,160
         IIIA REMAN (AP)...
    8   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M            36         755,146                                       36         755,146
         MODEL (MYP).......
    9   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M             0         174,107                                        0         174,107
         MODEL (MYP) (AP)..
   10   UH-60 BLACK HAWK A           38          46,173                                       38          46,173
         AND L MODELS......
   11   CH-47 HELICOPTER...          22         556,257                                       22         556,257
   12   CH-47 HELICOPTER              0           8,707                                        0           8,707
         (AP)..............
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   13   MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP).           0          43,735                                        0          43,735
   15   MULTI SENSOR ABN              0          94,527                                        0          94,527
         RECON (MIP).......
   16   AH-64 MODS.........           0         137,883                                        0         137,883
   17   CH-47 CARGO                   0         102,943                                        0         102,943
         HELICOPTER MODS
         (MYP).............
   18   GRCS SEMA MODS                0           4,055                                        0           4,055
         (MIP).............
   19   ARL SEMA MODS (MIP)           0           6,793                                        0           6,793
   20   EMARSS SEMA MODS              0          13,197                                        0          13,197
         (MIP).............
   21   UTILITY/CARGO                 0          17,526                                        0          17,526
         AIRPLANE MODS.....
   22   UTILITY HELICOPTER            0          10,807                                        0          10,807
         MODS..............
   23   NETWORK AND MISSION           0          74,752                                        0          74,752
         PLAN..............
   24   COMMS, NAV                    0          69,960                                        0          69,960
         SURVEILLANCE......
   25   GATM ROLLUP........           0          45,302                                        0          45,302
   26   RQ-7 UAV MODS......           0          71,169                                        0          71,169
   27   UAS MODS...........           0          21,804                                        0          21,804
        GROUND SUPPORT
         AVIONICS
   28   AIRCRAFT                      0          67,377                                        0          67,377
         SURVIVABILITY
         EQUIPMENT.........
   29   SURVIVABILITY CM...           0           9,565          0           26,000            0          35,565
            ASE PNT                                             [0]         [26,000]
            unfunded
            requirement....
   30   CMWS...............           0          41,626                                        0          41,626
        OTHER SUPPORT
   32   AVIONICS SUPPORT              0           7,007                                        0           7,007
         EQUIPMENT.........
   33   COMMON GROUND                 0          48,234                                        0          48,234
         EQUIPMENT.........
   34   AIRCREW INTEGRATED            0          30,297                                        0          30,297
         SYSTEMS...........
   35   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL           0          50,405                                        0          50,405
   36   INDUSTRIAL                    0           1,217                                        0           1,217
         FACILITIES........
   37   LAUNCHER, 2.75                0           3,055                                        0           3,055
         ROCKET............
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT              147       3,614,787          0           26,000          147       3,640,787
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        SURFACE-TO-AIR
         MISSILE SYSTEM
    1   LOWER TIER AIR AND            0         126,470                                        0         126,470
         MISSILE DEFENSE
         (AMD).............
    2   MSE MISSILE........          85         423,201                                       85         423,201
    3   INDIRECT FIRE                 0          19,319                                        0          19,319
         PROTECTION
         CAPABILITY INC 2-I
         (AP)..............
        AIR-TO-SURFACE
         MISSILE SYSTEM
    4   HELLFIRE SYS                155          42,013                                      155          42,013
         SUMMARY...........
    5   JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND         324          64,751                                      324          64,751
         MSLS (JAGM).......
    6   JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND           0          37,100                                        0          37,100
         MSLS (JAGM) (AP)..
        ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
         MISSILE SYS
    7   JAVELIN (AAWS-M)            309          73,508                                      309          73,508
         SYSTEM SUMMARY....
    8   TOW 2 SYSTEM                595          64,922                                      595          64,922
         SUMMARY...........
    9   TOW 2 SYSTEM                  0          19,949                                        0          19,949
         SUMMARY (AP)......
   10   GUIDED MLRS ROCKET        1,068         172,088                                    1,068         172,088
         (GMLRS)...........
   11   MLRS REDUCED RANGE        1,704          18,004                                    1,704          18,004
         PRACTICE ROCKETS
         (RRPR)............
        MODIFICATIONS
   13   PATRIOT MODS.......           0         197,107                                        0         197,107
   14   ATACMS MODS........           0         150,043                                        0         150,043
   15   GMLRS MOD..........           0             395                                        0             395
   17   AVENGER MODS.......           0          33,606                                        0          33,606
   18   ITAS/TOW MODS......           0             383                                        0             383
   19   MLRS MODS..........           0          34,704                                        0          34,704
   20   HIMARS                        0           1,847                                        0           1,847
         MODIFICATIONS.....
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   21   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          34,487                                        0          34,487
         PARTS.............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   22   AIR DEFENSE TARGETS           0           4,915                                        0           4,915
   24   PRODUCTION BASE               0           1,154                                        0           1,154
         SUPPORT...........
        TOTAL MISSILE             4,240       1,519,966          0                0        4,240       1,519,966
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         W&TCV, ARMY
        TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    1   STRYKER VEHICLE....           0          71,680                                        0          71,680
        MODIFICATION OF
         TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    2   STRYKER (MOD)......           0          74,348                                        0          74,348
    3   STRYKER UPGRADE....           0         444,561          0          -11,000            0         433,561
            Early to need..                                     [0]        [-11,000]
    5   BRADLEY PROGRAM               0         276,433                                        0         276,433
         (MOD).............
    6   HOWITZER, MED SP FT           0          63,138                                        0          63,138
         155MM M109A6 (MOD)
    7   PALADIN INTEGRATED           36         469,305                                       36         469,305
         MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
    8   IMPROVED RECOVERY            22          91,963                                       22          91,963
         VEHICLE (M88A2
         HERCULES).........
    9   ASSAULT BRIDGE                0           3,465                                        0           3,465
         (MOD).............
   10   ASSAULT BREACHER              0           2,928                                        0           2,928
         VEHICLE...........
   11   M88 FOV MODS.......           0           8,685                                        0           8,685
   12   JOINT ASSAULT                 9          64,752                                        9          64,752
         BRIDGE............
   13   M1 ABRAMS TANK                0         480,166          0          140,000            0         620,166
         (MOD).............
            APS Unfunded                                        [0]         [82,000]
            requirement....
            M1 industrial                                       [0]         [58,000]
            base Unfunded
            requirement....
        WEAPONS & OTHER
         COMBAT VEHICLES
   16   INTEGRATED AIR                0           9,764                                        0           9,764
         BURST WEAPON
         SYSTEM FAMILY.....
   17   MORTAR SYSTEMS.....           0           8,332                                        0           8,332
   18   XM320 GRENADE                 0           3,062                                        0           3,062
         LAUNCHER MODULE
         (GLM).............
   19   COMPACT SEMI-                 0             992                                        0             992
         AUTOMATIC SNIPER
         SYSTEM............
   20   CARBINE............           0          40,493                                        0          40,493
   21   COMMON REMOTELY               0          25,164                                        0          25,164
         OPERATED WEAPONS
         STATION...........
   36   HANDGUN............           0                          0            1,000            0           1,000
            Program                                             [0]          [1,000]
            increase for
            Modular Handgun
            System.........
        MOD OF WEAPONS AND
         OTHER COMBAT VEH
   22   MK-19 GRENADE                 0           4,959                                        0           4,959
         MACHINE GUN MODS..
   23   M777 MODS..........           0          11,913                                        0          11,913
   24   M4 CARBINE MODS....           0          29,752          0           -1,000            0          28,752
            Program                                             [0]         [-1,000]
            decrease.......
   25   M2 50 CAL MACHINE             0          48,582                                        0          48,582
         GUN MODS..........
   26   M249 SAW MACHINE              0           1,179                                        0           1,179
         GUN MODS..........
   27   M240 MEDIUM MACHINE           0           1,784                                        0           1,784
         GUN MODS..........
   28   SNIPER RIFLES                 0             971                                        0             971
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   29   M119 MODIFICATIONS.           0           6,045                                        0           6,045
   30   MORTAR MODIFICATION           0          12,118                                        0          12,118
   31   MODIFICATIONS LESS            0           3,157                                        0           3,157
         THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
         WTCV).............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   32   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           2,331                                        0           2,331
         $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
   35   SMALL ARMS                    0           3,155                                        0           3,155
         EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
         ENH PROG).........
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT            67       2,265,177          0          129,000           67       2,394,177
         OF W&TCV, ARMY....
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, ARMY
        SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
         AMMUNITION
    1   CTG, 5.56MM, ALL              0          40,296          0           -2,600            0          37,696
         TYPES.............
            Early to need..                                     [0]         [-2,600]
    2   CTG, 7.62MM, ALL              0          39,237          0             -300            0          38,937
         TYPES.............
            Early to need..                                     [0]           [-300]
    3   CTG, HANDGUN, ALL             0           5,193          0           -1,300            0           3,893
         TYPES.............
            Early to need..                                     [0]         [-1,300]
    4   CTG, .50 CAL, ALL             0          46,693          0           -4,700            0          41,993
         TYPES.............
            Early to need..                                     [0]         [-4,700]
    5   CTG, 20MM, ALL                0           7,000                                        0           7,000
         TYPES.............
    6   CTG, 25MM, ALL                0           7,753          0           -1,300            0           6,453
         TYPES.............
            Early to need..                                     [0]         [-1,300]
    7   CTG, 30MM, ALL                0          47,000                                        0          47,000
         TYPES.............
    8   CTG, 40MM, ALL                0         118,178          0           -6,300            0         111,878
         TYPES.............
            Early to need..                                     [0]         [-6,300]
        MORTAR AMMUNITION
    9   60MM MORTAR, ALL              0          69,784                                        0          69,784
         TYPES.............
   10   81MM MORTAR, ALL              0          36,125                                        0          36,125
         TYPES.............
   11   120MM MORTAR, ALL             0          69,133                                        0          69,133
         TYPES.............
        TANK AMMUNITION
   12   CARTRIDGES, TANK,             0         120,668          0           -2,800            0         117,868
         105MM AND 120MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
            Early to need..                                     [0]         [-2,800]
        ARTILLERY
         AMMUNITION
   13   ARTILLERY                     0          64,800          0           -4,000            0          60,800
         CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
         105MM, ALL TYPES..
            75mm blanks                                         [0]         [-4,000]
            early to need..
   14   ARTILLERY                     0         109,515                                        0         109,515
         PROJECTILE, 155MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
   15   PROJ 155MM EXTENDED           0          39,200                                        0          39,200
         RANGE M982........
   16   ARTILLERY                     0          70,881                                        0          70,881
         PROPELLANTS, FUZES
         AND PRIMERS, ALL..
        ROCKETS
   19   SHOULDER LAUNCHED             0          38,000                                        0          38,000
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   20   ROCKET, HYDRA 70,             0          87,213                                        0          87,213
         ALL TYPES.........
        OTHER AMMUNITION
   21   CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES.           0           4,914                                        0           4,914
   22   DEMOLITION                    0           6,380                                        0           6,380
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   23   GRENADES, ALL TYPES           0          22,760                                        0          22,760
   24   SIGNALS, ALL TYPES.           0          10,666                                        0          10,666
   25   SIMULATORS, ALL               0           7,412                                        0           7,412
         TYPES.............
        MISCELLANEOUS
   26   AMMO COMPONENTS,              0          12,726                                        0          12,726
         ALL TYPES.........
   27   NON-LETHAL                    0           6,100          0             -200            0           5,900
         AMMUNITION, ALL
         TYPES.............
            Early to need..                                     [0]           [-200]
   28   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          10,006          0             -500            0           9,506
         MILLION (AMMO)....
            Early to need..                                     [0]           [-500]
   29   AMMUNITION PECULIAR           0          17,275          0           -3,700            0          13,575
         EQUIPMENT.........
            Early to need..                                     [0]         [-3,700]
   30   FIRST DESTINATION             0          14,951                                        0          14,951
         TRANSPORTATION
         (AMMO)............
        PRODUCTION BASE
         SUPPORT
   32   INDUSTRIAL                    0         222,269                                        0         222,269
         FACILITIES........
   33   CONVENTIONAL                  0         157,383                                        0         157,383
         MUNITIONS
         DEMILITARIZATION..
   34   ARMS INITIATIVE....           0           3,646                                        0           3,646
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0       1,513,157          0          -27,700            0       1,485,457
         OF AMMUNITION,
         ARMY..............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         ARMY
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
    1   TACTICAL TRAILERS/            0           3,733                                        0           3,733
         DOLLY SETS........
    2   SEMITRAILERS,                 0           3,716                                        0           3,716
         FLATBED:..........
    3   HI MOB MULTI-PURP             0                          0           21,000            0          21,000
         WHLD VEH (HMMWV)..
            Ambulance                                           [0]         [21,000]
            recapitalizatio
            n..............
    4   GROUND MOBILITY               0           4,907                                        0           4,907
         VEHICLES (GMV)....
    6   JOINT LIGHT               1,828         587,514                                    1,828         587,514
         TACTICAL VEHICLE..
    7   TRUCK, DUMP, 20T              0           3,927                                        0           3,927
         (CCE).............
    8   FAMILY OF MEDIUM              8          53,293                                        8          53,293
         TACTICAL VEH
         (FMTV)............
    9   FIRETRUCKS &                  0           7,460                                        0           7,460
         ASSOCIATED
         FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
   10   FAMILY OF HEAVY             430          39,564                                      430          39,564
         TACTICAL VEHICLES
         (FHTV)............
   11   PLS ESP............           0          11,856                                        0          11,856
   13   TACTICAL WHEELED              0          49,751                                        0          49,751
         VEHICLE PROTECTION
         KITS..............
   14   MODIFICATION OF IN            0          64,000          0          -12,000            0          52,000
         SVC EQUIP.........
            Higher                                              [0]        [-12,000]
            priorities.....
   15   MINE-RESISTANT                0          10,611                                        0          10,611
         AMBUSH-PROTECTED
         (MRAP) MODS.......
        NON-TACTICAL
         VEHICLES
   16   HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN           0             394                                        0             394
   18   NONTACTICAL                   0           1,755                                        0           1,755
         VEHICLES, OTHER...
        COMM--JOINT
         COMMUNICATIONS
   19   WIN-T--GROUND                 0         427,598          0         -100,000            0         327,598
         FORCES TACTICAL
         NETWORK...........
            Ahead of need..                                     [0]       [-100,000]
   20   SIGNAL                        0          58,250                                        0          58,250
         MODERNIZATION
         PROGRAM...........
   21   JOINT INCIDENT SITE           0           5,749                                        0           5,749
         COMMUNICATIONS
         CAPABILITY........
   22   JCSE EQUIPMENT                0           5,068                                        0           5,068
         (USREDCOM)........
        COMM--SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   23   DEFENSE ENTERPRISE            0         143,805                                        0         143,805
         WIDEBAND SATCOM
         SYSTEMS...........
   24   TRANSPORTABLE                 0          36,580                                        0          36,580
         TACTICAL COMMAND
         COMMUNICATIONS....
   25   SHF TERM...........           0           1,985                                        0           1,985
   27   SMART-T (SPACE)....           0           9,165                                        0           9,165
        COMM--C3 SYSTEM
   31   ARMY GLOBAL CMD &             0           2,530                                        0           2,530
         CONTROL SYS
         (AGCCS)...........
        COMM--COMBAT
         COMMUNICATIONS
   33   HANDHELD MANPACK          5,656         273,645                                    5,656         273,645
         SMALL FORM FIT
         (HMS).............
   34   MID-TIER NETWORKING           0          25,017                                        0          25,017
         VEHICULAR RADIO
         (MNVR)............
   35   RADIO TERMINAL SET,           0          12,326                                        0          12,326
         MIDS LVT(2).......
   37   TRACTOR DESK.......           0           2,034                                        0           2,034
   38   TRACTOR RIDE.......           0           2,334                                        0           2,334
   39   SPIDER APLA REMOTE            0           1,985                                        0           1,985
         CONTROL UNIT......
   40   SPIDER FAMILY OF              0          10,796                                        0          10,796
         NETWORKED
         MUNITIONS INCR....
   42   TACTICAL                      0           3,607                                        0           3,607
         COMMUNICATIONS AND
         PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
   43   UNIFIED COMMAND               0          14,295                                        0          14,295
         SUITE.............
   45   FAMILY OF MED COMM            0          19,893                                        0          19,893
         FOR COMBAT
         CASUALTY CARE.....
        COMM--INTELLIGENCE
         COMM
   47   CI AUTOMATION                 0           1,388                                        0           1,388
         ARCHITECTURE......
   48   ARMY CA/MISO GPF              0           5,494                                        0           5,494
         EQUIPMENT.........
        INFORMATION
         SECURITY
   49   FAMILY OF                     0           2,978                                        0           2,978
         BIOMETRICS........
   51   COMMUNICATIONS                0         131,356                                        0         131,356
         SECURITY (COMSEC).
   52   DEFENSIVE CYBER               0          15,132                                        0          15,132
         OPERATIONS........
        COMM--LONG HAUL
         COMMUNICATIONS
   53   BASE SUPPORT                  0          27,452                                        0          27,452
         COMMUNICATIONS....
        COMM--BASE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   54   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0         122,055                                        0         122,055
   55   EMERGENCY                     1           4,286                                        1           4,286
         MANAGEMENT
         MODERNIZATION
         PROGRAM...........
   56   INSTALLATION INFO             0         131,794                                        0         131,794
         INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
         PROGRAM...........
        ELECT EQUIP--TACT
         INT REL ACT
         (TIARA)
   59   JTT/CIBS-M.........           0           5,337                                        0           5,337
   62   DCGS-A (MIP).......           0         242,514          0          -93,000            0         149,514
            Changing                                            [0]        [-93,000]
            requirement,
            tactical.......
   63   JOINT TACTICAL                0           4,417                                        0           4,417
         GROUND STATION
         (JTAGS)...........
   64   TROJAN (MIP).......           0          17,455                                        0          17,455
   65   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0          44,965                                        0          44,965
         (INTEL SPT) (MIP).
   66   CI HUMINT AUTO                0           7,658                                        0           7,658
         REPRTING AND
         COLL(CHARCS)......
   67   CLOSE ACCESS TARGET           0           7,970                                        0           7,970
         RECONNAISSANCE
         (CATR)............
   68   MACHINE FOREIGN               0             545                                        0             545
         LANGUAGE
         TRANSLATION SYSTEM-
         M.................
        ELECT EQUIP--
         ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         (EW)
   70   LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER           0          74,038          0          -12,500            0          61,538
         MORTAR RADAR......
            Reduce to FY16                                      [0]        [-12,500]
            level..........
   71   EW PLANNING &                 0           3,235                                        0           3,235
         MANAGEMENT TOOLS
         (EWPMT)...........
   72   AIR VIGILANCE (AV).           0             733                                        0             733
   74   FAMILY OF                     0           1,740                                        0           1,740
         PERSISTENT
         SURVEILLANCE
         CAPABILITIE.......
   75   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/          0             455                                        0             455
         SECURITY
         COUNTERMEASURES...
   76   CI MODERNIZATION...           0             176                                        0             176
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL SURV.
         (TAC SURV)
   77   SENTINEL MODS......           0          40,171                                        0          40,171
   78   NIGHT VISION                  0         163,029                                        0         163,029
         DEVICES...........
   79   SMALL TACTICAL                0          15,885                                        0          15,885
         OPTICAL RIFLE
         MOUNTED MLRF......
   80   INDIRECT FIRE                 0          48,427                                        0          48,427
         PROTECTION FAMILY
         OF SYSTEMS........
   81   FAMILY OF WEAPON              0          55,536                                        0          55,536
         SIGHTS (FWS)......
   82   ARTILLERY ACCURACY            0           4,187                                        0           4,187
         EQUIP.............
   85   JOINT BATTLE                  0         137,501                                        0         137,501
         COMMAND--PLATFORM
         (JBC-P)...........
   86   JOINT EFFECTS                 0          50,726                                        0          50,726
         TARGETING SYSTEM
         (JETS)............
   87   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0          28,058          0           -6,500            0          21,558
         (LLDR)............
            Reduce to FY16                                      [0]         [-6,500]
            levels.........
   88   COMPUTER                      0           5,924                                        0           5,924
         BALLISTICS: LHMBC
         XM32..............
   89   MORTAR FIRE CONTROL           0          22,331                                        0          22,331
         SYSTEM............
   90   COUNTERFIRE RADARS.           0         314,509          0          -36,000            0         278,509
            Smooth                                              [0]        [-36,000]
            production
            profile........
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL C2
         SYSTEMS
   91   FIRE SUPPORT C2               0           8,660                                        0           8,660
         FAMILY............
   92   AIR & MSL DEFENSE             0          54,376                                        0          54,376
         PLANNING & CONTROL
         SYS...............
   93   IAMD BATTLE COMMAND           0         204,969                                        0         204,969
         SYSTEM............
   94   LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE           0           4,718                                        0           4,718
         SUPPORT (LCSS)....
   95   NETWORK MANAGEMENT            0          11,063                                        0          11,063
         INITIALIZATION AND
         SERVICE...........
   96   MANEUVER CONTROL              0         151,318          0          -27,000            0         124,318
         SYSTEM (MCS)......
            Reduce to FY16                                      [0]        [-27,000]
            level..........
   97   GLOBAL COMBAT                 0         155,660                                        0         155,660
         SUPPORT SYSTEM-
         ARMY (GCSS-A).....
   98   INTEGRATED                    0           4,214                                        0           4,214
         PERSONNEL AND PAY
         SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP..
   99   RECONNAISSANCE AND            0          16,185                                        0          16,185
         SURVEYING
         INSTRUMENT SET....
  100   MOD OF IN-SVC                 0           1,565                                        0           1,565
         EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE)
        ELECT EQUIP--
         AUTOMATION
  101   ARMY TRAINING                 0          17,693                                        0          17,693
         MODERNIZATION.....
  102   AUTOMATED DATA                0         107,960          0           -9,400            0          98,560
         PROCESSING EQUIP..
            Program                                             [0]         [-9,400]
            reduction......
  103   GENERAL FUND                  0           6,416                                        0           6,416
         ENTERPRISE
         BUSINESS SYSTEMS
         FAM...............
  104   HIGH PERF COMPUTING           0          58,614                                        0          58,614
         MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
  105   CONTRACT WRITING              0             986          0             -986            0               0
         SYSTEM............
            Contract                                            [0]           [-986]
            writing
            unjustified
            requirement....
  106   RESERVE COMPONENT             0          23,828                                        0          23,828
         AUTOMATION SYS
         (RCAS)............
        ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
         VISUAL SYS (A/V)
  107   TACTICAL DIGITAL              0           1,191                                        0           1,191
         MEDIA.............
  108   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M           0           1,995                                        0           1,995
         (SURVEYING
         EQUIPMENT)........
        ELECT EQUIP--
         SUPPORT
  109   PRODUCTION BASE               0             403                                        0             403
         SUPPORT (C-E).....
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  110   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           4,436                                        0           4,436
        CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
         EQUIPMENT
  111   PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS.           0           2,966                                        0           2,966
  112   FAMILY OF NON-                0           9,795                                        0           9,795
         LETHAL EQUIPMENT
         (FNLE)............
  114   CBRN DEFENSE.......           0          17,922                                        0          17,922
        BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
  115   TACTICAL BRIDGING..           0          13,553                                        0          13,553
  116   TACTICAL BRIDGE,              0          25,244                                        0          25,244
         FLOAT-RIBBON......
  117   BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL           0             983                                        0             983
         SET...............
  118   COMMON BRIDGE                 0          25,176                                        0          25,176
         TRANSPORTER (CBT)
         RECAP.............
        ENGINEER (NON-
         CONSTRUCTION)
         EQUIPMENT
  119   GRND STANDOFF MINE            0          39,350                                        0          39,350
         DETECTN SYSM
         (GSTAMIDS)........
  120   AREA MINE DETECTION           0          10,500                                        0          10,500
         SYSTEM (AMDS).....
  121   HUSKY MOUNTED                 0             274                                        0             274
         DETECTION SYSTEM
         (HMDS)............
  122   ROBOTIC COMBAT                0           2,951                                        0           2,951
         SUPPORT SYSTEM
         (RCSS)............
  123   EOD ROBOTICS                  0           1,949                                        0           1,949
         SYSTEMS
         RECAPITALIZATION..
  124   ROBOTICS AND                  0           5,203                                        0           5,203
         APPLIQUE SYSTEMS..
  125   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0           5,570                                        0           5,570
         DISPOSAL EQPMT
         (EOD EQPMT).......
  126   REMOTE DEMOLITION             0           6,238                                        0           6,238
         SYSTEMS...........
  127   < $5M, COUNTERMINE            0             836                                        0             836
         EQUIPMENT.........
  128   FAMILY OF BOATS AND           0           3,171                                        0           3,171
         MOTORS............
        COMBAT SERVICE
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  129   HEATERS AND ECU'S..           0          18,707                                        0          18,707
  130   SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT           0           2,112                                        0           2,112
  131   PERSONNEL RECOVERY            0          10,856                                        0          10,856
         SUPPORT SYSTEM
         (PRSS)............
  132   GROUND SOLDIER                0          32,419                                        0          32,419
         SYSTEM............
  133   MOBILE SOLDIER                0          30,014                                        0          30,014
         POWER.............
  135   FIELD FEEDING                 0          12,544                                        0          12,544
         EQUIPMENT.........
  136   CARGO AERIAL DEL &            0          18,509                                        0          18,509
         PERSONNEL
         PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
  137   FAMILY OF ENGR                0          29,384                                        0          29,384
         COMBAT AND
         CONSTRUCTION SETS.
        PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
  139   QUALITY                       0           4,487                                        0           4,487
         SURVEILLANCE
         EQUIPMENT.........
  140   DISTRIBUTION                  0          42,656          0          -10,000            0          32,656
         SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
         & WATER...........
            Program                                             [0]        [-10,000]
            decrease.......
        MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
  141   COMBAT SUPPORT                0          59,761                                        0          59,761
         MEDICAL...........
        MAINTENANCE
         EQUIPMENT
  142   MOBILE MAINTENANCE            0          35,694          0           -5,000            0          30,694
         EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
            Reduce to FY16                                      [0]         [-5,000]
            level..........
  143   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           2,716                                        0           2,716
         $5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
        CONSTRUCTION
         EQUIPMENT
  144   GRADER, ROAD MTZD,            0           1,742                                        0           1,742
         HVY, 6X4 (CCE)....
  145   SCRAPERS,                     0          26,233                                        0          26,233
         EARTHMOVING.......
  147   HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR           0           1,123                                        0           1,123
  149   ALL TERRAIN CRANES.           0          65,285                                        0          65,285
  151   HIGH MOBILITY                 0           1,743                                        0           1,743
         ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
         (HMEE)............
  152   ENHANCED RAPID                0           2,779                                        0           2,779
         AIRFIELD
         CONSTRUCTION CAPAP
  154   CONST EQUIP ESP....           0          26,712          0           -4,500            0          22,212
            Reduce to FY16                                      [0]         [-4,500]
            level..........
  155   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           6,649                                        0           6,649
         $5.0M (CONST
         EQUIP)............
        RAIL FLOAT
         CONTAINERIZATION
         EQUIPMENT
  156   ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP           0          21,860          0          -11,000            0          10,860
            Program                                             [0]        [-11,000]
            decrease.......
  157   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           1,967                                        0           1,967
         $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
        GENERATORS
  158   GENERATORS AND                0         113,266                                        0         113,266
         ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
  159   TACTICAL ELECTRIC             0           7,867                                        0           7,867
         POWER
         RECAPITALIZATION..
        MATERIAL HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
  160   FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS           0           2,307                                        0           2,307
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
  161   COMBAT TRAINING               0          75,359                                        0          75,359
         CENTERS SUPPORT...
  162   TRAINING DEVICES,             0         253,050                                        0         253,050
         NONSYSTEM.........
  163   CLOSE COMBAT                  0          48,271                                        0          48,271
         TACTICAL TRAINER..
  164   AVIATION COMBINED             0          40,000                                        0          40,000
         ARMS TACTICAL
         TRAINER...........
  165   GAMING TECHNOLOGY             0          11,543                                        0          11,543
         IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
         TRAINING..........
        TEST MEASURE AND
         DIG EQUIPMENT
         (TMD)
  166   CALIBRATION SETS              0           4,963                                        0           4,963
         EQUIPMENT.........
  167   INTEGRATED FAMILY             0          29,781                                        0          29,781
         OF TEST EQUIPMENT
         (IFTE)............
  168   TEST EQUIPMENT                0           6,342                                        0           6,342
         MODERNIZATION
         (TEMOD)...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  169   M25 STABILIZED                0           3,149                                        0           3,149
         BINOCULAR.........
  170   RAPID EQUIPPING               0          18,003                                        0          18,003
         SOLDIER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT.........
  171   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          44,082                                        0          44,082
         SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
  172   BASE LEVEL COMMON             0           2,168                                        0           2,168
         EQUIPMENT.........
  173   MODIFICATION OF IN-           0          67,367          0           -5,000            0          62,367
         SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
         3)................
            Reduce to FY16                                      [0]         [-5,000]
            level..........
  174   PRODUCTION BASE               0           1,528                                        0           1,528
         SUPPORT (OTH).....
  175   SPECIAL EQUIPMENT             0           8,289                                        0           8,289
         FOR USER TESTING..
  177   TRACTOR YARD.......           0           6,888                                        0           6,888
        OPA2
  179   INITIAL SPARES--C&E           0          27,243                                        0          27,243
        TOTAL OTHER               7,923       5,873,949          0         -311,886        7,923       5,562,063
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        COMBAT AIRCRAFT
    3   JOINT STRIKE                  4         890,650                                        4         890,650
         FIGHTER CV........
    4   JOINT STRIKE                  0          80,908                                        0          80,908
         FIGHTER CV (AP)...
    5   JSF STOVL..........          16       2,037,768                                       16       2,037,768
    6   JSF STOVL (AP).....           0         233,648                                        0         233,648
    7   CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT)           2         348,615                                        2         348,615
    8   CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT)           0          88,365                                        0          88,365
         (AP)..............
    9   V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT).          16       1,264,134                                       16       1,264,134
   10   V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT)            0          19,674                                        0          19,674
         (AP)..............
   11   H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/         24         759,778                                       24         759,778
         AH-1Z)............
   12   H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/          0          57,232                                        0          57,232
         AH-1Z) (AP).......
   14   MH-60R (MYP).......           0          61,177                                        0          61,177
   16   P-8A POSEIDON......          11       1,940,238                                       11       1,940,238
   17   P-8A POSEIDON (AP).           0         123,140                                        0         123,140
   18   E-2D ADV HAWKEYE...           6         916,483                                        6         916,483
   19   E-2D ADV HAWKEYE              0         125,042                                        0         125,042
         (AP)..............
        TRAINER AIRCRAFT
   20   JPATS..............           0           5,849                                        0           5,849
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   21   KC-130J............           2         128,870                                        2         128,870
   22   KC-130J (AP).......           0          24,848                                        0          24,848
   23   MQ-4 TRITON........           2         409,005                                        2         409,005
   24   MQ-4 TRITON (AP)...           0          55,652                                        0          55,652
   25   MQ-8 UAV...........           1          72,435                                        1          72,435
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   29   AEA SYSTEMS........           0          51,900                                        0          51,900
   30   AV-8 SERIES........           0          60,818                                        0          60,818
   31   ADVERSARY..........           0           5,191                                        0           5,191
   32   F-18 SERIES........           0       1,023,492                                        0       1,023,492
   34   H-53 SERIES........           0          46,095                                        0          46,095
   35   SH-60 SERIES.......           0         108,328                                        0         108,328
   36   H-1 SERIES.........           0          46,333                                        0          46,333
   37   EP-3 SERIES........           0          14,681                                        0          14,681
   38   P-3 SERIES.........           0           2,781                                        0           2,781
   39   E-2 SERIES.........           0          32,949                                        0          32,949
   40   TRAINER A/C SERIES.           0          13,199                                        0          13,199
   41   C-2A...............           0          19,066                                        0          19,066
   42   C-130 SERIES.......           0          61,788                                        0          61,788
   43   FEWSG..............           0             618                                        0             618
   44   CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C           0           9,822                                        0           9,822
         SERIES............
   45   E-6 SERIES.........           0         222,077                                        0         222,077
   46   EXECUTIVE                     0          66,835                                        0          66,835
         HELICOPTERS SERIES
   47   SPECIAL PROJECT               0          16,497                                        0          16,497
         AIRCRAFT..........
   48   T-45 SERIES........           0         114,887                                        0         114,887
   49   POWER PLANT CHANGES           0          16,893                                        0          16,893
   50   JPATS SERIES.......           0          17,401                                        0          17,401
   51   COMMON ECM                    0         143,773                                        0         143,773
         EQUIPMENT.........
   52   COMMON AVIONICS               0         164,839                                        0         164,839
         CHANGES...........
   53   COMMON DEFENSIVE              0           4,403                                        0           4,403
         WEAPON SYSTEM.....
   54   ID SYSTEMS.........           0          45,768                                        0          45,768
   55   P-8 SERIES.........           0          18,836                                        0          18,836
   56   MAGTF EW FOR                  0           5,676                                        0           5,676
         AVIATION..........
   57   MQ-8 SERIES........           0          19,003                                        0          19,003
   58   RQ-7 SERIES........           0           3,534                                        0           3,534
   59   V-22 (TILT/ROTOR              0         141,545                                        0         141,545
         ACFT) OSPREY......
   60   F-35 STOVL SERIES..           0          34,928                                        0          34,928
   61   F-35 CV SERIES.....           0          26,004                                        0          26,004
   62   QRC................           0           5,476                                        0           5,476
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   63   SPARES AND REPAIR             0       1,407,626          0           50,800            0       1,458,426
         PARTS.............
            F-35B spares                                        [0]         [50,800]
            unfunded
            requirement....
        AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
         EQUIP & FACILITIES
   64   COMMON GROUND                 0         390,103                                        0         390,103
         EQUIPMENT.........
   65   AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL           0          23,194                                        0          23,194
         FACILITIES........
   66   WAR CONSUMABLES....           0          40,613                                        0          40,613
   67   OTHER PRODUCTION              0             860                                        0             860
         CHARGES...........
   68   SPECIAL SUPPORT               0          36,282                                        0          36,282
         EQUIPMENT.........
   69   FIRST DESTINATION             0           1,523                                        0           1,523
         TRANSPORTATION....
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT               84      14,109,148          0           50,800           84      14,159,948
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        WEAPONS
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        MODIFICATION OF
         MISSILES
    1   TRIDENT II MODS....           0       1,103,086                                        0       1,103,086
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
    2   MISSILE INDUSTRIAL            0           6,776                                        0           6,776
         FACILITIES........
        STRATEGIC MISSILES
    3   TOMAHAWK...........         100         186,905         96           84,200          196         271,105
            Program                                            [96]         [84,200]
            increase.......
        TACTICAL MISSILES
    4   AMRAAM.............         163         204,697                                      163         204,697
    5   SIDEWINDER.........         152          70,912                                      152          70,912
    6   JSOW...............           0           2,232                                        0           2,232
    7   STANDARD MISSILE...         125         501,212                                      125         501,212
    8   RAM................          90          71,557                                       90          71,557
    9   JOINT AIR GROUND             96          26,200                                       96          26,200
         MISSILE (JAGM)....
   12   STAND OFF PRECISION          24           3,316                                       24           3,316
         GUIDED MUNITIONS
         (SOPGM)...........
   13   AERIAL TARGETS.....           0         137,484                                        0         137,484
   14   OTHER MISSILE                 0           3,248                                        0           3,248
         SUPPORT...........
   15   LRASM..............          10          29,643                                       10          29,643
        MODIFICATION OF
         MISSILES
   16   ESSM...............          75          52,935                                       75          52,935
   18   HARM MODS..........           0         178,213          0          -30,000            0         148,213
            Advanced Anti-                                      [0]        [-30,000]
            Radiation
            Guided Missile
            production
            issues.........
   19   STANDARD MISSILES             0           8,164                                        0           8,164
         MODS..............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   20   WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL            0           1,964                                        0           1,964
         FACILITIES........
   21   FLEET SATELLITE               0          36,723                                        0          36,723
         COMM FOLLOW-ON....
        ORDNANCE SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   22   ORDNANCE SUPPORT              0          59,096          0            6,970            0          66,066
         EQUIPMENT.........
            Program                                             [0]          [6,970]
            increase.......
        TORPEDOES AND
         RELATED EQUIP
   23   SSTD...............           0           5,910                                        0           5,910
   24   MK-48 TORPEDO......          11          44,537                                       11          44,537
   25   ASW TARGETS........           0           9,302                                        0           9,302
        MOD OF TORPEDOES
         AND RELATED EQUIP
   26   MK-54 TORPEDO MODS.           0          98,092                                        0          98,092
   27   MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP           0          46,139                                        0          46,139
         MODS..............
   28   QUICKSTRIKE MINE...           0           1,236                                        0           1,236
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
   29   TORPEDO SUPPORT               0          60,061                                        0          60,061
         EQUIPMENT.........
   30   ASW RANGE SUPPORT..           0           3,706                                        0           3,706
        DESTINATION
         TRANSPORTATION
   31   FIRST DESTINATION             0           3,804                                        0           3,804
         TRANSPORTATION....
        GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
   32   SMALL ARMS AND                0          18,002                                        0          18,002
         WEAPONS...........
        MODIFICATION OF
         GUNS AND GUN
         MOUNTS
   33   CIWS MODS..........           0          50,900                                        0          50,900
   34   COAST GUARD WEAPONS           0          25,295                                        0          25,295
   35   GUN MOUNT MODS.....           0          77,003                                        0          77,003
   36   LCS MODULE WEAPONS.          24           2,776                                       24           2,776
   38   AIRBORNE MINE                 0          15,753                                        0          15,753
         NEUTRALIZATION
         SYSTEMS...........
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   40   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          62,383                                        0          62,383
         PARTS.............
        TOTAL WEAPONS               870       3,209,262         96           61,170          966       3,270,432
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMO, NAVY & MC
        NAVY AMMUNITION
    1   GENERAL PURPOSE               0          91,659                                        0          91,659
         BOMBS.............
    2   AIRBORNE ROCKETS,             0          65,759                                        0          65,759
         ALL TYPES.........
    3   MACHINE GUN                   0           8,152                                        0           8,152
         AMMUNITION........
    4   PRACTICE BOMBS.....           0          41,873                                        0          41,873
    5   CARTRIDGES & CART             0          54,002                                        0          54,002
         ACTUATED DEVICES..
    6   AIR EXPENDABLE                0          57,034                                        0          57,034
         COUNTERMEASURES...
    7   JATOS..............           0           2,735                                        0           2,735
    9   5 INCH/54 GUN                 0          19,220                                        0          19,220
         AMMUNITION........
   10   INTERMEDIATE                  0          30,196                                        0          30,196
         CALIBER GUN
         AMMUNITION........
   11   OTHER SHIP GUN                0          39,009                                        0          39,009
         AMMUNITION........
   12   SMALL ARMS &                  0          46,727                                        0          46,727
         LANDING PARTY AMMO
   13   PYROTECHNIC AND               0           9,806                                        0           9,806
         DEMOLITION........
   14   AMMUNITION LESS               0           2,900                                        0           2,900
         THAN $5 MILLION...
        MARINE CORPS
         AMMUNITION
   15   SMALL ARMS                    0          27,958                                        0          27,958
         AMMUNITION........
   17   40 MM, ALL TYPES...           0          14,758                                        0          14,758
   18   60MM, ALL TYPES....           0             992                                        0             992
   20   120MM, ALL TYPES...           0          16,757          0           -4,000            0          12,757
            120mm early to                                      [0]         [-4,000]
            need...........
   21   GRENADES, ALL TYPES           0             972                                        0             972
   22   ROCKETS, ALL TYPES.           0          14,186                                        0          14,186
   23   ARTILLERY, ALL                0          68,656                                        0          68,656
         TYPES.............
   24   DEMOLITION                    0           1,700                                        0           1,700
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   25   FUZE, ALL TYPES....           0          26,088                                        0          26,088
   27   AMMO MODERNIZATION.           0          14,660                                        0          14,660
   28   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           8,569          0           -2,500            0           6,069
         MILLION...........
            early to need..                                     [0]         [-2,500]
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0         664,368          0           -6,500            0         657,868
         OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
 
