    [Senate Report 114-49]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       114th Congress   }                      {       Report
                                  SENATE
        lst Session     }                      {       114-49
    _____________________________________________________________

                                                Calendar No. 88

                         NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                            ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                     REPORT

                             [to accompany s. 1376]

                                       on

         TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR MILITARY
    ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
    TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                 together with

                                ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                   ----------

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                      May 19, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

    114th Congress       }                     {        Report
                                 SENATE
    1st Session          }                     {        114-49
    _______________________________________________________________

                                                     Calendar No. 88

                         NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                            ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                     REPORT

                             [to accompany s. 1376]

                                       on

         TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR MILITARY
    ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
    TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                 together with

                                ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                   __________

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                      May 19, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                          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..................................     4
            Budgetary Effects of This Act (Sec. 4)...................     5
    DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.................     7
    TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.............................................     7
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................     7
            Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)...............     7
        Subtitle B--Navy Programs....................................     7
            Amendment to cost limitation baseline for CVN-78 class
              aircraft carrier program (sec. 111)....................     7
            Limitation on availability of funds for USS John F.
              Kennedy (CVN-79) (sec. 112)............................     8
            Limitation on availability of funds for USS Enterprise
              (CVN-80) (sec. 113)....................................     8
            Modification of CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program
              (sec. 114).............................................     9
            Limitation on availability of funds for Littoral Combat
              Ship (sec. 115)........................................    10
            Extension and modification of limitation on availability
              of funds for Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 116)...........    11
            Construction of additional Arleigh Burke destroyer (sec.
              117)...................................................    11
            Fleet replenishment oiler program (sec. 118).............    11
            Reporting requirement for Ohio-class replacement
              submarine program (sec. 119)...........................    12
        Subtitle C--Air Force Programs...............................    12
            Limitations on retirement of B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber
              aircraft (sec. 131)....................................    12
            Limitation on retirement of Air Force fighter aircraft
              (sec. 132).............................................    12
            Limitation on availability of funds for F-35A aircraft
              procurement (sec. 133).................................    14
            Prohibition on retirement of A-10 aircraft (sec. 134)....    15
            Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of
              EC-130H Compass Call aircraft (sec. 135)...............    16
            Limitation on transfer of C-130 aircraft (sec. 136)......    17
            Limitation on use of funds for T-1A Jayhawk aircraft
              (sec. 137).............................................    17
            Restriction on retirement of the Joint Surveillance
              Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), EC-130H Compass
              Call, and Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWACS)
              aircraft (sec. 138)....................................    18
            Sense of the Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the
              F-35A aircraft (sec. 139)..............................    18
            Sense of Congress on F-16 Active Electronically Scanned
              Array (AESA) radar upgrade (sec. 140)..................    18
        Subtitle D--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters....    18
            Report on Army and Marine Corps modernization plan for
              small arms (sec. 151)..................................    18
        Budget Items.................................................    18
            Army.....................................................    18
                Common missile warning system........................    18
                 PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement...................    18
                Army Tactical Missile System.........................    19
                Improved recovery vehicle............................    19
                Precision sniper rifle...............................    19
                Compact semi-automatic sniper system.................    19
                 Common remotely operated weapons station............    19
                Handgun..............................................    19
                Sniper rifle modifications...........................    20
                Items less than $5.0 million.........................    20
                Army ammunition decrease.............................    20
                Transportable Tactical Command Communications........    20
                Prophet Ground System................................    20
                Counterfire radars...................................    20
                Global Combat Support System--Army...................    21
                Automated data processing equipment..................    21
                 Non-system training devices.........................    21
            Navy.....................................................    21
                F/A-18E/F aircraft procurement.......................    21
                F-35C................................................    21
                F-35B................................................    21
                AV-8 series aircraft.................................    22
                F-18 series kill chain enhancements..................    22
                V-22 Osprey..........................................    22
                Tomahawk.............................................    22
                Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile.............    23
                Ordnance support equipment...........................    23
                Virginia-class submarines............................    23
                Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.......................    24
                 Afloat Forward Staging Base.........................    24
                 Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) Replacement...........    24
                 LX(R)...............................................    25
                Landing craft utility replacement....................    25
                T-ATS(X).............................................    25
                Destroyer modernization..............................    25
                 Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission
                  Module.............................................    25
                 Remote Minehunting System...........................    26
                Submarine towed arrays...............................    26
                Surface electronic warfare improvement program.......    26
                Tube-launched, optically-tracked, wireless-guided
                  missile............................................    27
                Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar.......................    27
            Air Force................................................    27
                F-35A................................................    27
                MQ-9.................................................    27
                F-15 capability upgrades.............................    28
                Budget request realignment...........................    28
                C-130H Propulsion System Enhancements................    28
                 C-130H avionics modernization program...............    29
                A-10 Munitions Buyback...............................    29
                Battlefield air operations kits......................    30
                Air Force Network Procurements.......................    30
                Joint terminal attack controller training and
                  rehearsal system simulators........................    30
            Defense Wide.............................................    30
                MC-12................................................    30
                MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.........................    31
        Items of Special Interest....................................    31
            Armored vehicle transmission industrial base.............    31
            Army UH-60A to UH-60L conversions for the National Guard.    32
            Combat Logistics Fleet...................................    32
            Comptroller General of the United States review of the
              implementation of recommendations from the National
              Commission on the Structure of the Air Force...........    33
            Comptroller General review of the CVN-78 class aircraft
              carrier program........................................    34
            Enhance cockpit displays to improve safety and mission
              effectiveness..........................................    35
            Expeditionary Health Services Systems....................    35
            F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program........................    35
            Joint Standoff Weapon....................................    37
             Land mobile radio.......................................    37
            Missile and munitions industrial base....................    37
            Modernization for Light Armored Vehicles.................    37
            Navy maritime security barriers..........................    38
            Navy training helicopters................................    38
            Night Vision Reset.......................................    39
            Patriot Product Improvement Future Lower Tier Sensor
              Alternatives...........................................    39
            Route and area clearance mine protected vehicles.........    39
            San Antonio-Class Amphibious Transport Dock program......    40
            Single-source providers of critical acquisition program
              components.............................................    40
            Standoff precision guided weapons........................    40
            Unmanned Undersea Vehicles...............................    41
            Vehicle occupant protection technology...................    42
     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
            Centers for science, technology, and engineering
              partnership (sec. 211).................................    43
            Department of Defense technology offset program to build
              and maintain the military technological superiority of
              the United States (sec. 212)...........................    44
            Reauthorization of Defense Research and Development Rapid
              Innovation Program (sec. 213)..........................    46
            Reauthorization of Global Research Watch Program (sec.
              214)...................................................    46
            Science and technology activities to support business
              systems information technology acquisition programs
              (sec. 215).............................................    47
            Expansion of eligibility for financial assistance under
              Department of Defense science, mathematics, and
              research for transformation program to include citizens
              of countries participating in the technical cooperation
              program (sec. 216).....................................    48
            Streamlining the Joint Federated Assurance Center (sec.
              217)...................................................    49
            Limitation on availability of funds for development of
              the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (sec. 218)........    49
            Limitation on availability of funds for distributed
              common ground system of the Army (sec. 219)............    50
            Limitation on availability of funds for Distributed
              Common Ground System of the United States Special
              Operations Command (sec. 220)..........................    51
        Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................    51
