[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.