        SHIPBUILDING AND
         CONVERSION, NAVY
        FLEET BALLISTIC
         MISSILE SHIPS
    1   OHIO REPLACEMENT              0         773,138                                        0         773,138
         SUBMARINE (AP)....
        OTHER WARSHIPS
    2   CARRIER REPLACEMENT           0       1,291,783                                        0       1,291,783
         PROGRAM...........
    3   CARRIER REPLACEMENT           0       1,370,784                                        0       1,370,784
         PROGRAM (AP)......
    4   VIRGINIA CLASS                2       3,187,985                                        2       3,187,985
         SUBMARINE.........
    5   VIRGINIA CLASS                0       1,767,234                                        0       1,767,234
         SUBMARINE (AP)....
    6   CVN REFUELING                 0       1,743,220                                        0       1,743,220
         OVERHAULS.........
    7   CVN REFUELING                 0         248,599                                        0         248,599
         OVERHAULS (AP)....
    8   DDG 1000...........           0         271,756                                        0         271,756
    9   DDG-51.............           2       3,211,292          0           49,800            2       3,261,092
            Fund additional                                     [0]         [49,800]
            FY16 destroyer.
   11   LITTORAL COMBAT               2       1,125,625          0          -28,000            2       1,097,625
         SHIP..............
            Unjustified                                         [0]        [-28,000]
            growth.........
        AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
   13   AMPHIBIOUS SHIP               0                          0           50,000            0          50,000
         REPLACEMENT LX(R)
         (AP)..............
            Advanced                                            [0]         [50,000]
            procurement for
            LX (R).........
   16   LHA REPLACEMENT....           1       1,623,024                                        1       1,623,024
        AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
         AND PRIOR YR
         PROGRAM COST
   20   TAO FLEET OILER               0          73,079                                        0          73,079
         (AP)..............
   22   MOORED TRAINING               1         624,527                                        1         624,527
         SHIP..............
   25   OUTFITTING.........           0         666,158                                        0         666,158
   26   SHIP TO SHORE                 2         128,067                                        2         128,067
         CONNECTOR.........
   27   SERVICE CRAFT......           0          65,192                                        0          65,192
   28   LCAC SLEP..........           0           1,774                                        0           1,774
   29   YP CRAFT                      0          21,363                                        0          21,363
         MAINTENANCE/ROH/
         SLEP..............
   30   COMPLETION OF PY              0         160,274                                        0         160,274
         SHIPBUILDING
         PROGRAMS..........
        TOTAL SHIPBUILDING           10      18,354,874          0           71,800           10      18,426,674
         AND CONVERSION,
         NAVY..............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         NAVY
        SHIP PROPULSION
         EQUIPMENT
    3   SURFACE POWER                 0          15,514                                        0          15,514
         EQUIPMENT.........
    4   HYBRID ELECTRIC               0          40,132                                        0          40,132
         DRIVE (HED).......
        GENERATORS
    5   SURFACE COMBATANT             0          29,974                                        0          29,974
         HM&E..............
        NAVIGATION
         EQUIPMENT
    6   OTHER NAVIGATION              0          63,942                                        0          63,942
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER SHIPBOARD
         EQUIPMENT
    8   SUB PERISCOPE,                0         136,421                                        0         136,421
         IMAGING AND SUPT
         EQUIP PROG........
    9   DDG MOD............           0         367,766          0           65,000            0         432,766
            BMD upgrade                                         [0]         [65,000]
            unfunded
            requirement....
   10   FIREFIGHTING                  0          14,743                                        0          14,743
         EQUIPMENT.........
   11   COMMAND AND CONTROL           0           2,140                                        0           2,140
         SWITCHBOARD.......
   12   LHA/LHD MIDLIFE....           0          24,939                                        0          24,939
   14   POLLUTION CONTROL             0          20,191                                        0          20,191
         EQUIPMENT.........
   15   SUBMARINE SUPPORT             0           8,995                                        0           8,995
         EQUIPMENT.........
   16   VIRGINIA CLASS                0          66,838                                        0          66,838
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   17   LCS CLASS SUPPORT             0          54,823                                        0          54,823
         EQUIPMENT.........
   18   SUBMARINE BATTERIES           0          23,359                                        0          23,359
   19   LPD CLASS SUPPORT             0          40,321                                        0          40,321
         EQUIPMENT.........
   20   DDG 1000 CLASS                0          33,404                                        0          33,404
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   21   STRATEGIC PLATFORM            0          15,836                                        0          15,836
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
   22   DSSP EQUIPMENT.....           0             806                                        0             806
   24   LCAC...............           0           3,090                                        0           3,090
   25   UNDERWATER EOD                0          24,350                                        0          24,350
         PROGRAMS..........
   26   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          88,719                                        0          88,719
         MILLION...........
   27   CHEMICAL WARFARE              0           2,873                                        0           2,873
         DETECTORS.........
   28   SUBMARINE LIFE                0           6,043                                        0           6,043
         SUPPORT SYSTEM....
        REACTOR PLANT
         EQUIPMENT
   30   REACTOR COMPONENTS.           0         342,158                                        0         342,158
        OCEAN ENGINEERING
   31   DIVING AND SALVAGE            0           8,973                                        0           8,973
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SMALL BOATS
   32   STANDARD BOATS.....           0          43,684                                        0          43,684
        PRODUCTION
         FACILITIES
         EQUIPMENT
   34   OPERATING FORCES              0          75,421                                        0          75,421
         IPE...............
        OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
   35   NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS           0         172,718                                        0         172,718
   36   LCS COMMON MISSION            0          27,840          0           -3,700            0          24,140
         MODULES EQUIPMENT.
            Cancelled                                           [0]         [-3,700]
            program (RMS)..
   37   LCS MCM MISSION               0          57,146                                        0          57,146
         MODULES...........
   38   LCS ASW MISSION               0          31,952                                        0          31,952
         MODULES...........
   39   LCS SUW MISSION               0          22,466                                        0          22,466
         MODULES...........
        LOGISTIC SUPPORT
   41   LSD MIDLIFE........           0          10,813                                        0          10,813
        SHIP SONARS
   42   SPQ-9B RADAR.......           0          14,363                                        0          14,363
   43   AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW            0          90,029                                        0          90,029
         COMBAT SYSTEM.....
   45   SSN ACOUSTIC                  0         248,765                                        0         248,765
         EQUIPMENT.........
   46   UNDERSEA WARFARE              0           7,163                                        0           7,163
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
        ASW ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   48   SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC            0          21,291                                        0          21,291
         WARFARE SYSTEM....
   49   SSTD...............           0           6,893                                        0           6,893
   50   FIXED SURVEILLANCE            0         145,701                                        0         145,701
         SYSTEM............
   51   SURTASS............           0          36,136          1           10,000            1          46,136
            Additional                                          [1]         [10,000]
            SURTASS array
            unfunded
            requirement....
        ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         EQUIPMENT
   53   AN/SLQ-32..........           0         274,892          1           23,000            1         297,892
            Additional                                          [1]         [23,000]
            SEWIP Blk 3
            unfunded
            requirement....
        RECONNAISSANCE
         EQUIPMENT
   54   SHIPBOARD IW                  0         170,733                                        0         170,733
         EXPLOIT...........
   55   AUTOMATED                     0             958                                        0             958
         IDENTIFICATION
         SYSTEM (AIS)......
        OTHER SHIP
         ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   57   COOPERATIVE                   0          22,034                                        0          22,034
         ENGAGEMENT
         CAPABILITY........
   59   NAVAL TACTICAL                0          12,336                                        0          12,336
         COMMAND SUPPORT
         SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
   60   ATDLS..............           0          30,105                                        0          30,105
   61   NAVY COMMAND AND              0           4,556                                        0           4,556
         CONTROL SYSTEM
         (NCCS)............
   62   MINESWEEPING SYSTEM           0          56,675          0          -24,500            0          32,175
         REPLACEMENT.......
            Ahead of need..                                     [0]        [-24,500]
   63   SHALLOW WATER MCM..           0           8,875                                        0           8,875
   64   NAVSTAR GPS                   0          12,752                                        0          12,752
         RECEIVERS (SPACE).
   65   AMERICAN FORCES               0           4,577                                        0           4,577
         RADIO AND TV
         SERVICE...........
   66   STRATEGIC PLATFORM            0           8,972                                        0           8,972
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
        AVIATION ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   69   ASHORE ATC                    0          75,068                                        0          75,068
         EQUIPMENT.........
   70   AFLOAT ATC                    0          33,484                                        0          33,484
         EQUIPMENT.........
   76   ID SYSTEMS.........           0          22,177                                        0          22,177
   77   NAVAL MISSION                 0          14,273                                        0          14,273
         PLANNING SYSTEMS..
        OTHER SHORE
         ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   80   TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I           0          27,927                                        0          27,927
         SYSTEMS...........
   81   DCGS-N.............           0          12,676                                        0          12,676
   82   CANES..............           0         212,030                                        0         212,030
   83   RADIAC.............           0           8,092                                        0           8,092
   84   CANES-INTELL.......           0          36,013                                        0          36,013
   85   GPETE..............           0           6,428                                        0           6,428
   87   INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM           0           8,376                                        0           8,376
         TEST FACILITY.....
   88   EMI CONTROL                   0           3,971                                        0           3,971
         INSTRUMENTATION...
   89   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          58,721                                        0          58,721
         MILLION...........
        SHIPBOARD
         COMMUNICATIONS
   90   SHIPBOARD TACTICAL            0          17,366                                        0          17,366
         COMMUNICATIONS....
   91   SHIP COMMUNICATIONS           0         102,479                                        0         102,479
         AUTOMATION........
   92   COMMUNICATIONS                0          10,403                                        0          10,403
         ITEMS UNDER $5M...
        SUBMARINE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   93   SUBMARINE BROADCAST           0          34,151                                        0          34,151
         SUPPORT...........
   94   SUBMARINE                     0          64,529                                        0          64,529
         COMMUNICATION
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   95   SATELLITE                     0          14,414                                        0          14,414
         COMMUNICATIONS
         SYSTEMS...........
   96   NAVY MULTIBAND                0          38,365                                        0          38,365
         TERMINAL (NMT)....
        SHORE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   97   JCS COMMUNICATIONS            0           4,156                                        0           4,156
         EQUIPMENT.........
        CRYPTOGRAPHIC
         EQUIPMENT
   99   INFO SYSTEMS                  0          85,694                                        0          85,694
         SECURITY PROGRAM
         (ISSP)............
  100   MIO INTEL                     0             920                                        0             920
         EXPLOITATION TEAM.
        CRYPTOLOGIC
         EQUIPMENT
  101   CRYPTOLOGIC                   0          21,098                                        0          21,098
         COMMUNICATIONS
         EQUIP.............
        OTHER ELECTRONIC
         SUPPORT
  102   COAST GUARD                   0          32,291                                        0          32,291
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SONOBUOYS
  103   SONOBUOYS--ALL                0         162,588                                        0         162,588
         TYPES.............
        AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  104   WEAPONS RANGE                 0          58,116                                        0          58,116
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  105   AIRCRAFT SUPPORT              0         120,324                                        0         120,324
         EQUIPMENT.........
  106   METEOROLOGICAL                0          29,253                                        0          29,253
         EQUIPMENT.........
  107   DCRS/DPL...........           0             632                                        0             632
  108   AIRBORNE MINE                 0          29,097                                        0          29,097
         COUNTERMEASURES...
  109   AVIATION SUPPORT              0          39,099                                        0          39,099
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SHIP GUN SYSTEM
         EQUIPMENT
  110   SHIP GUN SYSTEMS              0           6,191                                        0           6,191
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SHIP MISSILE
         SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
  111   SHIP MISSILE                  0         320,446                                        0         320,446
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  112   TOMAHAWK SUPPORT              0          71,046                                        0          71,046
         EQUIPMENT.........
        FBM SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  113   STRATEGIC MISSILE             0         215,138                                        0         215,138
         SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
        ASW SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  114   SSN COMBAT CONTROL            0         130,715                                        0         130,715
         SYSTEMS...........
  115   ASW SUPPORT                   0          26,431                                        0          26,431
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER ORDNANCE
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  116   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0          11,821                                        0          11,821
         DISPOSAL EQUIP....
  117   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           6,243                                        0           6,243
         MILLION...........
        OTHER EXPENDABLE
         ORDNANCE
  118   SUBMARINE TRAINING            0          48,020                                        0          48,020
         DEVICE MODS.......
  120   SURFACE TRAINING              0          97,514                                        0          97,514
         EQUIPMENT.........
        CIVIL ENGINEERING
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  121   PASSENGER CARRYING            0           8,853                                        0           8,853
         VEHICLES..........
  122   GENERAL PURPOSE               0           4,928                                        0           4,928
         TRUCKS............
  123   CONSTRUCTION &                0          18,527                                        0          18,527
         MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
  124   FIRE FIGHTING                 0          13,569                                        0          13,569
         EQUIPMENT.........
  125   TACTICAL VEHICLES..           0          14,917                                        0          14,917
  126   AMPHIBIOUS                    0           7,676                                        0           7,676
         EQUIPMENT.........
  127   POLLUTION CONTROL             0           2,321                                        0           2,321
         EQUIPMENT.........
  128   ITEMS UNDER $5                0          12,459                                        0          12,459
         MILLION...........
  129   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0           1,095                                        0           1,095
         VEHICLES..........
        SUPPLY SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  131   SUPPLY EQUIPMENT...           0          16,023                                        0          16,023
  133   FIRST DESTINATION             0           5,115                                        0           5,115
         TRANSPORTATION....
  134   SPECIAL PURPOSE               0         295,471                                        0         295,471
         SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
        TRAINING DEVICES
  136   TRAINING AND                  0           9,504                                        0           9,504
         EDUCATION
         EQUIPMENT.........
        COMMAND SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  137   COMMAND SUPPORT               0          37,180                                        0          37,180
         EQUIPMENT.........
  139   MEDICAL SUPPORT               0           4,128                                        0           4,128
         EQUIPMENT.........
  141   NAVAL MIP SUPPORT             0           1,925                                        0           1,925
         EQUIPMENT.........
  142   OPERATING FORCES              0           4,777                                        0           4,777
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  143   C4ISR EQUIPMENT....           0           9,073                                        0           9,073
  144   ENVIRONMENTAL                 0          21,107                                        0          21,107
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  145   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0         100,906                                        0         100,906
         EQUIPMENT.........
  146   ENTERPRISE                    0          67,544                                        0          67,544
         INFORMATION
         TECHNOLOGY........
        OTHER
  150   NEXT GENERATION               0          98,216                                        0          98,216
         ENTERPRISE SERVICE
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  160   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           9,915                                        0           9,915
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
  151   SPARES AND REPAIR             0         199,660                                        0         199,660
         PARTS.............
        TOTAL OTHER                   0       6,338,861          2           69,800            2       6,408,661
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        PROCUREMENT, MARINE
         CORPS
        TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    1   AAV7A1 PIP.........           0          73,785                                        0          73,785
    2   LAV PIP............           0          53,423                                        0          53,423
        ARTILLERY AND OTHER
         WEAPONS
    3   EXPEDITIONARY FIRE            0           3,360                                        0           3,360
         SUPPORT SYSTEM....
    4   155MM LIGHTWEIGHT             0           3,318                                        0           3,318
         TOWED HOWITZER....
    5   HIGH MOBILITY                 0          33,725                                        0          33,725
         ARTILLERY ROCKET
         SYSTEM............
    6   WEAPONS AND COMBAT            0           8,181                                        0           8,181
         VEHICLES UNDER $5
         MILLION...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
    7   MODIFICATION KITS..           0          15,250                                        0          15,250
        GUIDED MISSILES
    9   GROUND BASED AIR              0           9,170                                        0           9,170
         DEFENSE...........
   10   JAVELIN............           0           1,009                                        0           1,009
   11   FOLLOW ON TO SMAW..           0          24,666                                        0          24,666
   12   ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS            0          17,080                                        0          17,080
         SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
         H)................
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEMS
   15   COMMON AVIATION               0          47,312                                        0          47,312
         COMMAND AND
         CONTROL SYSTEM (C.
        REPAIR AND TEST
         EQUIPMENT
   16   REPAIR AND TEST               0          16,469                                        0          16,469
         EQUIPMENT.........
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
   19   ITEMS UNDER $5                0           7,433                                        0           7,433
         MILLION (COMM &
         ELEC).............
   20   AIR OPERATIONS C2             0          15,917                                        0          15,917
         SYSTEMS...........
        RADAR + EQUIPMENT
         (NON-TEL)
   21   RADAR SYSTEMS......           0          17,772                                        0          17,772
   22   GROUND/AIR TASK               3         123,758                                        3         123,758
         ORIENTED RADAR (G/
         ATOR).............
   23   RQ-21 UAS..........           4          80,217                                        4          80,217
        INTELL/COMM
         EQUIPMENT (NON-
         TEL)
   24   GCSS-MC............           0           1,089                                        0           1,089
   25   FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM           0          13,258                                        0          13,258
   26   INTELLIGENCE                  0          56,379                                        0          56,379
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   29   RQ-11 UAV..........           0           1,976                                        0           1,976
   31   DCGS-MC............           0           1,149                                        0           1,149
   32   UAS PAYLOADS.......           0           2,971                                        0           2,971
        OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
         TEL)
   34   NEXT GENERATION               0          76,302                                        0          76,302
         ENTERPRISE NETWORK
         (NGEN)............
   35   COMMON COMPUTER               0          41,802                                        0          41,802
         RESOURCES.........
   36   COMMAND POST                  0          90,924                                        0          90,924
         SYSTEMS...........
   37   RADIO SYSTEMS......           0          43,714                                        0          43,714
   38   COMM SWITCHING &              0          66,383                                        0          66,383
         CONTROL SYSTEMS...
   39   COMM & ELEC                   0          30,229                                        0          30,229
         INFRASTRUCTURE
         SUPPORT...........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   40   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           2,738                                        0           2,738
        ADMINISTRATIVE
         VEHICLES
   41   COMMERCIAL CARGO              0          88,312                                        0          88,312
         VEHICLES..........
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
   43   MOTOR TRANSPORT               0          13,292                                        0          13,292
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   45   JOINT LIGHT                 192         113,230                                      192         113,230
         TACTICAL VEHICLE..
   46   FAMILY OF TACTICAL            0           2,691                                        0           2,691
         TRAILERS..........
        ENGINEER AND OTHER
         EQUIPMENT
   48   ENVIRONMENTAL                 0              18                                        0              18
         CONTROL EQUIP
         ASSORT............
   50   TACTICAL FUEL                 0              78                                        0              78
         SYSTEMS...........
   51   POWER EQUIPMENT               0          17,973                                        0          17,973
         ASSORTED..........
   52   AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT            0           7,371                                        0           7,371
         EQUIPMENT.........
   53   EOD SYSTEMS........           0          14,021                                        0          14,021
        MATERIALS HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
   54   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          31,523                                        0          31,523
         EQUIPMENT.........
        GENERAL PROPERTY
   58   TRAINING DEVICES...           0          33,658                                        0          33,658
   60   FAMILY OF                     0          21,315                                        0          21,315
         CONSTRUCTION
         EQUIPMENT.........
   61   FAMILY OF                     0           9,654                                        0           9,654
         INTERNALLY
         TRANSPORTABLE VEH
         (ITV).............
        OTHER SUPPORT
   62   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           6,026                                        0           6,026
         MILLION...........
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   64   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          22,848                                        0          22,848
         PARTS.............
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT,          199       1,362,769          0                0          199       1,362,769
         MARINE CORPS......
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        TACTICAL FORCES
    1   F-35...............          43       4,401,894                                       43       4,401,894
    2   F-35 (AP)..........           0         404,500                                        0         404,500
        TACTICAL AIRLIFT
    3   KC-46A TANKER......          15       2,884,591                                       15       2,884,591
        OTHER AIRLIFT
    4   C-130J.............           2         145,655                                        2         145,655
    6   HC-130J............           3         317,576                                        3         317,576
    7   HC-130J (AP).......           0          20,000                                        0          20,000
    8   MC-130J............           6         548,358                                        6         548,358
    9   MC-130J (AP).......           0          50,000                                        0          50,000
        HELICOPTERS
   10   UUH-1N REPLACEMENT.           0          18,337          8          302,300            8         320,637
            HH-60                                               [8]        [302,300]
            Blackhawks,
            initial spares,
            and support
            equipment......
        MISSION SUPPORT
         AIRCRAFT
   12   CIVIL AIR PATROL A/           6           2,637                                        6           2,637
         C.................
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   13   TARGET DRONES......          41         114,656                                       41         114,656
   14   RQ-4...............           0          12,966                                        0          12,966
   15   MQ-9...............           0         122,522          0          -87,000            0          35,522
            Air Force                                           [0]        [-87,000]
            requested
            realignment....
        STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
   16   B-2A...............           0          46,729                                        0          46,729
   17   B-1B...............           0         116,319                                        0         116,319
   18   B-52...............           0         109,020                                        0         109,020
        TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
   20   A-10...............           0           1,289                                        0           1,289
   21   F-15...............           0         105,685                                        0         105,685
   22   F-16...............           0          97,331          0           88,300            0         185,631
            Active missile                                      [0]         [12,000]
            warning system.
            Anti-jam global                                     [0]          [5,000]
            positioning
            system (GPS)
            upgrade........
            Digital radar                                       [0]         [23,000]
            warning system.
            Multi-mission                                       [0]         [48,300]
            computer and
            MIDS-JTRS......
   23   F-22A..............           0         163,008                                        0         163,008
   24   F-35 MODIFICATIONS.           0         175,811                                        0         175,811
   25   INCREMENT 3.2B.....           0          76,410                                        0          76,410
   26   INCREMENT 3.2B (AP)           0           2,000                                        0           2,000
        AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
   27   C-5................           0          24,192                                        0          24,192
   29   C-17A..............           0          21,555                                        0          21,555
   30   C-21...............           0           5,439                                        0           5,439
   31   C-32A..............           0          35,235                                        0          35,235
   32   C-37A..............           0           5,004                                        0           5,004
        TRAINER AIRCRAFT
   33   GLIDER MODS........           0             394                                        0             394
   34   T-6................           0          12,765                                        0          12,765
   35   T-1................           0          25,073                                        0          25,073
   36   T-38...............           0          45,090                                        0          45,090
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   37   U-2 MODS...........           0          36,074                                        0          36,074
   38   KC-10A (ATCA)......           0           4,570                                        0           4,570
   39   C-12...............           0           1,995                                        0           1,995
   40   VC-25A MOD.........           0         102,670                                        0         102,670
   41   C-40...............           0          13,984                                        0          13,984
   42   C-130..............           0           9,168                                        0           9,168
   43   C-130J MODS........           0          89,424                                        0          89,424
   44   C-135..............           0          64,161                                        0          64,161
   45   COMPASS CALL MODS..           0         130,257          0           25,600            0         155,857
            Air Force                                           [0]         [25,600]
            requested
            realignment
            from Initial
            Spares.........
   46   RC-135.............           0         211,438                                        0         211,438
   47   E-3................           0          82,786                                        0          82,786
   48   E-4................           0          53,348                                        0          53,348
   49   E-8................           0           6,244                                        0           6,244
   50   AIRBORNE WARNING              0         223,427                                        0         223,427
         AND CONTROL SYSTEM
   51   FAMILY OF BEYOND              3           4,673                                        3           4,673
         LINE-OF-SIGHT
         TERMINALS.........
   52   H-1................           0           9,007                                        0           9,007
   54   H-60...............           0          91,357                                        0          91,357
   55   RQ-4 MODS..........           0          32,045                                        0          32,045
   56   HC/MC-130                     0          30,767                                        0          30,767
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   57   OTHER AIRCRAFT.....           0          33,886                                        0          33,886
   59   MQ-9 MODS..........           0         141,929                                        0         141,929
   60   CV-22 MODS.........           0          63,395                                        0          63,395
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   61   INITIAL SPARES/               0         686,491          0           61,400            0         747,891
         REPAIR PARTS......
            Air Force                                           [0]        [-25,600]
            requested
            realignment....
            Air Force                                           [0]         [87,000]
            requested
            realignment
            from MQ-9......
        COMMON SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   62   AIRCRAFT                      0         121,935                                        0         121,935
         REPLACEMENT
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
        POST PRODUCTION
         SUPPORT
   63   B-2A...............           0             154                                        0             154
   64   B-2A...............           0          43,330                                        0          43,330
   65   B-52...............           0          28,125                                        0          28,125
   66   C-17A..............           0          23,559                                        0          23,559
   69   F-15...............           0           2,980                                        0           2,980
   70   F-16...............           0          15,155                                        0          15,155
   71   F-22A..............           0          48,505                                        0          48,505
   74   RQ-4 POST                     0              99                                        0              99
         PRODUCTION CHARGES
        INDUSTRIAL
         PREPAREDNESS
   75   INDUSTRIAL                    0          14,126                                        0          14,126
         RESPONSIVENESS....
        WAR CONSUMABLES
   76   WAR CONSUMABLES....           0         120,036                                        0         120,036
        OTHER PRODUCTION
         CHARGES
   77   OTHER PRODUCTION              0       1,252,824                                        0       1,252,824
         CHARGES...........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   78   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          16,952                                        0          16,952
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT              119      13,922,917          8          390,600          127      14,313,517
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        MISSILE REPLACEMENT
         EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
         IC
    1   MISSILE REPLACEMENT           0          70,247                                        0          70,247
         EQ-BALLISTIC......
        TACTICAL
    2   JOINT AIR-SURFACE           360         431,645                                      360         431,645
         STANDOFF MISSILE..
    3   LRASM0.............          20          59,511                                       20          59,511
    4   SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X)         287         127,438                                      287         127,438
    5   AMRAAM.............         256         350,144                                      256         350,144
    6   PREDATOR HELLFIR            284          33,955                                      284          33,955
         MISSILE...........
    7   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB         312          92,361                                      312          92,361
        INDUSTRIAL
         FACILITIES
    8   INDUSTR'L                     0             977                                        0             977
         PREPAREDNS/POL
         PREVENTION........
        CLASS IV
    9   ICBM FUZE MOD......           0          17,095                                        0          17,095
   10   MM III                        0          68,692                                        0          68,692
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   11   AGM-65D MAVERICK...           0             282                                        0             282
   13   AIR LAUNCH CRUISE             0          21,762                                        0          21,762
         MISSILE (ALCM)....
   14   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB           0          15,349                                        0          15,349
        MISSILE SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   15   INITIAL SPARES/               0          81,607                                        0          81,607
         REPAIR PARTS......
        SPECIAL PROGRAMS
   30   SPECIAL UPDATE                0          46,125                                        0          46,125
         PROGRAMS..........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   31   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0       1,009,431                                        0       1,009,431
        TOTAL MISSILE             1,519       2,426,621          0                0        1,519       2,426,621
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        SPACE PROCUREMENT,
         AIR FORCE
        SPACE PROGRAMS
    1   ADVANCED EHF.......           0         645,569                                        0         645,569
    2   AF SATELLITE COMM             0          42,375                                        0          42,375
         SYSTEM............
    3   COUNTERSPACE                  0          26,984                                        0          26,984
         SYSTEMS...........
    4   FAMILY OF BEYOND             16          88,963                                       16          88,963
         LINE-OF-SIGHT
         TERMINALS.........
    5   WIDEBAND GAPFILLER            0          86,272                                        0          86,272
         SATELLITES(SPACE).
    6   GPS III SPACE                 0          34,059                                        0          34,059
         SEGMENT...........
    7   GLOBAL POSTIONING             0           2,169                                        0           2,169
         (SPACE)...........
    8   SPACEBORNE EQUIP              0          46,708                                        0          46,708
         (COMSEC)..........
    9   GLOBAL POSITIONING            0          13,171                                        0          13,171
         (SPACE)...........
   10   MILSATCOM..........           0          41,799                                        0          41,799
   11   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE            0         768,586                                        0         768,586
         LAUNCH CAPABILITY.
   12   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE            5         737,853                                        5         737,853
         LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
   13   SBIR HIGH (SPACE)..           0         362,504                                        0         362,504
   14   NUDET DETECTION               0           4,395                                        0           4,395
         SYSTEM............
   15   SPACE MODS.........           0           8,642                                        0           8,642
   16   SPACELIFT RANGE               0         123,088                                        0         123,088
         SYSTEM SPACE......
        SPARES
   17   INITIAL SPARES/               0          22,606                                        0          22,606
         REPAIR PARTS......
        TOTAL SPACE                  21       3,055,743          0                0           21       3,055,743
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE
        ROCKETS
    1   ROCKETS............           0          18,734                                        0          18,734
        CARTRIDGES
    2   CARTRIDGES.........           0         220,237                                        0         220,237
        BOMBS
    3   PRACTICE BOMBS.....           0          97,106                                        0          97,106
    4   GENERAL PURPOSE               0         581,561                                        0         581,561
         BOMBS.............
    5   MASSIVE ORDNANCE              0           3,600                                        0           3,600
         PENETRATOR (MOP)..
    6   JOINT DIRECT ATTACK      12,133         303,988                                   12,133         303,988
         MUNITION..........
        OTHER ITEMS
    7   CAD/PAD............           0          38,890                                        0          38,890
    8   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0           5,714                                        0           5,714
         DISPOSAL (EOD)....
    9   SPARES AND REPAIR             0             740                                        0             740
         PARTS.............
   10   MODIFICATIONS......           0             573                                        0             573
   11   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           5,156                                        0           5,156
         MILLION...........
        FLARES
   12   FLARES.............           0         134,709                                        0         134,709
        FUZES
   13   FUZES..............           0         229,252                                        0         229,252
        SMALL ARMS
   14   SMALL ARMS.........           0          37,459                                        0          37,459
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT        12,133       1,677,719          0                0       12,133       1,677,719
         OF AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         AIR FORCE
        PASSENGER CARRYING
         VEHICLES
    1   PASSENGER CARRYING            0          14,437                                        0          14,437
         VEHICLES..........
        CARGO AND UTILITY
         VEHICLES
    2   MEDIUM TACTICAL               0          24,812                                        0          24,812
         VEHICLE...........
    3   CAP VEHICLES.......           0             984                                        0             984
    4   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          11,191                                        0          11,191
         MILLION...........
        SPECIAL PURPOSE
         VEHICLES
    5   SECURITY AND                  0           5,361                                        0           5,361
         TACTICAL VEHICLES.
    6   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           4,623                                        0           4,623
         MILLION...........
        FIRE FIGHTING
         EQUIPMENT
    7   FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH           0          12,451                                        0          12,451
         RESCUE VEHICLES...
        MATERIALS HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
    8   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          18,114                                        0          18,114
         MILLION...........
        BASE MAINTENANCE
         SUPPORT
    9   RUNWAY SNOW REMOV &           0           2,310                                        0           2,310
         CLEANING EQUIP....
   10   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          46,868                                        0          46,868
         MILLION...........
        COMM SECURITY
         EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
   12   COMSEC EQUIPMENT...           0          72,359                                        0          72,359
        INTELLIGENCE
         PROGRAMS
   14   INTELLIGENCE                  0           6,982                                        0           6,982
         TRAINING EQUIPMENT
   15   INTELLIGENCE COMM             0          30,504          0            5,100            0          35,604
         EQUIPMENT.........
            Air Force                                           [0]          [5,100]
            requested
            realignment
            from AFNET.....
        ELECTRONICS
         PROGRAMS
   16   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL           0          55,803                                        0          55,803
         & LANDING SYS.....
   17   NATIONAL AIRSPACE             0           2,673                                        0           2,673
         SYSTEM............
   18   BATTLE CONTROL                0           5,677                                        0           5,677
         SYSTEM--FIXED.....
   19   THEATER AIR CONTROL           0           1,163                                        0           1,163
         SYS IMPROVEMENTS..
   20   WEATHER OBSERVATION           0          21,667                                        0          21,667
         FORECAST..........
   21   STRATEGIC COMMAND             0          39,803                                        0          39,803
         AND CONTROL.......
   22   CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN             0          24,618                                        0          24,618
         COMPLEX...........
   23   MISSION PLANNING              0          15,868                                        0          15,868
         SYSTEMS...........
   25   INTEGRATED STRAT              0           9,331                                        0           9,331
         PLAN & ANALY
         NETWORK (ISPAN)...
        SPCL COMM-
         ELECTRONICS
         PROJECTS
   26   GENERAL INFORMATION           0          41,779                                        0          41,779
         TECHNOLOGY........
   27   AF GLOBAL COMMAND &           0          15,729                                        0          15,729
         CONTROL SYS.......
   28   MOBILITY COMMAND              0           9,814                                        0           9,814
         AND CONTROL.......
   29   AIR FORCE PHYSICAL            0          99,460                                        0          99,460
         SECURITY SYSTEM...
   30   COMBAT TRAINING               0          34,850                                        0          34,850
         RANGES............
   31   MINIMUM ESSENTIAL             0         198,925                                        0         198,925
         EMERGENCY COMM N..
   32   WIDE AREA                     0           6,943                                        0           6,943
         SURVEILLANCE (WAS)
   33   C3 COUNTERMEASURES.           0          19,580                                        0          19,580
   34   GCSS-AF FOS........           0           1,743                                        0           1,743
   36   THEATER BATTLE MGT            0           9,659                                        0           9,659
         C2 SYSTEM.........
   37   AIR & SPACE                   0          15,474                                        0          15,474
         OPERATIONS CTR-WPN
         SYS...............
   38   AIR OPERATIONS                0          30,623                                        0          30,623
         CENTER (AOC) 10.2.
        AIR FORCE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   39   INFORMATION                   0          40,043                                        0          40,043
         TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.
   40   AFNET..............           0         146,897          0           -5,100            0         141,797
            Air Force                                           [0]         [-5,100]
            requested
            realignment....
   41   JOINT                         0           5,182                                        0           5,182
         COMMUNICATIONS
         SUPPORT ELEMENT
         (JCSE)............
   42   USCENTCOM..........           0          13,418                                        0          13,418
        ORGANIZATION AND
         BASE
   52   TACTICAL C-E                  0         109,836                                        0         109,836
         EQUIPMENT.........
   53   RADIO EQUIPMENT....           0          16,266                                        0          16,266
   54   CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL              0           7,449                                        0           7,449
         EQUIPMENT.........
   55   BASE COMM                     0         109,215                                        0         109,215
         INFRASTRUCTURE....
        MODIFICATIONS
   56   COMM ELECT MODS....           0          65,700                                        0          65,700
        PERSONAL SAFETY &
         RESCUE EQUIP
   58   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          54,416                                        0          54,416
         MILLION...........
        DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
         HANDLING EQ
   59   MECHANIZED MATERIAL           0           7,344                                        0           7,344
         HANDLING EQUIP....
        BASE SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   60   BASE PROCURED                 0           6,852                                        0           6,852
         EQUIPMENT.........
   63   MOBILITY EQUIPMENT.           0           8,146                                        0           8,146
   64   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          28,427                                        0          28,427
         MILLION...........
        SPECIAL SUPPORT
         PROJECTS
   66   DARP RC135.........           0          25,287                                        0          25,287
   67   DCGS-AF............           0         169,201                                        0         169,201
   69   SPECIAL UPDATE                0         576,710                                        0         576,710
         PROGRAM...........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   70   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0      15,119,705                                        0      15,119,705
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   72   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          15,784                                        0          15,784
         PARTS.............
        TOTAL OTHER                   0      17,438,056          0                0            0      17,438,056
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        PROCUREMENT,
         DEFENSE-WIDE
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         OSD
   37   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,             39          29,211          0          -23,100           39           6,111
         OSD...............
            Mentor Protege.                                     [0]        [-23,100]
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         NSA
   36   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0           4,399                                        0           4,399
         SECURITY PROGRAM
         (ISSP)............
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         WHS
   40   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,              0          24,979                                        0          24,979
         WHS...............
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DISA
    6   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0          21,347                                        0          21,347
         SECURITY..........
    7   TELEPORT PROGRAM...           0          50,597                                        0          50,597
    8   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          10,420                                        0          10,420
         MILLION...........
    9   NET CENTRIC                   0           1,634                                        0           1,634
         ENTERPRISE
         SERVICES (NCES)...
   10   DEFENSE INFORMATION           0          87,235                                        0          87,235
         SYSTEM NETWORK....
   11   CYBER SECURITY                0           4,528                                        0           4,528
         INITIATIVE........
   12   WHITE HOUSE                   0          36,846                                        0          36,846
         COMMUNICATION
         AGENCY............
   13   SENIOR LEADERSHIP             0         599,391                                        0         599,391
         ENTERPRISE........
   15   JOINT REGIONAL                0         150,221                                        0         150,221
         SECURITY STACKS
         (JRSS)............
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DLA
   17   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           0           2,055                                        0           2,055
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DSS
   20   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           0           1,057                                        0           1,057
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DCAA
    1   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           2,964                                        0           2,964
         MILLION...........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         TJS
   38   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,              0           7,988                                        0           7,988
         TJS...............
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         MISSILE DEFENSE
         AGENCY
   23   THAAD..............          24         369,608                                       24         369,608
   24   AEGIS BMD..........          35         463,801                                       35         463,801
   25   BMDS AN/TPY-2                 0           5,503                                        0           5,503
         RADARS............
   28   AEGIS ASHORE PHASE            0          57,493                                        0          57,493
         III...............
   29   IRON DOME..........           0          42,000                                        0          42,000
   30   AEGIS BMD HARDWARE            6          50,098                                        6          50,098
         AND SOFTWARE......
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DHRA
    3   PERSONNEL                     0          14,232                                        0          14,232
         ADMINISTRATION....
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DEFENSE THREAT
         REDUCTION AGENCY
   21   VEHICLES...........           0             200                                        0             200
   22   OTHER MAJOR                   0           6,437                                        0           6,437
         EQUIPMENT.........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DODEA
   19   AUTOMATION/                   0             288                                        0             288
         EDUCATIONAL
         SUPPORT &
         LOGISTICS.........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DCMA
    2   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           0              92                                        0              92
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DMACT
   18   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           4           8,060                                        4           8,060
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   41   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0         568,864                                        0         568,864
        AVIATION PROGRAMS
   42   ROTARY WING                   0         150,396          0           18,600            0         168,996
         UPGRADES AND
         SUSTAINMENT.......
            OCONUS training                                     [0]         [18,600]
            loss
            replacement....
   43   UNMANNED ISR.......           0          21,190                                        0          21,190
   45   NON-STANDARD                  0           4,905                                        0           4,905
         AVIATION..........
   46   U-28...............           0           3,970                                        0           3,970
   47   MH-47 CHINOOK......           0          25,022                                        0          25,022
   49   CV-22 MODIFICATION.           0          19,008                                        0          19,008
   51   MQ-9 UNMANNED                 0          10,598          0           14,800            0          25,398
         AERIAL VEHICLE....
            MQ-9 capability                                     [0]         [14,800]
            enhancements...
   53   PRECISION STRIKE              0         213,122          0          -13,100            0         200,022
         PACKAGE...........
            SOCOM requested                                     [0]        [-13,100]
            transfer.......
   54   AC/MC-130J.........           0          73,548          0           13,100            0          86,648
            SOCOM requested                                     [0]         [13,100]
            transfer.......
   55   C-130 MODIFICATIONS           0          32,970                                        0          32,970
        SHIPBUILDING
   56   UNDERWATER SYSTEMS.           0          37,098                                        0          37,098
        AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
   57   ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M           0         105,267                                        0         105,267
        OTHER PROCUREMENT
         PROGRAMS
   58   INTELLIGENCE                  0          79,963                                        0          79,963
         SYSTEMS...........
   59   DISTRIBUTED COMMON            0          13,432                                        0          13,432
         GROUND/SURFACE
         SYSTEMS...........
   60   OTHER ITEMS <$5M...           0          66,436                                        0          66,436
   61   COMBATANT CRAFT               0          55,820                                        0          55,820
         SYSTEMS...........
   62   SPECIAL PROGRAMS...           0         107,432                                        0         107,432
   63   TACTICAL VEHICLES..           0          67,849                                        0          67,849
   64   WARRIOR SYSTEMS               0         245,781                                        0         245,781
         <$5M..............
   65   COMBAT MISSION                0          19,566                                        0          19,566
         REQUIREMENTS......
   66   GLOBAL VIDEO                  0           3,437                                        0           3,437
         SURVEILLANCE
         ACTIVITIES........
   67   OPERATIONAL                   0          17,299                                        0          17,299
         ENHANCEMENTS
         INTELLIGENCE......
   69   OPERATIONAL                   0         219,945                                        0         219,945
         ENHANCEMENTS......
        CBDP
   70   CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL           0         148,203                                        0         148,203
         SITUATIONAL
         AWARENESS.........
   71   CB PROTECTION &               0         161,113                                        0         161,113
         HAZARD MITIGATION.
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT,          108       4,524,918          0           10,300          108       4,535,218
         DEFENSE-WIDE......
 