            Assessment of air-land mobile tactical communications and
              data network requirements and capabilities (sec. 231)..    51
            Study of field failures involving counterfeit electronic
              parts (sec. 232).......................................    51
            Demonstration of persistent close air support
              capabilities (sec. 233)................................    52
            Airborne data link plan (sec. 234).......................    52
            Report on the technology readiness levels of the
              technologies and capabilities critical to the Long
              Range Strike Bomber aircraft (sec. 235)................    54
        Budget Items.................................................    54
            Army defense research sciences...........................    54
            High-performance computing modernization.................    55
            Infantry support weapons.................................    55
            Integrated personnel and pay systems for Army and Air
              Force..................................................    55
            Common infrared countermeasures..........................    56
            Aircraft survivability development.......................    56
            Joint Tactical Radio System..............................    56
            Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety......    57
            Stryker modification and improvement.....................    57
            Navy defense research sciences...........................    57
            Undersea warfare applied research........................    58
            Capable manpower, enablers, and sea basing...............    58
            Advanced submarine system development....................    58
            USS Gerald R. Ford full ship shock trials................    58
            LX(R)....................................................    59
            Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and
              Strike System..........................................    59
            Submarine tactical warfare systems development...........    59
            F-35B/C engineering and manufacturing development........    59
            Submarine acoustic warfare development...................    59
            Mk-48 ADCAP..............................................    60
            Air Force defense research sciences......................    60
            Nanostructured and biological materials..................    60
            Long range strike--bomber................................    60
            F-35A engineering and manufacturing development..........    60
            KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program...........    61
            F-15 capability upgrades.................................    61
            Budget request realignment...............................    61
            Logistics information technology.........................    62
            Applied research for the advancement of science and
              technology priorities..................................    62
            Multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement
              system.................................................    62
            Materials and biological technology......................    62
            Science and technology analytic assessments..............    63
            Joint capability technology demonstration................    63
            Network-centric warfare technology.......................    63
            Quick Reaction Special Projects..........................    64
            Advanced sensor application program......................    64
            Corrosion control and prevention funding increase........    64
            Global Combat Support System--Joint Systems engineering..    64
            MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.............................    65
            C-130 terrain following/terrain avoidance radar..........    65
            Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Payload
              Technology Improvements Program........................    66
            Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration and prototyping.    66
        Items of Special Interest....................................    67
            Advancement in radar technologies........................    67
            Advancements in Antenna Research and Capabilities........    67
            Air Force seismic activity research......................    67
            Conditions and Capabilities of the Undersea Warfare Test
              Capabilities...........................................    68
            Cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun
              program................................................    68
            Database on Department of Defense research grants........    69
            Entrepreneurial sabbatical for Department of Defense
              laboratory scientists..................................    69
            Expedited approval for attendance at conferences in
              support of science and innovation activities of
              Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security
              Administration.........................................    70
            High Power Microwave Counter-electronics Capabilities....    71
            Improved turbine engine program..........................    72
            Improvised Explosive Device Detection Systems............    72
            Market survey of active protection systems...............    72
            Medical evaluation of Anthropomorphic data on vehicle
              blast testing..........................................    73
            National Defense Education Program.......................    73
            Training Range Upgrades..................................    73
    TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................    75
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    75
            Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)...............    75
        Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment.......................    75
            Modification of energy management reporting requirements
              (sec. 311).............................................    75
            Report on efforts to reduce high energy costs at military
              installations (sec. 312)...............................    75
            Southern Sea Otter military readiness areas (sec. 313)...    75
        Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................    76
            Repeal of limitation on authority to enter into a
              contract for the sustainment, maintenance, repair, or
              overhaul of the F117 engine (sec. 321).................    76
        Subtitle D--Reports..........................................    76
            Modification of annual report on prepositioned materiel
              and equipment (sec. 331)...............................    76
        Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority..........    76
            Modification of requirements for transferring aircraft
              within the Air Force inventory (sec. 341)..............    76
            Limitation on use of funds for Department of Defense
              sponsorships, advertising, or marketing associated with
              sports-related organizations or sporting events (sec.
              342)...................................................    77
            Temporary authority to extend contracts and leases under
              ARMS Initiative (sec. 343).............................    78
        Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................    78
            Streamlining of Department of Defense management and
              operational headquarters (sec. 351)....................    78
            Adoption of retired military working dogs (sec. 352).....    80
            Modification of required review of projects relating to
              potential obstructions to aviation (sec. 353)..........    80
            Pilot program on intensive instruction in certain Asian
              languages (sec. 354)...................................    81
        Budget Items.................................................    81
            Transfer to overseas contingency operations..............    81
            Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities
              increases..............................................    82
            Insider threat unfunded priorities increases.............    82
            Streamlining Combatant Commands..........................    83
            Army outreach reduction..................................    83
            United States Southern Command unfunded priorities
              increase...............................................    83
            Streamlining Management Headquarters.....................    84
            Foreign currency fluctuation deductions..................    84
            Bulk fuel savings........................................    85
            Army and Air National Guard Operation Phalanx increase...    85
            Army National Guard portrait cuts........................    86
            Army National Guard marketing program reduction..........    86
            Army National Guard readiness funding increase...........    86
            Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases.....    87
            Criminal Investigative Equipment.........................    87
            A-10 to F-15E training transition........................    87
            Air Force readiness unfunded priorities increases........    88
            Joint Enabling Capabilities Command......................    88
            Air Force Headquarters reductions........................    88
            Remotely piloted aircraft................................    89
            Air Force acquisition tools reduction....................    89
            Air Force enterprise information technology systems......    89
            Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System
              reduction..............................................    89
            EC-130H Buyback..........................................    90
            A-10 Operation and Maintenance Buyback...................    90
            Middle East Assurance Initiative.........................    90
            Department of Defense Rewards Program reduction..........    91
            Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program...................    91
            Funding for impact aid...................................    91
            Defense-wide funding decreases for Office of Economic
              Adjustment (OEA).......................................    92
            Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and
              closure planning and support...........................    92
            Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy.....    92
            A-10 retirement manpower transfer........................    92
        Items of Special Interest....................................    93
            Army and Air Force full spectrum training requirements...    93
            Body armor modernization.................................    94
            Care of stock in storage.................................    94
            Category I ammunition items in OCONUS environments.......    95
            Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)...........................    96
            Commercial innovation in energy technologies.............    96
            Defense Logistics Agency and military services'
              integrated demand planning for spare parts.............    97
            Department of Defense airfield reflective pavement
              markings...............................................    97
            Department of Defense energy security and efficiency
              technologies...........................................    98
            Department of Defense fuel consumption estimates.........    98
            Department of Defense investment in community relations
              activities.............................................    99
            Depot maintenance core workload capability...............    99
            Effects of operation and maintenance funding levels......   100
            Encouraging the Use of the Innovative Readiness Training
              (IRT) Program..........................................   101
            Enhanced Performance Round and Special Operations Science
              and Technology review..................................   101
            Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment............   102
            Foreign language training................................   102
            Installation access programs and systems.................   103
            Major test range and test facility bases reimbursement...   103
            Medical textile apparel for healthcare workers and
              patients...............................................   103
            Mentor Protege program...................................   104
            Obstructions on or near military installations...........   104
            Operational Energy.......................................   104
            Personal protection equipment............................   105
            Red Hill underground fuel storage facility...............   105
            Report on those at-risk of exposure to perflourochemicals
              from the Haven Well in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.......   106
            Resilience of Department of Defense-owned utility
              infrastructure.........................................   106
            Tubular light-emitting diode technology..................   107
            Utah Test and Training Range.............................   107
    TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS......................   109
        Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   109
            End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)...............   109
            Enhancement of authority for management of end strengths
              for military personnel (sec. 402)......................   109
        Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   109
            End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............   109
            End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
              the reserves (sec. 412)................................   110
            End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
              (sec. 413).............................................   110
            Fiscal year 2016 limitation on number of non-dual status
              technicians (sec. 414).................................   110
            Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
              active duty for operational support (sec. 415).........   111
            Chief of the National Guard Bureau authority in increase
              certain end strengths applicable to the Army National
              Guard (sec. 416).......................................   111
        Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   111
            Military personnel (sec. 421)............................   111
        Budget Items.................................................   112
            Military personnel funding changes.......................   112
    TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY...............................   113
        Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   113
            Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of
              particular merit be placed at the top of the promotion
              list (sec. 501)........................................   113
            Minimum grades for certain corps and related positions in
              the Army, Navy, and Air Force (sec. 502)...............   113
            Enhancement of military personnel authorities in
              connection with the defense acquisition workforce (sec.
              503)...................................................   114
            Enhanced flexibility for determination of officers to
              continue on active duty and for selective early
              retirement and early discharge (sec. 504)..............   114
            Authority to defer until age 68 mandatory retirement for
              age of a general or flag officer serving as Chief or
              Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Army, Navy or Air
              Force (sec. 505).......................................   115
            Reinstatement of enhanced authority for selective early
              discharge of warrant officers (sec. 506)...............   115
            Authority to conduct warrant officer retired grade
              determinations (sec. 507)..............................   115
        Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management.....................   115
            Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to
              be considered for selection for promotion (sec. 511)...   115
            Clarification of purpose of reserve component special
              selection boards as limited to correction of error at a
              mandatory promotion board (sec. 512)...................   116
            Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to
              citizenship qualifications for enlistment in the
              reserve components of the Armed Forces (sec. 513)......   116
            Authority for certain Air Force reserve component
              personnel to provide training and instruction regarding
              pilot instructor training (sec. 514)...................   116
        Subtitle C--General Service Authorities......................   116
            Duty required for eligibility for preseparation
              counseling for members being discharged or released
              from active duty (sec. 521)............................   116
            Expansion of pilot programs on career flexibility to
              enhance retention of members of the Armed Forces (sec.
              522)...................................................   117
            Sense of Senate on development of gender-neutral
              occupational standards for occupational assignments in
              the Armed Forces (sec. 523)............................   117
        Subtitle D--Member Education and Training....................   117
            PART I--Educational Assistance Reform....................   117
                Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty
                  training or education (sec. 531)...................   117
                Termination of program of educational assistance for
                  reserve component members supporting contingency
                  operations and other operations (sec. 532).........   118
                Reports on educational levels attained by certain
                  members of the Armed Forces at time of separation
                  from the Armed Forces (sec. 533)...................   118
                Sense of Congress on transferability of unused
                  education benefits to family members (sec. 534)....   118
                No entitlement to unemployment insurance while
                  receiving Post-9/11 Education Assistance (sec. 535)   118
            PART II--Other Matters...................................   118
                Repeal of statutory specification of minimum duration
                  of in-resident instruction for courses of
                  instruction offered as part of Phase II Joint
                  Professional Military Education (sec. 536).........   118
                Quality assurance of certification programs and
                  standards for professional credentials obtained by
                  members of the Armed Forces (sec. 537).............   119
                Support for athletic programs of the United States
                  Military Academy (sec. 538)........................   119
                Online access to the higher education component of
                  the transition assistance program (sec. 539).......   119
        Subtitle E--Military Justice.................................   120
            Modification of Rule 304 of the Military Rules of
              Evidence relating to the corroboration of a confession
              or admission (sec. 546)................................   120
            Modification of Rule 104 of the Rules for Courts-Martial
              to establish certain prohibitions concerning
              evaluations of Special Victims' Counsel (sec. 547).....   120
            Right of victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of
              Military Justice to timely disclosure of certain
              materials and information in connection with
              prosecution of offenses (sec. 548).....................   120
            Enforcement of certain crime victims' rights by the Court
              of Criminal Appeals (sec. 549).........................   121
            Release to victims upon request of complete record of
              proceedings and testimony of courts-martial in cases in
              which sentences adjudged could include punitive
              discharge (sec. 550)...................................   121
            Representation and assistance of victims by Special
              Victims' Counsel in questioning by military criminal
              investigators (sec. 551)...............................   121
            Authority of Special Victims' Counsel to provide legal
              consultation and assistance in connection with various
              government proceedings (sec. 552)......................   121
            Enhancement of confidentiality of restricted reporting of
              sexual assault in the military (sec. 553)..............   121
            Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within
              the National Guard Bureau (sec. 554)...................   122
            Modification of deadline for establishment of Defense
              Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and
              Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (sec.
              555)...................................................   122
            Comptroller General of the United States reports on
              prevention and response to sexual assault by the Army
              National Guard and the Army Reserve (sec. 556).........   122
            Sense of Congress on the service of military families and
              on sentencing retirement eligible members of the Armed
              Forces (sec. 557)......................................   122
        Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
          Readiness Matters..........................................   123
            Continuation of authority to assist local educational
              agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
              armed forces and Department of Defense civilian
              employees (sec. 561)...................................   123
            Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.
              562)...................................................   123
            Authority to use appropriated funds to support Department
              of Defense student meal programs in domestic dependent
              elementary and secondary schools located outside the
              United States (sec. 563)...............................   123
            Biennial surveys of military dependents on military
              family readiness matters (sec. 564)....................   123
        Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements.............   123
            Extension of semiannual reports on the involuntary
              separation of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 571)...   123
            Remotely piloted aircraft career field manning shortfalls
              (sec. 572).............................................   124
        Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   125
            PART I--Financial Literacy and Preparedness of Members of
              the Armed Forces.......................................   125
                Improvement of financial literacy and preparedness of
                  members of the Armed Forces (sec. 581).............   125
                Financial literacy training with respect to certain
                  financial services for members of the uniformed
                  services (sec. 582)................................   125
                Sense of Congress on financial literacy and
                  preparedness of members of the Armed Forces (sec.
                  583)...............................................   125
        PART II--Other Matters.......................................   125
                Authority for applications for correction of military
                  records to be initiated by the Secretary concerned
                  (sec. 586).........................................   125
                Recordation of obligations for installment payments
                  of incentive pays, allowances, and similar benefits
                  when payment is due (sec. 587).....................   125
                Enhancements to Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
                  (sec. 588).........................................   126
                Priority processing of applications for
                  Transportation Worker Identification Credentials
                  for members undergoing discharge or release from
                  the Armed Forces (sec. 589)........................   126
                Issuance of Recognition of Service ID cards to
                  certain members separating from the Armed Forces
                  (sec. 590).........................................   126
                Revised policy on network services for military
                  services (sec. 591)................................   126
                Increase in number of days of Active Duty required to
                  be performed by reserve component members for duty
                  to be considered federal service for purposes of
                  unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers
                  (sec. 592).........................................   127
        Items of Special Interest....................................   127
            Assessment on Servicemembers lacking post-transition
              housing................................................   127
            Availability of Special Victims' Counsel as Individual
              Military Counsel.......................................   128
            Changes to the Joint Travel Regulation...................   128
            Comptroller General of the United States assessment of
              Department of Defense personnel strategies for unmanned
              aerial systems.........................................   129
            Comptroller General report on Department of Defense
              credentialing and licensing programs...................   129
            Cyber security training, testing and certification.......   130
            Disability pilot program feasibility report..............   130
            Extending Special Victims' Counsel eligibility for
              civilian sexual assault survivors......................   131
            Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview...................   132
            Increase in number of persons from U.S. Pacific Command
              area of operations who receive instruction at military
              academies..............................................   133
            Increasing the transparency of the military justice
              system.................................................   133
            Leadership reorganization of the United States Air Force
              Judge Advocate General's Corps.........................   133
            National Guard and Reserve headquarters..................   134
            Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations....   135
            Punishment for collateral misconduct revealed by reports
              of sexual misconduct...................................   135
            Religious freedom and role of military chaplains.........   135
            Report on review of petitions for review of discharge or