        JOINT URGENT
         OPERATIONAL NEEDS
         FUND
        JOINT URGENT
         OPERATIONAL NEEDS
         FUND
    1   JOINT URGENT                  0          99,300                                        0          99,300
         OPERATIONAL NEEDS
         FUND..............
        TOTAL JOINT URGENT            0          99,300          0                0            0          99,300
         OPERATIONAL NEEDS
         FUND..............
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT..      27,440     101,971,592        106          463,384       27,546     102,434,976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2017 Request              Senate Change              Senate Authorized
 Line           Item        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Qty          Cost           Qty           Cost           Qty          Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        ROTARY
    6   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK            4          78,040                                        4          78,040
         IIIA REMAN........
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   15   MULTI SENSOR ABN              0          21,400                                        0          21,400
         RECON (MIP).......
   20   EMARSS SEMA MODS              2          42,700                                        2          42,700
         (MIP).............
   26   RQ-7 UAV MODS......           0           1,775                                        0           1,775
   27   UAS MODS...........           0           4,420                                        0           4,420
        GROUND SUPPORT
         AVIONICS
   30   CMWS...............           0          56,115                                        0          56,115
   31   CIRCM..............           0         108,721                                        0         108,721
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT                6         313,171          0                0            6         313,171
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        AIR-TO-SURFACE
         MISSILE SYSTEM
    4   HELLFIRE SYS              4,055         455,830                                    4,055         455,830
         SUMMARY...........
        ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
         MISSILE SYS
    7   JAVELIN (AAWS-M)             83          15,567                                       83          15,567
         SYSTEM SUMMARY....
    8   TOW 2 SYSTEM                815          80,652                                      815          80,652
         SUMMARY...........
   10   GUIDED MLRS ROCKET          698          75,991                                      698          75,991
         (GMLRS)...........
   12   LETHAL MINIATURE             10           4,777                                       10           4,777
         AERIAL MISSILE
         SYSTEM (LMAMS.....
        TOTAL MISSILE             5,661         632,817          0                0        5,661         632,817
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         W&TCV, ARMY
        MODIFICATION OF
         TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    7   PALADIN INTEGRATED           12         125,184                                       12         125,184
         MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
    9   ASSAULT BRIDGE                0           5,950                                        0           5,950
         (MOD).............
        WEAPONS & OTHER
         COMBAT VEHICLES
   17   MORTAR SYSTEMS.....           0          22,410                                        0          22,410
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT            12         153,544          0                0           12         153,544
         OF W&TCV, ARMY....
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, ARMY
        SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
         AMMUNITION
    2   CTG, 7.62MM, ALL              0           9,642                                        0           9,642
         TYPES.............
    4   CTG, .50 CAL, ALL             0           6,607                                        0           6,607
         TYPES.............
    5   CTG, 20MM, ALL                0           1,077                                        0           1,077
         TYPES.............
    6   CTG, 25MM, ALL                0          28,534                                        0          28,534
         TYPES.............
    7   CTG, 30MM, ALL                0          20,000                                        0          20,000
         TYPES.............
    8   CTG, 40MM, ALL                0           7,423                                        0           7,423
         TYPES.............
        MORTAR AMMUNITION
    9   60MM MORTAR, ALL              0          10,000                                        0          10,000
         TYPES.............
   10   81MM MORTAR, ALL              0           2,677                                        0           2,677
         TYPES.............
        TANK AMMUNITION
   12   CARTRIDGES, TANK,             0           8,999                                        0           8,999
         105MM AND 120MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
        ARTILLERY
         AMMUNITION
   14   ARTILLERY                     0          30,348                                        0          30,348
         PROJECTILE, 155MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
   15   PROJ 155MM EXTENDED           0             140                                        0             140
         RANGE M982........
   16   ARTILLERY                     0          29,655                                        0          29,655
         PROPELLANTS, FUZES
         AND PRIMERS, ALL..
        MINES
   17   MINES & CLEARING              0          16,866                                        0          16,866
         CHARGES, ALL TYPES
        NETWORKED MUNITIONS
   18   SPIDER NETWORK                0          10,353          0          -10,353            0               0
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
            Early to need..                                     [0]        [-10,353]
        ROCKETS
   19   SHOULDER LAUNCHED             0          63,210                                        0          63,210
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   20   ROCKET, HYDRA 70,             0          42,851                                        0          42,851
         ALL TYPES.........
        OTHER AMMUNITION
   22   DEMOLITION                    0           6,373                                        0           6,373
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   23   GRENADES, ALL TYPES           0           4,143                                        0           4,143
   24   SIGNALS, ALL TYPES.           0           1,852                                        0           1,852
        MISCELLANEOUS
   27   NON-LETHAL                    0             773                                        0             773
         AMMUNITION, ALL
         TYPES.............
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0         301,523          0          -10,353            0         291,170
         OF AMMUNITION,
         ARMY..............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         ARMY
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
    2   SEMITRAILERS,                 0           4,180                                        0           4,180
         FLATBED:..........
    8   FAMILY OF MEDIUM          1,092         299,476                                    1,092         299,476
         TACTICAL VEH
         (FMTV)............
   10   FAMILY OF HEAVY              51           6,122                                       51           6,122
         TACTICAL VEHICLES
         (FHTV)............
   11   PLS ESP............           0         106,358                                        0         106,358
   12   HVY EXPANDED MOBILE           0         203,766                                        0         203,766
         TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
         SERV..............
   13   TACTICAL WHEELED              0         101,154                                        0         101,154
         VEHICLE PROTECTION
         KITS..............
   14   MODIFICATION OF IN            0         155,456                                        0         155,456
         SVC EQUIP.........
        COMM--JOINT
         COMMUNICATIONS
   19   WIN-T--GROUND                 0           9,572                                        0           9,572
         FORCES TACTICAL
         NETWORK...........
        COMM--SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   25   SHF TERM...........           0          24,000                                        0          24,000
        COMM--INTELLIGENCE
         COMM
   47   CI AUTOMATION                 0           1,550                                        0           1,550
         ARCHITECTURE......
        INFORMATION
         SECURITY
   51   COMMUNICATIONS                0           1,928                                        0           1,928
         SECURITY (COMSEC).
        COMM--BASE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   56   INSTALLATION INFO             0          20,510                                        0          20,510
         INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
         PROGRAM...........
        ELECT EQUIP--TACT
         INT REL ACT
         (TIARA)
   62   DCGS-A (MIP).......           0          33,032                                        0          33,032
   64   TROJAN (MIP).......           0           3,305                                        0           3,305
   66   CI HUMINT AUTO                0           7,233                                        0           7,233
         REPRTING AND
         COLL(CHARCS)......
   69   BIOMETRIC TACTICAL            0           5,670                                        0           5,670
         COLLECTION DEVICES
         (MIP).............
        ELECT EQUIP--
         ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         (EW)
   70   LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER           0          25,892                                        0          25,892
         MORTAR RADAR......
   74   FAMILY OF                     0          11,610                                        0          11,610
         PERSISTENT
         SURVEILLANCE
         CAPABILITIE.......
   75   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/          0          23,890                                        0          23,890
         SECURITY
         COUNTERMEASURES...
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL SURV.
         (TAC SURV)
   80   INDIRECT FIRE                 0           4,270                                        0           4,270
         PROTECTION FAMILY
         OF SYSTEMS........
   89   MORTAR FIRE CONTROL           0           2,572                                        0           2,572
         SYSTEM............
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL C2
         SYSTEMS
   92   AIR & MSL DEFENSE            31          69,958                                       31          69,958
         PLANNING & CONTROL
         SYS...............
        ELECT EQUIP--
         AUTOMATION
  102   AUTOMATED DATA                0           9,900                                        0           9,900
         PROCESSING EQUIP..
        ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
         VISUAL SYS (A/V)
  108   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M           0              96                                        0              96
         (SURVEYING
         EQUIPMENT)........
        CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
         EQUIPMENT
  114   CBRN DEFENSE.......           0           1,841                                        0           1,841
        BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
  115   TACTICAL BRIDGING..           0          26,000                                        0          26,000
        ENGINEER (NON-
         CONSTRUCTION)
         EQUIPMENT
  124   ROBOTICS AND                  0             268                                        0             268
         APPLIQUE SYSTEMS..
  128   FAMILY OF BOATS AND           0             280                                        0             280
         MOTORS............
        COMBAT SERVICE
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  129   HEATERS AND ECU'S..           0             894                                        0             894
  134   FORCE PROVIDER.....           0          53,800                                        0          53,800
  135   FIELD FEEDING                 0           2,665                                        0           2,665
         EQUIPMENT.........
  136   CARGO AERIAL DEL &            0           2,400                                        0           2,400
         PERSONNEL
         PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
  137   FAMILY OF ENGR                0           9,789                                        0           9,789
         COMBAT AND
         CONSTRUCTION SETS.
  138   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M           0             300                                        0             300
         (ENG SPT).........
        PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
  139   QUALITY                       0           4,800                                        0           4,800
         SURVEILLANCE
         EQUIPMENT.........
  140   DISTRIBUTION                174          78,240                                      174          78,240
         SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
         & WATER...........
        MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
  141   COMBAT SUPPORT                0           5,763                                        0           5,763
         MEDICAL...........
        MAINTENANCE
         EQUIPMENT
  142   MOBILE MAINTENANCE            0           1,609                                        0           1,609
         EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
  143   ITEMS LESS THAN               0             145                                        0             145
         $5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
        CONSTRUCTION
         EQUIPMENT
  144   GRADER, ROAD MTZD,            0           3,047                                        0           3,047
         HVY, 6X4 (CCE)....
  148   TRACTOR, FULL                 0           4,426                                        0           4,426
         TRACKED...........
  151   HIGH MOBILITY                 0           2,900                                        0           2,900
         ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
         (HMEE)............
  155   ITEMS LESS THAN               0              96                                        0              96
         $5.0M (CONST
         EQUIP)............
        GENERATORS
  158   GENERATORS AND                0          31,761                                        0          31,761
         ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
        MATERIAL HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
  160   FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS           0             846                                        0             846
        TEST MEASURE AND
         DIG EQUIPMENT
         (TMD)
  168   TEST EQUIPMENT                0           1,140                                        0           1,140
         MODERNIZATION
         (TEMOD)...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  170   RAPID EQUIPPING               0           8,500                                        0           8,500
         SOLDIER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT.........
        TOTAL OTHER               1,348       1,373,010          0                0        1,348       1,373,010
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        JOINT IMPROVISED-
         THREAT DEFEAT FUND
        NETWORK ATTACK
    1   RAPID ACQUISITION             0         345,472                                        0         345,472
         AND THREAT
         RESPONSE..........
        STAFF AND
         INFRASTRUCTURE
    2   MISSION ENABLERS...           0          62,800                                        0          62,800
        TOTAL JOINT                   0         408,272          0                0            0         408,272
         IMPROVISED-THREAT
         DEFEAT FUND.......
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        COMBAT AIRCRAFT
    2   F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER)           2         184,912                                        2         184,912
         HORNET............
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   26   STUASL0 UAV........           4          70,000                                        4          70,000
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   35   SH-60 SERIES.......           0           3,000                                        0           3,000
   36   H-1 SERIES.........           0           3,740                                        0           3,740
   37   EP-3 SERIES........           0           7,505                                        0           7,505
   47   SPECIAL PROJECT               0          14,869                                        0          14,869
         AIRCRAFT..........
   51   COMMON ECM                    0          98,240                                        0          98,240
         EQUIPMENT.........
   59   V-22 (TILT/ROTOR              0           8,740                                        0           8,740
         ACFT) OSPREY......
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   63   SPARES AND REPAIR             0           1,500                                        0           1,500
         PARTS.............
        AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
         EQUIP & FACILITIES
   65   AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL           0             524                                        0             524
         FACILITIES........
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT                6         393,030          0                0            6         393,030
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        WEAPONS
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        TACTICAL MISSILES
   10   HELLFIRE...........         100           8,600                                      100           8,600
        TOTAL WEAPONS               100           8,600          0                0          100           8,600
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMO, NAVY & MC
        NAVY AMMUNITION
    1   GENERAL PURPOSE               0          40,366                                        0          40,366
         BOMBS.............
    2   AIRBORNE ROCKETS,             0           8,860                                        0           8,860
         ALL TYPES.........
    6   AIR EXPENDABLE                0           7,060                                        0           7,060
         COUNTERMEASURES...
   13   PYROTECHNIC AND               0           1,122                                        0           1,122
         DEMOLITION........
   14   AMMUNITION LESS               0           3,495                                        0           3,495
         THAN $5 MILLION...
        MARINE CORPS
         AMMUNITION
   15   SMALL ARMS                    0           1,205                                        0           1,205
         AMMUNITION........
   17   40 MM, ALL TYPES...           0             539                                        0             539
   18   60MM, ALL TYPES....           0             909                                        0             909
   20   120MM, ALL TYPES...           0             530                                        0             530
   22   ROCKETS, ALL TYPES.           0             469                                        0             469
   23   ARTILLERY, ALL                0           1,196                                        0           1,196
         TYPES.............
   24   DEMOLITION                    0             261                                        0             261
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   25   FUZE, ALL TYPES....           0             217                                        0             217
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0          66,229          0                0            0          66,229
         OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         NAVY
        OTHER SHORE
         ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   81   DCGS-N.............           0          12,000                                        0          12,000
        OTHER ORDNANCE
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  116   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0          99,329                                        0          99,329
         DISPOSAL EQUIP....
        CIVIL ENGINEERING
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  124   FIRE FIGHTING                 0             630                                        0             630
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SUPPLY SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  133   FIRST DESTINATION             0              25                                        0              25
         TRANSPORTATION....
        COMMAND SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  137   COMMAND SUPPORT               0          10,562                                        0          10,562
         EQUIPMENT.........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  138   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           1,660                                        0           1,660
        TOTAL OTHER                   0         124,206          0                0            0         124,206
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        PROCUREMENT, MARINE
         CORPS
        ARTILLERY AND OTHER
         WEAPONS
    6   WEAPONS AND COMBAT            0             572                                        0             572
         VEHICLES UNDER $5
         MILLION...........
        GUIDED MISSILES
   10   JAVELIN............           9           1,606                                        9           1,606
        OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
   18   MODIFICATION KITS..           0           2,600                                        0           2,600
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
   19   ITEMS UNDER $5                0           2,200                                        0           2,200
         MILLION (COMM &
         ELEC).............
        INTELL/COMM
         EQUIPMENT (NON-
         TEL)
   26   INTELLIGENCE                  0          20,981                                        0          20,981
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   29   RQ-11 UAV..........           0           3,817                                        0           3,817
        OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
         TEL)
   35   COMMON COMPUTER               0           2,600                                        0           2,600
         RESOURCES.........
   37   RADIO SYSTEMS......           0           9,563                                        0           9,563
        ENGINEER AND OTHER
         EQUIPMENT
   53   EOD SYSTEMS........           0          75,000                                        0          75,000
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT,            9         118,939          0                0            9         118,939
         MARINE CORPS......
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        OTHER AIRLIFT
    4   C-130J.............           1          73,000                                        1          73,000
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   15   MQ-9...............          24         453,030                                       24         453,030
        STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
   19   LARGE AIRCRAFT                0         135,801                                        0         135,801
         INFRARED
         COUNTERMEASURES...
        TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
   20   A-10...............           0          23,850                                        0          23,850
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   47   E-3................           0           6,600                                        0           6,600
   56   HC/MC-130                     0          13,550                                        0          13,550
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   57   OTHER AIRCRAFT.....           0           7,500                                        0           7,500
   59   MQ-9 MODS..........           0         112,068                                        0         112,068
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   61   INITIAL SPARES/               0          25,600                                        0          25,600
         REPAIR PARTS......
        OTHER PRODUCTION
         CHARGES
   77   OTHER PRODUCTION              0           8,400                                        0           8,400
         CHARGES...........
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT               25         859,399          0                0           25         859,399
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        TACTICAL
    6   PREDATOR HELLFIRE         1,252         145,125                                    1,252         145,125
         MISSILE...........
    7   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB       4,195         167,800                                    4,195         167,800
        CLASS IV
   11   AGM-65D MAVERICK...           0          26,620                                        0          26,620
        TOTAL MISSILE             5,447         339,545          0                0        5,447         339,545
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE
        ROCKETS
    1   ROCKETS............           0          60,000                                        0          60,000
        CARTRIDGES
    2   CARTRIDGES.........           0           9,830                                        0           9,830
        BOMBS
    4   GENERAL PURPOSE               0           7,921                                        0           7,921
         BOMBS.............
    6   JOINT DIRECT ATTACK      18,531         403,126                                   18,531         403,126
         MUNITION..........
        FLARES
   12   FLARES.............           0           6,531                                        0           6,531
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT        18,531         487,408          0                0       18,531         487,408
         OF AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         AIR FORCE
        PASSENGER CARRYING
         VEHICLES
    1   PASSENGER CARRYING            0           2,003                                        0           2,003
         VEHICLES..........
        CARGO AND UTILITY
         VEHICLES
    2   MEDIUM TACTICAL               0           9,066                                        0           9,066
         VEHICLE...........
    4   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          12,264                                        0          12,264
         MILLION...........
        SPECIAL PURPOSE
         VEHICLES
    6   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          16,789                                        0          16,789
         MILLION...........
        FIRE FIGHTING
         EQUIPMENT
    7   FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH           0          48,590                                        0          48,590
         RESCUE VEHICLES...
        MATERIALS HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
    8   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           2,366                                        0           2,366
         MILLION...........
        BASE MAINTENANCE
         SUPPORT
    9   RUNWAY SNOW REMOV &           0           6,468                                        0           6,468
         CLEANING EQUIP....
   10   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           9,271                                        0           9,271
         MILLION...........
        ELECTRONICS
         PROGRAMS
   16   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL           0          42,650                                        0          42,650
         & LANDING SYS.....
        SPCL COMM-
         ELECTRONICS
         PROJECTS
   29   AIR FORCE PHYSICAL            0           7,500                                        0           7,500
         SECURITY SYSTEM...
   33   C3 COUNTERMEASURES.           0             620                                        0             620
        ORGANIZATION AND
         BASE
   52   TACTICAL C-E                  0           8,100                                        0           8,100
         EQUIPMENT.........
        MODIFICATIONS
   56   COMM ELECT MODS....           0           3,800                                        0           3,800
        BASE SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   61   ENGINEERING AND EOD           0          53,900                                        0          53,900
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SPECIAL SUPPORT
         PROJECTS
   67   DCGS-AF............           0             800                                        0             800
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   68   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0       3,472,094                                        0       3,472,094
        TOTAL OTHER                   0       3,696,281          0                0            0       3,696,281
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        PROCUREMENT,
         DEFENSE-WIDE
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DISA
    7   TELEPORT PROGRAM...           0           3,900                                        0           3,900
   16   DEFENSE INFORMATION           0           2,000                                        0           2,000
         SYSTEMS NETWORK...
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   17   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          32,482                                        0          32,482
        AVIATION PROGRAMS
   41   MC-12..............           0           5,000                                        0           5,000
   43   UNMANNED ISR.......           0          11,880                                        0          11,880
   46   U-28...............           0          38,283                                        0          38,283
        AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
   57   ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M           0          52,504                                        0          52,504
        OTHER PROCUREMENT
         PROGRAMS
   58   INTELLIGENCE                  0          22,000                                        0          22,000
         SYSTEMS...........
   60   OTHER ITEMS <$5M...           0          11,580                                        0          11,580
   62   SPECIAL PROGRAMS...           0          13,549                                        0          13,549
   63   TACTICAL VEHICLES..           0           3,200                                        0           3,200
   69   OPERATIONAL                   0          42,056                                        0          42,056
         ENHANCEMENTS......
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT,            0         238,434          0                0            0         238,434
         DEFENSE-WIDE......
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT..      31,145       9,514,408          0          -10,353       31,145       9,504,055
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Senate
  Line      Program Element                Item            FY 2017  Request    Senate  Change      Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                 TEST & EVAL, ARMY
         .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
    1    0601101A               IN-HOUSE LABORATORY                  12,381                               12,381
                                 INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
    2    0601102A               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           253,116                              253,116
    3    0601103A               UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                  69,166                               69,166
                                 INITIATIVES.
    4    0601104A               UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY              94,280                               94,280
                                 RESEARCH CENTERS.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH..           428,943                 0            428,943
         .....................
         .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
    5    0602105A               MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY.....            31,533             5,500             37,033
         .....................     Ground vehicle coating                              [5,500]
                                    system.
    6    0602120A               SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC               36,109             2,000             38,109
                                 SURVIVABILITY.
         .....................      Program increase.....                              [2,000]
    7    0602122A               TRACTOR HIP..............             6,995                                6,995
    8    0602211A               AVIATION TECHNOLOGY......            65,914                               65,914
    9    0602270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   25,466                               25,466
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   10    0602303A               MISSILE TECHNOLOGY.......            44,313                               44,313
   11    0602307A               ADVANCED WEAPONS                     28,803                               28,803
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   12    0602308A               ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND                27,688                               27,688
                                 SIMULATION.
   13    0602601A               COMBAT VEHICLE AND                   67,959                               67,959
                                 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
   14    0602618A               BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY....            85,436                               85,436
   15    0602622A               CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND                   3,923                                3,923
                                 EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   16    0602623A               JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS              5,545                                5,545
                                 PROGRAM.
   17    0602624A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS                53,581                               53,581
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   18    0602705A               ELECTRONICS AND                      56,322                               56,322
                                 ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
   19    0602709A               NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY..            36,079                               36,079
   20    0602712A               COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS......            26,497                               26,497
   21    0602716A               HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING            23,671                               23,671
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   22    0602720A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                22,151                               22,151
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   23    0602782A               COMMAND, CONTROL,                    37,803                               37,803
                                 COMMUNICATIONS
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   24    0602783A               COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE                13,811                               13,811
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   25    0602784A               MILITARY ENGINEERING                 67,416                               67,416
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   26    0602785A               MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/                  26,045            -5,000             21,045
                                 TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................      Decrease for social                               [-5,000]
                                    science research.
   27    0602786A               WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY....            37,403                               37,403
   28    0602787A               MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.......            77,111                               77,111
         .....................  SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH           907,574             2,500            910,074
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT
   29    0603001A               WARFIGHTER ADVANCED                  38,831                               38,831
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   30    0603002A               MEDICAL ADVANCED                     68,365                               68,365
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   31    0603003A               AVIATION ADVANCED                    94,280                               94,280
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   32    0603004A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS                68,714                               68,714
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   33    0603005A               COMBAT VEHICLE AND                  122,132            50,000            172,132
                                 AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................      Emerging requirement.                             [50,000]
   34    0603006A               SPACE APPLICATION                     3,904                                3,904
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   35    0603007A               MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND              14,417                               14,417
                                 TRAINING ADVANCED
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   37    0603009A               TRACTOR HIKE.............             8,074                                8,074
   38    0603015A               NEXT GENERATION TRAINING             18,969                               18,969
                                 & SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
   39    0603020A               TRACTOR ROSE.............            11,910                               11,910
   40    0603125A               COMBATING TERRORISM--                27,686                               27,686
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   41    0603130A               TRACTOR NAIL.............             2,340                                2,340
   42    0603131A               TRACTOR EGGS.............             2,470                                2,470
   43    0603270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   27,893            -5,000             22,893
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................      General decrease.....                             [-5,000]
   44    0603313A               MISSILE AND ROCKET                   52,190                               52,190
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   45    0603322A               TRACTOR CAGE.............            11,107                               11,107
   46    0603461A               HIGH PERFORMANCE                    177,190                              177,190
                                 COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
                                 PROGRAM.
   47    0603606A               LANDMINE WARFARE AND                 17,451                               17,451
                                 BARRIER ADVANCED
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   48    0603607A               JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS              5,839                                5,839
                                 PROGRAM.
   49    0603710A               NIGHT VISION ADVANCED                44,468                               44,468
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   50    0603728A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                11,137                               11,137
                                 TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEMONSTRATIONS.
   51    0603734A               MILITARY ENGINEERING                 20,684                               20,684
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   52    0603772A               ADVANCED TACTICAL                    44,239            -5,000             39,239
                                 COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
                                 SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................      General program                                   [-5,000]
                                    decrease.
   53    0603794A               C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY...            35,775                               35,775
         .....................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                   930,065            40,000            970,065
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
   54    0603305A               ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE                   9,433                                9,433
                                 SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
   55    0603308A               ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS                   23,056                               23,056
                                 INTEGRATION.
   56    0603619A               LANDMINE WARFARE AND                 72,117                               72,117
                                 BARRIER--ADV DEV.
   57    0603627A               SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND                 28,244                               28,244
                                 TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV
                                 DEV.
   58    0603639A               TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER              40,096                               40,096
                                 AMMUNITION.
   59    0603747A               SOLDIER SUPPORT AND                  10,506                               10,506
                                 SURVIVABILITY.
   60    0603766A               TACTICAL ELECTRONIC                  15,730                               15,730
                                 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
                                 DEV.
   61    0603774A               NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS                 10,321                               10,321
                                 ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
   62    0603779A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                 7,785                                7,785
                                 TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
   63    0603790A               NATO RESEARCH AND                     2,300                                2,300
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   64    0603801A               AVIATION--ADV DEV........            10,014                               10,014
   65    0603804A               LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER               20,834                               20,834
                                 EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
   66    0603807A               MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV.            33,503                               33,503
   67    0603827A               SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED            31,120             9,400             40,520
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................      Accelerate small arms                              [9,400]
                                    improvement.
   68    0604100A               ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.             6,608                                6,608
   69    0604114A               LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE               35,132                               35,132
                                 DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR.
   70    0604115A               TECHNOLOGY MATURATION                70,047                               70,047
                                 INITIATIVES.
   71    0604120A               ASSURED POSITIONING,                 83,279                               83,279
                                 NAVIGATION AND TIMING
                                 (PNT).
   73    0305251A               CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS                40,510                               40,510
                                 FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                   550,635             9,400            560,035
                                 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                 PROTOTYPES.
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION
   74    0604201A               AIRCRAFT AVIONICS........            83,248                               83,248
   75    0604270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   34,642                               34,642
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   77    0604290A               MID-TIER NETWORKING                  12,172                               12,172
                                 VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
   78    0604321A               ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS                   3,958                                3,958
                                 SYSTEM.
   79    0604328A               TRACTOR CAGE.............            12,525                               12,525
   80    0604601A               INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS.            66,943                               66,943
   82    0604611A               JAVELIN..................            20,011                               20,011
   83    0604622A               FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL             11,429                               11,429
                                 VEHICLES.
   84    0604633A               AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL......             3,421                                3,421
   85    0604641A               TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND             39,282                               39,282
                                 VEHICLE (TUGV).
   86    0604642A               LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED                  494                                  494
                                 VEHICLES.
   87    0604645A               ARMORED SYSTEMS                       9,678                                9,678
                                 MODERNIZATION (ASM)--ENG
                                 DEV.
   88    0604710A               NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG            84,519                               84,519
                                 DEV.
   89    0604713A               COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING,             2,054                                2,054
                                 AND EQUIPMENT.
   90    0604715A               NON-SYSTEM TRAINING                  30,774                               30,774
                                 DEVICES--ENG DEV.
   91    0604741A               AIR DEFENSE COMMAND,                 53,332                               53,332
                                 CONTROL AND
                                 INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
   92    0604742A               CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION              17,887                               17,887
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
   93    0604746A               AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT              8,813                                8,813
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   94    0604760A               DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE             10,487                               10,487
                                 SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
                                 DEV.
   95    0604780A               COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL               15,068                               15,068
                                 TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
   96    0604798A               BRIGADE ANALYSIS,                    89,716                               89,716
                                 INTEGRATION AND
                                 EVALUATION.
   97    0604802A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--              80,365                               80,365
                                 ENG DEV.
   98    0604804A               LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER               75,098                               75,098
                                 EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
   99    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           -20,000            135,584
                                 PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
         .....................      Unjustified growth...                            [-20,000]
  110    0605028A               ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE               184,221                              184,221
                                 VEHICLE (AMPV).
  111    0605029A               INTEGRATED GROUND                     4,980                                4,980
                                 SECURITY 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
         .....................      Unjustified request..                            [-20,663]
  122    0605051A               AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY               41,133            13,000             54,133
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................      ASE unfunded                                      [13,000]
                                    requirement.
  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                  42,972                               42,972
                                 MISSILE (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           -27,663          2,237,431
                                 DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................
         .....................  RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
  137    0604256A               THREAT SIMULATOR                     25,675                               25,675
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
  138    0604258A               TARGET SYSTEMS                       19,122                               19,122
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
  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             2,500             35,823
                                 ACTIVITIES.
         .....................      Program increase                                   [2,500]
                                    Geospatial.
  156    0605805A               MUNITIONS                            40,545                               40,545
                                 STANDARDIZATION,
                                 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                      2,000                                2,000
                                 DECEPTION INITIATIVE.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT         1,136,134             2,500          1,138,634
                                 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                 39,275                               39,275
                                 FIRES (LRPF).
  167    0607135A               APACHE PRODUCT                       66,441                               66,441
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
  168    0607136A               BLACKHAWK PRODUCT                    46,765                               46,765
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
  169    0607137A               CHINOOK PRODUCT                      91,848                               91,848
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
  170    0607138A               FIXED WING PRODUCT                      796                                  796
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
  171    0607139A               IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE             126,105                              126,105
                                 PROGRAM.
  172    0607140A               EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES                 2,369                                2,369
                                 FROM NIE.
  173    0607141A               LOGISTICS AUTOMATION.....             4,563                                4,563
  174    0607665A               FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS.....            12,098                               12,098
  175    0607865A               PATRIOT PRODUCT                      49,482                               49,482
                                 IMPROVEMENT.
  176    0202429A               AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT--             45,482           -41,000              4,482
                                 COCOM EXERCISE.
         .....................      Change in program                                [-41,000]
                                    requirement.
  178    0203728A               JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP                 30,455                               30,455
                                 OPERATION COORDINATION
                                 SYSTEM (JADOCS).
  179    0203735A               COMBAT VEHICLE                      316,857            12,000            328,857
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
         .....................      APS unfunded                                      [12,000]
                                    requirement.
  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                   5,122                                5,122
                                 PRODUCT 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                   69,417                               69,417
                                 MISSILE 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           -25,200              2,023
                                 SYSTEM.
         .....................      GCSS unjustified                                 [-25,200]
                                    request.
  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           -32,000                284
                                 SURFACE SYSTEMS.
         .....................      Change in tactical                               [-32,000]
                                    requirements.
  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--                   4,867                                4,867
                                 INITIAL NETWORKING.
  210    0708045A               END ITEM INDUSTRIAL                  62,287                               62,287
                                 PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
  220    9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......             4,625                                4,625
         .....................  SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL              1,296,954           -86,200          1,210,754
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                   7,515,399           -59,463          7,455,936
                                 DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                 EVAL, ARMY.
         .....................
         .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                 TEST & EVAL, NAVY
         .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
    1    0601103N               UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                 101,714                              101,714
                                 INITIATIVES.
    2    0601152N               IN-HOUSE LABORATORY                  18,508                               18,508
                                 INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
    3    0601153N               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           422,748                              422,748
         .....................  SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH..           542,970                 0            542,970
         .....................
         .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
    4    0602114N               POWER PROJECTION APPLIED             41,371                               41,371
                                 RESEARCH.
    5    0602123N               FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED            158,745                              158,745
                                 RESEARCH.
    6    0602131M               MARINE CORPS LANDING                 51,590                               51,590
                                 FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
    7    0602235N               COMMON PICTURE APPLIED               41,185                               41,185
                                 RESEARCH.
    8    0602236N               WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT               45,467                               45,467
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
    9    0602271N               ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS             118,941                              118,941
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
   10    0602435N               OCEAN WARFIGHTING                    42,618                               42,618
                                 ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
                                 RESEARCH.
   11    0602651M               JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS              6,327                                6,327
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
   12    0602747N               UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED            126,313            10,000            136,313
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................      Program increase.....                             [10,000]
   13    0602750N               FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES           165,103                              165,103
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
   14    0602782N               MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY               33,916                               33,916
                                 WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
   15    0602898N               SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY               29,575                               29,575
                                 MANAGEMENT--ONR
                                 HEADQUARTERS.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH           861,151            10,000            871,151
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT
   16    0603114N               POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED            96,406           -15,000             81,406
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................      General decrease.....                            [-15,000]
   17    0603123N               FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED            48,438                               48,438
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   18    0603271N               ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS              26,421                               26,421
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   19    0603640M               USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY            140,416                              140,416
                                 DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
   20    0603651M               JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS             13,117                               13,117
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   21    0603673N               FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES           249,092           -10,000            239,092
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................      Capable manpower, and                            [-10,000]
                                    power and energy.
   22    0603680N               MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY             56,712                               56,712
                                 PROGRAM.
   23    0603729N               WARFIGHTER PROTECTION                 4,789                                4,789
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
   24    0603747N               UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED            25,880                               25,880
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   25    0603758N               NAVY WARFIGHTING                     60,550                               60,550
                                 EXPERIMENTS AND
                                 DEMONSTRATIONS.
   26    0603782N               MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY               15,167                               15,167
                                 WARFARE ADVANCED
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                   736,988           -25,000            711,988
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
   27    0603207N               AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL                   48,536                               48,536
                                 APPLICATIONS.
   28    0603216N               AVIATION SURVIVABILITY...             5,239                                5,239
   30    0603251N               AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.........             1,519                                1,519
   31    0603254N               ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT..             7,041                                7,041
   32    0603261N               TACTICAL AIRBORNE                     3,274                                3,274
                                 RECONNAISSANCE.
   33    0603382N               ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS              57,034                               57,034
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   34    0603502N               SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER           165,775            -1,500            164,275
                                 MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
         .....................      Excess prior year                                 [-1,500]
                                    funds.
   35    0603506N               SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO                 87,066                               87,066
                                 DEFENSE.
   36    0603512N               CARRIER SYSTEMS                       7,605                                7,605
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   37    0603525N               PILOT FISH...............           132,068                              132,068
   38    0603527N               RETRACT LARCH............            14,546                               14,546
   39    0603536N               RETRACT JUNIPER..........           115,435                              115,435
   40    0603542N               RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL.....               702                                  702
   41    0603553N               SURFACE ASW..............             1,081                                1,081
   42    0603561N               ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM           100,565                              100,565
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   43    0603562N               SUBMARINE TACTICAL                    8,782                                8,782
                                 WARFARE SYSTEMS.
   44    0603563N               SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED                14,590                               14,590
                                 DESIGN.
   45    0603564N               SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN &            15,805                               15,805
                                 FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
   46    0603570N               ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER              453,313                              453,313
                                 SYSTEMS.
   47    0603573N               ADVANCED SURFACE                     36,655                               36,655
                                 MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
   48    0603576N               CHALK EAGLE..............           367,016                              367,016
   49    0603581N               LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP                 51,630                               51,630
                                 (LCS).
   50    0603582N               COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION            23,530                               23,530
   51    0603595N               OHIO REPLACEMENT.........           700,811                              700,811
   52    0603596N               LCS MISSION MODULES......           160,058           -30,900            129,158
         .....................      Available prior year                             [-30,900]
                                    funding.
   54    0603599N               FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT......            84,900                               84,900
   55    0603609N               CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS...             8,342                                8,342
   56    0603611M               MARINE CORPS ASSAULT                158,682                              158,682
                                 VEHICLES.
   57    0603635M               MARINE CORPS GROUND                   1,303                                1,303
                                 COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
   58    0603654N               JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE              46,911                               46,911
                                 ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
   60    0603713N               OCEAN ENGINEERING                     4,556                                4,556
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   61    0603721N               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.            20,343                               20,343
   62    0603724N               NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM......            52,479                               52,479
   63    0603725N               FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT...             5,458                                5,458
   64    0603734N               CHALK CORAL..............           245,860                              245,860
   65    0603739N               NAVY LOGISTIC                         3,089                                3,089
                                 PRODUCTIVITY.
   66    0603746N               RETRACT MAPLE............           323,526                              323,526
   67    0603748N               LINK PLUMERIA............           318,497                              318,497
   68    0603751N               RETRACT ELM..............            52,834                               52,834
   69    0603764N               LINK EVERGREEN...........            48,116                               48,116
   70    0603787N               SPECIAL PROCESSES........            13,619                               13,619
   71    0603790N               NATO RESEARCH AND                     9,867                                9,867