              dismissal from the Armed Forces of veterans with mental
              health issues connected with post-traumatic stress
              disorder or traumatic brain injury.....................   136
            Report on Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint
              Chiefs of Staff decisions on combat integration........   137
            Social Security Number Use Reduction Plan................   138
            Support for military families impacted by grief,
              behavioral health disorders, or substance abuse........   138
    TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS..............   139
        Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   139
            Fiscal year 2016 increase in military basic pay (sec.
              601)...................................................   139
            Modification of percentage of national average monthly
              cost of housing usable in computation of basic
              allowance for housing inside the United States (sec.
              602)...................................................   139
            Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in
              rates of basic allowance for housing (sec. 603)........   139
            Basic allowance for housing for married members of the
              uniformed services assigned for duty within normal
              commuting distance and for other members living
              together (sec. 604)....................................   139
            Repeal of inapplicability of modification of basic
              allowance for housing to benefits under the laws
              administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (sec.
              605)...................................................   140
            Limitation on eligibility for supplemental subsistence
              allowances to members serving outside the United States
              and associated territory (sec. 606)....................   140
            Availability of information (sec. 607)...................   140
        Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   140
            One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
              authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611)..............   140
            One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
              authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)...   140
            One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities
              for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................   141
            One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37
              consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus
              authorities (sec. 614).................................   141
            One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
              other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615).....   141
            Increase in maximum annual amount of nuclear officer
              bonus pay (sec. 616)...................................   141
            Repeal of obsolete authority to pay bonus to encourage
              Army personnel to refer persons for enlistment in the
              Army (sec. 617)........................................   141
        Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   142
            Repeal of obsolete special travel and transportation
              allowance for survivors of deceased members from the
              Vietnam conflict (sec. 621)............................   142
        Subtitle D--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor
          Benefits...................................................   142
            Part I--Retired Pay Reform...............................   142
                Thrift Savings Plan participation for members of the
                  uniformed services (sec. 631)......................   142
                Modernized retirement system for members of the
                  uniformed services (sec. 632)......................   142
                Lump sum payments of certain retired pay (sec. 633)..   143
                Continuation pay after 12 years of service for
                  members of the uniformed services participating in
                  the modernized retirement systems (sec. 634).......   143
                Authority for retirement flexibility for members of
                  the uniformed services (sec. 635)..................   143
                Treatment of Department of Defense Military
                  Retirement Fund as a qualified trust (sec. 636)....   144
            Part II--Other Matters...................................   144
                Death of former spouse beneficiaries and subsequent
                  remarriages under Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 641).   144
                Transitional compensation and other benefits for
                  dependents of members of the Armed Forces
                  ineligible to receive retired pay as a result of
                  court-martial sentence (sec. 642)..................   144
        Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
          Instrumentality Benefits and Operations....................   144
            Commissary system matters (sec. 651).....................   144
            Plan on privatization of the Defense Commissary System
              (sec. 652).............................................   145
            Comptroller General of the United States report on the
              Commissary Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and
              Privately-financed Major Construction Program (sec.
              653)...................................................   145
        Items of Special Interest....................................   146
            Comptroller General of the United States assessment of
              potential costs and benefits from privatizing
              Department of Defense commissaries.....................   146
            Comptroller General of the United States review of the
              Department of Defense special and incentive pay program   147
            Comptroller General of the United States review of the
              Gold Star Advocate Program.............................   147
            Report on wait-times at child development centers........   148
    TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................   151
        Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits...........   151
            Urgent care authorization under the TRICARE program (sec.
              701)...................................................   151
            Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the
              TRICARE pharmacy benefits program (sec. 702)...........   151
            Expansion of continued health benefits coverage to
              include discharged and released members of the Selected
              Reserve (sec. 703).....................................   152
            Expansion of reimbursement for smoking cessation services
              for certain TRICARE beneficiaries (sec. 704)...........   152
            Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces
              for post-traumatic stress disorder related to military
              sexual trauma (sec. 705)...............................   152
        Subtitle B--Health Care Administration.......................   152
            Access to health care under the TRICARE program (sec.
              711)...................................................   152
            Portability of health plans under the TRICARE program
              (sec. 712).............................................   153
            Improvement of mental health care provided by health care
              providers of the Department of Defense (sec. 713)......   153
            Comprehensive standards and access to contraception
              counseling for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 714)..   153
            Waiver of recoupment of erroneous payments due to
              administrative error under the TRICARE Program (sec.
              715)...................................................   153
            Designation of certain non-Department mental health care
              providers with knowledge relating to treatment of
              members of the Armed Forces (sec. 716).................   154
            Limitation on conversion of military medical and dental
              positions to civilian medical and dental positions
              (sec. 717).............................................   154
            Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-
              Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
              Demonstration Fund (sec. 718)..........................   154
            Extension of authority for DOD-VA Health Care Sharing
              Incentive Fund (sec. 719)..............................   155
            Pilot program on incentive programs to improve health
              care provided under the TRICARE program (sec. 720).....   155
        Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................   155
            Publication of certain information on health care
              provided by the Department of Defense through the
              Hospital Compare web site of the Department of Health
              and Human Services (sec. 731)..........................   155
            Publication of data on patient safety, quality of care,
              satisfaction, and health outcome measures under the
              TRICARE program (sec. 732).............................   155
            Annual report on patient safety, quality of care, and
              access to care at military medical treatment facilities
              (sec. 733).............................................   156
            Report on plans to improve experience with and eliminate
              performance variability of health care provided by the
              Department of Defense (sec. 734).......................   156
            Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related
              services for children of members of the Armed Forces
              (sec. 735).............................................   156
            Report on preliminary mental health screenings for
              individuals becoming members of the Armed Forces (sec.
              736)...................................................   157
            Comptroller General report on use of quality of care
              metrics at military treatment facilities (sec. 737)....   157
        Items of Special Interest....................................   157
            Annual report on autism care demonstration program.......   157
            Antimicrobial coatings...................................   158
            Continued support for diagnosis and treatment for
              traumatic brain injury.................................   158
            Intensive behavioral counseling..........................   158
            Mild traumatic brain injury research.....................   159
            Molecular diagnostics....................................   159
            Newborn infant screening evaluation and treatment........   159
            Preseparation counseling on opioid therapy for chronic
              pain management........................................   160
            Prosthetic socket manufacturing cells....................   160
            Reform of the TRICARE program............................   161
            Training for physician assistants specializing in
              psychiatric care.......................................   161
            TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration..........   162
    TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
      RELATED MATTERS................................................   163
        Acquisition policy reform overview...........................   163
        Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................   166
            Role of service chiefs in the acquisition process (sec.
              801)...................................................   166
            Expansion of rapid acquisition authority (sec. 802)......   167
            Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and
              rapid fielding (sec. 803)..............................   167
            Amendments to other transaction authority (sec. 804).....   167
            Use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical
              national security capabilities (sec. 805)..............   168
            Secretary of Defense waiver of acquisition laws to
              acquire vital national security capabilities (sec. 806)   169
            Acquisition authority of the Commander of United States
              Cyber Command (sec. 807)...............................   170
            Advisory panel on streamlining and codifying acquisition
              regulations (sec. 808).................................   171
            Review of time-based requirements process and budgeting
              and acquisition systems (sec. 809).....................   173
            Improvement of program and project management by the
              Department of Defense (sec. 810).......................   173
        Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
          Procedures, and Limitations................................   174
            Preference for fixed-price contracts in determining
              contract type for development programs (sec. 821)......   174
            Applicability of cost and pricing data and certification
              requirements (sec. 822)................................   174
            Risk-based contracting for smaller contract actions under
              the Truth In Negotiations Act (sec. 823)...............   174
            Limitation of the use of reverse auctions and lowest
              priced technically acceptable contracting methods (sec.
              824)...................................................   175
            Rights in technical data (sec. 825)......................   175
            Procurement of supplies for experimental purposes (sec.
              826)...................................................   176
            Extension of authority to acquire products and services
              produced in countries along a major route of supply to
              Afghanistan (sec. 827).................................   177
            Reporting related to failure of contractors to meet goals
              under negotiated comprehensive small business
              subcontracting plans (sec. 828)........................   177
            Competition for religious services contracts (sec. 829)..   177
            Treatment of interagency and state and local purchases
              when the Department of Defense acts as contract
              intermediary for the General Services Administration
              (sec. 830).............................................   177
            Pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative
              technology projects (sec. 831).........................   177
        Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
          Programs...................................................   178
            Acquisition strategy required for each major defense
              acquisition program (sec. 841).........................   178
            Risk reduction in major defense acquisition programs
              (sec. 842).............................................   178
            Designation of milestone decision authority (sec. 843)...   179
            Revision of Milestone A decision authority
              responsibilities for major defense acquisition programs
              (sec. 844).............................................   179
            Revision of Milestone B decision authority
              responsibilities for major defense acquisition programs
              (sec. 845).............................................   180
            Tenure and accountability of program managers for program
              development periods (sec. 846).........................   181
            Tenure and accountability of program managers for program
              execution periods (sec. 847)...........................   181
            Repeal of requirement for stand-alone manpower estimates
              for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 848)......   182
            Penalty for cost overruns (sec. 849).....................   182
            Streamlining of reporting requirements applicable to
              Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
              Engineering regarding major defense acquisition
              programs (sec. 850)....................................   183
            Configuration steering boards for cost control under
              major defense acquisition programs (sec. 851)..........   183
        Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Commercial Items...........   183
            Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the
              acquisition of commercial items and commercially
              available off-the-shelf items (sec. 861)...............   183
            Market research and preference for commercial items (sec.
              862)...................................................   183
            Continuing validity of commercial item determinations
              (sec. 863).............................................   184
            Treatment of commercial items purchased as major weapon
              systems (sec. 864).....................................   184
            Limitation on conversion of procurements from commercial
              acquisition procedures (sec. 865)......................   185
            Treatment of goods and services provided by a non-
              traditional contractors as commercial items (sec. 866).   186
        Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   187
            Streamlining of requirements relating to defense business
              systems (sec. 871).....................................   187
            Acquisition workforce (sec. 872).........................   187
            Unified information technology services (sec. 873).......   187
            Cloud strategy for Department of Defense (sec. 874)......   188
            Development period for Department of Defense information
              technology systems (sec. 875)..........................   188
            Revisions to pilot program on acquisition of military
              purpose non-developmental items (sec. 876).............   189
            Extension of the Department of Defense Mentor-Protege
              pilot program (sec. 877)...............................   189
            Improved auditing of contracts (sec. 878)................   189
            Survey on the costs of regulatory compliance (sec. 879)..   189
            Government Accountability Office report on bid protests
              (sec. 880).............................................   190
            Steps to identify and address potential unfair
              competitive advantage of technical advisors to
              acquisition officials (sec. 881).......................   190
            HUBZone qualified disaster areas (sec. 882)..............   191
            Base closure HUBZones (sec. 883).........................   191
        Items of Special Interest....................................   191
            AbilityOne Program.......................................   191
            Acquisition of Commercial Test, Research, and Measurement
              Capability.............................................   191
            Barriers to innovation from non-traditional and
              commercial contractors.................................   192
            Competition in the procurement of collaboration services.   193
            Inspector General report on pricing of engine sustainment
              contract...............................................   193
            Mitigation strategy to prevent fraud and abuse in the
              Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program..   194
            Obtaining technical data for operations, maintenance,
              installation, and training purposes....................   195
            Review of should-cost process Security and facility
              clearances.............................................   196
    TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT......   197
        Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management.................   197
            Update of statutory specification of functions of
              Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to
              advice on requirements, programs, and budget (sec. 901)   197
            Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family
              Policy and Office of Community Support for Military
              Families with Special Needs (sec. 902).................   197
            Repeal of requirement for annual Department of Defense
              funding for Ocean Research Advisory Panel (sec. 903)...   197
        Items of Special Interest....................................   198
            Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council..........   198
    TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS......................................   199
        Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   199
            General transfer authority (sec. 1001)...................   199
            Annual audit of financial statements of Department of
              Defense components by independent external auditors
              (sec. 1002)............................................   199
            Treatment as part of the base budget of certain amounts
              authorized for overseas contingency operations upon
              enactment of an act revising the Budget Control Act
              discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 2016
              (sec. 1003)............................................   199
            Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1004).............   200
        Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   200
            Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug
              and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011)..   200
            Extension and expansion of authority to provide
              additional support for counter-drug activities of
              certain foreign governments (sec. 1012)................   201
        Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   201
            Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy
              (sec. 1021)............................................   201
            Amendment to National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec.
              1022)..................................................   202
            Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for
              certain Navy mess operations afloat (sec. 1023)........   203
        Subtitle D--Counterterrorism.................................   203
            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. 1031).......................   203
            Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals
              detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
              (sec. 1032)............................................   203
            Reenactment and modification of certain prior
              requirements for certifications relating to transfer of
              detainees at Untied States Naval Station, Guantanamo
              Bay, Cuba, to foreign countries and other foreign
              entities (sec. 1033)...................................   204
            Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at
              United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to
              the United States for emergency or critical medical
              treatment (sec. 1034)..................................   204
            Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to
              Yemen of individuals detained at United States Naval
              Facility, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1035).............   205
            Report on current detainees at United States Naval
              Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, determined or assessed
              to be high risk or medium risk (sec. 1036).............   205
            Report to Congress on memoranda of understanding with
              foreign countries regarding transfer of detainees at
              United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec.
              1037)..................................................   205
            Semiannual Reports on use of United States Naval Station,
              Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and any other Department of
              Defense or Bureau of Prisons prison or other detention
              or disciplinary facility in recruitment and other
              propaganda of terrorist organizations (sec. 1038)......   206
            Extension and modification of authority to make rewards
              for combating terrorism (sec. 1039)....................   206
        Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........   206
            Assistance to secure the southern land border of the
              United States (sec. 1041)..............................   206
            Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec.
              1042)..................................................   206
            Strategy to protect United States national security
              interests in the Arctic region (sec. 1043).............   207
            Extension of limitations on the transfer to the regular
              Army of AH-64 Apache helicopters assigned to the Army
              National Guard (sec. 1044).............................   207
            Treatment of certain previously transferred Army National
              Guard helicopters as counting against number
              transferrable under exception to limitation on transfer
              of Army National Guard helicopters (sec. 1045).........   207
            Management of military technicians (sec. 1046)...........   207
            Sense of Congress on consideration of the full range of
              Department of Defense manpower worldwide in decisions
              on the proper mix of military, civilian, and contractor
              personnel to accomplish the national defense strategy
              (sec. 1047)............................................   208
            Sense of the Senate on the United States Marine Corps
              (sec. 1048)............................................   208
        Subtitle F--Studies and Reports..............................   208
            Repeal of reporting requirements (sec. 1061).............   208
            Termination of requirement for submittal to Congress of
              reports required of the Department of Defense by
              statute (sec. 1062)....................................   210
            Annual submittal to Congress of munitions assessments
              (sec. 1063)............................................   210
            Potential role for United States ground forces in the
              Pacific theater (sec. 1064)............................   211
        Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   211
            Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1081)............   211
            Authority to provide training and support to personnel of
              foreign ministries of defense (sec. 1082)..............   212
            Expansion of outreach for veterans transitioning from
              serving on Active Duty (sec. 1083).....................   212
            Modification of certain requirements applicable to major
              medical facility lease for a Department of Veterans
              Affairs outpatient clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma (sec.
              1084)..................................................   212
        Items of Special Interest....................................   212
            Air and Missile Defense Radar backfit....................   212
            Analysis of domestic Department of Defense installations'
              gas and oil reserves...................................   213
            Comptroller General of the United States study on options
              for the Department of Defense close air support mission   213