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   72    0603795N               LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY...             6,015                                6,015
   73    0603851M               JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS             27,904                               27,904
                                 TESTING.
   74    0603860N               JOINT PRECISION APPROACH            104,144                              104,144
                                 AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
                                 VAL.
   75    0603925N               DIRECTED ENERGY AND                  32,700                               32,700
                                 ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
   76    0604112N               GERALD R. FORD CLASS                 70,528                               70,528
                                 NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
                                 (CVN 78--80).
   77    0604122N               REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM             3,001                                3,001
                                 (RMS).
   78    0604272N               TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL             34,920                               34,920
                                 INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
                                 (TADIRCM).
   80    0604292N               MH-XX....................             1,620                                1,620
   81    0604454N               LX (R)...................             6,354            19,000             25,354
         .....................      Needed to maintain                                [19,000]
                                    schedule.
   82    0604536N               ADVANCED UNDERSEA                    78,589           -34,400             44,189
                                 PROTOTYPING.
         .....................      Ahead of need........                            [-34,400]
   84    0604659N               PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS              9,910                                9,910
                                 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
   85    0604707N               SPACE AND ELECTRONIC                 23,971                               23,971
                                 WARFARE (SEW)
                                 ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
                                 SUPPORT.
   86    0604786N               OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE              252,409                              252,409
                                 WARFARE WEAPON
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   87    0605812M               JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL                 23,197                               23,197
                                 VEHICLE (JLTV)
                                 ENGINEERING AND
                                 MANUFACTURING
                                 DEVELOPMENT PH.
   88    0303354N               ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT--             9,110                                9,110
                                 MIP.
   89    0304270N               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                      437                                  437
                                 DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                 4,662,867           -47,800          4,615,067
                                 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                 PROTOTYPES.
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION
   90    0603208N               TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT.            19,938                               19,938
   91    0604212N               OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT...             6,268                                6,268
   92    0604214N               AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV..            33,664                               33,664
   93    0604215N               STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT....             1,300                                1,300
   94    0604216N               MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER              5,275                                5,275
                                 UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
   95    0604218N               AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT                   3,875                                3,875
                                 ENGINEERING.
   96    0604221N               P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM             1,909                                1,909
   97    0604230N               WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM...            13,237                               13,237
   98    0604231N               TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM..            36,323                               36,323
   99    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                      338,357                              338,357
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
  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                  112,158                              112,158
                                 SYSTEMS.
  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                   43,160                               43,160
                                 WARFARE SYSTEM.
  126    0604567N               SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/                65,002                               65,002
                                 LIVE FIRE T&E.
  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                   114,475                              114,475
                                 (ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
  136    0604757N               SHIP SELF DEFENSE                   114,211                              114,211
                                 (ENGAGE: 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                531,426                              531,426
                                 (JSF)--EMD.
  141    0604800N               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                528,716                              528,716
                                 (JSF)--EMD.
  142    0604810M               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                 74,227                               74,227
                                 FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT--
                                 MARINE CORPS.
  143    0604810N               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                 63,387                               63,387
                                 FOLLOW 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               CARRIER BASED AERIAL                 89,000                               89,000
                                 REFUELING SYSTEM (CBARS).
  153    0605450N               JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND                  17,880                               17,880
                                 MISSILE (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                      4,942             1,784              6,726
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................      Full spectrum cyber                                [1,784]
                                    operations unfunded
                                    requirement.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL SYSTEM                   6,025,655             1,784          6,027,439
                                 DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................
         .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
  163    0604256N               THREAT SIMULATOR                     16,633                               16,633
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
  164    0604258N               TARGET SYSTEMS                       36,662                               36,662
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
  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           -10,800             76,277
                                 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
         .....................      Unjustified growth...                            [-10,800]
  173    0605856N               STRATEGIC TECHNICAL                   3,597                                3,597
                                 SUPPORT.
  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                 349,146                              349,146
                                 SUPPORT.
  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           -10,800            842,936
                                 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                    9,329                                9,329
                                 WARFARE 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                  13,929                               13,929
                                 SUPPORT 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                    1,122                                1,122
                                 SUPPORT.
  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                         82,159                               82,159
                                 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
  212    0206335M               COMMON AVIATION COMMAND              11,850                               11,850
                                 AND CONTROL SYSTEM
                                 (CAC2S).
  213    0206623M               MARINE CORPS GROUND                  47,877                               47,877
                                 COMBAT/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                   38,020                               38,020
                                 VEHICLE.
  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                  23,541                               23,541
                                 NETWORK 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-              49,322                               49,322
                                 IF).
  245    0708730N               MARITIME TECHNOLOGY                   3,204                                3,204
                                 (MARITECH).
  250    9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......         1,228,460                            1,228,460
         .....................  SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL              3,592,934                 0          3,592,934
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                  17,276,301           -71,816         17,204,485
                                 DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                 EVAL, NAVY.
         .....................
         .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                 TEST & EVAL, AF
         .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
    1    0601102F               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           340,812                              340,812
    2    0601103F               UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                 145,044                              145,044
                                 INITIATIVES.
    3    0601108F               HIGH ENERGY LASER                    14,168                               14,168
                                 RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH..           500,024                 0            500,024
         .....................
         .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
    4    0602102F               MATERIALS................           126,152                              126,152
    5    0602201F               AEROSPACE VEHICLE                   122,831                              122,831
                                 TECHNOLOGIES.
    6    0602202F               HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS                 111,647                              111,647
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
    7    0602203F               AEROSPACE PROPULSION.....           185,671             5,000            190,671
         .....................      Program increase.....                              [5,000]
    8    0602204F               AEROSPACE SENSORS........           155,174                              155,174
    9    0602601F               SPACE TECHNOLOGY.........           117,915                              117,915
   10    0602602F               CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS...           109,649                              109,649
   11    0602605F               DIRECTED ENERGY                     127,163                              127,163
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   12    0602788F               DOMINANT INFORMATION                161,650                              161,650
                                 SCIENCES AND METHODS.
   13    0602890F               HIGH ENERGY LASER                    42,300             5,000             47,300
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................      Joint technology                                   [5,000]
                                    office.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH         1,260,152            10,000          1,270,152
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT
   14    0603112F               ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR               35,137                               35,137
                                 WEAPON SYSTEMS.
   15    0603199F               SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND              20,636                               20,636
                                 TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
   16    0603203F               ADVANCED AEROSPACE                   40,945                               40,945
                                 SENSORS.
   17    0603211F               AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/           130,950                              130,950
                                 DEMO.
   18    0603216F               AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND             94,594             5,000             99,594
                                 POWER TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................      Development of                                     [5,000]
                                    application-specific
                                    power circuit.
   19    0603270F               ELECTRONIC COMBAT                    58,250            -5,000             53,250
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................      General decrease.....                             [-5,000]
   20    0603401F               ADVANCED SPACECRAFT                  61,593                               61,593
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   21    0603444F               MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE              11,681                               11,681
                                 SYSTEM (MSSS).
   22    0603456F               HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS                  26,492                               26,492
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   23    0603601F               CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS                102,009                              102,009
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   24    0603605F               ADVANCED WEAPONS                     39,064                               39,064
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   25    0603680F               MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY             46,344                               46,344
                                 PROGRAM.
   26    0603788F               BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE                58,110           -10,000             48,110
                                 DEVELOPMENT AND
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................      Unjustified increase.                            [-10,000]
         .....................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                   725,805           -10,000            715,805
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
   27    0603260F               INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED                 5,598                                5,598
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   28    0603438F               SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.             7,534                                7,534
   29    0603742F               COMBAT IDENTIFICATION                24,418                               24,418
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   30    0603790F               NATO RESEARCH AND                     4,333                                4,333
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   32    0603830F               SPACE SECURITY AND                   32,399                               32,399
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM.
   33    0603851F               INTERCONTINENTAL                    108,663                              108,663
                                 BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
                                 VAL.
   35    0604015F               LONG RANGE STRIKE--BOMBER         1,358,309          -302,300          1,056,009
         .....................      Excess to contract                              [-302,300]
                                    award.
   36    0604257F               ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND              34,818                               34,818
                                 SENSORS.
   37    0604317F               TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER......             3,368                                3,368
   38    0604327F               HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED               74,308                               74,308
                                 TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
                                 (HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
   39    0604422F               WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON.           118,953                              118,953
   40    0604425F               SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS             9,901                                9,901
                                 SYSTEMS.
   41    0604776F               DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION            25,890                               25,890
                                 ENTERPRISE R&D.
   42    0604857F               OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE              7,921            10,000             17,921
                                 SPACE.
         .....................      Program increase.....                             [10,000]
   43    0604858F               TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM..           347,304                              347,304
   44    0605230F               GROUND BASED STRATEGIC              113,919                              113,919
                                 DETERRENT.
   46    0207110F               NEXT GENERATION AIR                  20,595                               20,595
                                 DOMINANCE.
   47    0207455F               THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-              49,491                               49,491
                                 RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
   48    0305164F               NAVSTAR GLOBAL                      278,147                              278,147
                                 POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
                                 EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
   49    0305236F               COMMON DATA LINK                     42,338                               42,338
                                 EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA).
   50    0306250F               CYBER OPERATIONS                    158,002                              158,002
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   51    0306415F               ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES.            15,842                               15,842
   52    0901410F               CONTRACTING INFORMATION               5,782                                5,782
                                 TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                 2,847,833          -292,300          2,555,533
                                 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                 PROTOTYPES.
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION
   54    0604270F               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   12,476                               12,476
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   55    0604281F               TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS               82,380                               82,380
                                 ENTERPRISE.
   56    0604287F               PHYSICAL SECURITY                     8,458                                8,458
                                 EQUIPMENT.
   57    0604329F               SMALL DIAMETER BOMB                  54,838                               54,838
                                 (SDB)--EMD.
   58    0604421F               COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS.....            34,394                               34,394
   59    0604425F               SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS            23,945                               23,945
                                 SYSTEMS.
   60    0604426F               SPACE FENCE..............           168,364                              168,364
   61    0604429F               AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC                   9,187                                9,187
                                 ATTACK.
   62    0604441F               SPACE BASED INFRARED                181,966                              181,966
                                 SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
   63    0604602F               ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE                    20,312                               20,312
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   64    0604604F               SUBMUNITIONS.............             2,503                                2,503
   65    0604617F               AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT.....            53,680                               53,680
   66    0604618F               JOINT DIRECT ATTACK                   9,901                                9,901
                                 MUNITION.
   67    0604706F               LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS.....             7,520                                7,520
   68    0604735F               COMBAT TRAINING RANGES...            77,409                               77,409
   69    0604800F               F-35--EMD................           450,467                              450,467
   70    0604853F               EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH           296,572                              296,572
                                 VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
                                 EMD.
   71    0604932F               LONG RANGE STANDOFF                  95,604                               95,604
                                 WEAPON.
   72    0604933F               ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION..           189,751                              189,751
   73    0605030F               JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK                1,131                                1,131
                                 CENTER (JTNC).
   74    0605213F               F-22 MODERNIZATION                   70,290                               70,290
                                 INCREMENT 3.2B.
   75    0605214F               GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS                   937                                  937
                                 FUZE DEVELOPMENT.
   76    0605221F               KC-46....................           261,724          -140,000            121,724
         .....................      Ahead of need........                           [-140,000]
   77    0605223F               ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING..            12,377            -7,900              4,477
         .....................      Early to need........                             [-7,900]
   78    0605229F               CSAR HH-60                          319,331                              319,331
                                 RECAPITALIZATION.
   80    0605431F               ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM              259,131           -30,000            229,131
                                 (SPACE).
         .....................      Delayed analysis of                              [-30,000]
                                    alternatives.
   81    0605432F               POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE)..            50,815                               50,815
   82    0605433F               WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM               41,632                               41,632
                                 (SPACE).
   83    0605458F               AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER               28,911                               28,911
                                 10.2 RDT&E.
   84    0605931F               B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT            315,615           -26,700            288,915
                                 SYSTEM.
         .....................      Unobligated prior                                [-26,700]
                                    year funds.
   85    0101125F               NUCLEAR WEAPONS                     137,909                              137,909
                                 MODERNIZATION.
   86    0207171F               F-15 EPAWSS..............           256,669                              256,669
   87    0207701F               FULL COMBAT MISSION                  12,051                               12,051
                                 TRAINING.
   88    0305176F               COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER               29,253                               29,253
                                 LOCATOR.
   89    0307581F               JSTARS RECAP.............           128,019                              128,019
   90    0401319F               PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT               351,220                              351,220
                                 REPLACEMENT (PAR).
   91    0701212F               AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS...            19,062                               19,062
         .....................  SUBTOTAL SYSTEM                   4,075,804          -204,600          3,871,204
                                 DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................
         .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
   92    0604256F               THREAT SIMULATOR                     21,630                               21,630
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   93    0604759F               MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.....            66,385                               66,385
   94    0605101F               RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE...            34,641                               34,641
   96    0605712F               INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST             11,529                               11,529
                                 & EVALUATION.
   97    0605807F               TEST AND EVALUATION                 661,417                              661,417
                                 SUPPORT.
   98    0605860F               ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH                11,198                               11,198
                                 PROGRAM (SPACE).
   99    0605864F               SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP).            27,070                               27,070
  100    0605976F               FACILITIES RESTORATION              134,111                              134,111
                                 AND 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                      14,613                               14,613
                                 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
  107    0804731F               GENERAL SKILL TRAINING...             1,404                                1,404
  109    1001004F               INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES.             4,784                                4,784
         .....................  SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT               1,245,577                 0          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              10,368                               10,368
                                 AND 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                     453                                  453
                                 MISSILE (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                   39,148                               39,148
                                 SYSTEM--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            35,100            186,473
         .....................      Automatic Takeoff and                             [35,100]
                                    Landing Control
                                    System.
  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                               28,413
  145    0207249F               PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS                649                                  649
                                 PROCUREMENT.
  146    0207253F               COMPASS CALL.............            13,723                               13,723
  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                               10,911
                                 SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
  155    0207444F               TACTICAL AIR CONTROL                 11,843                               11,843
                                 PARTY-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              3,470                                3,470
                                 ON 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                    47,471                               47,471
                                 EMERGENCY 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                      90,762                               90,762
                                 ENTERPRISE.
  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                               19,974
  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                            405                                  405
                                 INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
  195    0305145F               ARMS CONTROL                          4,844                                4,844
                                 IMPLEMENTATION.
  196    0305146F               DEFENSE JOINT                           339                                  339
                                 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
                                 ACTIVITIES.
  199    0305173F               SPACE AND MISSILE TEST                3,989                                3,989
                                 AND 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                                3,841
                                 SYSTEMS.
  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                               22,610
                                 COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
  211    0305238F               NATO AGS.................            38,904                               38,904
  212    0305240F               SUPPORT TO DCGS                      23,084                               23,084
                                 ENTERPRISE.
  213    0305258F               ADVANCED EVALUATION                 116,143                              116,143
                                 PROGRAM.
  214    0305265F               GPS III SPACE SEGMENT....           141,888                              141,888
  215    0305600F               INTERNATIONAL                         2,360                                2,360
                                 INTELLIGENCE 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                  6,366                                6,366
                                 (SEW).
  223    0401115F               C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON...            15,599                               15,599
  224    0401119F               C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS                66,146                               66,146
                                 (IF).
  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                  13,817                               13,817
                                 AIRLIFT.
  230    0401318F               CV-22....................            16,702                               16,702
  231    0408011F               SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT              7,164                                7,164
                                 CONTROL.
  232    0702207F               DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-               1,518                                1,518
                                 IF).
  233    0708610F               LOGISTICS INFORMATION                61,676                               61,676
                                 TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
  234    0708611F               SUPPORT SYSTEMS                       9,128                                9,128
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
  235    0804743F               OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING....             1,653                                1,653
  236    0808716F               OTHER PERSONNEL                          57                                   57
                                 ACTIVITIES.
  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            -6,800              3,781
                                 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................      Cost estimating                                   [-4,900]
                                    unjustified requset.
         .....................      PBES unjustified                                  [-1,900]
                                    request.
  250    9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......        13,091,557                           13,091,557
         .....................  SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL             17,457,056            28,300         17,485,356
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                  28,112,251          -468,600         27,643,651
                                 DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                 EVAL, AF.
         .....................
         .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                 TEST & EVAL, DW
         .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
    1    0601000BR              DTRA BASIC RESEARCH                  35,436                               35,436
                                 INITIATIVE.
    2    0601101E               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           362,297                              362,297
    3    0601110D8Z             BASIC RESEARCH                       36,654                               36,654
                                 INITIATIVES.
    4    0601117E               BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL            57,791                               57,791
                                 RESEARCH SCIENCE.
    5    0601120D8Z             NATIONAL DEFENSE                     69,345                               69,345
                                 EDUCATION PROGRAM.
    6    0601228D8Z             HISTORICALLY BLACK                   23,572                               23,572
                                 COLLEGES AND
                                 UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
                                 INSTITUTIONS.
    7    0601384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL              44,800                               44,800
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH..           629,895                 0            629,895
         .....................
         .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
    8    0602000D8Z             JOINT MUNITIONS                      17,745                               17,745
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    9    0602115E               BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....           115,213                              115,213
   10    0602230D8Z             DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY                   30,000                               30,000
                                 INNOVATION.
   11    0602234D8Z             LINCOLN LABORATORY                   48,269                               48,269
                                 RESEARCH PROGRAM.
   12    0602251D8Z             APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE             42,206                               42,206
                                 ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
                                 PRIORITIES.
   13    0602303E               INFORMATION &                       353,635                              353,635
                                 COMMUNICATIONS
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   14    0602383E               BIOLOGICAL WARFARE                   21,250                               21,250
                                 DEFENSE.
   15    0602384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             188,715                              188,715
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM.
   16    0602668D8Z             CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH..            12,183                               12,183
   17    0602702E               TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY......           313,843                              313,843
   18    0602715E               MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL            220,456                              220,456
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   19    0602716E               ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY...           221,911                              221,911
   20    0602718BR              WEAPONS OF MASS                     154,857                              154,857
                                 DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
                                 TECHNOLOGIES.
   21    0602751D8Z             SOFTWARE ENGINEERING                  8,420                                8,420
                                 INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
                                 RESEARCH.
   22    1160401BB              SOF TECHNOLOGY                       37,820                               37,820
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH         1,786,523                 0          1,786,523
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT
   23    0603000D8Z             JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED             23,902                               23,902
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   25    0603122D8Z             COMBATING TERRORISM                  73,002                               73,002
                                 TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
   26    0603133D8Z             FOREIGN COMPARATIVE                  19,343                               19,343
                                 TESTING.
   27    0603160BR              COUNTERPROLIFERATION                266,444                              266,444
                                 INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATI
                                 ON PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
   28    0603176C               ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND                17,880                               17,880
                                 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
   30    0603178C               WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY.......            71,843                               71,843
   31    0603179C               ADVANCED C4ISR...........             3,626                                3,626
   32    0603180C               ADVANCED RESEARCH........            23,433                               23,433
   33    0603225D8Z             JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS              17,256                               17,256
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   35    0603274C               SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA                 83,745                               83,745
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   36    0603286E               ADVANCED AEROSPACE                  182,327                              182,327
                                 SYSTEMS.
   37    0603287E               SPACE PROGRAMS AND                  175,240                              175,240
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   38    0603288D8Z             ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS.....            12,048                               12,048
   39    0603289D8Z             ADVANCED INNOVATIVE                  57,020                               57,020
                                 ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
   41    0603375D8Z             TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION....            39,923                               39,923
   42    0603384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             127,941                              127,941
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM--
                                 ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
   43    0603527D8Z             RETRACT LARCH............           181,977                              181,977
   44    0603618D8Z             JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED            22,030                               22,030
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   45    0603648D8Z             JOINT CAPABILITY                    148,184                              148,184
                                 TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEMONSTRATIONS.
   46    0603662D8Z             NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS              9,331                                9,331
                                 CAPABILITIES.
   47    0603680D8Z             DEFENSE-WIDE                        158,398                              158,398
                                 MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
   48    0603680S               MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY             31,259                               31,259
                                 PROGRAM.
   49    0603699D8Z             EMERGING CAPABILITIES                49,895                               49,895
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   50    0603712S               GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D                11,011                               11,011
                                 TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEMONSTRATIONS.
   52    0603716D8Z             STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL              65,078                               65,078
                                 RESEARCH PROGRAM.
   53    0603720S               MICROELECTRONICS                     97,826                               97,826
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
                                 AND SUPPORT.
   54    0603727D8Z             JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM             7,848                                7,848
   55    0603739E               ADVANCED ELECTRONICS                 49,807                               49,807
                                 TECHNOLOGIES.
   56    0603760E               COMMAND, CONTROL AND                155,081                              155,081
                                 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
   57    0603766E               NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE             428,894                              428,894
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   58    0603767E               SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........           241,288                              241,288
   60    0603781D8Z             SOFTWARE ENGINEERING                 14,264                               14,264
                                 INSTITUTE.
   61    0603826D8Z             QUICK REACTION SPECIAL               74,943                               74,943
                                 PROJECTS.
   63    0603833D8Z             ENGINEERING SCIENCE &                17,659                               17,659
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
   64    0603941D8Z             TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE            87,135                               87,135
                                 & TECHNOLOGY.
   65    0604055D8Z             OPERATIONAL ENERGY                   37,329             4,000             41,329
                                 CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
         .....................      Competitive                                        [4,000]
                                    technology investment.
   66    0303310D8Z             CWMD SYSTEMS.............            44,836                               44,836
   67    1160402BB              SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY              61,620                               61,620
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                 3,190,666             4,000          3,194,666
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT AND
                                 PROTOTYPES
   68    0603161D8Z             NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL             28,498                               28,498
                                 PHYSICAL SECURITY
                                 EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
   69    0603600D8Z             WALKOFF..................            89,643                               89,643
   71    0603821D8Z             ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE                2,136                                2,136
                                 DATA & INFORMATION
                                 SERVICES.
   72    0603851D8Z             ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY               52,491                               52,491
                                 TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
                                 PROGRAM.
   73    0603881C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           206,834                              206,834
                                 TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
   74    0603882C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           862,080                              862,080
                                 MIDCOURSE DEFENSE
                                 SEGMENT.
   75    0603884BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             138,187                              138,187
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
   76    0603884C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           230,077                              230,077
                                 SENSORS.
   77    0603890C               BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS....           401,594                              401,594
   78    0603891C               SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA....           321,607                              321,607
   79    0603892C               AEGIS BMD................           959,066                              959,066
   80    0603893C               SPACE TRACKING &                     32,129                               32,129
                                 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
   81    0603895C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            20,690                               20,690
                                 SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
   82    0603896C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           439,617            10,000            449,617
                                 COMMAND AND CONTROL,
                                 BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
                                 COMMUNICATI.
         .....................      Post Intercept                                    [10,000]
                                    Assessment
                                    Acceleration.
   83    0603898C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            47,776                               47,776
                                 JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
   84    0603904C               MISSILE DEFENSE                      54,750                               54,750
                                 INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS
                                 CENTER (MDIOC).
   85    0603906C               REGARDING TRENCH.........             8,785                                8,785
   86    0603907C               SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR               68,787                               68,787
                                 (SBX).
   87    0603913C               ISRAELI COOPERATIVE                 103,835           135,000            238,835
                                 PROGRAMS.
         .....................      Arrow (base program).                             [50,000]
         .....................      Arrow-3..............                             [25,000]
         .....................      David's Sling........                             [60,000]
   88    0603914C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           293,441                              293,441
                                 TEST.
   89    0603915C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           563,576                              563,576
                                 TARGETS.
   90    0603920D8Z             HUMANITARIAN DEMINING....            10,007                               10,007
   91    0603923D8Z             COALITION WARFARE........            10,126             1,000             11,126
         .....................      Long Endurance UAS...                              [1,000]
   92    0604016D8Z             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE                 3,893             5,000              8,893
                                 CORROSION PROGRAM.
         .....................      Corrosion prevention.                              [5,000]
   93    0604115C               TECHNOLOGY MATURATION                90,266                               90,266
                                 INITIATIVES.
   94    0604132D8Z             MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT...            45,000                               45,000
   95    0604250D8Z             ADVANCED INNOVATIVE                 844,870                              844,870
                                 TECHNOLOGIES.
   96    0604342D8Z             DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY OFFSET                 0            25,000             25,000
         .....................      Directed energy                                   [25,000]
                                    systems prototyping.
   97    0604400D8Z             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE                 3,320                                3,320
                                 (DOD) UNMANNED SYSTEM
                                 COMMON DEVELOPMENT.
   99    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            55,000            329,148
                                 INTERCEPTORS.
         .....................      GBI Booster                                       [30,000]
                                    Acceleration.
         .....................      RKV Risk Reduction...                             [25,000]
  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            50,000            121,513
         .....................      Technology maturation                             [50,000]
  114    0303191D8Z             JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC                 2,636                                2,636
                                 TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
  115    0305103C               CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE               969                                  969
         .....................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                 6,919,519           281,000          7,200,519
                                 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
                                 AND 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                              181,303
                                 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
  118    0604384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             266,231                              266,231
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
  120    0604771D8Z             JOINT TACTICAL                       16,288                               16,288
                                 INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
                                 SYSTEM (JTIDS).
  121    0605000BR              WEAPONS OF MASS                       4,568                                4,568
                                 DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
                                 CAPABILITIES.
  122    0605013BL              INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               11,505                               11,505
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
  123    0605021SE              HOMELAND PERSONNEL                    1,658                                1,658
                                 SECURITY 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                 0            628,218
                                 DEVELOPMENT AND
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................
         .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
  134    0604774D8Z             DEFENSE READINESS                     4,678                                4,678
                                 REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
  135    0604875D8Z             JOINT SYSTEMS                         4,499                                4,499
                                 ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT.
  136    0604940D8Z             CENTRAL TEST AND                    219,199                              219,199
                                 EVALUATION INVESTMENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
  137    0604942D8Z             ASSESSMENTS AND                      28,706           100,000            128,706
                                 EVALUATIONS.
         .....................      Classified assessment                            [100,000]
  138    0605001E               MISSION SUPPORT..........            69,244                               69,244
  139    0605100D8Z             JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT            87,080                               87,080
                                 TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
  140    0605104D8Z             TECHNICAL STUDIES,                   23,069                               23,069
                                 SUPPORT 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                   22,650                               22,650
                                 ANALYSIS.
  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             5,000             24,541
                                 EVALUATION.
         .....................      Program increase.....                              [5,000]
  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                    2,072                                2,072
                                 SECURITY 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                        916                                  916
                                 DECEPTION 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                               31,160
  179    0903235D8W             JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER                  827                                  827
                                 (JSP).
  180    9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......            56,799                               56,799
         .....................  SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT                 897,599           105,000          1,002,599
                                 SUPPORT.
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
                                 DEVELOPMENT
  181    0604130V               ENTERPRISE SECURITY                   4,241                                4,241
                                 SYSTEM (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                         18,041                               18,041
                                 INFRASTRUCTURE
                                 ENGINEERING AND
                                 INTEGRATION.
  198    0303126K               LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS--           13,994                               13,994
                                 DCS.
  199    0303131K               MINIMUM ESSENTIAL                    12,206                               12,206
                                 EMERGENCY 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            13,000            172,068
                                 SECURITY PROGRAM.
         .....................      Cross Domain                                       [5,000]
                                    Solutions.
         .....................      Reduction to NSA                                  [-8,000]
                                    Information Systems
                                    and Security Programs.
         .....................      Sharkseer............                             [16,000]
  204    0303150K               GLOBAL COMMAND AND                   24,438                               24,438
                                 CONTROL 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                                6,204
  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                      2,037                                2,037
                                 TECHNOLOGY 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            12,000             29,804
         .....................      MQ-9 capability                                   [12,000]
                                    enhancements.
  244    1160403BB              AVIATION SYSTEMS.........           159,143                              159,143
  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.
  254    9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......         3,270,515                            3,270,515
  255    0303140K               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                       0            16,300             16,300
                                 SECURITY PROGRAM.
         .....................      Sharkseer email                                   [16,300]
                                    protection.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL              4,256,406            41,300          4,297,706
                                 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                  18,308,826           431,300         18,740,126
                                 DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                 EVAL, DW.
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
                                 DEFENSE
         .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
    1    0605118OTE             OPERATIONAL TEST AND                 78,047                               78,047
                                 EVALUATION.
    2    0605131OTE             LIVE FIRE TEST AND                   48,316                               48,316
                                 EVALUATION.
    3    0605814OTE             OPERATIONAL TEST                     52,631                               52,631
                                 ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT                 178,994                 0            178,994
                                 SUPPORT.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST &            178,994                 0            178,994
                                 EVAL, DEFENSE.
         .....................
         .....................  UNDISTRIBUTED
         .....................  UNDISTRIBUTED
   99    999999                 UNDISTRIBUTED............                 0             4,000              4,000
         .....................      Cyber pilot program                                [4,000]
                                    for installations.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...                 0             4,000              4,000
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED......                 0             4,000              4,000
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RDT&E..............        71,391,771          -164,579         71,227,192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Senate
  Line      Program  Element                Item            FY 2017  Request   Senate  Change      Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                  TEST & EVAL, ARMY
         ......................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                  DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
   55    0603308A                ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS                    9,375                               9,375
                                  INTEGRATION.
         ......................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                     9,375                 0             9,375
                                  COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                  PROTOTYPES.
         ......................
         ......................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                  DEMONSTRATION
   90    0604715A                NON-SYSTEM TRAINING                      33                                  33
                                  DEVICES--ENG DEV.
  117    0605035A                COMMON INFRARED                      10,900                              10,900
                                  COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
  122    0605051A                AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY               73,110                              73,110
                                  DEVELOPMENT.
         ......................  SUBTOTAL SYSTEM                      84,043                 0            84,043
                                  DEVELOPMENT &
                                  DEMONSTRATION.
         ......................
         ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                  DEVELOPMENT
  208    0307665A                BIOMETRICS ENABLED                    7,104                               7,104
                                  INTELLIGENCE.
         ......................  SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL                  7,104                 0             7,104
                                  SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                     100,522                 0           100,522
                                  DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                  EVAL, ARMY.
         ......................
         ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                  TEST & EVAL, NAVY
         ......................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                  DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
   38    0603527N                RETRACT LARCH............             3,907                               3,907
   78    0604272N                TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL             37,990                              37,990
                                  INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
                                  (TADIRCM).
         ......................  SUBTOTAL ADVANCED                    41,897                 0            41,897
                                  COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                  PROTOTYPES.
         ......................
         ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                  DEVELOPMENT
   80    9999999999              CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......            36,426                              36,426
         ......................  SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL                 36,426                 0            36,426
                                  SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                      78,323                 0            78,323
                                  DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                  EVAL, NAVY.
         ......................
         ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                  TEST & EVAL, AF
         ......................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                  DEMONSTRATION
   58    0604421F                COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS.....               425                                 425
         ......................  SUBTOTAL SYSTEM                         425                 0               425
                                  DEVELOPMENT &
                                  DEMONSTRATION.
         ......................
         ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                  DEVELOPMENT
  200    0305174F                SPACE INNOVATION,                     4,715                               4,715
                                  INTEGRATION AND RAPID
                                  TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
  220    9999999999              CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......            27,765                              27,765
         ......................  SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL                 32,480                 0            32,480
                                  SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                      32,905                 0            32,905
                                  DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                  EVAL, AF.
         ......................
         ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                  TEST & EVAL, DW
         ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
                                  DEVELOPMENT
  250    9999999999              CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......           162,419                             162,419
         ......................  SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL                162,419                 0           162,419
                                  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                     162,419                 0           162,419
                                  DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                  EVAL, DW.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RDT&E..............           374,169                 0           374,169
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
 


SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2017                           Senate
  Line                           Item                              Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................         791,450          50,000            841,450
             Home station training unfunded requirement......                         [50,000]
  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                            863,928
  060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................       1,360,597          68,000          1,428,597
             Flying hour program unfunded requirement........                         [68,000]
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................       3,086,443                          3,086,443
  080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................         439,488                            439,488
  090    LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................       1,013,452          19,400          1,032,852
             Depot maintenance unfunded requirement..........                         [19,400]
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................       7,816,343                          7,816,343
  110    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.       2,234,546         354,400          2,588,946
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                        [354,400]
  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           6,700            447,843
             SOUTHCOM LIDAR unfunded requirement.............                          [6,700]
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................      19,822,607         498,500         20,321,107
 
 
         MOBILIZATION
  180    STRATEGIC MOBILITY..................................         336,329          25,000            361,329
             Army prepositioned stock unfunded requirement...                         [25,000]
  190    ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS...........................         390,848                            390,848
  200    INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.............................           7,401                              7,401
         SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION...............................         734,578          25,000            759,578
 
 
         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                            921,025
  260    FLIGHT TRAINING.....................................         902,845          36,600            939,445
             Graduate pilot training unfunded requirement....                          [5,400]
             School Air OPTEMPO unfunded requirement.........                         [31,200]
  270    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................         216,583                            216,583
  280    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................         607,534                            607,534
  290    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................         550,599         -35,000            515,599
             Advertising reduction...........................                        [-35,000]
  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           1,600          4,638,961
 
 
         ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
  350    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         230,739                            230,739
  360    CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES...........................         850,060                            850,060
  370    LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.........................         778,757           4,000            782,757
             Corrosion oil assistance unfunded requirement...                          [4,000]
  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         -29,500          1,066,574
             Army museum early to need.......................                        [-29,500]
  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
  500    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,151,023           6,000          1,157,023
             SOUTHCOM unfunded requirement...................                          [6,000]
         SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES.................       8,614,494         -19,500          8,594,994
 
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  901    UNDISTRIBUTED ARMY PRINTING.........................               0         -34,300            -34,300
             15% printing reduction..........................                        [-34,300]
  906    UNDISTRIBUTED DCGS-A................................               0         -63,000            -63,000
             DCGS-A undistributed reduction..................                        [-63,000]
  907    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY......................               0         -59,180            -59,180
             Foreign currency gains..........................                        [-59,180]
  912    UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL..................................               0        -123,300           -123,300
             Fuel cost savings...............................                       [-123,300]
         SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED..............................               0        -279,780           -279,780
 
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY.................      33,809,040         225,820         34,034,860
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................          11,435                             11,435
  020    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................         491,772          46,000            537,772
             Home station training unfunded requirement......                         [20,000]
             Lodging in kind unfunded requirement............                         [26,000]
  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             300            347,759
             Range increase unfunded requirement.............                            [300]
  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 & MODERNIZATION.         214,955          21,500            236,455
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                         [21,500]
  110    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............          37,620                             37,620
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................       2,606,078          67,800          2,673,878
 
 
         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               0            106,253
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.............       2,712,331          67,800          2,780,131
 
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................         708,251          70,000            778,251
             Home station training unfunded requirement......                         [70,000]
  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           2,400             39,538
             Range increase unfunded requirement.............                          [2,400]
  060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................         887,625                            887,625
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................         696,267                            696,267
  080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................          61,240                             61,240
  090    LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................         219,948          54,600            274,548
             Depot maintenance unfunded requirement..........                         [42,300]
             TWV depot maintenance unfunded requirement......                         [12,300]
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................       1,040,012                          1,040,012
  110    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         676,715          32,100            708,815
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                         [32,100]
  120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............       1,021,144                          1,021,144
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................       6,418,203         159,100          6,577,303
 
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  130    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................           6,396                              6,396
  140    ADMINISTRATION......................................          68,528                             68,528
  150    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................          76,524                             76,524
  160    MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.................................           7,712                              7,712
  170    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         245,046           4,500            249,546
             Director of Psychological Health (DPH) Positions                          [9,500]
             Program decrease................................                         [-5,000]
  180    REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..............................           2,961                              2,961
         SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...................         407,167           4,500            411,667
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG.................       6,825,370         163,600          6,988,970
 
 
         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          34,000          1,041,681
             AC Depot maintenance unfunded requirement.......                         [34,000]
  070    AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................          38,248                             38,248
  080    AVIATION LOGISTICS..................................         564,720          21,400            586,120
             E-6B and F-35 sustainment unfunded requirement..                         [16,000]
             MV-22 JPBL unfunded requirement.................                          [5,400]
  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                          5,168,273
  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                          1,233,805
  250    IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT..................         163,025                            163,025
  260    WEAPONS MAINTENANCE.................................         553,269                            553,269
  270    OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................         350,010                            350,010
  280    ENTERPRISE INFORMATION..............................         790,685         -54,300            736,385
             Underexecution..................................                        [-54,300]
  290    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION..........       1,642,742         160,900          1,803,642
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                        [160,900]
  300    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................       4,206,136                          4,206,136
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................      31,173,511         162,000         31,335,511
 
 
         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               0          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                            172,852
  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               0          1,876,229
 
 
         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          -4,000            281,927
             NHHC unjustified growth.........................                         [-4,000]
  540    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................         319,908                            319,908
  570    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         171,659                            171,659
  580    ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS..............................               0          18,000             18,000
             Environmental program shortfall unfunded                                 [18,000]
             requirement.....................................
  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
  800    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................         517,440                            517,440
         SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...................       4,851,976          14,000          4,865,976
 
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  902    UNDISTRIBUTED NAVY PRINTING.........................               0          -7,300             -7,300
             15% printing reduction..........................                         [-7,300]
  908    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY......................               0         -14,610            -14,610
             Foreign currency gains..........................                        [-14,610]
  913    UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL..................................               0        -238,380           -238,380
             Fuel cost savings...............................                       [-238,380]
         SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED..............................               0        -260,290           -260,290
 
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY.................      39,483,581         -84,290         39,399,291
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    OPERATIONAL FORCES..................................         674,613          63,700            738,313
             Enterprise network defense unfunded requirement.                          [5,700]
             Exercise program unfunded requirement...........                         [58,000]
  020    FIELD LOGISTICS.....................................         947,424          28,100            975,524
             Combat optics mods unfunded requirement.........                         [13,300]
             Critical/ no fail EOD unfunded requirement......                            [600]
             Nano/VTOL unfunded requirement..................                         [14,200]
  030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         206,783           7,800            214,583
             Depot maintenance unfunded requirement..........                          [7,800]
  040    MARITIME PREPOSITIONING.............................          85,276                             85,276
  050    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............         632,673          78,500            711,173
             Facility demolition unfunded requirement........                         [39,200]
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                         [39,300]
  060    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................       2,136,626                          2,136,626
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................       4,683,395         178,100          4,861,495
 
 
         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                             45,495
  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               0            755,981
 
 
         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               0            514,882
 
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  903    UNDISTRIBUTED MARINE CORPS PRINTING.................               0         -14,300            -14,300
             15% printing reduction..........................                        [-14,300]
  909    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY......................               0          -2,870             -2,870
             Foreign currency gains..........................                         [-2,870]
  914    UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL..................................               0         -24,660            -24,660
             Fuel cost savings...............................                        [-24,660]
         SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED..............................               0         -41,830            -41,830
 
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS.........       5,954,258         136,270          6,090,528
 
         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           5,800             33,371
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                          [5,800]
  140    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................          99,166                             99,166
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................         906,440           5,800            912,240
 
 
         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               0             21,216
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.............         927,656           5,800            933,456
 
 
         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           5,500             30,970
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                          [5,500]
  040    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................         111,550                            111,550
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................         249,768           5,500            255,268
 
 
         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               0             20,865
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE...........         270,633           5,500            276,133
 
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...............................       3,294,124                          3,294,124
  020    COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES...........................       1,682,045           2,800          1,684,845
             HH-60 unfunded requirement......................                          [2,800]
  030    AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)......       1,730,757                          1,730,757
  040    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       7,042,988         150,400          7,193,388
             Weapon system sustainment unfunded requirement..                        [150,400]
  050    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.       1,657,019                          1,657,019
  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
  131    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................         930,757                            930,757
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................      22,760,163         153,200         22,913,363
 
 
         MOBILIZATION
  140    AIRLIFT OPERATIONS..................................       1,703,059                          1,703,059
  150    MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS...........................         138,899                            138,899
  160    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       1,553,439          66,400          1,619,839
             Weapon system sustainment unfunded requirement..                         [66,400]
  170    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         258,328                            258,328
  180    BASE SUPPORT........................................         722,756                            722,756
         SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION...............................       4,376,481          66,400          4,442,881
 
 
         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 & MODERNIZATION.         236,254         157,700            393,954
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                        [157,700]
  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         -27,000             77,754
             Advertising unjustified growth..................                        [-27,000]
  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         130,700          3,703,706
 
 
         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 & MODERNIZATION.         321,013                            321,013
  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                             25,735
  450    INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT...............................          90,573                             90,573
  460    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,131,603                          1,131,603
         SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...................       6,808,406               0          6,808,406
 
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  904    UNDISTRIBUTED AIR FORCE PRINTING....................               0          -8,900             -8,900
             15% printing reduction..........................                         [-8,900]
  910    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY......................               0         -33,450            -33,450
             Foreign currency gains..........................                        [-33,450]
  915    UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL..................................               0        -394,560           -394,560
             Fuel cost savings...............................                       [-394,560]
         SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED..............................               0        -436,910           -436,910
 
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............      37,518,056         -86,610         37,431,446
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...............................       1,707,882                          1,707,882
  020    MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS..........................         230,016          29,000            259,016
             Lodging in kind unfunded requirement............                         [29,000]
  030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         541,743                            541,743
  040    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         113,470          11,700            125,170
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                         [11,700]
  050    BASE SUPPORT........................................         384,832                            384,832
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................       2,977,943          40,700          3,018,643
 
 
         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 ACTIVITIES..          89,986               0             89,986
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE...........       3,067,929          40,700          3,108,629
 
 
         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          43,200          1,867,529
             Weapon system sustainment engines unfunded                                [3,200]
             requirement.....................................
             Weapon system sustainment unfunded requirement..                         [40,000]
  040    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         245,840          14,000            259,840
             FSRM unfunded requirement.......................                         [14,000]
  050    BASE SUPPORT........................................         575,548                            575,548
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................       6,651,017          57,200          6,708,217
 
 
         ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
  060    ADMINISTRATION......................................          23,715                             23,715
  070    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................          28,846                             28,846
         SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES.          52,561               0             52,561
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG..................       6,703,578          57,200          6,760,778
 
 
         OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF...............................         506,113                            506,113
  020    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE..................         524,439                            524,439
  030    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES.........       4,898,159         -45,300          4,852,859
             Unjustified growth in total civilian                                    [-45,300]
             compensation....................................
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................       5,928,711         -45,300          5,883,411
 
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  040    DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY......................         138,658                            138,658
  050    JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF...............................          85,701          10,000             95,701
            Model alternative design of reconnaissance strike                         [10,000]
             group...........................................
  070    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING..         365,349                            365,349
         SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING....................         589,708          10,000            599,708
 
 
         ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
  080    CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS.............................         160,480          25,000            185,480
             Starbase........................................                         [25,000]
  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          -5,800            352,164
             Price Comparability Office unjustified growth...                         [-5,800]
  170    DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY..............................         223,422                            223,422
  180    DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY.................         112,681                            112,681
  190    DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY.................         496,754        -414,800             81,954
             Transfer Combatting Terrorism Fellowship to to                          [-26,800]
             Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund...........
             Transfer Defense Institute of International                              [-2,600]
             Legal Studies to Security Cooperation
             Enhancement Fund................................
             Transfer Defense Institution Reform Initiative                          [-25,600]
             to to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund.....
             Transfer Global Train and Equip to Security                            [-270,200]
             Cooperation Enhancement Fund....................
             Transfer Ministry of Defense Advisors to to                              [-9,200]
             Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund...........
             Transfer Regional Centers to Security                                   [-58,600]
             Cooperation Enhancement Fund....................
             Transfer Wales initaitive Fund/Partnership for                          [-21,800]
             Peace to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund..
  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......................................                         [25,000]
             Impact Aid severe disabilities..................                          [5,000]
  270    MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY..............................         446,975                            446,975
  290    OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT.......................         155,399         -32,200            123,199
             Guam public health lab..........................                        [-32,200]
  300    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE..................       1,481,643          21,000          1,502,643
             Cuts for BRAC planning..........................                         [-4,000]
             DOD rewards early to need.......................                         [-5,000]
             Secretary of Defense Delivery Unit..............                         [30,000]
  310    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE                   89,429                             89,429
          ACTIVITIES.........................................
  320    WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES....................         629,874                            629,874
  330    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................      14,069,333         -15,300         14,054,033
             Reduction to NSA Information Systems and                                [-27,000]
             Security Program (4GT4).........................
             Sharkseer email protection......................                         [11,700]
         SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES..      26,053,171        -392,100         25,661,071
 
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  905    UNDISTRIBUTED TO DEFENSE-WIDE.......................               0          -1,400             -1,400
             15% printing reduction..........................                         [-1,400]
  911    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY......................               0         -10,580            -10,580
             Foreign currency gains..........................                        [-10,580]
  916    UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL..................................               0         -41,100            -41,100
             Fuel cost savings...............................                        [-41,100]
         SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED..............................               0         -53,080            -53,080
 
 
         TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.......      32,571,590        -480,480         32,091,110
 
         MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
         US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF
 4GTT    US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE...          14,194                             14,194
         SUBTOTAL US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF..          14,194               0             14,194
 
 
         OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
 4GTD    OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID.......         105,125                            105,125
         SUBTOTAL OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC          105,125               0            105,125
          AID................................................
 
 
         COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT
 1PL3    FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION..........         325,604                            325,604
         SUBTOTAL COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT.......         325,604               0            325,604
 
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
  493    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY.....................         170,167                            170,167
         SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY............         170,167               0            170,167
 
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
 044G    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY.....................         281,762                            281,762
         SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY............         281,762               0            281,762
 
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
 042G    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE................         371,521                            371,521
         SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE.......         371,521               0            371,521
 
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE
 045G    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE..................           9,009                              9,009
         SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.........           9,009               0              9,009
 
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES
 047G    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES.......         197,084                            197,084
         SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED             197,084               0            197,084
          SITES..............................................
 
 
         TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS..................       1,474,466               0          1,474,466
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  999    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          20,000             20,000
             Commission on Military, National, and Public                             [15,000]
             Service.........................................
             Temporary Duty Assignment Per Diem Rate Waiver..                          [5,000]
         SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED..............................               0          20,000             20,000
 
         TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.................................               0          20,000             20,000
 
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.......................     171,318,488          71,310        171,389,798
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2017                           Senate
  Line                           Item                              Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................         723,945                            723,945
  020    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................           5,904                              5,904
  030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................          38,614                             38,614
  040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................       1,651,817                          1,651,817
  050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................         835,138                            835,138
  060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................         165,044                            165,044
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................       1,756,378                          1,756,378
  080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................         348,174                            348,174
  090    LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................         350,000                            350,000
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................          40,000                             40,000
  140    ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES...............................       5,990,878                          5,990,878
  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...........................      13,083,002               0         13,083,002
 
 
         MOBILIZATION
  190    ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS...........................         350,200                            350,200
         SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION...............................         350,200               0            350,200
 
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  250    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................           3,565                              3,565
  270    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................           9,021                              9,021
  280    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................           2,434                              2,434
  320    CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.....................           1,254                              1,254
         SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING....................          16,274               0             16,274
 
 
         ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
  350    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         740,400                            740,400
  380    AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT...............................          13,974                             13,974
  420    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         105,508                            105,508
  450    REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..............................         165,678                            165,678
  460    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................         835,551                            835,551
         SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES.................       1,861,111               0          1,861,111
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY.................      15,310,587               0         15,310,587
 
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................             708                                708
  020    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................          14,822                             14,822
  030    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................             375                                375
  040    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................           2,088                              2,088
  050    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................             608                                608
  060    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................           5,425                              5,425
  090    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................          14,653                             14,653
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................          38,679               0             38,679
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.............          38,679               0             38,679
 
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................          16,149                             16,149
  020    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................             748                                748
  030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................          34,707                             34,707
  040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................          10,472                             10,472
  060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................          32,804                             32,804
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................          12,435                             12,435
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................          18,800                             18,800
  120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............             920                                920
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................         127,035               0            127,035
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG.................         127,035               0            127,035
 
 
         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                             76,216
  040    TRAINING AND OPERATIONS.............................         220,139                            220,139
         SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE........................       2,517,958               0          2,517,958
 
 
         MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
  050    SUSTAINMENT.........................................         860,441                            860,441
  060    INFRASTRUCTURE......................................          20,837                             20,837
  070    EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................           8,153                              8,153
  080    TRAINING AND OPERATIONS.............................          41,326                             41,326
         SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR.......................         930,757               0            930,757
 
         TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND..............       3,448,715               0          3,448,715
 
 
         COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND
         COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND
  010    COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND...         630,000         630,000          1,260,000
             Transfer from Coalition Support Fund............                        [180,000]
             Transfer from Counterterrorism Partnership Fund.                        [200,000]
             Transfer from Syria Train and Equip.............                        [250,000]
         SUBTOTAL COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE               630,000         630,000          1,260,000
          LEVANT FUND........................................
 
         TOTAL COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT           630,000         630,000          1,260,000
          FUND...............................................
 
 
         SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
         SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
  010    SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND..........................         250,000        -250,000                  0
             Transfer to Counter Islamic State in Iraq and                          [-250,000]
             the Levant Fund (former Iraq Train and Equip)...
         SUBTOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.................         250,000        -250,000                  0
 
         TOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND....................         250,000        -250,000                  0
 
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.................         860,621                            860,621
  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..............................       2,903,431                          2,903,431
  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..........          27,089                             27,089
  300    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................         219,525                            219,525
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................       6,420,775               0          6,420,775
 
 
         MOBILIZATION
  330    AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS..................           1,530                              1,530
  350    EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS...............           8,904                              8,904
  370    COAST GUARD SUPPORT.................................         162,692                            162,692
         SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION...............................         173,126               0            173,126
 
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  410    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................          43,365                             43,365
         SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING....................          43,365               0             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
  540    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................          25,617                             25,617
  570    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         126,700                            126,700
  600    ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................           9,261                              9,261
  640    NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE.........................           1,501                              1,501
  650    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................          15,780                             15,780
         SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...................         190,125               0            190,125
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY.................       6,827,391               0          6,827,391
 
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    OPERATIONAL FORCES..................................         703,489                            703,489
  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...........................       1,135,159               0          1,135,159
 
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  110    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................          31,750                             31,750
         SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING....................          31,750               0             31,750
 
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  150    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................          73,800                             73,800
  160    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................           3,650                              3,650
         SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...................          77,450               0             77,450
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS.........       1,244,359               0          1,244,359
 
 
         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               0             26,265
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.............          26,265               0             26,265
 
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    OPERATING FORCES....................................           2,500                              2,500
  040    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................             804                                804
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................           3,304               0              3,304
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE...........           3,304               0              3,304
 
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...............................       1,339,461          28,000          1,367,461
             ERI nuclear readiness...........................                         [28,000]
  020    COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES...........................       1,096,021                          1,096,021
  030    AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)......         152,278                            152,278
  040    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       1,185,506                          1,185,506
  050    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.          56,700                             56,700
  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                            207,696
  100    LAUNCH FACILITIES...................................             869                                869
  110    SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS...............................           5,008                              5,008
  120    COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.........         100,081                            100,081
  130    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................          79,893                             79,893
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................       5,195,446          28,000          5,223,446
 
 
         MOBILIZATION
  140    AIRLIFT OPERATIONS..................................       2,774,729                          2,774,729
  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               0          3,777,680
 
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  230    BASE SUPPORT........................................          52,740                             52,740
  240    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................           4,500                              4,500
         SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING....................          57,240               0             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         -25,100            116,783
             Program reduction...............................                        [-25,100]
  450    INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT...............................              61                                 61
  460    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................          15,323                             15,323
         SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES...................         468,464         -25,100            443,364
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............       9,498,830           2,900          9,501,730
 
 
         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               0             57,586
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE...........          57,586               0             57,586
 
 
         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               0             20,000
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG..................          20,000               0             20,000
 
 
         OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
         OPERATING FORCES
  030    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES.........       2,650,651                          2,650,651
         SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES...........................       2,650,651               0          2,650,651
 
 
         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..................          47,579                             47,579
  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      -1,100,000            312,000
             Reduction to Coalition Support Funds............                       [-100,000]
             Transfer to Counter Islamic State in Iraq and                          [-180,000]
             the Levant Fund (former Iraq Train and Equip)...
             Transfer to Security Cooperation Enhancement                           [-820,000]
             Fund............................................
  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.................................       1,618,397                          1,618,397
         SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES..       3,331,522      -1,100,000          2,231,522
 
         TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.......       5,982,173      -1,100,000          4,882,173
 
 
         UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE
         UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE
  888    UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE..............               0         350,000            350,000
             Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative..........                        [350,000]
         SUBTOTAL UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.....               0         350,000            350,000
 
         TOTAL UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE........               0         350,000            350,000
 
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.......................      43,464,924        -367,100         43,097,824
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL

TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
 


SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Item                           FY 2017  Request     Senate  Change    Senate  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS...................        128,902,332          -1,250,890         127,651,442
     Defense Officer Personnel Management Act                                      [100,000]
     reforms........................................
     Foreign currency gains.........................                               [-72,940]
     Military Personnel underexecution..............                              [-880,450]
     Non-adoption of Air Force Pilot Bonus Increase.                                [-2,500]
     Non-adoption of DOD retirement reforms.........                              [-400,000]
     Rural Guard Act................................                                 [5,000]
SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS..........        128,902,332          -1,250,890         127,651,442
 
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS.          6,366,908                               6,366,908
SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND                6,366,908                   0           6,366,908
 CONTRIBUTIONS......................................
 
TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL............................        135,269,240          -1,250,890         134,018,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Item                           FY 2017  Request     Senate  Change    Senate  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS...................          3,562,258                               3,562,258
SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS..........          3,562,258                   0           3,562,258
 
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS.                  0                                       0
SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND                        0                   0                   0
 CONTRIBUTIONS......................................
 
TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL............................          3,562,258                   0           3,562,258
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
 


SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2017                           Senate
    Line                           Item                            Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
       020   ARMY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT..........................          56,469                             56,469
             SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY.............          56,469               0             56,469
 
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
       020   WORKING CAPITAL FUND............................          63,967                             63,967
             SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........          63,967               0             63,967
 
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
       020   WORKING CAPITAL FUND SUPPORT....................          37,132                             37,132
             SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE.....          37,132               0             37,132
 
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
       010   WORKING CAPITAL FUND SUPPORT....................       1,214,045                          1,214,045
             SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA.............       1,214,045               0          1,214,045
 
             TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND......................       1,371,613               0          1,371,613
 
             CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
         1   O&M.............................................         147,282                            147,282
             SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..............         147,282               0            147,282
 
             RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
         2   RDT&E...........................................         388,609                            388,609
             SUBTOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND                388,609               0            388,609
              EVALUATION.....................................
 
             PROCUREMENT
         3   PROC............................................          15,132                             15,132
             SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT............................          15,132               0             15,132
 
             TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.......         551,023               0            551,023
 
             DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
             DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
       010   DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES..........................         730,087        -258,300            471,787
                 Transfer to Security Cooperation Enhancement                       [-258,300]
                 Fund........................................
             SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG              730,087        -258,300            471,787
              ACTIVITIES.....................................
 
             DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM
       020   DRUG INTRDCT & CNTR-DRG ACT, DEF................         114,713                            114,713
             SUBTOTAL DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM..........         114,713               0            114,713
 
             TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES,           844,800        -258,300            586,500
              DEF............................................
 
             OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
       010   DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES..........................         318,882          -7,300            311,582
                 Audit FTE unjustified growth................                         [-7,300]
             SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..............         318,882          -7,300            311,582
 
             RDT&E
       020   DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES..........................           3,153                              3,153
             SUBTOTAL RDT&E..................................           3,153               0              3,153
 
             TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL...........         322,035          -7,300            314,735
 
             DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
       010   IN-HOUSE CARE...................................       9,240,160                          9,240,160
       020   PRIVATE SECTOR CARE.............................      15,738,759                         15,738,759
       030   CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT.....................       2,367,759                          2,367,759
       040   INFORMATION MANAGEMENT..........................       1,743,749                          1,743,749
       050   MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES...........................         311,380                            311,380
       060   EDUCATION AND TRAINING..........................         743,231                            743,231
       070   BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS..................       2,086,352                          2,086,352
       210   UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY..................               0          -6,470             -6,470
                 Foreign currency gains......................                         [-6,470]
             SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE................      32,231,390          -6,470         32,224,920
 
             RDT&E
       080   R&D RESEARCH....................................           9,097                              9,097
       090   R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT......................          58,517                             58,517
       100   R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT........................         221,226                            221,226
       110   R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION....................          96,602                             96,602
       120   R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT.....................         364,057                            364,057
       130   R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT......................          58,410                             58,410
       140   R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT....................          14,998                             14,998
             SUBTOTAL RDT&E..................................         822,907               0            822,907
 
             PROCUREMENT
       150   PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING.........................          20,611                             20,611
       160   PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION................         360,727                            360,727
       180   PROC JOINT OPERATIONAL MEDICINE INFORMATION                2,413                              2,413
              SYSTEM.........................................
       200   PROC DOD HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM                     29,468                             29,468
              MODERNIZATION..................................
             SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT............................         413,219               0            413,219
 
             UNDISTRIBUTED
       220   UNDISTRIBUTED DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM............               0         440,000            440,000
                 Incorporation of value-based health care                             [24,500]
                 into TRICARE program........................
                 Pilot program on health insurance for                                [20,000]
                 reserve component members...................
                 Reduction for unauthorized fertility                                [-38,000]
                 treatment benefits..........................
                 Reduction for unjustified travel expenses...                         [-6,500]
                 Reimbursement rates for Comprehensive Autism                         [40,000]
                 Care Demonstration program..................
                 TRICARE reform implementation...............                        [400,000]
             SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED..........................               0         440,000            440,000
 
             TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM....................      33,467,516         433,530         33,901,046
 
             SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF)
             SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF)
        99   SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF)....               0         673,100            673,100
                 Transfer from Drug Interdiction and Counter-                        [258,300]
                 Drug Activities.............................
                 Transfer of Combatting Terrorism Fellowship                          [26,800]
                 Program.....................................
                 Transfer of Defense Institute of                                      [2,600]
                 International Legal Studies.................
                 Transfer of Defense Institution Reform                               [25,600]
                 Initiative..................................
                 Transfer of Global Train and Equip Program..                        [270,200]
                 Transfer of Ministry of Defense Advisors....                          [9,200]
                 Transfer of Regional Centers................                         [58,600]
                 Transfer of Wales Initaitive Fund/                                   [21,800]
                 Partnership for Peace.......................
             SUBTOTAL SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND                 0         673,100            673,100
              (SCEF).........................................
 
             TOTAL SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND                    0         673,100            673,100
              (SCEF).........................................
 
             TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS......................      36,556,987         841,030         37,398,017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2017                           Senate
    Line                           Item                            Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
       020   ARMY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT..........................          46,833                             46,833
             SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY.............          46,833               0             46,833
 
             DLA WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS
       030   DLA WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS.......................          93,800                             93,800
             SUBTOTAL DLA WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS..............          93,800               0             93,800
 
             TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND......................         140,633               0            140,633
 
             DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
             DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
       010   DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES..........................         215,333                            215,333
             SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG              215,333               0            215,333
              ACTIVITIES.....................................
 
             TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES,           215,333               0            215,333
              DEF............................................
 
             OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
       010   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................          22,062                             22,062
             SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..............          22,062               0             22,062
 
             TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL...........          22,062               0             22,062
 
             DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
       010   IN-HOUSE CARE...................................          95,366                             95,366
       020   PRIVATE SECTOR CARE.............................         233,073                            233,073
       030   CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT.....................           3,325                              3,325
             SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE................         331,764               0            331,764
 
             TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM....................         331,764               0            331,764
 
             COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
             COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
       090   COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND..............       1,000,000      -1,000,000                  0
                 Ahead of need...............................                       [-150,000]
                 Transfer to Counter Islamic State in Iraq                          [-200,000]
                 and the Levant Fund (former Iraq Train and
                 Equip)......................................
                 Transfer to Security Cooperation Enhancement                       [-650,000]
                 Fund........................................
             SUBTOTAL COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND.....       1,000,000      -1,000,000                  0
 
             TOTAL COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND........       1,000,000      -1,000,000                  0
 
             SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF)
             SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF)
        99   SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF)....               0       1,470,000          1,470,000
                 Transfer from Coalition Support Fund........                        [820,000]
                 Transfer from Counterterrorism Partnership                          [650,000]
                 Fund........................................
             SUBTOTAL SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND                 0       1,470,000          1,470,000
              (SCEF).........................................
 
             TOTAL SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND                    0       1,470,000          1,470,000
              (SCEF).........................................
 
             TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS......................       1,709,792         470,000          2,179,792
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
 


SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Budget                          Senate
          Account                 State/ Country           Installation              Project Title            Request     Senate  Change    Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
MILCON, ARMY
MILCON, ARMY                 ALASKA                   Fort Wainwright         Unmanned Aerial Vehicle             47,000                          47,000
                                                                               Hangar.
MILCON, ARMY                 CALIFORNIA               Concord                 Access Control Point......          12,600                          12,600
MILCON, ARMY                 COLORADO                 Fort Carson             Guard Readiness Center....               0          16,500          16,500
MILCON, ARMY                 COLORADO                 Fort Carson             Automated Infantry Platoon           8,100                           8,100
                                                                               Battle Course.
MILCON, ARMY                 COLORADO                 Fort Carson             Unmanned Aerial Vehicle              5,000                           5,000
                                                                               Hangar.
MILCON, ARMY                 GEORGIA                  Fort Gordon             Company Operations                       0          10,600          10,600
                                                                               Facility.
MILCON, ARMY                 GEORGIA                  Fort Gordon             Cyber Protection Team Ops           90,000                          90,000
                                                                               Facility.
MILCON, ARMY                 GEORGIA                  Fort Stewart            Automated Qualification/            14,800                          14,800
                                                                               Training Range.
MILCON, ARMY                 GERMANY                  East Camp Grafenwoehr   Training Support Center...          22,000                          22,000
MILCON, ARMY                 GERMANY                  Garmisch                Dining Facility...........           9,600                           9,600
MILCON, ARMY                 GERMANY                  Wiesbaden Army          Controlled Humidity                 16,500                          16,500
                                                       Airfield                Warehouse.
MILCON, ARMY                 GERMANY                  Wiesbaden Army          Hazardous Material Storage           2,700                           2,700
                                                       Airfield                Building.
MILCON, ARMY                 GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA     Guantanamo Bay          Mass Migration Complex....          33,000         -33,000               0
MILCON, ARMY                 HAWAII                   Fort Shafter            Command and Control                 40,000                          40,000
                                                                               Facility, Incr 2.
MILCON, ARMY                 TEXAS                    Fort Hood               Automated Infantry Platoon           7,600                           7,600
                                                                               Battle Course.
MILCON, ARMY                 UTAH                     Camp Williams           Live Fire Exercise                   7,400                           7,400
                                                                               Shoothouse.
MILCON, ARMY                 VIRGINIA                 Fort Belvoir            Secure Admin/Operations             64,000                          64,000
                                                                               Facility, Incr 2.
MILCON, ARMY                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Prior Year Savings........               0         -30,000         -30,000
                                                       Locations
MILCON, ARMY                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Minor Construction FY17...          25,000                          25,000
                                                       Locations
MILCON, ARMY                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design FY17..          80,159                          80,159
                                                       Locations
MILCON, ARMY                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Host Nation Support FY17..          18,000                          18,000
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY                                                                                      503,459         -35,900         467,559
                             .......................  ......................
MIL CON, NAVY
MIL CON, NAVY                ARIZONA                  Yuma                    VMX-22 Maintenance Hangar.          48,355                          48,355
MIL CON, NAVY                CALIFORNIA               Coronado                Coastal Campus Entry                13,044                          13,044
                                                                               Control Point.
MIL CON, NAVY                CALIFORNIA               Coronado                Grace Hopper Data Center            10,353                          10,353
                                                                               Power Upgrades.
MIL CON, NAVY                CALIFORNIA               Coronado                Coastal Campus Utilities            81,104                          81,104
                                                                               Infrastructure.
MIL CON, NAVY                CALIFORNIA               Lemoore                 F-35C Engine Repair                 26,723                          26,723
                                                                               Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY                CALIFORNIA               Miramar                 Communications Complex and               0          34,700          34,700
                                                                               Infrastructure.
MIL CON, NAVY                CALIFORNIA               Miramar                 F-35 Parking Apron........               0          40,000          40,000
MIL CON, NAVY                CALIFORNIA               San Diego               Energy Security Hospital             6,183          -6,183               0
                                                                               Microgrid.
MIL CON, NAVY                CALIFORNIA               Seal Beach              Missile Magazines.........          21,007                          21,007
MIL CON, NAVY                FLORIDA                  Eglin AFB               WMD Field Training                  20,489                          20,489
                                                                               Facilities.
MIL CON, NAVY                GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas   Power Upgrade--Harmon.....          62,210                          62,210
MIL CON, NAVY                GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas   Hardening of Guam POL               26,975                          26,975
                                                                               Infrastructure.
MIL CON, NAVY                HAWAII                   Barking Sands           Upgrade Power Plant &               43,384                          43,384
                                                                               Electrical Distrib Sys.
MIL CON, NAVY                HAWAII                   Kaneohe Bay             Regimental Consolidated             72,565                          72,565
                                                                               Comm/Elec Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY                JAPAN                    Kadena AB               Aircraft Maintenance                26,489                          26,489
                                                                               Complex.
MIL CON, NAVY                JAPAN                    Sasebo                  Shore Power (Juliet Pier).          16,420                          16,420
MIL CON, NAVY                MAINE                    Kittery                 Unaccompanied Housing.....          17,773                          17,773
MIL CON, NAVY                MAINE                    Kittery                 Utility Improvements for            30,119                          30,119
                                                                               Nuclear Platforms.
MIL CON, NAVY                MARYLAND                 Patuxent River          UCLASS RDT&E Hangar.......          40,576                          40,576
MIL CON, NAVY                NEVADA                   Fallon                  Air Wing Simulator                  13,523                          13,523
                                                                               Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY                NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune            Range Facilities Safety             18,482                          18,482
                                                                               Improvements.
MIL CON, NAVY                NORTH CAROLINA           Cherry Point Marine     Central Heating Plant               12,515                          12,515
                                                       Corps Air Station       Conversion.
MIL CON, NAVY                SOUTH CAROLINA           Beaufort                Aircraft Maintenance                83,490                          83,490
                                                                               Hangar.
MIL CON, NAVY                SOUTH CAROLINA           Parris Island           Recruit Reconditioning              29,882                          29,882
                                                                               Center & Barracks.
MIL CON, NAVY                SPAIN                    Rota                    Communication Station.....          23,607                          23,607
MIL CON, NAVY                VIRGINIA                 Norfolk                 Chambers Field Magazine                  0          27,000          27,000
                                                                               Recap.
MIL CON, NAVY                WASHINGTON               Bangor                  Service Pier Electrical             18,939                          18,939
                                                                               Upgrades.
MIL CON, NAVY                WASHINGTON               Bremerton               Submarine Refit Maint               21,476                          21,476
                                                                               Support Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY                WASHINGTON               Bremerton               Nuclear Repair Facility...           6,704                           6,704
MIL CON, NAVY                WASHINGTON               Whidbey Island          Triton Mission Control              30,475                          30,475
                                                                               Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY                WASHINGTON               Whidbey Island          EA-18G Maintenance Hangar.          45,501                          45,501
MIL CON, NAVY                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor                   29,790                          29,790
                                                       Locations               Construction.
MIL CON, NAVY                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design.......          88,230                          88,230
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, NAVY                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide       Triton Forward Operating            41,380                          41,380
                                                       Locations               Base Hangar.
      SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY                                                                                   1,027,763          95,517       1,123,280
                             .......................  ......................
MILCON, AIR FORCE
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ALASKA                   Clear AFS               Fire Station..............          20,000                          20,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ALASKA                   Eielson AFB             F-35A ADAL Field Training           22,100                          22,100
                                                                               Detachment Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ALASKA                   Eielson AFB             F-35A Hangar/Propulsion MX/         44,900                          44,900
                                                                               Dispatch.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ALASKA                   Eielson AFB             F-35A Missile Maintenance           12,800                          12,800
                                                                               Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ALASKA                   Eielson AFB             F-35A Aircraft Weather              79,500                          79,500
                                                                               Shelters (Sqd 1).
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ALASKA                   Eielson AFB             F-35A Earth Covered                 11,300                          11,300
                                                                               Magazines.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ALASKA                   Eielson AFB             F-35A Hangar/Squad Ops/AMU          42,700                          42,700
                                                                               Sq #2.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ALASKA                   Eielson AFB             F-35A Aircraft Weather              82,300                          82,300
                                                                               Shelter (Sqd 2).
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ALASKA                   Joint Base Elmendorf-   Add/Alter AWACS Alert               29,000                          29,000
                                                       Richardson              Hangar.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                F-35A Squad Ops/Aircraft            20,000                          20,000
                                                                               Maint Unit #5.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            AUSTRALIA                Darwin                  APR--Expand Parking Apron.          28,600                          28,600
MILCON, AIR FORCE            AUSTRALIA                Darwin                  APR--Aircraft MX Support             1,800                           1,800
                                                                               Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            CALIFORNIA               Edwards Air Force Base  Flightline Fire Station...          24,000                          24,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE            COLORADO                 Buckley Air Force Base  Small Arms Range Complex..          13,500                          13,500
MILCON, AIR FORCE            DELAWARE                 Dover AFB               Aircraft Maintenance                39,000                          39,000
                                                                               Hangar.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            FLORIDA                  Eglin AFB               Flightline Fire Station...          13,600                          13,600
MILCON, AIR FORCE            FLORIDA                  Eglin AFB               Advanced Munitions                  75,000                          75,000
                                                                               Technology Complex.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            FLORIDA                  Patrick AFB             Fire/Crash Rescue Station.          13,500                          13,500
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GEORGIA                  Moody AFB               Personnel Recovery 4-Bay            30,900                          30,900
                                                                               Hangar/Helo Mx Unit.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GERMANY                  Ramstein AB             37 AS Squadron Operations/          13,437                          13,437
                                                                               Aircraft Maint Unit.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB          EIC--Site Development and           43,465                          43,465
                                                                               Infrastructure.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas   APR--Munitions Storage              35,300                          35,300
                                                                               Igloos, Ph 2.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas   Block 40 Maintenance                31,158                          31,158
                                                                               Hangar.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas   APR--SATCOM C4I Facility..          14,200                          14,200
MILCON, AIR FORCE            JAPAN                    Kadena AB               APR--Replace Munitions              19,815                          19,815
                                                                               Structures.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            JAPAN                    Yokota AB               Construct Combat Arms                8,243                           8,243
                                                                               Training & Maint Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            JAPAN                    Yokota AB               C-130J Corrosion Control            23,777                          23,777
                                                                               Hangar.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            KANSAS                   McConnell AFB           Air Traffic Control Tower.          11,200                          11,200
MILCON, AIR FORCE            KANSAS                   McConnell AFB           KC-46A Alter Flight                  3,000                           3,000
                                                                               Simulator Bldgs.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            KANSAS                   McConnell AFB           KC-46A ADAL Taxiway Delta.           5,600                           5,600
MILCON, AIR FORCE            LOUISIANA                Barksdale AFB           Consolidated Communication          21,000                          21,000
                                                                               Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            MARIANA ISLANDS          Unspecified Location    APR--Land Acquisition.....           9,000                           9,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE            MARYLAND                 Joint Base Andrews      Consolidated                             0          50,000          50,000
                                                                               Communications Center.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            MARYLAND                 Joint Base Andrews      21 Points Enclosed Firing           13,000                          13,000
                                                                               Range.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            MARYLAND                 Joint Base Andrews      PAR Relocate JADOC                   3,500                           3,500
                                                                               Satellite Site.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            MASSACHUSETTS            Hanscom AFB             System Management                   20,000                          20,000
                                                                               Engineering Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            MONTANA                  Malmstrom AFB           Missile Maintenance                 14,600                          14,600
                                                                               Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            NEVADA                   Nellis AFB              F-35A POL Fill Stand                10,600                          10,600
                                                                               Addition.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            NEW MEXICO               Cannon AFB              North Fitness Center......          21,000                          21,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE            NEW MEXICO               Holloman AFB            Hazardous Cargo Pad and             10,600                          10,600
                                                                               Taxiway.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            NEW MEXICO               Kirtland AFB            Combat Rescue Helicopter             7,300                           7,300
                                                                               (CRH) Simulator.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            OHIO                     Wright-Patterson AFB    Relocated Entry Control             12,600                          12,600
                                                                               Facility 26A.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            OKLAHOMA                 Altus AFB               KC-46A FTU/FTC Simulator            11,600                          11,600
                                                                               Facility Ph 2.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            OKLAHOMA                 Tinker AFB              E3 Mission and Flight                    0          26,000          26,000
                                                                               Simulator.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            OKLAHOMA                 Tinker AFB              KC-46A Depot System                 17,000                          17,000
                                                                               Integration Laboratory.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio  BMT Recruit Dormitory 6...          67,300                          67,300
MILCON, AIR FORCE            TURKEY                   Incirlik AB             Airfield Fire/Crash Rescue          13,449                          13,449
                                                                               Station.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            UNITED ARAB EMIRATES     Al Dhafra               Large Aircraft Maintenance          35,400                          35,400
                                                                               Hangar.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            UNITED KINGDOM           Croughton RAF           Main Gate Complex.........          16,500                          16,500
MILCON, AIR FORCE            UNITED KINGDOM           Croughton RAF           JIAC Consolidation--Ph 3..          53,082                          53,082
MILCON, AIR FORCE            UTAH                     Hill AFB                649 MUNS STAMP/Maint &              12,000                          12,000
                                                                               Inspection Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            UTAH                     Hill AFB                F-35A Munitions                     10,100                          10,100
                                                                               Maintenance Complex.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            UTAH                     Hill AFB                Composite Aircraft Antenna           7,100                           7,100
                                                                               Calibration Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            UTAH                     Hill AFB                649 MUNS Precision Guided            8,700                           8,700
                                                                               Missile MX Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            UTAH                     Hill AFB                649 MUNS Munitions Storage           6,600                           6,600
                                                                               Magazines.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            VIRGINIA                 Joint Base Langley-     Fuel System Maintenance             14,200                          14,200
                                                       Eustis                  Dock.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            VIRGINIA                 Joint Base Langley-     Air Force Targeting Center          45,000                          45,000
                                                       Eustis
MILCON, AIR FORCE            WASHINGTON               Fairchild AFB           Pipeline Dorm, USAF SERE            27,000                          27,000
                                                                               School (150 RM).
MILCON, AIR FORCE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Prior Year Savings........               0         -22,300         -22,300
                                                       Locations
MILCON, AIR FORCE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide       Planning & Design.........         143,582                         143,582
                                                       Locations
MILCON, AIR FORCE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide       Unspecified Minor Military          30,000                          30,000
                                                       Locations               Construction.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            WYOMING                  F. E. Warren AFB        Missile Transfer Facility            5,550                           5,550
                                                                               Bldg 4331.
      SUBTOTAL MILCON, AIR FORCE                                                                               1,481,058          53,700       1,534,758
                             .......................  ......................
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            ALASKA                   Clear AFS               Long Range Discrim Radar           155,000                         155,000
                                                                               Sys Complex Ph1.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            ALASKA                   Fort Greely             Missile Defense Complex              9,560                           9,560
                                                                               Switchgear Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            ALASKA                   Joint Base Elmendorf-   Construct Truck Offload              4,900                           4,900
                                                       Richardson              Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            ARIZONA                  Fort Huachuca           JITC Building 52110                  4,493                           4,493
                                                                               Renovation.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            CALIFORNIA               Coronado                SOF Seal Team Ops Facility          47,290                          47,290
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            CALIFORNIA               Coronado                SOF Seal Team Ops Facility          47,290                          47,290
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            CALIFORNIA               Coronado                SOF Special RECON Team ONE          20,949                          20,949
                                                                               Operations Fac.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            CALIFORNIA               Coronado                SOF Human Performance               15,578                          15,578
                                                                               Training Center.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            CALIFORNIA               Coronado                SOF Training Detachment             44,305                          44,305
                                                                               ONE Ops Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            CALIFORNIA               Travis AFB              Replace Hydrant Fuel                26,500                          26,500
                                                                               System.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            DELAWARE                 Dover AFB               Welch ES/Dover MS                   44,115                          44,115
                                                                               Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            DIEGO GARCIA             Diego Garcia            Improve Wharf Refueling             30,000                          30,000
                                                                               Capability.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            FLORIDA                  Patrick AFB             Replace Fuel Tanks........          10,100                          10,100
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            GEORGIA                  Fort Benning            SOF Tactical Unmanned                4,820                           4,820
                                                                               Aerial Vehicle Hangar.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            GEORGIA                  Fort Gordon             Medical Clinic Replacement          25,000                          25,000
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            GERMANY                  Kaiserlautern AB        Sembach Elementary/Middle           45,221                          45,221
                                                                               School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            GERMANY                  Rhine Ordnance          Medical Center Replacement          58,063                          58,063
                                                       Barracks                Incr 6.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            JAPAN                    Iwakuni                 Construct Truck Offload &            6,664                           6,664
                                                                               Loading Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            JAPAN                    Kadena AB               Kadena Elementary School            84,918                          84,918
                                                                               Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            JAPAN                    Kadena AB               SOF Simulator Facility (MC-         12,602                          12,602
                                                                               130).
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            JAPAN                    Kadena AB               SOF Maintenance Hangar....          42,823                          42,823
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            JAPAN                    Kadena AB               Medical Materiel Warehouse          20,881                          20,881
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            JAPAN                    Yokota AB               Hangar/AMU................          39,466                          39,466
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            JAPAN                    Yokota AB               Operations and Warehouse            26,710                          26,710
                                                                               Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            JAPAN                    Yokota AB               Simulator Facility........           6,261                           6,261
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            JAPAN                    Yokota AB               Airfield Apron............          41,294                          41,294
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            KWAJALEIN                Kwajalein Atoll         Replace Fuel Storage Tanks          85,500                          85,500
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            MAINE                    Kittery                 Medical/Dental Clinic               27,100                          27,100
                                                                               Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            MARYLAND                 Bethesda Naval          MEDCEN Addition/Alteration          50,000                          50,000
                                                       Hospital                Incr 1.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            MARYLAND                 Fort Meade              NSAW Recapitalize Building         195,000                         195,000
                                                                               #2 Incr 2.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            MARYLAND                 Fort Meade              NSAW Campus Feeders Phase           17,000                          17,000
                                                                               3.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            MARYLAND                 Fort Meade              Access Control Facility...          21,000                          21,000
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            MISSOURI                 St. Louis               Land Acquisition-Next NGA              801                             801
                                                                               West (N2W) Campus.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune            Dental Clinic Replacement.          31,000                          31,000
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg              SOF Tactical Equipment              23,598                          23,598
                                                                               Maintenance Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg              SOF Parachute Rigging               21,420                          21,420
                                                                               Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg              SOF Special Tactics                 30,670                          30,670
                                                                               Facility (PH3).
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg              SOF Combat Medic Training           10,905                          10,905
                                                                               Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            SOUTH CAROLINA           Joint Base Charleston   Construct Hydrant Fuel              17,000                          17,000
                                                                               System.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            TEXAS                    Red River Army Depot    Construct Warehouse & Open          44,700                          44,700
                                                                               Storage.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            TEXAS                    Sheppard AFB            Medical/Dental Clinic               91,910                          91,910
                                                                               Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            UNITED KINGDOM           Croughton RAF           Croughton Elem/Middle/High          71,424                          71,424
                                                                               School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            UNITED KINGDOM           Royal Air Force         Construct Hydrant Fuel              13,500                          13,500
                                                       Lakenheath              System.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            VIRGINIA                 Pentagon                Pentagon Metro Entrance             12,111         -12,111               0
                                                                               Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            VIRGINIA                 Pentagon                Upgrade IT Facilities                8,105                           8,105
                                                                               Infrastructure-RRMC.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WAKE ISLAND              Wake Island             Test Support Facility.....          11,670                          11,670
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Battalion Complex.........               0          64,400          64,400
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Prior Year Savings........               0        -132,200        -132,200
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor                    3,000                           3,000
                                                       Locations               Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design.......          23,585                          23,585
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design.......          71,647                          71,647
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Worldwide Unspecified                2,414                           2,414
                                                       Locations               Minor Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor                    5,994                           5,994
                                                       Locations               Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Energy Conservation                150,000                         150,000
                                                       Locations               Investment Program.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Contingency Construction..          10,000                          10,000
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor                    3,000                           3,000
                                                       Locations               Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design.......          13,450                          13,450
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   ECIP Design...............          10,000                          10,000
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor Milcon..           3,913                           3,913
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design.......          24,000                          24,000
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor                    8,500                           8,500
                                                       Locations               Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Exercise Related Minor               8,631                           8,631
                                                       Locations               Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design.......           3,427                           3,427
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide       Planning and Design.......          27,653                          27,653
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide       Planning & Design.........          27,660                          27,660
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL MIL CON, DEF-WIDE                                                                               2,056,091         -79,911       1,976,180
                             .......................  ......................
MILCON, ARNG
MILCON, ARNG                 HAWAII                   Hilo                    Combined Support                    31,000                          31,000
                                                                               Maintenance Shop.
MILCON, ARNG                 IOWA                     Davenport               National Guard Readiness            23,000                          23,000
                                                                               Center.
MILCON, ARNG                 KANSAS                   Fort Leavenworth        National Guard Readiness            29,000                          29,000
                                                                               Center.
MILCON, ARNG                 NEW HAMPSHIRE            Hooksett                National Guard Vehicle              11,000                          11,000
                                                                               Maintenance Shop.
MILCON, ARNG                 NEW HAMPSHIRE            Rochester               National Guard Vehicle               8,900                           8,900
                                                                               Maintenance Shop.
MILCON, ARNG                 OKLAHOMA                 Ardmore                 National Guard Readiness            22,000                          22,000
                                                                               Center.
MILCON, ARNG                 PENNSYLVANIA             York                    National Guard Readiness             9,300                           9,300
                                                                               Center.
MILCON, ARNG                 RHODE ISLAND             East Greenwich          National Guard/Reserve              20,000                          20,000
                                                                               Center Building (JFHQ).
MILCON, ARNG                 UTAH                     Camp Williams           National Guard Readiness            37,000                          37,000
                                                                               Center.
MILCON, ARNG                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor                   12,001                          12,001
                                                       Locations               Construction.
MILCON, ARNG                 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design.......           8,729                           8,729
                                                       Locations
MILCON, ARNG                 WYOMING                  Laramie                 National Guard Readiness            21,000                          21,000
                                                                               Center.
      SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARNG                                                                                      232,930               0         232,930
                             .......................  ......................
MILCON, ANG
MILCON, ANG                  CONNECTICUT              Bradley IAP             Construct Small Air                  6,300                           6,300
                                                                               Terminal.
MILCON, ANG                  FLORIDA                  Jacksonville IAP        Replace Fire Crash/Rescue            9,000                           9,000
                                                                               Station.
MILCON, ANG                  HAWAII                   Joint Base Pearl        F-22 Composite Repair               11,000                          11,000
                                                       Harbor-Hickam           Facility.
MILCON, ANG                  IOWA                     Sioux Gateway Airport   Construct Consolidated              12,600                          12,600
                                                                               Support Functions.
MILCON, ANG                  MINNESOTA                Duluth IAP              Load Crew Training/Weapon            7,600                           7,600
                                                                               Shops.
MILCON, ANG                  NEW HAMPSHIRE            Pease International     KC-46A Install Fuselage              1,500                           1,500
                                                       Trade Port              Trainer Bldg 251.
MILCON, ANG                  NORTH CAROLINA           Charlotte/Douglas IAP   C-17 Corrosion Control/             29,600                          29,600
                                                                               Fuel Cell Hangar.
MILCON, ANG                  NORTH CAROLINA           Charlotte/Douglas IAP   C-17 Type III Hydrant               21,000                          21,000
                                                                               Refueling System.
MILCON, ANG                  SOUTH CAROLINA           McEntire ANGS           Replace Operations and               8,400                           8,400
                                                                               Training Facility.
MILCON, ANG                  TEXAS                    Ellington Field         Consolidate Crew Readiness           4,500                           4,500
                                                                               Facility.
MILCON, ANG                  VERMONT                  Burlington IAP          F-35 Beddown 4-Bay Flight            4,500                           4,500
                                                                               Simulator.
MILCON, ANG                  WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor                   17,495                          17,495
                                                       Locations               Construction.
MILCON, ANG                  WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide       Planning and Design.......          10,462                          10,462
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL MILCON, ANG                                                                                       143,957               0         143,957
                             .......................  ......................
MILCON, ARMY R
MILCON, ARMY R               ARIZONA                  Phoenix                 Army Reserve Center.......               0          30,000          30,000
MILCON, ARMY R               CALIFORNIA               Fort Hunter Liggett     Emergency Services Center.          21,500                          21,500
MILCON, ARMY R               CALIFORNIA               Fort Hunter Liggett     Transient Training                  19,000                          19,000
                                                                               Barracks.
MILCON, ARMY R               VIRGINIA                 Dublin                  Organizational Maintenance           6,000                           6,000
                                                                               Shop/AMSA.
MILCON, ARMY R               WISCONSIN                Fort McCoy              AT/MOB Dining Facility....          11,400                          11,400
MILCON, ARMY R               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design.......           7,500                           7,500
                                                       Locations
MILCON, ARMY R               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor                    2,830                           2,830
                                                       Locations               Construction.
      SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY R                                                                                     68,230          30,000          98,230
                             .......................  ......................
MIL CON, NAVY RES
MIL CON, NAVY RES            LOUISIANA                New Orleans             Joint Reserve Intelligence          11,207                          11,207
                                                                               Center.
MIL CON, NAVY RES            NEW YORK                 Brooklyn                Electric Feeder Ductbank..           1,964                           1,964
MIL CON, NAVY RES            NEW YORK                 Syracuse                Marine Corps Reserve                13,229                          13,229
                                                                               Center.
MIL CON, NAVY RES            TEXAS                    Galveston               Reserve Center Annex......           8,414                           8,414
MIL CON, NAVY RES            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   MCNR Planning & Design....           3,783                           3,783
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY RES                                                                                  38,597               0          38,597
                             .......................  ......................
MILCON, AF RES
MILCON, AF RES               NORTH CAROLINA           Seymour Johnson AFB     KC-46A Two Bay Corrosion/           90,000                          90,000
                                                                               Fuel Cell Hangar.
MILCON, AF RES               NORTH CAROLINA           Seymour Johnson AFB     KC-46A ADAL Bldg for AGE/            5,700                           5,700
                                                                               Fuselage Training.
MILCON, AF RES               NORTH CAROLINA           Seymour Johnson AFB     KC-46A ADAL Squadron                 2,250                           2,250
                                                                               Operations Facilities.
MILCON, AF RES               PENNSYLVANIA             Pittsburgh IAP          C-17 Construct Two Bay              54,000                          54,000
                                                                               Corrosion/Fuel Hangar.
MILCON, AF RES               PENNSYLVANIA             Pittsburgh IAP          C-17 ADAL Fuel Hydrant              22,800                          22,800
                                                                               System.
MILCON, AF RES               PENNSYLVANIA             Pittsburgh IAP          C-17 Const/OverlayTaxiway            8,200                           8,200
                                                                               and Apron.
MILCON, AF RES               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning & Design.........           4,500                           4,500
                                                       Locations
MILCON, AF RES               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Unspecified Minor                    1,500                           1,500
                                                       Locations               Construction.
      SUBTOTAL MILCON, AF RES                                                                                    188,950               0         188,950
                             .......................  ......................
NATO SEC INV PRGM
NATO SEC INV PRGM            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    NATO Security           Nato Security Investment           177,932                         177,932
                                                       Investment Program      Program.
NATO SEC INV PRGM            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Prior Year Savings........               0         -30,000         -30,000
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL NATO SEC INV PRGM                                                                                 177,932         -30,000         147,932
                             .......................  ......................
      TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION                                                                              5,918,967          33,406       5,952,373
                             .......................  ......................
FAMILY HOUSING
FAM HSG CON, ARMY
FAM HSG CON, ARMY            KOREA                    Camp Humphreys          Family Housing New                 143,563                         143,563
                                                                               Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY            KOREA                    Camp Walker             Family Housing New                  54,554                          54,554
                                                                               Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning & Design.........           2,618                           2,618
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, ARMY                                                                                 200,735               0         200,735
                             .......................  ......................
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Management................          40,344                          40,344
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Services..................           7,993                           7,993
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Furnishings...............          10,178                          10,178
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Miscellaneous.............             400                             400
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Maintenance...............          60,745                          60,745
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Utilities.................          55,428                          55,428
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Leasing...................         131,761                         131,761
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Housing Privitization               19,146                          19,146
                                                       Locations               Support.
      SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, ARMY                                                                                 325,995               0         325,995
                             .......................  ......................
FAM HSG CON, N/MC
FAM HSG CON, N/MC            MARIANA ISLANDS          Guam                    Replace Andersen Housing            78,815                          78,815
                                                                               PH I.
FAM HSG CON, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Construction Improvements.          11,047                          11,047
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG CON, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning & Design.........           4,149                           4,149
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, N/MC                                                                                  94,011               0          94,011
                             .......................  ......................
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Utilities.................          56,685                          56,685
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Furnishings...............          17,457                          17,457
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Management................          51,291                          51,291
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Miscellaneous.............             364                             364
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Services..................          12,855                          12,855
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Leasing...................          54,689                          54,689
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Maintenance...............          81,254                          81,254
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Housing Privatization               26,320                          26,320
                                                       Locations               Support.
      SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, N/MC                                                                                 300,915               0         300,915
                             .......................  ......................
FAM HSG CON, AF
FAM HSG CON, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Construction Improvements.          56,984                          56,984
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG CON, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning & Design.........           4,368                           4,368
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, AF                                                                                    61,352               0          61,352
                             .......................  ......................
FAM HSG O&M, AF
FAM HSG O&M, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Housing Privatization               41,809                          41,809
                                                       Locations               Support.
FAM HSG O&M, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Utilities.................          37,241                          37,241
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Management................          42,919                          42,919
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Services..................          13,026                          13,026
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Furnishings...............          31,690                          31,690
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Miscellaneous.............           1,745                           1,745
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Leasing...................          20,530                          20,530
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Maintenance...............          85,469                          85,469
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, AF                                                                                   274,429               0         274,429
                             .......................  ......................
FAM HSG O&M, DW
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Utilities.................           4,100                           4,100
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Furnishings...............             399                             399
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Utilities.................             367                             367
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Leasing...................          11,044                          11,044
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Maintenance...............             800                             800
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Furnishings...............             500                             500
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Leasing...................          40,984                          40,984
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Furnishings...............              20                              20
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Services..................              32                              32
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Utilities.................             174                             174
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Maintenance...............             349                             349
                                                       Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Management................             388                             388
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, DW                                                                                    59,157               0          59,157
                             .......................  ......................
FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND
FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND         WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Program Expenses..........           3,258                           3,258
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND                                                                                3,258               0           3,258
                             .......................  ......................
      TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING                                                                                     1,319,852                       1,319,852
                             .......................  ......................
DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
DOD BRAC--ARMY
DOD BRAC--ARMY               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Base Realignment &      Base Realignment and                14,499                          14,499
                                                       Closure, Army           Closure.
      SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC--ARMY                                                                                     14,499               0          14,499
                             .......................  ......................
DOD BRAC--NAVY
DOD BRAC--NAVY               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Base Realignment &      Base Realignment & Closure         110,606                         110,606
                                                       Closure, Navy
DOD BRAC--NAVY               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   DON-172: NWS Seal Beach,             4,648                           4,648
                                                       Locations               Concord, CA.
DOD BRAC--NAVY               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   DON-138: NAS Brunswick, ME             557                             557
                                                       Locations
DOD BRAC--NAVY               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   DON-157: MCSA Kansas City,             100                             100
                                                       Locations               MO.
DOD BRAC--NAVY               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   DON-84: JRB Willow Grove &           3,397                           3,397
                                                       Locations               Cambria Reg AP.
DOD BRAC--NAVY               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   DON-100: Planing, Design             4,604                           4,604
                                                       Locations               and Management.
DOD BRAC--NAVY               WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   DON-101: Various Locations          10,461                          10,461
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC--NAVY                                                                                    134,373               0         134,373
                             .......................  ......................
DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE
DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   DoD BRAC Activities--Air            56,365                          56,365
                                                       Locations               Force.
      SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE                                                                                56,365               0          56,365
                             .......................  ......................
      TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE                                                                 205,237                         205,237
                             .......................  ......................
      TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC                                                    7,444,056          33,406       7,477,462
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Budget                          Senate
          Account                 State/ Country           Installation              Project Title            Request     Senate  Change    Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
 MILCON, ARMY
 MILCON, ARMY                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   ERI: Planning and Design..          18,900                         18,900
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY                                                                                       18,900               0         18,900
                             .......................  ......................
 MIL CON, NAVY
 MIL CON, NAVY               DJIBOUTI                 Camp Lemonier           OCO: Medical/Dental                 37,409                          37,409
                                                                               Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY                ICELAND                  Keflavik                ERI: P-8A Hangar Upgrade..          14,600                          14,600
MIL CON, NAVY                ICELAND                  Keflavik                ERI: P-8A Aircraft Rinse             5,000                           5,000
                                                                               Rack.
MIL CON, NAVY                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   Planning and Design.......           1,000                           1,000
                                                       Locations
MIL CON, NAVY                WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   ERI: Planning and Design..           1,800                          1,800
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY                                                                                      59,809               0         59,809
                             .......................  ......................
 MILCON, AIR FORCE
 MILCON, AIR FORCE           BULGARIA                 Graf Ignatievo          ERI: Fighter Ramp                    7,000                           7,000
                                                                               Extension.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            BULGARIA                 Graf Ignatievo          ERI: Construct Sq Ops/               3,800                           3,800
                                                                               Operational Alert Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            BULGARIA                 Graf Ignatievo          ERI: Upgrade Munitions               2,600                           2,600
                                                                               Storage Area.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            DJIBOUTI                 Chabelley Airfield      OCO: Construct Chabelley             3,600                           3,600
                                                                               Access Road.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            DJIBOUTI                 Chabelley Airfield      OCO: Construct Parking               6,900                           6,900
                                                                               Apron and Taxiway.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ESTONIA                  Amari Air Base          ERI: Construct Bulk Fuel             6,500                           6,500
                                                                               Storage.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB          ERI: Upgrade Hardened                2,700                           2,700
                                                                               Aircraft Shelters.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB          ERI: F/A-22 Upgrade                  1,600                           1,600
                                                                               Infrastructure/Comm/Util.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB          ERI: F/A-22 Low Observable/         12,000                          12,000
                                                                               Comp Repair Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB          ERI: Construct High Cap              1,000                           1,000
                                                                               Trim Pad & Hush House.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB          ERI: Upgrade Munitions               1,400                           1,400
                                                                               Storage Doors.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            LITHUANIA                Siauliai                ERI: Munitions Storage....           3,000                           3,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE            POLAND                   Lask AB                 ERI: Construct Squadron              4,100                           4,100
                                                                               Operations Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            POLAND                   Powidz AB               ERI: Construct Squadron              4,100                           4,100
                                                                               Operations Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ROMANIA                  Campia Turzii           ERI: Extend Parking Aprons           6,000                           6,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ROMANIA                  Campia Turzii           ERI: Construct Munitions             3,000                           3,000
                                                                               Storage Area.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ROMANIA                  Campia Turzii           ERI: Construct Two-Bay               6,100                           6,100
                                                                               Hangar.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            ROMANIA                  Campia Turzii           ERI: Construct Squadron              3,400                           3,400
                                                                               Operations Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   OCO: Planning and Design..             940                             940
                                                       Locations
MILCON, AIR FORCE            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   CTP: Planning and Design..           9,000                          9,000
                                                       Locations
      SUBTOTAL MILCON, AIR FORCE                                                                                  88,740               0         88,740
                             .......................  ......................
 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE
 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide   ERI: Unspecified Minor               5,000                          5,000
                                                       Locations               Construction.
      SUBTOTAL MIL CON, DEF-WIDE                                                                                   5,000               0          5,000
                             .......................  ......................
       TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION                                                                               172,449               0        172,449
                             .......................  ......................
       TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC                                                     172,449               0        172,449
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Senate
                          Program                           FY 2017  Request   Senate  Change      Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
  Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
  Appropriation Summary:
    Energy Programs
      Nuclear Energy......................................           151,876               0             151,876
 
    Atomic Energy Defense Activities
      National nuclear security administration:
        Weapons activities................................         9,243,147          -7,750           9,235,397
        Defense nuclear nonproliferation..................         1,807,916          70,000           1,877,916
        Naval reactors....................................         1,420,120               0           1,420,120
        Federal salaries and expenses.....................           412,817               0             412,817
      Total, National nuclear security administration.....        12,884,000          62,250          12,946,250
 
      Environmental and other defense activities:
        Defense environmental cleanup.....................         5,382,050        -135,100           5,246,950
        Other defense activities..........................           791,552               0             791,552
      Total, Environmental & other defense activities.....         6,173,602        -135,100           6,038,502
    Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...............        19,057,602         -72,850          18,984,752
Total, Discretionary Funding..............................        19,209,478         -72,850          19,136,628
 
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
Total, Nuclear Energy.....................................           151,876               0             151,876
 
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                             220,253
    Total, Life extension programs........................         1,340,341               0           1,340,341
 
    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         -12,750              56,234
        Program reduction.................................                          [-12,750]
 
    Stockpile services
      Production support..................................           457,043                             457,043
      Research and development support....................            34,187                              34,187
      R&D certification and safety........................           156,481                             156,481
      Management, technology, and production..............           251,978                             251,978
    Total, Stockpile services.............................           899,689               0             899,689
 
    Nuclear material commodities
      Uranium sustainment.................................            20,988                              20,988
      Plutonium sustainment...............................           184,970                             184,970
      Tritium sustainment.................................           109,787                             109,787
      Domestic uranium enrichment.........................            50,000                              50,000
      Strategic matrials sustainment......................           212,092                             212,092
    Total, Nuclear material commodities...................           577,837               0             577,837
  Total, Directed stockpile work..........................         3,330,527         -12,750           3,317,777
 
  Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
    Science
      Advanced certification..............................            58,000                              58,000
      Primary assessment technologies.....................            99,000                              99,000
      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               0             441,984
 
    Engineering
      Enhanced surety.....................................            37,196                              37,196
      Weapon systems engineering assessment technology....            16,958                              16,958
      Nuclear survivability...............................            43,105                              43,105
      Enhanced surveillance...............................            42,228                              42,228
    Total, Engineering ...................................           139,487               0             139,487
 
    Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
      Ignition............................................            75,432                              75,432
      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                             340,360
    Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield.....           522,959               0             522,959
 
    Advanced simulation and computing.....................           663,184                             663,184
 
    Stockpile Responsiveness Program......................                 0           5,000               5,000
      Program Increase....................................                            [5,000]
 
    Advanced manufacturing
      Additive manufacturing..............................            12,000                              12,000
      Component manufacturing development.................            46,583                              46,583
      Processing technology development...................            28,522                              28,522
    Total, Advanced manufacturing.........................            87,105               0              87,105
  Total, RDT&E............................................         1,854,719           5,000           1,859,719
 
  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                             294,000
 
    Recapitalization:
      Infrastructure and safety...........................           554,643                             554,643
      Capability based investment.........................           112,639                             112,639
    Total, Recapitalization...............................           667,282               0             667,282
 
    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               0           2,721,952
 
  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                             657,133
    Construction:
      14-D-710 Device assembly facility argus installation            13,000                              13,000
       project, NV........................................
  Total, Defense nuclear security.........................           670,133               0             670,133
 
  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          -7,750           9,235,397
 
 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
  Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
      Global material security............................           337,108                             337,108
      Material management and minimization................           341,094                             341,094
      Nonproliferation and arms control...................           124,703                             124,703
      Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D................           393,922                             393,922
 
      Nonproliferation Construction:
        99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication                  270,000          70,000             340,000
         Facility, SRS....................................
          MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility Construction......                           [70,000]
      Total, Nonproliferation construction................           270,000          70,000             340,000
    Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs......         1,466,827          70,000           1,536,827
 
  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          70,000           1,877,916
 
 
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                             412,817
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................           412,817               0             412,817
 
 
Defense Environmental Cleanup
  Closure sites:
    Closure sites administration..........................             9,389                               9,389
 
  Hanford site:
    River corridor and other cleanup operations...........            69,755                              69,755
    Central plateau remediation...........................           620,869                             620,869
    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               0             716,811
 
  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          10,000             195,606
      Program Increase....................................                           [10,000]
    EMLA community and regulatory support.................             3,394                               3,394
  Total, Los Alamos National Laboratory...................           189,000          10,000             199,000
 
  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          10,000             267,188
      Program increase....................................                           [10,000]
    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          10,000             272,253
 
 
  Program direction.......................................           290,050                             290,050
  Program support.........................................            14,979                              14,979
  Safeguards and Security.................................           255,973                             255,973
  Technology development..................................            30,000                              30,000
  Infrastructure recapitalization.........................            41,892                              41,892
  Defense Uranium enrichment D&D..........................           155,100        -155,100                   0
    Program decrease......................................                         [-155,100]
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup......................         5,382,050        -135,100           5,246,950
 
 
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                             237,912
 
  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...........           116,716               0             116,716
 
  Office of hearings and appeals..........................             5,919                               5,919
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................           791,552               0             791,552
Total, Other Defense Activities...........................           791,552               0             791,552
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          DIVISION E--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE REFORM

Short title (Sec. 5001)

                      TITLE LI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Definitions (sec. 5101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 801 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 1, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to amend the 
definition of ``judge advocate''; to reflect the change within 
the Department of the Air Force from the ``Judge Advocate 
General's Department'' to the ``Judge Advocate General's 
Corps''; and to amend the definition of ``military judge'' to 
conform to the proposed changes in Article 30a of the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 830a) allowing military 
judges to address certain matters prior to referral of charges.
Clarification of persons subject to UCMJ while on inactive-duty 
        training (sec. 5102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 802 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 2, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would clarify 
jurisdiction for reserve component members during time periods 
incidental to Inactive-Duty Training (IDT).
Staff judge advocate disqualification due to prior involvement in case 
        (sec. 5103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 6, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to modify the 
provision under Article 6(c) that disqualifies certain 
individuals from acting as a staff judge advocate or legal 
officer to any reviewing authority to include appellate judges, 
and counsel who have participated in the same case, including 
special victims' counsel, in any proceeding before a military 
judge, preliminary hearing officer, or appellate court, among 
those disqualified.
Conforming amendment relating to military magistrates (sec. 5104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 6a, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform Article 6a 
with the provision to allow the detailing of military 
magistrates to proceedings under Article 30a and to add 
``military magistrates'' to the list of officials whose fitness 
to perform duties shall be subject to investigation and 
disposition under regulations prescribed by the President.
Rights of victim (sec. 5105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806b of title 10, United States Code, (Article 6b, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to clarify the 
relationship between the rights of victims and the disposition 
of offenses, as well as the procedures for judicial appointment 
of individuals to assume the rights of certain victims. The 
provision would modify Article 6b to incorporate procedures on 
defense counsel interviews of victims of sex-related offenses 
into Article 6b and would extend those procedures to victims of 
all offenses, consistent with related victims' rights 
provisions.

                 TITLE LII--APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT

Restraint of persons charged (sec. 5121)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 810 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 10, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the 
language of the section to reflect current military justice 
practice regarding the arrest or confinement of an individual 
who is charged with an offense under the UCMJ. Additionally, it 
would amend Article 10 to require forwarding of charges and, 
when applicable, the preliminary hearing report, whenever a 
person is ordered into arrest or confinement before trial.
Modification of prohibition of confinement of members of the Armed 
        Forces with enemy prisoners and certain others (sec. 5122)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 812 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 12, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to limit the 
prohibition on confining military members with foreign 
nationals to situations where the foreign nationals are not 
members of the U.S. Armed Forces and are detained under the law 
of war.

                  TITLE LIII--NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT

Modification of confinement as non-judicial punishment (sec. 5141)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 815 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 15, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to remove punishment 
in the form of confinement on a diet limited to bread and water 
from the list of authorized punishments.

                 TITLE LIV--COURTS-MARTIAL JURISDICTION

Courts-martial classified (sec. 5161)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 816 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 16, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish standard 
panel sizes in all courts-martial: 8 members in a general 
court-martial (subject to the requirements of Article 25a in 
capital cases), and 4 members in a special court-martial. The 
provision would require a military judge to be detailed to all 
special courts-martial and would provide the military justice 
system with an option for a judge-alone trial by special court-
martial, with confinement limited to 6 months or less, as 
reflected in the proposed changes to Article 19.
Jurisdiction of general courts-martial (sec. 5162)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 818 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 18, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform Article 18 
to the proposed changes to Article 16 concerning the types of 
general courts-martial and the proposed changes to Article 56 
concerning sex-related offenses.
Jurisdiction of special courts-martial (sec. 5163)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 819 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 19, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform to the 
proposal in Article 16 that would authorize special courts-
martial to be referred for trial by military judge-alone, and 
to authorize a military judge to designate a military 
magistrate to preside over trials, and to conform to current 
practice requiring a military judge, qualified defense counsel, 
and a recorder at every special court-martial.
Summary court-martial as non-criminal forum (sec. 5164)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 820 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 20, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) by adding a new 
subsection defining the summary court-martial as a non-criminal 
forum and clarifying that a finding of guilty at a summary 
court-martial does not constitute a criminal conviction.

                TITLE LV--COMPOSITION OF COURTS-MARTIAL

Technical amendment relating to persons authorized to convene general 
        courts-martial (sec. 5181)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 822 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 22, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) by removing the words 
``in chief'' to reflect the current terminology for the 
commander of a naval fleet.
Who may serve on courts-martial and related matters (sec. 5182)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 825 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 25, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to permit convening 
authorities to detail enlisted personnel to court-martial 
panels, subject to the accused's ability to specifically elect 
an all-officer panel, under the same rules and procedures with 
which an accused may elect one-third enlisted panel membership; 
to remove the statutory prohibition against detailing enlisted 
members to courts-martial who are from the same unit as an 
enlisted accused; and to conform to the proposed amendments to 
Article 29 concerning impaneling of members.
Number of court-martial members in capital cases (sec. 5183)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 825a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 25a, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require a fixed-
size panel of twelve members in capital cases.
Detailing, qualifications, and other matters relating to military 
        judges (sec. 5184)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 826 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 26, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the section 
to the current practice of detailing a military judge to every 
general and special court-martial; to provide for cross-service 
detailing of military judges; to require a chief trial judge in 
each armed force; and to provide appropriate criteria for 
service as a military judge. The provision would also authorize 
the President to establish uniform regulations concerning 
minimum tour lengths for military judges with provisions for 
early reassignment as necessary.

Qualifications of trial counsel and defense counsel (sec. 5185)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 827 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 27, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to disqualify 
appellate judges who have participated as trial counsel in the 
same case. The provision would require that all defense counsel 
detailed to general or special courts-martial must be qualified 
under Article 27(b), and all trial counsel and assistant trial 
counsel detailed to special courts-martial, and all assistant 
trial counsel detailed to general courts-martial, must be 
determined to be competent to perform such duties under 
regulations prescribed by the President. The provision would 
also require, to the greatest extent practicable, at least one 
defense counsel detailed for a court-martial in a case in which 
the death penalty may be adjudged shall be learned in the law 
applicable to capital cases.

Assembly and impaneling of members and related matters (sec. 5186)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 829 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 29, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to clarify the 
function of assembly and impanelment in general and special 
courts-martial with members, and the limited situations in 
which members may be absent from the court-martial after 
assembly; to provide for the impaneling of 12 members in a 
capital general court-martial, 8 members in a non-capital 
general court-martial, and 4 members in a special court-
martial; to authorize (but not require) the convening authority 
to direct the use of alternate members; and to authorize non-
capital general courts-martial to proceed with a minimum of 6 
members if one or more members are excused for good cause after 
the members have been impaneled. It would further amend Article 
29 to clarify that a newly-detailed court-martial member or 
military judge may consider the record of previously admitted 
evidence through the use of an electronic or other similar 
recording.

Military magistrates (sec. 5187)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section 826a (Article 26a of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the minimum qualifications for 
military magistrates, and to provide that military magistrates 
may be assigned under service regulations to perform duties 
other than those described under Articles 19 and 30a.

                     TITLE LVI--PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE

Charges and specifications (sec. 5201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 830 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 30, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to reorganize the 
section into three subsections: (a) to provide the mode of 
preferring charges and specifications and the oath requirement; 
(b) to provide the required statement of the person who signs 
the charges; and (c) to prescribe the duty of a proper 
authority to notify the accused of the charges and to dispose 
of them in the interest of justice and discipline. The 
provision would amend Article 30 to clarify the sequence of the 
notification and disposition requirements and to require that 
both actions take place as soon as practicable.
Proceedings conducted before referral (sec. 5202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section 830a (Article 30a of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ)) to provide statutory authority for military 
judges or magistrates to provide timely review, prior to 
referral of charges, of certain matters currently subject to 
judicial review only on a delayed basis at trial.
Preliminary hearing required before referral to general court-martial 
        (sec. 5203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 832 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 32, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require the 
preliminary hearing officer to provide an analysis of 
information that will be useful in fulfilling the statutory 
responsibilities of the staff judge advocate, in providing 
legal determinations and a disposition recommendation to the 
convening authority under Article 34; and to assist the 
convening authority, in disposing of the charges and 
specifications in the interest of justice and discipline.
Disposition guidance (sec. 5204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 833 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 33, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to move the 
requirement for prompt forwarding of charges in cases involving 
pretrial arrest or confinement from Article 33 to Article 10. 
The provision would require the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to 
establish non-binding guidance regarding factors that 
commanders, convening authorities, staff judge advocates, and 
judge advocates may take into account when exercising their 
duties with respect to disposition of charges and 
specifications in the interest of justice and discipline.
Advice to convening authority before referral for trial (sec. 5205)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 834 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 34, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to clarify the 
relationship between the staff judge advocate's advice under 
Article 34 and the general standard for disposition of charges 
and specifications under Article 30. The provision would 
require the convening authority to consult with a judge 
advocate before referral of charges to special courts-martial. 
The provision would clarify that formal corrections to the 
charges and specifications may be made before referral for 
trial in special court-martial as well as in general courts-
martial.
Service of charges and commencement of trial (sec. 5206)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 835 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 35, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform procedures 
for service of charges and waiting period requirements to 
current practice and other UCMJ articles.

                      TITLE LVII--TRIAL PROCEDURE

Duties of assistant defense counsel (sec. 5221)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 838 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 38, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require all defense 
counsel, including assistant defense counsel, to be qualified 
under Article 27(b), UCMJ.
Sessions (sec. 5222)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 839 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 39, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish uniform 
requirements for arraignment by a military judge and to 
eliminate references to courts-martial without a military 
judge, and to conform to the provision under Article 53 to 
authorize judicial sentencing in all non-capital general 
courts-martial and all special courts-martial.
Technical amendment relating to continuances (sec. 5223)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 840 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 40, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to eliminate 
references to courts-martial without a military judge, and to 
clarify that the authority to grant continuances extends to 
summary courts-martial.
Conforming amendments relating to challenges (sec. 5224)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 841 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 41, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the section 
with changes proposed to amend Article 16 concerning fixed 
panel sizes and to eliminate special courts-martial without a 
military judge.
Statute of limitations (sec. 5225)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 843 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 43, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) 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 life of the child, whichever is longer. The 
provision would extend the statute of limitations for Article 
83 fraudulent enlistment cases from 5 years to: (1) the length 
of the enlistment, in the case of enlisted members; (2) the 
length of the appointment, in the case of officers; or (3) 5 
years, whichever is longer. The provision would extend the 
statute of limitations when DNA testing implicates an 
identified person in the commission of an offense by excluding 
periods prior to the DNA identification in computing the period 
of limitations.
Former jeopardy (sec. 5226)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 844 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 44, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to more closely align 
double jeopardy protections under the UCMJ with federal 
civilian practice.
Pleas of the accused (sec. 5227)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 845 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 45, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to permit an accused 
to plead guilty in capital cases where a sentence of death is 
not mandatory. The provision would delete the reference to a 
court-martial without a military judge. The provision would 
eliminate the need for separate service regulations authorizing 
entry of findings upon acceptance of a guilty plea. The 
provision would add a new subsection to provide for harmless 
error review in guilty plea cases.
Subpoena and other process (sec. 5228)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 846 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 46, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to clarify authority 
to issue and enforce subpoenas for witnesses and other 
evidence, to allow subpoenas duces tecum to be issued for 
investigations of offenses under the UCMJ when authorized by a 
general court-martial convening authority, and to authorize 
military judges to issue warrants and orders for the production 
of stored electronic communications under the Stored 
Communications Act (sections 2701-2712 of chapter 121, title 
18, United States Code). The provision would amend Article 46 
by moving the provisions under subsection (b) concerning 
defense counsel interviews of victims of sex-related offenses 
to Article 6b and extend those provisions to victims of all 
offenses, consistent with related victims' rights provisions.
Refusal of person not subject to UCMJ to appear, testify, or produce 
        evidence (sec. 5229)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 847 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 47, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to provide that 
civilians who fail to comply with military subpoenas issued 
under Article 46, UCMJ, are guilty of an offense against the 
United States.
Contempt (sec. 5230)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 848 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 48, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize the 
contempt power for military judges and military magistrates 
detailed to pre-referral proceedings under the proposed Article 
30a. The provision would also clarify that judges on the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the service 
courts of criminal appeals do not have to be detailed to cases 
or proceedings in order to exercise the contempt power under 
this article. The provision would clarify that the president 
(as opposed to the judge) of a court of inquiry is vested with 
the contempt power, and would provide for appellate review of 
contempt punishments consistent with the review of other orders 
and judgments under the UCMJ.
Depositions (sec. 5231)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 849 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 49, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the UCMJ 
with the language and function of Federal Rule of Criminal 
Procedure 15(a)(1), and to move the procedural aspects of 
Article 49 to Rules for Courts-Martial 702. The provision would 
clarify that a convening authority or a military judge may 
order depositions only if the requesting party demonstrates 
that, due to exceptional circumstances, it is in the interest 
of justice that the testimony of a prospective witness be 
preserved for use at a court-martial, military commission, 
court of inquiry, or other military court or board. The 
provision would clarify parties who may request a deposition, 
and require that, whenever practicable, depositions be taken 
before an impartial judge advocate. The provision would provide 
that: (1) representation of the parties with respect to a 
deposition shall be by counsel detailed in the same manner as 
trial counsel and defense counsel are detailed under Article 
27; and (2) the accused shall have the right to be represented 
by civilian or military counsel in the same manner as such 
counsel are provided for in Article 38(b). The provision would 
clarify situations in which depositions may be used in military 
proceedings with a more direct reference to the military rules 
of evidence. The provision would amend the section to provide 
that testimony by deposition may be presented in capital cases 
only by the defense.
Admissibility of sworn testimony by audiotape or videotape from records 
        of courts of inquiry (sec. 5232)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 850 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 50, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize sworn 
testimony from a court of inquiry to be played, in addition to 
read, into evidence in courts-martial and military commissions 
not established under section 948a, et seq., of title 10, 
United States Code, when it is otherwise admissible under the 
rules of evidence.
Conforming amendment relating to defense of lack of mental 
        responsibility (sec. 5233)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 850a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 50a, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to delete provisions 
pertaining to courts-martial without a military judge.
Voting and rulings (sec. 5234)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 851 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 51, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to delete references 
pertaining to courts-martial without a military judge.
Votes required for conviction, sentencing, and other matters (sec. 
        5235)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 852 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 52, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require concurrence 
of at least three-fourths of the members present and to require 
concurrence of at least three-fourths of the members present on 
offenses in a case referred for trial as a capital case, where 
there was not a unanimous finding of guilty. The provision 
would eliminate the language concerning tie votes on 
challenges, motions, and other questions, which is applicable 
only to special courts-martial without a military judge, and 
which would no longer be necessary given the provision in 
Article 16 that would eliminate these members-only courts-
martial. The provision would conform the statute to the 
proposal in Article 53 for judicial sentencing in all non-
capital cases, and member sentencing in capital cases with 
respect to sentences of death and life without parole.
Findings and sentencing (sec. 5236)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 853 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 53, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require sentencing 
by a military judge in all non-capital general and special 
courts-martial. The provision would require that, in cases 
where the accused may be sentenced to death, the members shall 
participate in the sentence determination.
Plea agreements (sec. 5237)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code to add a new section 
853a (Article 53a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) 
that would authorize: (1) construction and negotiation of 
charge and sentence agreements; (2) military judges to 
determine whether to accept a proposed plea agreement; and (3) 
the operation of sentence agreements with respect to the 
military judge's sentencing authority. The new Article 53a 
would provide that the military judge shall accept any lawful 
sentence agreement submitted by the parties, except that: (1) 
in the case of an offense with a sentencing parameter under 
Article 56, the military judge may reject the agreement only if 
it proposes a sentence that is both outside the sentencing 
parameter and plainly unreasonable; and (2) in the case of an 
offense without a sentencing parameter, the military judge may 
reject the agreement only if it proposes a sentence that is 
plainly unreasonable.
Record of trial (sec. 5238)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 854 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 54, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require 
certification of the record by a court reporter. The provision 
would require a complete record in any general or special 
court-martial if the sentence includes death, dismissal, 
discharge, or confinement or forfeitures of pay for more than 6 
months. The provision would provide all victims who testify at 
a court-martial with access to records of trial.

                         TITLE LVIII--SENTENCES

Sentencing (sec. 5261)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 856 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 56, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to replace the court-
martial practice of ``unitary'' sentencing with ``segmented'' 
sentencing where, if confinement is adjudged for guilty 
findings, the amount of confinement for each guilty finding 
would be determined separately. The provision would also 
authorize segmented sentencing for fines. The provision would 
authorize sentencing parameters and criteria to provide 
guidance to military judges in determining an appropriate 
sentence and would authorize the United States to appeal a 
sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The provision would 
incorporate Article 56a, authorizing a sentence of confinement 
for life without the eligibility of parole any time a life 
sentence is authorized, into Article 56 without substantive 
change.
Effective date of sentences (sec. 5262)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 857 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 57, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to consolidate 
portions of Article 57 and 57a that govern deferment of 
sentences, and portions of Articles 57 and 71 that govern when 
sentences become effective into Article 57, as modified. The 
provision would make a conforming change to remove from Article 
71 the authority for a convening authority to suspend a 
sentence under Article 71(d). The provision would strike 
Articles 57a and 71, because the authorities in those two 
Articles would be included in Article 57, as modified.
Sentence of reduction in enlisted grade (sec. 5263)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 858a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 58a, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize reduction 
of enlisted members to the grade of E-1 whenever the approved 
sentence of a court-martial includes a punitive discharge, 
confinement, or hard labor without confinement. The amendments 
would conform the section to the changes proposed in post-trial 
procedure under Article 60 and the proposed Article 60c.
Repeal of sentence reduction provision when interim guidance takes 
        effect (sec. 5264)
    The committee recommends a provision that would sunset 
section 856a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 56a, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) after sentencing 
parameters and criteria are established under Article 56.

      TITLE LIX--POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL

Post-trial processing in general and special courts-martial (sec. 5281)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 860 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 60, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to provide for the 
distribution of the trial results and to authorize post-trial 
motions to be filed with the military judge in general and 
special courts-martial.
Limited authority to act on sentence in specified post-trial 
        circumstances (sec. 5282)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section 860a (Article 60a, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ)) to consolidate current limitations on the convening 
authority's post-trial authority in most general and special 
courts-martial, subject to a narrowly limited suspension 
authority and a revised authority to adjust an adjudged 
sentence in cases where an accused provides substantial 
assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another 
person.
    The provision would retain and clarify existing limitations 
on the convening authority's post-trial actions in general and 
special courts-martial in which: (1) the maximum sentence of 
confinement for any offense is more than 2 years; (2) adjudged 
confinement exceeds 6 months; (3) the sentence includes 
dismissal or discharge; or (4) the accused is found guilty of 
designated sex-related offenses. Under current law, the 
convening authority in such cases is prohibited from modifying 
the findings of the court-martial, or reducing, commuting, or 
suspending a punishment of death, confinement of more than 6 
months, or a punitive discharge.
    The provision would provide a limited suspension authority 
in specified circumstances. For the convening authority to 
exercise this authority, the military judge would be required 
to make a specific suspension recommendation in the Statement 
of Trial Results. The suspension authority would be limited to 
punishments of confinement in excess of 6 months and punitive 
discharges. The provision would retain, with clarifying 
amendments, the key features of current law with respect to the 
convening authority's power to reduce the sentence of an 
accused who assists in the prosecution or investigation of 
another person. As amended, the provision would authorize the 
President to prescribe rules providing for a convening 
authority to exercise this power after entry of judgment. This 
provision would allow for the reduction of a sentence of an 
accused who provides substantial assistance in the prosecution 
of another person, even well after his own trial is over and 
appellate review is complete.
    The provision would allow the accused and a victim of the 
offense to submit matters to the convening authority for 
consideration.
    The provision would require the decision of the convening 
authority to be forwarded to the military judge. If the 
convening authority modified the sentence of the court-martial, 
the convening authority would be required to explain the 
reasons for the modification. An explanation for the convening 
authority's decision would only be required when the convening 
authority modifies the sentence. No approval of the findings or 
sentence would be required. The decision of the convening 
authority would be forwarded to the military judge, who would 
incorporate any change in the sentence into the entry of 
judgment. In a case where the accused provides substantial 
assistance and a designated convening authority reduces the 
sentence of the accused after entry of judgment, the convening 
authority's action would be forwarded to the chief trial judge, 
who would be responsible for ensuring appropriate modification 
of the entry of judgment. Because a modification might happen 
during or after the completion of appellate review, the 
modified entry of judgment would be forwarded to the Judge 
Advocate General for appropriate action.
Post-trial actions in summary courts-martial and certain general and 
        special courts-martial (sec. 5283)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new 
section 860b (Article 60b of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ)) that would clarify the convening authority's 
post-trial authorities and responsibilities with respect to the 
findings and sentence of summary courts-martial and a limited 
number of general and special courts-martial which, because of 
the offenses charged and the sentence adjudged, would not be 
covered under Article 60a. Consistent with existing law, the 
convening authority in such cases would be authorized to act on 
the findings and the sentence, and could order rehearings, 
subject to certain limitations. The procedural requirements 
under Article 60b, including consideration of matters submitted 
by the accused and victim, would be the same as provided in 
Article 60a. In summary courts-martial, the convening authority 
would be required to act on the sentence, and would have 
discretion to act on the findings, as under current law.
Entry of judgment (sec. 5284)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to create a new 
section 860c (Article 60c of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ)) that 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. The judgment would reflect the 
Statement of Trial Results, any action by the convening 
authority on the findings or sentence, and any post-trial 
rulings by the military judge. The judgment also would indicate 
the time when the accused's case becomes eligible for direct 
appeal to a service court of criminal appeals under Article 66, 
or for review by the Judge Advocate General under Article 65. 
This requirement for an entry of judgment is modeled after 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32(k). The findings and 
sentence of a summary court-martial, as modified by any post-
trial action by the convening authority under Article 60b, 
would constitute the judgment of the court-martial.
Waiver of right to appeal and withdrawal of appeal (sec. 5285)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 861 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 61, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the section 
with proposed amendments to Articles 60, 65, and 69 concerning 
post-trial processing.

Appeal by the United States (sec. 5286)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 862 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 62, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize the 
government to appeal a decision when, upon defense motion, the 
military judge sets aside a panel's finding of guilty because 
of legally insufficient evidence, except in cases where such an 
appeal would violate Article 44's prohibitions on double 
jeopardy. The provision would align the rule of construction 
with the similar rule applicable to interlocutory appeals in 
federal civilian courts. The provision would amend Article 62 
to conform to the proposed revisions to the review and appeal 
provisions under Articles 66 and 69.

Rehearings (sec. 5287)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 863 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 63, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to remove the sentence 
limitation at a rehearing in cases in which an accused changes 
a plea from guilty to not guilty, or otherwise fails to comply 
with the terms of a pretrial agreement; or after a sentence is 
set aside based on a government appeal.

Judge advocate review of finding of guilty in summary court-martial 
        (sec. 5288)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 864 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 64, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to apply only to the 
initial review of summary courts-martial. Article 65, as 
amended, would provide for review of general and special 
courts-martial that do not qualify for direct review by the 
service courts of criminal appeals.

Transmittal and review of records (sec. 5289)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 865 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 65, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require that the 
record of trial be forwarded to appellate defense counsel for 
review whenever the case is eligible for an appeal under 
Article 66, and to require a review by the Judge Advocate 
General of all general and special court-martial cases not 
eligible for direct appeal under Article 66. The provision 
would require a review of all general and special courts-
martial cases that are eligible for an appeal under Article 66, 
but where appeal has been waived, withdrawn, or not filed.

Courts of Criminal Appeals (sec. 5290)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 866 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 66, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish an appeal 
as of right in non-capital cases under the UCMJ, similar to the 
federal civilian appellate courts, and expand the opportunity 
for direct review of courts-martial convictions by the service 
courts of criminal appeals. The provision would provide 
statutory standards for factual sufficiency review, sentence 
appropriateness review, and review of excessive post-trial 
delay. The provision would provide the courts of criminal 
appeals with express authority to order a hearing, rehearing or 
remand for further proceedings as may be necessary to address a 
substantial issue.

Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 5291)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 867 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 67, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the section 
with proposed creation of an ``entry of judgment'' in Article 
60c and related amendments to Articles 60 and 66. The provision 
would require the Judge Advocate General to notify the other 
Judge Advocates General prior to certifying a case for review 
by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Supreme Court review (sec. 5292)

    The committee recommends a technical amendment to section 
867a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 67a, Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)).
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the legislative, executive, and judicial 
branches of the United States Government, to provide a 
recommendation to the Committees on Armed Services of the House 
of Representatives and the Senate, within 180 days of enactment 
of this Act, to address whether servicemembers should be 
provided with the same level of access to the Supreme Court 
available to defendants in federal and state criminal 
proceedings, as well as in military commissions.

Review by Judge Advocate General (sec. 5293)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 869 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 69, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize an 
accused, after a decision is issued by the Office of the Judge 
Advocate General under Article 69, to apply for discretionary 
review by the Court of Criminal Appeals under Article 66. The 
Judge Advocates General would retain authority to certify cases 
for review by the appellate courts.

Appellate defense counsel in death penalty cases (sec. 5294)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 870 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 70, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require, to the 
greatest extent practicable, that in appeals of courts-martial 
in which the death penalty has been adjudged, at least one 
appellate defense counsel representing an accused must be 
learned in the law applicable to capital cases.

Authority for hearing on vacation of suspension of sentence to be 
        conducted by qualified judge advocate (sec. 5295)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 872 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 72, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize a special 
court-martial convening authority to detail a judge advocate to 
conduct a vacation hearing.

Extension of time for petition for new trial (sec. 5296)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 873 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 73, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to extend the time to 
file a petition for a new trial from 2 years to 3 years.

Restoration (sec. 5297)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 875 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 75, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require the 
President to establish rules governing the eligibility for pay 
and allowances during the period after a court-martial sentence 
is set aside or disapproved.

Leave requirements pending review of certain court-martial convictions 
        (sec. 5298)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 876a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 76a, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform Article 76a 
with proposed changes in Article 60 and the proposed new 
Article 60c, with no substantive changes. Article 76a currently 
authorizes the services, at their discretion, to place an 
accused on involuntary leave if the accused has been sentenced 
to an unsuspended punitive discharge or dismissal that has been 
approved by the convening authority.

                      TITLE LX--PUNITIVE ARTICLES

Reorganization of punitive articles (sec. 5301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer 
and redesignate certain articles of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice within subchapter X of chapter 10 of title 10, 
United States Code.
Conviction of offense charged, lesser included offenses, and attempts 
        (sec. 5302)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 879 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 79, 
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.
Soliciting commission of offenses (sec. 5303)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 882 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 82, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to consolidate the 
general solicitation offense under Article 134, the general 
article, with specific solicitation offenses under Article 82.
Malingering (sec. 5304)
    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 883 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 83, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of malingering.
Breach of medical quarantine (sec. 5305)
    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 884 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 84, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of breaking a medical quarantine.

Missing movement; jumping from vessel (sec. 5306)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 887 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 87, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of jumping from a vessel into the water.

Offenses against correctional custody and restriction (sec. 5307)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 887b to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 87b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of violating various forms of custody and 
breaking restriction.

Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer; assault of superior 
        commissioned officer (sec. 5308)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 889 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 89, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of assaulting a superior commissioned officer.

Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer (sec. 5309)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 890 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 90, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to remove the offense 
of assaulting a superior commissioned officer, which will be 
transferred to Article 89.

Prohibited activities with military recruit or trainee by person in 
        position of special trust (sec. 5310)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 893a to title 10, United States Code, (Article 93a, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would provide 
specific accountability for sexual misconduct committed by 
recruiters and trainers during the various phases within the 
recruiting and basic military training environments. Because of 
the unique nature of military training and the initial training 
environments among the services, the statute would authorize 
the service secretaries to publish regulations designating the 
types of physical intimacy that would constitute ``prohibited 
sexual activity'' under the new article. Article 93a would 
apply to military recruiters and trainers who knowingly engage 
in prohibited sexual activity with prospective recruits or 
junior members of the Armed Forces in initial training 
environments. Consent would not be a defense to this offense. 
Article 93a would address specific conduct and would not 
supersede or preempt service regulations governing professional 
conduct by staff involved in recruiting, entry level training, 
or other follow on training programs. The Secretary concerned 
may prescribe by regulation any additional initial career 
qualification training programs related to servicemembers that 
would be covered under this statute.

Offenses by sentinel or lookout (sec. 5311)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 895 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 95, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of loitering by sentinels or lookouts.

Disrespect toward sentinel or lookout (sec. 5312)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 895a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 95a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of disrespect toward sentinels or 
lookouts.

Release of prisoner without authority; drinking with prisoner (sec. 
        5313)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 896 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 96, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of drinking liquor with a prisoner.

Penalty for acting as a spy (sec. 5314)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 903 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 103, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to replace the 
mandatory death penalty currently prescribed with a 
discretionary death penalty similar to that authorized under 
existing Article 106a (Espionage) and for all other capital 
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Public records offenses (sec. 5315)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 904 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 104, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of altering, concealing, removing, 
mutilating, obliterating, or destroying a public record.

False or unauthorized pass offenses (sec. 5316)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 905a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 105a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish false or unauthorized pass offenses.

Impersonation offenses (sec. 5317)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 906 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 106, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of impersonating a commissioned, warrant, 
noncommissioned or petty officer, or an agent or official, and 
conform the article to the definition of ``officer'' in section 
101(1) of title 10, United States Code.

Insignia offenses (sec. 5318)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 906a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 106a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of wearing unauthorized insignia, 
decorations, badges, ribbons, devices, or lapel buttons.

False official statements; false swearing (sec. 5319)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 907 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 107, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of false swearing.

Parole violation (sec. 5320)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 907a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 107a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of violating parole.

Wrongful taking, opening, etc. of mail matter (sec. 5321)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 909a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 109a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of wrongfully taking, opening, secreting, 
destroying, or stealing mail.

Improper hazarding of vessel or aircraft (sec. 5322)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 910, title 10, United States Code, (Article 110, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of improper hazarding of an aircraft.

Leaving scene of vehicle accident (sec. 5323)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 911 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 111, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of fleeing the scene of an accident.

Drunkenness and other incapacitation offenses (sec. 5324)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 912 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 112, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of incapacitation for duty from drunkenness or drug use and 
drunk prisoner.

Lower blood alcohol content limits for conviction of drunken or 
        reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel (sec. 
        5325)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 913 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 113, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to lower the blood 
alcohol standard for conviction of drunken or reckless 
operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel from 0.10 grams to 
0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, and to 
allow service secretaries to prescribe lower levels of blood 
alcohol to convict if such lower limits are based on scientific 
developments as reflected in federal law of general 
applicability.

Endangerment offenses (sec. 5326)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 914 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 114, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of reckless endangerment, discharge of firearm/endangering 
human life, and carrying of a concealed weapon.

Communicating threats (sec. 5327)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 915 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 115, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of communicating a threat.

Technical amendment relating to murder (sec. 5328)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 918 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 118, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to strike the words 
``forcible sodomy'' which has the effect of clarifying that 
forcible sodomy is included within the sexual offenses 
punishable under Article 120.

Child endangerment (sec. 5329)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 919a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 119, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of child endangerment.

Rape and sexual assault offenses (sec. 5330)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 920 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 120, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to amend the 
definition of ``sexual act'' in both Article 120 (rape and 
sexual assault generally) and Article 120b (rape and sexual 
assault of a child) to conform to the definition of that term 
in federal criminal law in the civilian sector, under section 
2246(2)(A)-(C) of title 18, United States Code. The current 
definition of ``sexual act'' under Articles 120 and 120b is 
both overly broad (in that it captures non-sexual acts) and 
unduly narrow (in that it does not include all of the 
prohibited acts involving children listed in section 
2246(2)(D)) of title 18.
    The committee remains concerned about the crimes of sexual 
assault and rape where the assailant is in a position of 
authority over the victim. The committee expects that the use 
of rank, authority or position to commit a sexual assault or 
rape will be considered as an aggravating factor in the 
development of sentencing parameters under Article 56, UCMJ.

Deposit of obscene matter in the mail (sec. 5331)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 920a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 120a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of depositing, or causing to be 
deposited, obscene materials in the mails.

Fraudulent use of credit cards, debit cards, and other access devices 
        (sec. 5332)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 921a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 121a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of misuse of credit cards, debit cards, 
and other electronic payment technology, also known as ``access 
devices.''

False pretenses to obtain services (sec. 5333)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 921b to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of obtaining services under false 
pretenses.

Robbery (sec. 5334)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 922 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 122, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) by removing the words 
``with the intent to steal'' from the section, eliminating the 
requirement to prove that the accused intended to permanently 
deprive the victim of his property.

Receiving stolen property (sec. 5335)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 922a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 122a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of knowingly receiving, buying, or 
concealing stolen property.

Offenses concerning Government computers (sec. 5336)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 923 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 123, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
prohibit certain actions directed at U.S. Government computers 
and U.S. Government protected information.

Bribery (sec. 5337)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 924a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 124a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of bribery.

Graft (sec. 5338)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 924b to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 124b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of graft.

Kidnapping (sec. 5339)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 925 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 125, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of kidnapping.

Arson; burning property with intent to defraud (sec. 5340)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 926 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 126, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense 
of burning with intent to defraud.

Assault (sec. 5341)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 928 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 128, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to prescribe a 
standard that focuses on the malicious intent of the accused 
rather than the ``likelihood'' of the activity actually 
resulting in harm. The provision would also amend this section 
to include the offense of assault with intent to commit murder, 
voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary, 
or housebreaking.

Burglary and unlawful entry (sec. 5342)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 929 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 129, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would remove the 
``private dwelling'' and ``nighttime'' elements of the offense, 
and to establish the offense of unlawful entry.

Stalking (sec. 5343)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 930 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 130, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the 
offenses of cyberstalking and threats to intimate partners. The 
provision would continue to address stalking activity involving 
a broad range of misconduct including, but not limited to, 
sexual offenses. The redesignated stalking offense would not 
preempt service regulations that specify additional types of 
misconduct that may be punishable at court-martial, including 
under Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation), nor 
would it preempt other forms of misconduct from being 
prosecuted under other appropriate Articles, such as under 
Article 134, the general article. These uniquely military 
offenses are available to address similar misconduct that 
causes, for example, substantial emotional distress or targets 
professional reputation.

Subornation of perjury (sec. 5344)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 931a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 131a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of subornation of perjury.

Obstructing justice (sec. 5345)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 931b to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 131b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of obstructing justice.

Misprision of serious offense (sec. 5346)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 931c to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 131c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of misprision of serious offense.

Wrongful refusal to testify (sec. 5347)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 931d to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 131d, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of wrongful refusal to testify.

Prevention of authorized seizure of property (sec. 5348)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 931e to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 131e, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of prevention of authorized seizure of 
property.

Wrongful interference with adverse administrative proceeding (sec. 
        5349)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 931g to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 131g, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 
establish the offense of wrongful interference with adverse 
administrative proceeding. The proceedings covered by this 
offense would include any administrative proceeding or action 
initiated against a servicemember that could lead to discharge, 
loss of special or incentive pay, administrative reduction in 
grade, loss of a security clearance, bar to reenlistment, or 
reclassification.

Retaliation (sec. 5350)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 932 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, 
(Article 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that 
would prohibit retaliation against witnesses, victims, or 
persons who report or plan to report a criminal offense to law 
enforcement or military authority or a protected communication 
to appropriate authority. Article 132 would not preempt service 
regulations that specify additional types of retaliatory 
conduct that may be punishable at court-martial under Article 
92 (failure to obey order or regulation), nor would it preempt 
other forms of retaliatory conduct from being prosecuted under 
other appropriate Articles, such as Article 109 (destruction of 
property), Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment), Article 128 
(Assault), Article 131b (obstructing justice), Article 130 
(stalking), or Article 134, the General article.

Extraterritorial application of certain offenses (sec. 5351)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 934 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 134, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize 
prosecution under clause 3 of Article 134, of all non-capital 
federal crimes of general applicability, regardless of where 
the federal crime is committed. This change would make military 
practice uniform throughout the world and would align it with 
the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, section 3261 of 
title 18, United States Code.

                 Subtitle LXI--Miscellaneous Provisions


Technical amendments relating to courts of inquiry (sec. 5401)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 935 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 135, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to provide individuals 
employed by the Department of Homeland Security, the department 
under which the Coast Guard operates, 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. This change would align the rights of employees of 
the Department of Homeland Security with the rights of 
employees of the Department of Defense, ensuring consistent 
application of this statute for all military services.