            Congressional Defense Review to Prepare for Future
              Strategic Challenges...................................   214
            Cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization.......   215
            Human industrial operations augmentation technology......   215
            National Guard Counterdrug Program.......................   216
            Shipbuilding industrial base and workload allocation.....   216
            Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike
              (UCLASS) Program.......................................   216
    TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS.............................   219
        Legislative Provisions.......................................   219
            Required probationary period for new employees of the
              Department of Defense (sec. 1101)......................   219
            Delay of periodic step increase for civilian employees of
              the Department of Defense based upon unacceptable
              performance (sec. 1102)................................   219
            Procedures for reduction in force of Department of
              Defense civilian personnel (sec. 1103).................   219
            United States Cyber Command workforce (sec. 1104)........   219
            One-year extension of authority to waive annual
              limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on
              pay for federal civilian employees working overseas
              (sec. 1105)............................................   220
            Five-year extension of expedited hiring authority for
              designated defense acquisition workforce positions
              (sec. 1106)............................................   220
            One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant
              allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian
              personnel on official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1107)   220
            Extension of rate of overtime pay for Department of the
              Navy employees performing work aboard or dockside in
              support of the nuclear aircraft carrier forward
              deployed in Japan (sec. 1108)..........................   221
            Expansion of temporary authority to make direct
              appointments of candidates possessing bachelor's
              degrees to scientific and engineering positions at
              science and technology reinvention laboratories (sec.
              1109)..................................................   221
            Extension of authority for the civilian acquisition
              workforce personnel demonstration project (sec. 1110)..   221
            Pilot program on dynamic shaping of the workforce to
              improve the technical skills and expertise at certain
              Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 1111).........   221
            Pilot program on temporary exchange of financial
              management and acquisition personnel (sec. 1112).......   222
            Pilot program on enhanced pay authorities for certain
              acquisition and technology positions in the Department
              of Defense (sec. 1113).................................   223
            Pilot program on direct hire authority for veteran
              technical experts into the defense acquisition
              workforce (sec. 1114)..................................   223
            Direct hire authority for technical experts into the
              defense acquisition workforce (sec. 1115)..............   223
        Items of Special Interest....................................   223
            Report on comparison of cost performance of functions by
              Department of Defense civilian personnel with cost of
              performance of functions by Department contractors.....   223
            Report on Department of Defense application of the
              Federal Employees' Compensation Act....................   224
    TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS...................   227
        Subtitle A--Training and Assistance..........................   227
            One-year extension of funding limitations for authority
              to build the capacity of foreign security forces (sec.
              1201)..................................................   227
            Extension, expansion, and modification of authority for
              reimbursement to the Government of Jordan for border
              security operations (sec. 1202)........................   227
            Extension of authority to conduct activities to enhance
              the capability of foreign countries to respond to
              incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (sec.
              1203)..................................................   227
            Redesignation, modification, and permanent extension of
              National Guard State Partnership Program (sec. 1204)...   227
            Authority to provide support to national military forces
              of allied countries for counterterrorism operations in
              Africa (sec. 1205).....................................   228
            Authority to build the capacity of foreign military
              intelligence forces (sec. 1206)........................   228
            Prohibition on assistance to entities in Yemen controlled
              by the Houthi movement (sec. 1207).....................   228
            Report on potential support for the vetted Syrian
              opposition (sec. 1208).................................   228
        Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
          Iraq.......................................................   228
            Drawdown of United States forces in Afghanistan (sec.
              1221)..................................................   228
            Extension and modification of Commanders' Emergency
              Response Program (sec. 1222)...........................   229
            Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and
              provide defense services to the military and security
              forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1223)......................   229
            Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement
              of certain coalition nations for support provided to
              United States military operations (sec. 1224)..........   229
            Prohibition on transfer to violent extremist
              organizations of equipment or supplies provided by the
              United States to the Government of Iraq (sec. 1225)....   230
            Report on lines of communication of Islamic State of Iraq
              and the Levant and other foreign terrorist
              organizations (sec. 1226)..............................   231
            Modification of protection for Afghan allies (sec. 1227).   231
            Extension of authority to support operations and
              activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in
              Iraq (sec. 1228).......................................   231
            Sense of Senate on support for the Kurdistan Regional
              Government (sec. 1229).................................   231
        Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iran.........................   231
            Modification and extension of the annual report on the
              military power of Iran (sec. 1241).....................   231
        Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation.......   232
            Ukraine security assistance initiative (sec. 1251).......   232
            Eastern European Training Initiative (sec. 1252).........   232
            Increased presence of United States ground forces in
              Eastern Europe to deter aggression on the border of the
              North Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1253).........   233
            Sense of Congress on European Defense and North Atlantic
              Treaty Organization spending (sec. 1254)...............   233
            Additional matters in annual report on military and
              security developments involving the Russian Federation
              (sec. 1255)............................................   233
            Report on alternative capabilities to procure and sustain
              nonstandard rotary wing aircraft historically procured
              through Rosoboronexport (sec. 1256)....................   233
        Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region......   234
            South China Sea Initiative (Sec. 1261)...................   234
            Sense of Congress reaffirming the importance of
              implementing the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region
              (Sec. 1262)............................................   234
            Sense of the Senate on Taiwan Asymmetric Military
              Capabilities and Bilateral Training Activities (Sec.
              1263)..................................................   234
        Subtitle F--Reports and Related Matters......................   235
            Item in quarterly reports on assistance to counter the
              Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant on forces
              ineligible to receive assistance due to a gross
              violation of human rights (sec. 1271)..................   235
            Report on bilateral agreement with Israel on joint
              activities to establish an anti-tunneling defense
              system (sec. 1272).....................................   235
            Sense of Senate and report on Qatar fighter aircraft
              capability contribution to regional security (sec.
              1273)..................................................   235
        Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   235
            NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281).........   235
            Two-year extension and modification of authorization for
              non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec.
              1282)..................................................   236
        Items of Special Interest....................................   236
            Additional Analysis of People's Liberation Army Cyber
              Capabilities...........................................   236
            Annual report on the military power of Iran..............   236
            Briefing on United States Unmanned Aerial System Export
              Requests...............................................   237
            Countering Russian propaganda............................   238
            Designation of lead Inspector General for Overseas
              Contingency Operations in Afghanistan..................   238
            Organizational management of Department of Defense
              security assistance programs...........................   239
            Report on capability of the North Atlantic Treaty
              Organization to respond to unconventional or hybrid
              warfare tactics such as used by the Russian Federation
              in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine..........................   240
            Support of foreign forces participating in operations
              against the Lord's Resistance Army.....................   240
            United States-Indonesia military cooperation.............   241
    TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.........................   243
        Subtitle A--Funding Allocations..............................   243
            Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec.
              1301)..................................................   243
            Funding allocations (sec. 1302)..........................   243
    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   245
        Subtitle A--Military Programs................................   245
            Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)........................   245
            National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)................   245
            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec.
              1403)..................................................   245
            Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-
              wide (sec. 1404).......................................   245
            Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405)....................   245
            Defense Health Program (sec. 1406).......................   245
        Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   245
            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. 1411)......................   245
            Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
              Retirement Home (sec. 1412)............................   246
            Inspections of the Armed Forces Retirement Home by the
              Inspector General of the Department of Defense (sec.
              1413)..................................................   246
        Budget Items.................................................   246
            United States Southern Command unfunded priorities
              increase...............................................   246
            Drug Demand Reduction Program............................   247
            Department of Defense Inspector General Research,
              Development, Test & Evaluation reduction...............   247
            Department of Defense Inspector General procurement
              reduction..............................................   247
            Defense Health Program (sec. 1406).......................   247
            Foreign currency fluctuation deduction...................   248
        Items of Special Interest....................................   248
            Clarification of funding available for additional support
              for counter-drug activities and activities to counter
              transnational organized crime..........................   248
            Comptroller General review of electronic waste recycling.   248
    TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
      CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.........................................   251
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations.......   251
            Purpose (sec. 1501)......................................   251
            Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502)..............   251
            Procurement (sec. 1503)..................................   251
            Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504)..   251
            Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1505)....................   251
            Military personnel (sec. 1506)...........................   251
            Working capital funds (sec. 1507)........................   251
            Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-
              wide (sec. 1508).......................................   251
            Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)....................   252
            Defense Health Program (sec. 1510).......................   252
            Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1511)...........   252
        Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................   252
            Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521).......   252
            Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)...................   252
        Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters..........   252
            Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531).............   252
            Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532)   252
            Availability of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
              Fund funds for training of foreign security forces to
              defeat improvised explosive devices (sec. 1533)........   253
        Budget Items.................................................   253
            Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............   253
            Office of Security Cooperation--Iraq.....................   253
            Reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support
              provided to United States military operations..........   254
            Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund.......................   254
            Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative...................   255
        Items of Special Interest....................................   255
            Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool..........   255
    TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS...   257
        Subtitle A--Space Activities.................................   257
            Integrated policy to deter adversaries in space (sec.
              1601)..................................................   257
            Principal advisor on space control (sec. 1602)...........   258
            Exception to the prohibition on contracting with Russian
              suppliers of rocket engines for the Evolved Expendable
              Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1603).....................   258
            Elimination of launch capabilities contracts under
              Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1604)..   259
            Allocation of funding for Evolved Expendable Launch
              Vehicle Program (sec. 1605)............................   260
            Inclusion of plan for development and fielding of a full-
              up engine in rocket propulsion system development
              program (sec. 1606)....................................   260
            Limitations on availability of funds for the Defense
              Meteorological Satellite Program (sec. 1607)...........   261
            Quarterly reports on Global Positioning System III space
              segment, Global Positioning System operational control
              segment, and Military Global Positioning System User
              Equipment acquisitions programs (sec. 1608)............   262
            Plan for consolidation of acquisition of commercial
              satellite communications services (sec. 1609)..........   263
            Council on oversight of the Department of Defense
              Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Enterprise (sec.
              1610)..................................................   263
            Analysis of Alternative for Wide-band Communications
              (sec. 1611)............................................   263
            Expansion of goals for pilot program for acquisition of
              commercial satellite services (sec. 1612)..............   264
            Streamline commercial space launch activities (sec. 1613)   264
        Subtitle B--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related
          Matters....................................................   264
            Authorization of Military Cyber Operations (sec. 1621)...   264
            Designation of Department of Defense entity responsible
              for acquisition of critical cyber capabilities (sec.
              1622)..................................................   265
            Incentive for submittal to Congress by President of
              integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace
              (sec. 1623)............................................   266
            Authorization for procurement of relocatable Sensitive
              Compartmented Information Facility (sec. 1624).........   266
            Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of major weapon
              systems of the Department of Defense (sec. 1625).......   266
            Assessment of capabilities of United States Cyber Command
              to defend the United States from cyber attack (sec.
              1626)..................................................   267
            Biennial exercises on responding to cyber attacks against
              critical infrastructure (sec. 1627)....................   268
        Subtitle C--Nuclear Forces...................................   269
            Designation of Air Force officials to be responsible for
              policy on and procurement of Nuclear Command and
              Control Communications Systems (sec. 1631).............   269
            Comptroller General of the United States review of
              recommendations relating to the Nuclear Security
              Enterprise (sec. 1632).................................   269
            Assessment of global nuclear environment (sec. 1633).....   270
            Deadline for Milestone A decision on Long-Range Standoff
              Weapon (sec. 1634).....................................   272
            Availability of Air Force procurement funds for certain
              commercial off-the-shelf parts for intercontinental
              ballistic missiles fuzes (sec. 1635)...................   272
            Sense of Congress on policy on the nuclear triad (sec.
              1636)..................................................   272
        Subtitle D--Missile Defense Programs.........................   272
            Plan for expediting deployment time of continental United
              States interceptor site (sec. 1641)....................   272
            Additional missile defense sensor coverage for the
              protection of the United States homeland (sec. 1642)...   273
            Air defense capability at North Atlantic Treaty
              Organization missile defense sites (sec. 1643).........   274
            Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket
              defense system (sec. 1644).............................   274
            Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment
              and potential coproduction (sec. 1645).................   274
            Development and deployment of multiple-object kill
              vehicle for missile defense of the United States
              homeland (sec. 1646)...................................   275
            Requirement to replace capability enhancement I
              exoatmospheric kill vehicles (sec. 1647)...............   275
            Airborne boost phase defense system (sec. 1648)..........   276
            Extension of limitation on providing certain sensitive
              missile defense information to the Russian Federation
              (sec. 1649)............................................   277
            Extension of requirement for Comptroller General of the
              United States review and assessment of missile defense
              acquisition programs (sec. 1650).......................   277
        Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   277
            Measures in response to violations of the Intermediate-
              Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by the Russian Federation
              (sec. 1661)............................................   277
            Modification of notification and assessment of proposal
              to modify or introduce new aircraft or sensors for
              flight by the Russian Federation under the Open Skies
              Treaty (sec. 1662).....................................   278
            Milestone A decision for the conventional prompt global
              strike weapons system (sec. 1663)......................   279
        Budget Items.................................................   279
            Conventional prompt global strike........................   279
            Divert attitude control system in support of multi-object
              kill vehicle...........................................   279
            Fiber combining laser prototype..........................   279
            Funding for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense
              programs...............................................   280
            Multiple Object Kill Vehicle.............................   280
            Operationally Responsive Space program...................   280
            Redesigned Kill Vehicle..................................   281
            Sharkseer zero day defense for enterprise email..........   281
            Standard Missile-3 block IB..............................   282
            U.S. Cyber Command technology development................   282
        Items of Special Interest....................................   282
            Assessment of the information security threats of
              wireless-enabled capabilities at Department of Defense
              facilities.............................................   282
            Comptroller General review of space system acquisition
              and acquisition oversight..............................   283
            Continuation of nuclear command, control and
              communications assessments by the Government
              Accountability Office..................................   283
            Missile Defense Agency assessment of capabilities to
              defend against current and projected missile threats...   284
            Organization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
              for Nuclear Deterrence Mission.........................   284
            Report on Advanced Extremely High Frequency Terminals for
              bomber aircraft........................................   285
            Report on Follow-On Commander's Evaluation Tests and
              Demonstration and Shake Out tests......................   285
            Report on space-based missile defense interceptor........   285
            Reserve component Cyber Protection Teams.................   286
            Solid Rocket Motor industrial base.......................   287
            Space control modeling and simulation range..............   287
            The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports...   287
            Upgrades to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System....   288
    DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.................   291
            Summary and explanation of funding tables................   291
            Short title (sec. 2001)..................................   291
            Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
              specified by law (sec. 2002)...........................   291
    TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................   293
            Summary..................................................   293
            Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2101)...................................   293
        Family housing (sec. 2102)...................................   294
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)....   294
        Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)............   294
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
          2013 project (sec. 2105)...................................   294
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012
          projects (sec. 2106).......................................   294
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013
          projects (sec. 2107).......................................   294
        Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016
          project (sec. 2108)........................................   294
        Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo
          Bay, Cuba (sec. 2109)......................................   295
    TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...........................   297
            Summary..................................................   297
            Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2201)...................................   298
        Family housing (sec. 2202)...................................   298
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)....   298
        Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)............   298
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
          projects (sec. 2205).......................................   298
            Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013
              projects (sec. 2206)...................................   298
    TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.....................   299
        Summary......................................................   299
        Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