Technical amendment to Article 136 (sec. 5402)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 936 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 136, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to remove, from the 
section heading, the authority to act as a notary which is not 
provided for in the text of the section.

Articles of Uniform Code of Military Justice to be explained to 
        officers upon commissioning (sec. 5403)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 937 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 137, 
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 require specific military justice training 
for military commanders and convening authorities, and would 
require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations for 
additional specialized training on the UCMJ for combatant 
commanders and commanders of combined commands. The provision 
would also require the Secretary of Defense to maintain an 
electronic version of the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-
Martial that would be updated periodically and made available 
on the Internet for review by servicemembers and the public.

Military justice case management; data collection and accessibility 
        (sec. 5404)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 940a to title 10, United States Code, (Article 140a, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that 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. The purpose of this 
section is to enhance the management of military justice cases, 
to standardize the collection of data necessary for evaluation 
and analysis, and to provide appropriate public access to 
military justice information at all stages of court-martial 
proceedings. At a minimum, the system developed for 
implementation should permit timely and appropriate access to 
filings, objections, instructions, and judicial rulings at the 
trial and appellate level, and to actions at trial and in 
subsequent proceedings concerning the findings and sentences of 
courts-martial.
    The provision would require promulgation of standards by 
the Secretary of Defense not later than 2 years after enactment 
of this Act, with an effective date for such standards not 
later than 4 years after enactment.
    The committee expects that the system developed would 
provide comprehensive information to the public, including 
docket information and calendar for all court-martial 
proceedings open to the public; the location of proceedings, 
including instructions for members of the public to obtain 
access to the military installation; copies of official 
documents, redacted when appropriate, including the charge 
sheet, any motions and documents filed in connection with the 
proceeding, written rulings and opinions, and a summary of oral 
rulings; the results of trial; the authenticated record of the 
proceeding; actions by the convening authority; briefs, 
answers, and motions filed by the parties and amici in military 
appellate proceedings; opinions of military appellate courts; 
results of reviews conducted by the Judge Advocates General; 
documents ordering remission, suspension, or vacation of any 
sentence; and any other information related to the proceeding 
that the Secretary of Defense determines should be available to 
the public.

    Subtitle LXII--Military Justice Review Panel and Annual Reports


Military Justice Review Panel (sec. 5421)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 946 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 146, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, or ``the Code'')) and 
retitle the section as ``Military Justice Review Panel.'' The 
Military Justice Review Panel would replace the Code Committee 
and would be an independent, blue ribbon panel of experts 
tasked to conduct a periodic evaluation of military justice 
practices and procedures on a regular basis, thereby enhancing 
the efficiency and effectiveness of the UCMJ and the Code's 
implementing regulations.
    The proposed Military Justice Review Panel would be 
composed of thirteen members. Each of the following officials 
would select one person to serve on the Panel: the Secretary of 
Defense (in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 
Security), the Attorney General, the Judge Advocates General of 
the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and the Staff Judge 
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The remaining 
members of the Panel would be selected by the Secretary of 
Defense based upon the recommendations of each of the 
following: the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, the Chief Justice of the United States, and the 
Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 
The Secretary of Defense would designate one member as the 
Chair. The Panel would have a full-time staff.
    The Panel would issue its first report 4 years after the 
effective date of the Act, focusing on the implementation of 
any recent amendments to the UCMJ and Manual for Courts-
Martial. 8 years after the effective date of the Act, the Panel 
would issue its first comprehensive review of the UCMJ and 
Manual for Courts-Martial. Thereafter, the Panel would issue 
comprehensive reports every 8 years. Within each 8-year cycle, 
the Panel would issue targeted reports at the mid-point of each 
cycle, and could issue additional reports on matters referred 
to the Panel by the Secretary of Defense or Congress.
    This provision is based on the committee's determination 
that periodic review needs to be scheduled on a regular basis, 
but that it should not be so frequent that the constant process 
of review and change becomes more disruptive than helpful to 
judges and lawyers who must have a degree of stability in order 
to engage in effective practice. Accordingly, the comprehensive 
reviews are scheduled on an 8-year schedule.
    This provision reflects the committee's expectation that 
the Joint Service Committee will continue to conduct its vital 
role within the executive branch, addressing the type of 
targeted adjustments in law and regulation that are required on 
a more frequent basis to address specific issues in the law.

Annual reports (sec. 5422)

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 946a to title 10, United States Code, (Article 146a, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would retain the 
valuable informational aspects of 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. The committee expects that the 
individual reports will be compiled into a single volume using 
the procedures currently employed, to create a consolidated 
report.

       Subtitle LXIII--Conforming Amendments and Effective Dates


Amendments to UCMJ subchapter tables of sections (sec. 5441)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
conforming amendments to the tables of sections for specified 
subchapters of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Effective dates (sec. 5442)

    The committee recommends a provision by which the 
amendments made by this title shall take effect on the first 
day of the first calendar month that begins 2 years after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

                        LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS


                      Departmental Recommendations

    On April 19, 2016, Senator McCain, with concurrence from 
Senator Reed, introduced by request the Administration's 
proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2017. This bill--S. 2814--was introduced for the purpose of 
placing the Administration's proposals before Congress and the 
public without expressing the views of Senators McCain or Reed 
on the substance of those proposals. In accordance with past 
practice, the committee reported an original bill rather than 
acting on S. 2814.

                            Committee Action

    The committee vote to report the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 passed by roll call 
vote, 23-3, as follows: In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, 
Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, 
Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and 
Heinrich. Opposed: Senators Fischer, Lee, and Cruz
    The other 22 roll call votes on motions and amendments to 
the bill which were considered during the course of the full 
committee markup are as follows:
    1. MOTION: To conduct full committee markup of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 in closed 
session because of classified and proprietary information 
expected to be discussed.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16-10
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, 
Nelson, Manchin, Donnelly, Hirono, and King
    Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Ernst, Lee, Cruz, McCaskill, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Kaine, and Heinrich
    2. MOTION: To strike provisions related to Pentagon reform 
and replace with a commission to study what reforms should be 
implemented in the Department of Defense.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-16
    In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
Cruz, McCaskill, and Manchin
    3. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to furnish athletic footwear that complies 
with section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, directly to 
members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps instead 
of providing a cash allowance.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15-11
    In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, 
Nelson, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, 
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Tillis, Lee, Cruz, and McCaskill
    4. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to eliminate the development and fielding 
of Armed-Force-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms 
and families of uniforms in order to adopt and field a common 
combat and camouflage utility uniform or family of uniforms for 
specific combat environments to be used by all members of the 
Armed Forces no later than October 1, 2019.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-14
    In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
and Cruz
    5. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the 
Secretary of Defense from using any funds to invite, assist, or 
otherwise assure the participation of the Government of Cuba in 
any joint or multilateral exercise or related security 
conference between the United States and Cuba until the 
Secretary, in coordination with the Director of National 
Intelligence, submits to Congress certain assurances.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-12
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, 
Graham, Cruz
    Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    6. MOTION: Amendment changed provision to limit disclosure 
of the B-21 engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) 
contract award value to the congressional defense committees 
only, rather than full public disclosure.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19-7
    In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, 
Rounds, Tillis, Lee, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and 
Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Cotton, Ernst, Sullivan, 
Graham, Cruz
    7. MOTION: To include a provision that would urge base 
commanders to allow servicemembers to attend the Accessing 
Higher Education Track at least one year prior to their date of 
separation as a consumer protection measure to prevent 
recruitment by predatory for-profit schools.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-15-1
    In favor: Senators Reed, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
Cruz, and Manchin
    No Instruction: Nelson
    8. MOTION: To include a provision that would vest in the 
Chief of Staff of each of the Armed Forces the responsibility 
for establishing, approving, and modifying the criteria, 
standards, and qualifications for military specialty codes 
within that Armed Force.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-12
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, 
Graham, and Cruz
    Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    9. MOTION: To eliminate an additional $70.0 million 
provided to the Department of Energy to continue construction 
of the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 7-18-1
    In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Lee, Cruz, Reed, 
Nelson, and Manchin
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, McCaskill, Shaheen, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and 
Heinrich
    No Instruction: Wicker
    10. MOTION: To eliminate the word ``limited'' from the 
National Missile Defense Act of 1999.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16-10
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, 
Graham, Cruz, Manchin, and Kaine
    Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, King, and Heinrich
    11. MOTION: To strike a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program on 
privatization of the defense commissary system.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
    In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, Rounds, 
Tillis, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, 
Hirono, Kaine, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, 
Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, and King
    12. MOTION: To strike sections from a provision that would 
require the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a 
comprehensive strategy to optimize management practices across 
the defense commissary system and the exchange system.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-14
    In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, Rounds, 
Tillis, Nelson, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and 
Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, 
Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 
and Blumenthal
    13. MOTION: Motion to strike a provision to require women 
to register for the selective service beginning in January 1, 
2018 and to prohibit court jurisdiction of claims regarding 
class of persons with a duty to register.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 7-19
    In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Cotton, 
Rounds, Lee, and Cruz
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Fischer, Ernst, Tillis, 
Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and 
Heinrich
    14. MOTION: To include a provision that would require 
National Guard units selected for the U.S. Army's Associated 
Units program to be funded at 100 percent level of authorized 
Active Guard and Reserve personnel.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 7-19
    In favor: Senators Inhofe, Cotton, Tillis, Lee, Graham, 
Cruz, and Donnelly
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, 
Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    15. MOTION: Amendment would have replaced provision that 
limits funding for an EC-130H Compass Call recapitalization 
program unless the Air Force conducts a full and open 
competition for the replacement aircraft, and instead provide 
committee approval for the Air Force to proceed with a new 
start program and acquire 10 Gulfstream G550 business class 
aircraft through a sole source acquisition strategy.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-16
    In favor: Senators Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Tillis, Graham, 
Nelson, Shaheen, Hirono, Kaine, and King
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Cotton, Rounds, 
Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, and Heinrich
    16. MOTION: To include a provision that would authorize the 
transfer of Department of Defense funds to the USAID for the 
purposes of countering violent extremism.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-14
    In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
and Cruz
    17. MOTION: To include a provision on the inapplicability 
of regulations limiting the sale or donation or property of the 
federal government for state and local enforcement activities 
unless enacted by Congress.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, 
Cruz, and Donnelly
    Opposed: Senators Ernst, Lee, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, 
Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    18. MOTION: To strike a provision regarding Department of 
Defense implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces 
Executive Order
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-16
    In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
Cruz, Manchin, and King
    19. MOTION: To amend and enhance certain maritime programs 
of the Department of Transportation, and for other purposes.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-16
    In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Sullivan, Lee, Cruz, Nelson
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Graham, 
Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 
Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    20. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the 
transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to countries on 
which the State Department has issued a threat warning.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16-10
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, 
Graham, Cruz, Manchin, and Donnelly
    Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    21. MOTION: To include a provision to modify section 2576a 
of title 10, United States Code, relating to the authority to 
transfer Department of Defense property for law enforcement 
activities.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-12
    In favor: Senators Ernst, Lee, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, 
Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 
Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, and Cruz
    22. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit 
lethal equipment assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 4-22
    In favor: Senators Lee, Cruz, Manchin, and Gillibrand
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, 
Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 
Kaine, King, and Heinrich

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not 
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included 
in material presented during Senate floor debate on the 
legislation.

                           Regulatory Impact

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the 
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds 
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National 
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2017.

                        Changes In Existing Law

    Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law 
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in 
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the 
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such 
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and 
reduce the expenditure of funds.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                              ----------                              


                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE

    I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. It provides critical funding to improve the combat 
readiness of our military and support the service members and 
families who make countless sacrifices to serve our country. 
The bill takes significant steps to reform the Department of 
Defense, modernize the military health system, and reform the 
defense acquisition system to harness American innovation. 
During markup, we were able to address several concerns with 
the bill to include reorganization of the department and health 
care, but these changes must continue to be vetted both on the 
floor and in conference to ensure they enhance, not degrade 
combat readiness and support. I was pleased the committee 
included my amendments that require the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a plan to Government Accounting Office review before any 
action is taken to consolidate or realign the defense health 
care system. However, there are issues that still need to be 
resolved either with legislation on the Senate floor or during 
conference.
    First, the readiness of our force must be addressed by the 
approval of additional funding. Our military readiness is at 
all-time lows, our modernization is not keeping pace with 
requirements, our military infrastructure is crumbling, and our 
force size is inadequate to meet growing worldwide threats. We 
must pass an amendment on the floor to increase funds or our 
military will not be able to meet ongoing national security 
requirements.
    Second, I support provisions regarding Guantanamo Bay 
(Gitmo), Cuba, that prohibits the use of funds for transfer or 
release of Gitmo detainees to the United States, prohibits the 
use of funds to construct, close or modify Gitmo facilities, 
and prohibits the use of funds to transfer or release Gitmo 
detainees to Libya, Somalia, Syria or Yemen until Dec. 31st, 
2017. I also support the prohibition of transferring a Gitmo 
detainee until the Secretary of Defense submits an unclassified 
report on the detainee's terrorist activities, affiliations, 
and actions taken against the United States or its allies. 
However, I do not support language in this bill that allows the 
transfer of these terrorist detainees from Gitmo to the United 
States for emergency medical treatment or the authority to use 
fund to design and plan construction or modification of 
facilities in United States or its territories or possessions 
to house Gitmo detainees. I plan to offer language to remove 
these authorizations as well as offer a bill that would require 
the Secretary of Defense to make the notice of transfer or 
release of any Gitmo detainee available to the public 21 days 
prior to the intended release date.
    Third, I strongly disagree with legislation contained in 
this bill that would begin the process to privatize our 
military's commissary benefit, despite a congressionally 
directed study on the impacts of privatization not being 
completed. There are too many unknowns as to whether 
privatization could directly impact a military member's ability 
to provide for their families as well as the potential for it 
to affect retention. This is why in last year's NDAA, Congress 
voted to stop the ill-advised provision to begin privatization 
until the Defense Department conducted an assessment for the 
potential costs and benefits of such action. That report has 
not been completed, yet the Senate's NDAA includes language 
this year that takes another attempt at launching a pilot 
privatization program on five major military installations. I 
am committed to fighting this again on the Senate floor. I also 
intend to file an amendment that require the Secretary of 
Defense to look at varying Basic Allowance for Subsistence 
rates in response to the new commissary variable pricing plan.
    Finally, I will work with my colleagues to eliminate 
burdensome restrictions on the sale or donation of excess 
defense property to State or local agencies for law enforcement 
activities and remove language in the NDAA that would require 
women to sign up for the draft.
                                                   James M. Inhofe.

                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE

    The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) voted 
overwhelmingly to approve its version of the fiscal year (FY) 
2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), again 
demonstrating the committee's bipartisan support for our men 
and women in uniform. This bill and associated report includes 
some provisions that I do not support. However, with our 
servicemembers in harm's way, I believe this bill as a whole is 
worthy of support.
    As I have stated before and as many witnesses before our 
committee have testified, the United States confronts a growing 
and diverse range of threats, and yet the readiness of our 
armed forces has declined dangerously. This has occurred 
because our defense budget is based on artificial and 
insufficient budget caps rather than an objective assessment of 
the threats we confront and a clear-eyed determination of the 
military we need to protect our national security interests.
    One of the most important priorities for Congress is to 
eliminate once and for all defense sequestration and the 
artificial budget caps that I opposed and that have increased 
the gap between the military we have and the military we need. 
Congress also has a responsibility to pass authorization and 
appropriation bills on time in order to give the Department of 
Defense (DoD) and defense suppliers the fiscal predictability 
required to ensure our troops have what they need to defend our 
country. I remain committed to working in a bipartisan manner 
to accomplish these objectives.
A-10
    The A-10 aircraft has continued to perform exceptionally 
well in Iraq and Syria, providing uniquely effective close air 
support (CAS), combat search and rescue, and forward air 
controller (airborne) capabilities. As Secretary of Defense 
Ashton Carter said earlier this year, the A-10 ``has been 
devastating ISIL from the air.''
    With the A-10 successfully attacking ISIL in Iraq and Syria 
and deterring aggression in Europe and the Korean peninsula, I 
am disappointed that the Air Force has continued to pursue its 
misguided efforts to prematurely divest the A-10. As General 
Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 
on March 22, 2016, ``I absolutely believe that we need a 
transition plan, and there needs to be a replacement for the A-
10 before it goes away.''
    That is why I am pleased that the committee has voted once 
again to prohibit the dangerous and premature divestment of the 
A-10 aircraft. Soldiers, special operators, and Joint Terminal 
Attack Controllers (JTACs) who understand CAS best say that the 
A-10 provides unique capabilities that cannot be replicated by 
any other aircraft in the department's inventory. They also say 
that the premature divestment of the A-10 before an equally or 
more capable CAS replacement reaches full operational 
capability will create a capability gap that would put our 
ground troops at risk.
    When our ground troops are under fire and they call for 
help, we have an obligation to send them the best possible CAS. 
A failure to do so can mean the difference between life and 
death. That is why I will continue to fight to oppose the 
premature divestment of the A-10 before an equally or more 
capable CAS replacement achieves full operational capability.
Guantanamo Detainees
    I am pleased that the SASC-passed NDAA includes provisions 
I have advocated for that will prohibit Guantanamo detainees 
from being transferred to the United States, prohibit the 
construction or modification of facilities in the United States 
to house Guantanamo detainees, and prohibit the closure of U.S. 
Naval Station Guantanamo. However, in light of the 
administration's refusal to provide the American people with 
even the most basic information regarding Guantanamo detainees, 
I am particularly pleased that the SASC-passed NDAA includes my 
amendment to require greater transparency regarding Guantanamo 
detainees before they can be transferred or released 
internationally.
    In May 2009, President Obama said, ``I ran for President 
promising transparency, and I meant what I said. And that's 
why, whenever possible, my administration will make all 
information available to the American people so that they can 
make informed judgements and hold us accountable.'' 
Unfortunately, when it comes to Guantanamo transfers, the 
administration has not honored that commitment.
    Every time the administration releases or transfers a 
dangerous Guantanamo Bay detainee, the Pentagon issues a press 
statement that contains virtually no information. The only 
specific information released by the DoD to the public is the 
detainee's name and the name of the country to which the 
detainee will be released.
    With more than 30 percent of former Guantanamo detainees 
suspected or confirmed of reengaging in terrorism and with the 
administration confirming that former Guantanamo detainees have 
killed Americans, the administration's lack of transparency 
with the American people regarding Guantanamo detainees is 
deeply troubling.
    The administration does not provide important information 
regarding the detainee's previous terrorist activities, 
associations, or support for attacks on the United States and 
our allies. The American people do not even know if the former 
Guantanamo detainee will be detained or released by the host 
country.
    Based on these concerns, last year I worked successfully to 
include Section 1037 in the final NDAA. Section 1037 requires 
that the Secretary of Defense provide an unclassified report to 
Congress that summarizes the terrorist activities and 
affiliations for detainees at Guantanamo.
    In an April 4 letter to Secretary Carter, more than two 
months after the report was due by law, I wrote, ``To be clear, 
if the administration refuses to provide the requested 
information in unclassified form--and instead conceals this 
information from the American people by placing it 
unnecessarily in a classified annex--that will not comply with 
the law's intent and would be inconsistent with the President's 
stated commitment to transparency.''
    Unfortunately, when the report was finally submitted to 
Congress, that is exactly what DoD did. The department 
classified all of the substantive information ignoring the law 
and the whole purpose of the provision--transparency with the 
American people.
    I recognize there are strongly held views regarding 
Guantanamo on both sides of the debate. The future of the 
detention facility at Guantanamo may be controversial, but the 
need to be forthright with the American people about Guantanamo 
detainees before they are released should not be controversial.
    That is why I will continue to press the administration to 
be more forthcoming with the American people regarding the 
terrorist activities and affiliations of Guantanamo detainees 
and why I urge my colleagues to include this provision in the 
final bill.
Let our female servicemembers do their jobs
    In October 2014, a detainee at Guantanamo who played an 
important role in planning the 9/11 attack filed a motion 
requesting that the military commission stop using female 
military guards as escorts. Despite the fact that a vast 
majority of Muslim detainees at Guantanamo expressed no similar 
objection, he complained that being touched by the female 
guards violated his religious beliefs. He was later joined in 
his motion by the four other members of the so-called ``9/11 
Five'', including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--the mastermind of 9/
11.
    In response, in January 2015, a military judge issued a 
temporary court order ``limiting the use of female guards to 
physically touch the Accused during movements to and from 
attorney-client meetings and Commission hearings, absent 
exigent circumstances, until such time as the Commission makes 
a final ruling. . .''
    When asked about this situation at Guantanamo, the former 
Commander of SOUTHCOM, General John Kelly, called this 
treatment of our female servicemembers ``un-American'', and 
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and General Joseph Dunford 
called it ``outrageous.''
    I led a Congressional Delegation to Guantanamo last October 
to learn more. While we were there, we met with several of the 
female guards. These women trained hard to do their jobs and 
volunteered to serve at Guantanamo. Yet, these women serving in 
the military are being prevented from fully doing their jobs 
because those who planned and facilitated the 9/11 attacks have 
a problem with women.
    These female servicemembers told us they can't believe that 
terrorists who murdered almost 3,000 people on U.S. soil are 
being allowed to dictate how U.S. service members do their 
jobs--simply because they are women. That is an insult to every 
woman who puts her life on the line to serve our country.
    This situation has resulted in negative professional, 
operational, and morale impacts. The inability of female guards 
to fully perform their jobs has disadvantaged them in their 
evaluations and future promotions. Operationally, the women 
have to be pulled off duty rotations and soldiers have to be 
pulled from elsewhere to replace them. This has been 
particularly onerous given the time-consuming security 
clearances required to work with the most dangerous detainees 
at Guantanamo. The order has also had a negative impact on 
morale. Understandably, the female guards have a hard time 
understanding how they can be denied the ability to serve in 
positions for which they are fully qualified and lawfully 
entitled--simply because they are women.
    Members of the guard force--both males and females--
submitted Equal Opportunity (EO) complaints, all of which were 
substantiated.
    This amendment that I introduced along with Senator Lindsey 
Graham and that SASC voted to adopt would ensure that never 
again at Guantanamo or anywhere else in the United States 
military could a military commission prevent a qualified 
service member from doing their lawful duty simply based on 
their gender.
Military health care and compensation
    While I believe this bill passed by the committee includes 
some positive and necessary health care reforms, I am concerned 
that the committee has voted to increase TRICARE enrollment 
fees, co-payments, catastrophic caps, and deductibles and voted 
to deprive servicemembers of the full pay raise they deserve.
    When Americans join the military, they agree to risk their 
lives and endure unique hardships on our behalf. Americans who 
make this choice do not expect to get rich, and they are 
certainly not looking for a handout. However, they do have a 
right to expect quality equipment, realistic training, 
reasonable compensation, and top-notch health care. Many 
service members joined the military with the reasonable 
expectation of receiving essentially free health care, only to 
unfortunately find themselves and their families paying more 
and more for health care as they continue to serve and then 
retire.
    Those who seek to justify these increases in military 
health care expenses for servicemembers, retirees, and their 
families argue that (1) these increases are relatively modest; 
(2) artificial budget caps and increasing personnel costs make 
these increases necessary; and (3) health care provided to 
servicemembers and retirees remains among the most generous in 
the world. I would like to address each of these points.
    While some argue that the increased fees are relatively 
modest, that is not the case--especially when the increases are 
considered on a cumulative basis. For example, under this bill, 
the TRICARE Select (currently TRICARE Prime) single and family 
enrollment fees for working age retirees would increase by 
about 24 percent. Plus, the SASC-passed bill would result in a 
new fee for TRICARE Choice (currently TRICARE Extra and 
Standard). Single enrollment would incur a $150 initial fee 
with increases of $60 per year, and family enrollment would 
incur a $300 initial fee with increases of $120 per year. 
Further, annual deductibles for active duty families and 
working-age retirees in TRICARE Choice would double, while 
catastrophic caps in a given year would increase by 50 percent 
for active duty families and 14 percent for working-age 
retirees. In addition, retail and mail order pharmacy copays 
for those who do not live near military hospitals or clinics 
would increase each year.
    Many of these increases are not modest increases, and when 
they are considered cumulatively, they will likely have a 
significant and negative financial impact on many 
servicemembers, retirees, and their families.
    To make matters worse, DoD requested and the committee 
authorized a 1.6 percent increase in military basic pay. As the 
department's budget proposal recognizes, this is less than the 
2.1 percent increase under the formula in current law, which 
attempts to align military pay raises with the annual increase 
in the wages and salaries of private industry employees as 
measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI).
    While I am pleased that the committee has authorized a pay 
raise for those who sacrifice so much for our security and 
freedom, I am disappointed that the department did not request 
and the committee did not authorize a pay raise of 2.1 percent 
to at least keep pace with wages and salaries in the private 
sector.
    There is no question that artificial budget caps that 
ignore the threats we face are forcing DoD and Congress to make 
difficult budget decisions--including in the areas of military 
compensation and health care. Within these misguided defense 
budget caps, it is also true that personnel costs risk crowding 
out necessary readiness investments related to weapons and 
training.
    However, it is important to remember that Congress and the 
administration created and imposed these artificial budget 
caps, and therefore, Congress and the administration could 
eliminate them as well. I am proud that I voted against 
sequestration and have worked to end it once and for all. 
Unfortunately, Congress and the administration have failed to 
show the wisdom and courage to permanently eliminate the budget 
caps that are making us less safe and encouraging Congress and 
the administration to ask those who have already sacrificed so 
much for our freedom and security to sacrifice even more.
    It is also worth pointing out that it is the job of 
Congress to look across the entire federal budget in order to 
establish funding priorities--maintaining or increasing funding 
in high priority areas and cutting funding that is less 
important. It is ridiculous to suggest that one of the first 
ways we should seek to balance our federal budget is by asking 
service members, military retirees, and their family members to 
pay more for their health care. If budgets reflect priorities, 
these proposed increases in military health care costs suggest 
that Congress's priorities need a dramatic readjustment.
    Especially in light of continued DoD waste and 
inefficiency, it is a false choice to suggest that we must 
choose between providing servicemembers the compensation and 
health care they deserve and providing them the weapons and 
training they need. If there is not enough room within existing 
budgets to arm and train our troops as our national security 
interests require, while also providing them the compensation 
and health care they deserve, that once again demonstrates the 
insufficiency of the current defense budget.
    Finally, some attempt to justify increases in health care 
costs by comparing military health care with civilian health 
care provided elsewhere. It is true that military health care 
in many cases is more generous than most civilian health care 
plans, but that is entirely appropriate. Military service is 
uniquely difficult, valuable, and honorable, and the sacrifices 
service members and their family members voluntarily endure 
cannot be compared to any other profession. For those reasons, 
it is appropriate for them to expect--and necessary for 
Congress to provide--health care that is both generous and top-
notch.
    In order to ensure that our service members, retirees, and 
their family members have the weapons, training, compensation, 
and health care they deserve, I will continue to fight for a 
permanent repeal of the artificial budget caps. In the 
meantime, we should do everything in our power to provide the 
military compensation and health care that our service members, 
retirees, and their family members have earned. A failure to do 
so would not only be wrong, but it could also endanger the 
viability of the all-volunteer force.

                                                      Kelly Ayotte.

                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. KAINE

    I wanted to provide additional views on the FY 2017 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I voted to report 
the measure from the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), 
but I do have concerns regarding certain provisions in the 
bill.
    I want to thank Senator McCain for championing the issue of 
DOD reform. There is no doubt in my mind that every member of 
the SASC is concerned about the ability of the Department to 
adapt and remain successful in today's security environment. I 
am also concerned with the appearance that the Department is 
mired in duplicative processes and complicated organizational 
designs. Many of the witnesses at several of our hearings 
attested to this, but they also provided insight into the 
process.
    On November 10th, 2015 in front of a hearing by this 
Committee, Jim Thomas from the Center for Strategic and 
Budgetary Analysis said, ``all of these ideas would require 
detailed analysis to fully understand their strengths and avoid 
outcomes that might inadvertently leave us worse off.'' At that 
same hearing we heard from James Locher, a former staff member 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee during the Goldwater-
Nichols reform, who stated ``pinpointing problems was the 
committee's sole focus for eighteen months. As part of this 
thorough process, the committee staff produced a 645-page staff 
study with detailed analyses of each problem area . . . a hasty 
reform without a deep appreciation for the origins of the 
behaviors that currently limit Pentagon effectiveness would be 
a mistake.'' Additional comments by witnesses like the 
Honorable David Walker, ``there needs to be a fundamental 
review and reassessment of the current organizational structure 
and personnel practices,'' or Former Under Secretary of Defense 
Michele Flournoy, ``it is imperative that we think through the 
second and third order effects of any changes proposed . . . 
great care should be taken to hear the full range of views and 
consider the unintended consequences,'' should have provided 
the necessary direction and caution to this committee to pursue 
a deliberative, well-researched and open approach.
    While I have the utmost respect for the Committee's 
Professional Staff and have full confidence that they crafted 
legislation to try and address significant challenges at the 
Department, it is the responsibility of the members to vote the 
proposals into law. Despite the numerous hearings and countless 
witnesses, the only theme was that reform was needed with only 
conceptual suggestions. To date, no study has proposed the 
legislation contained within this bill. No civilian or military 
officials offered their views for consideration.
    In the absence of a study, independent investigative work 
or views from outside stakeholders on these provisions due to 
the embargoed nature of the mark, I am just not sure whether 
these changes are the right ones or not. Should we require the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to consult with and seek the 
advice of others? Should the headquarters budget be reduced, 
like it was last year, by 25%? Is an additional 15% of staff 
adequate in a time of War or crisis? Will the new Under-
Secretary for Research and Engineering make the Department's 
acquisition process run more efficiently? Last year we did not 
provide a pay increase to General Officers, this year we 
reduced their number by 25%. The combination of these two 
provisions makes me wonder whether we are doing all we can to 
cultivate the next Eisenhower, Halsey, Abrams or Dunford.
    The reforms contained may be exactly what are needed, but 
the embargoed status prevents us from getting any outside 
opinion or expert analysis prior to our consideration and vote. 
I am not challenging the concept or need for reform, but 
instead the process that led us to this point. We can readily 
resolve this by empowering an appropriate study to ensure we 
are validating the proposals.
    We made significant reforms empowering acquisition 
professionals to have greater flexibility and offer service 
chiefs greater ownership of their acquisition programs. We have 
also charged the Department with necessary authorities to 
``hire top talent'' in an attempt to drive innovation. Many of 
us on this committee have demanded a more comprehensive 
military strategy in countering the myriad threats around the 
globe. In addition, this bill encourages numerous outreach and 
coordination programs with our Allies and Partners. These 
requests are not hollow or zero-sum. People are required to 
assist our service chiefs with acquisition programs. People 
develop more comprehensive doctrines and offset strategies. 
Hiring and retaining top-talent means just that.
    What impact will the re-organization of the Department and 
significant changes in personnel policies have on our 
operations in the midst of a two-front Cold War and expanding 
conflict in the Middle East? Do we challenge the advice our 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is providing? How do we get ``top 
talent'' if each spring we re-organize and cut our Department 
of Defense workforce? How will a reduction in General and Flag 
officers impact current and future senior officers? What are 
the secondary effects to changes in Combatant Command 
responsibilities? How will our Allies and Adversaries interpret 
the reduction or disappearance of General officers in overseas 
billets? I submit that most of the members of this Committee do 
not know the answers to these questions, but we should get the 
answers before we vote in favor of these reforms.
    I share the Chairman's desire to improve the organization 
and capability of the Department of Defense. I know he has 
reached a comfort level with the reform proposals contained 
within, that in time I may be able to accept. However, I am 
mindful of the cautions relayed by many of our witnesses. Each 
member of this committee has the solemn duty to cast their vote 
based on their confidence and understanding of these proposals. 
We should take our independent oversight responsibility very 
seriously. I do not believe that voting in favor of these 
proposals following a few days of ``in-office'' review of an 
embargoed product fulfills that responsibility. I remain 
committed to working with this committee in a bipartisan 
fashion and encourage my colleagues to seek a more measured and 
informed approach to any legislation that has the potential to 
negatively impact the very Department we seek to improve.
    I supported this bill out of committee so that it could be 
debated by the full Senate, hopefully with additional context 
of views and opinions by Defense experts.
                                                         Tim Kaine.

                    ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. HEINRICH

    The bill reported by the committee includes a provision 
adopted by amendment that would require the Secretary of 
Defense to grant unfettered access to military installations to 
any school that participates in the Department's tuition 
assistance program under the guise of providing ``advising and 
support services'' to students on that military installation. 
It is unclear as to why such advising and support cannot be 
provided off post, via video call capabilities almost 
universally available on smart phones, or by complying with 
current DOD regulations that affords access to military posts 
to such schools, so long as they go through the base commander 
and base education office. These regulations seem appropriate 
to ensure predatory recruiting practices are curtailed, which 
gave rise to those regulations in the first place.
    A particularly troubling aspect of this language, in 
addition to requiring unfettered access, is that the language 
requires access to be granted in proportion to the number of 
students enrolled by each school. This would result in an 
outcome where public universities teaching on base will be 
required to have less access to base than those conducing 
online courses with high enrollment numbers. Current DOD 
regulations treat all schools the same; this unprecedented 
change will favor some over others and has the potential to 
incentivize predatory conduct. The more students you sign up, 
the greater your ability to sign up even more. Moreover, this 
appears to create a significant security concern for 
commanders.
    I support the principle that schools should have access to 
their students for advisement purposes. But we must make sure 
we do not create security issues or unfair advantages for some 
schools over others, and that service members, especially 
junior members who use this benefit the most, are protected 
from recruiting practices that often do not have the service 
member's best interests at heart. I urge a thoughtful 
reconsideration of this provision during floor debate on the 
bill to ensure it does not inadvertently and unnecessarily put 
service members at risk.

                                                   Martin Heinrich.

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                              ----------                              


                 MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. LEE AND MR. CRUZ

    The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act passed by the 
Senate Armed Services Committee entails a broad range of 
reforms to the structure of Department of Defense, the 
Department's acquisitions process, and the military healthcare 
system. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, and the members 
of this committee should be commended for the thorough analysis 
of these issues that was undertaken over the past year, 
resulting in a determination that multiple reform efforts were 
required in order to preserve the military's technological and 
manpower advantages over potential adversaries. We believe that 
these concepts, which were written and debated in an embargoed 
process, should be carefully reviewed with military leaders and 
service organizations before enactment, to ensure that the 
implementation of each reform occurs without causing undue harm 
to the service members or their families.
    However, we in good conscience cannot support the 
legislation passed by the committee due to the inclusion of 
language requiring women to register for Military Selective 
Service, and we have concerns regarding the process by which 
this issue has been handled by the committee. The Secretary of 
Defense's decision in December, 2015, to open all Military 
Occupational Specialties (MOS) to war fighters regardless of 
gender, will fundamentally alter the structure of combat 
forces. The Secretary has assured Congress that his policy 
change will improve the combat effectiveness of the military in 
the long-term and that each military service will uphold their 
rigorous physical standards across all combat MOSs.
    In making this decision however, the Secretary of Defense 
did not undertake an exhaustive study of secondary consequences 
as Congress had desired, including any impact on the Military 
Selective Service Act (MSSA). In Rostker vs. Goldberg (1981), 
the Supreme Court determined that requiring only men to 
register for Selective Service was not a violation of the 
Constitution, in part, because the Department of Defense placed 
restrictions on women serving in combat occupations. The 
Secretary's reversal of this policy in 2015 has arguably put 
the constitutionality of the MSSA back into question.
    This legal issue can be adjudicated in several ways: 
Congress could act to amend the MSSA in order to include both 
men and women, Congress could act to repeal the MSSA all 
together, or Congress could debate the matter and leave the 
MSSA unaltered. Additionally, the courts could adjudicate the 
constitutionality of the MSSA, striking it, remanding it for 
changes, or reinforcing the current policy.
    The decision to compel women into possible combat service 
through the Selective Service is a different issue entirely 
than allowing women to voluntarily compete for an assignment in 
a combat MOS. We strongly believe that it is in the best 
interests of our national security and American society for 
this choice to be made by Congress, after an extensive review 
of the Selective Service system and military personnel 
requirements. In light of the fact that the decision whether or 
not to require women to register for the draft will in some way 
impact virtually every family in the United States, we further 
contend that the issue must be debated and adjudicated in the 
full and open view of the American public, not in a closed 
session of the Committee.
    On these grounds, we respectfully oppose the legislation 
that was produced by the Committee and believe that this issue 
demands open and transparent debate on the floor of the Senate.

                                             Mike Lee and Ted Cruz.