          projects (sec. 2301).......................................   299
        Family housing (sec. 2302)...................................   299
        Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)....   299
        Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304).......   300
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
          2010 project (sec. 2305)...................................   300
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
          2014 project (sec. 2306)...................................   300
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
          2015 project (sec. 2307)...................................   300
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012
          project (sec. 2308)........................................   300
        Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013
          project (sec. 2309)........................................   300
    TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION...............   303
        Summary......................................................   303
        Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition
          projects (sec. 2401).......................................   303
        Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)..........   303
        Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)   303
        Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
          2012 project (sec. 2404)...................................   304
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
          projects (sec. 2405).......................................   304
        Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013
          projects (sec. 2406).......................................   304
        Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain
          fiscal year 2014 project (sec. 2407).......................   304
    TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
      PROGRAM........................................................   305
        Summary......................................................   305
        Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects
          (sec. 2501)................................................   305
        Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)............   305
    TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES..................   307
        Summary......................................................   307
        Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorizations of
          Appropriations.............................................   307
            Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
              acquisition projects (sec. 2601).......................   307
            Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
              projects (sec. 2602)...................................   307
            Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
              construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603).   308
            Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
              acquisition projects (sec. 2604).......................   308
            Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
              acquisition projects (sec. 2605).......................   308
            Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
              Reserve (sec. 2606)....................................   308
        Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   308
            Modification and extension of authority to carry out
              certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec. 2611)...........   308
            Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
              year 2015 projects (sec. 2612).........................   308
            Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
              projects (sec. 2613)...................................   309
            Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013
              projects (sec. 2614)...................................   309
    TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES.............   311
        Summary and explanation of tables............................   311
        Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
          closure activities funded through Department of Defense
          Base Closure Account (sec. 2701)...........................   311
        Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and
          closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702)...........................   311
    TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS...........   313
        Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
          Housing Changes............................................   313
            Authority for acceptance and use of contributions for
              certain mutually beneficial projects (sec. 2801).......   313
            Change in authorities relating to scope of work
              variations for military construction projects (sec.
              2802)..................................................   313
            Extension of temporary, limited authority to use
              operation and maintenance funds for construction
              projects in certain areas outside the United States
              (sec. 2803)............................................   313
            Modification of reporting requirement on in-kind
              construction and renovation payments (sec. 2804).......   313
            Lab modernization pilot program (sec. 2805)..............   314
            Conveyance to Indian tribes of certain housing units
              (sec. 2806)............................................   314
        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration......   314
            Utility systems conveyance authority (sec. 2811).........   314
            Leasing of non-excess property of military departments
              and defense agencies; treatment of value provided by
              local education agencies and elementary and secondary
              schools (sec. 2812)....................................   314
            Modification of facility repair notification requirement
              (sec. 2813)............................................   315
            Increase of threshold of notice and wait requirement for
              certain facilities for reserve components and parity
              with authority for unspecified minor military
              construction and repair projects (sec. 2814)...........   315
        Subtitle C--Land Conveyances.................................   315
            Release of reversionary interest retained as part of the
              conveyance to the economic development alliance of
              Jefferson County, Arkansas (sec. 2821).................   315
        Items of Special Interest....................................   315
            Kwajalein Atoll infrastructure...........................   315
            Military construction delay report.......................   316
             Military construction supporting major range and test
              facility bases.........................................   316
             Military training ranges for Special Operations Forces..   317
            Redevelopment of the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant   318
            Repair by replacement....................................   318
             Safe and suitable housing for junior enlisted
              servicemembers.........................................   319
    DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
      AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................................   321
    TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS......   321
        Overview.....................................................   321
        Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   321
            National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101).....   321
            Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102)...............   322
            Other defense activities (sec. 3103).....................   322
        Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
          Limitations................................................   322
            Responsive capabilities program (sec. 3111)..............   322
            Long-term plan for meeting national security requirements
              for unencumbered uranium (sec. 3112)...................   323
            Defense nuclear nonproliferation management plan (sec.
              3113)..................................................   323
            Plan for deactivation and decommissioning of
              nonoperational defense nuclear facilities (sec. 3114)..   323
            Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant contract
              oversight (sec. 3115)..................................   323
            Assessment of emergency preparedness of defense nuclear
              facilities (sec. 3116).................................   324
            Laboratory-and facility-directed research and development
              programs (sec. 3117)...................................   324
            Limitation on bonuses for employees of the National
              Nuclear Security Administration who engage in improper
              program management (sec. 3118).........................   324
            Modification of authorized personnel levels of the Office
              of the Administrator for Nuclear Security (sec. 3119)..   325
            Modification of submission of assessments of certain
              budget requests relating to the nuclear weapons
              stockpile (sec. 3120)..................................   325
            Repeal of phase three review of certain defense
              environmental cleanup projects (sec. 3121).............   325
            Modifications to cost-benefit analysis for competition of
              management and operating contracts (sec. 3122).........   326
            Review of implementation of recommendations of the
              Congressional Advisory Panel on the governance of the
              Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3123)................   326
        Budget Items.................................................   326
            Defense Environmental Cleanup, Los Alamos National
              Laboratory.............................................   326
            Deferred Maintenance.....................................   326
            Enhanced surveillance....................................   326
            Plutonium disposition program............................   327
            Responsive capabilities program..........................   329
            Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning
              fund...................................................   329
        Items of Special Interest....................................   329
            Ability of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to
              communicate with the Secretary of Energy...............   329
            Interoperable Warhead--1.................................   330
            Lithium supply and demand................................   331
            Microlab Technology Transfer.............................   331
            Report on program management at the National Nuclear
              Security Administration................................   331
    TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD.............   333
        Authorization for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
          (sec. 3201)................................................   333
    DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES.......................................   333
        Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001 )......   333
        Clarification of applicability of undistributed reductions of
          certain operation and maintenance funding among all
          operation and maintenance funding (sec. 4002)..............   333
        Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701).............................   333
    TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT...........................................   343
        Procurement (sec. 4101)......................................   344
        Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102)..   386
    TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION..........   395
        Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201)......   396
        Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
          contingency operations (sec. 4202).........................   429
    TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...........................   431
        Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301)........................   432
        Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations
          (sec. 4302)................................................   452
    TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL...................................   463
        Military personnel (sec. 4401)...............................   464
        Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec.
          4402)......................................................   465
    TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................   467
        Other authorizations (sec. 4501).............................   468
        Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
          (sec. 4502)................................................   472
    TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................   475
        Military construction (sec. 4601)............................   476
    TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.....   497
        Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701)..   511
    LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS.........................................   511
            Departmental Recommendations.............................   511
            Committee Action.........................................   511
            Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................   514
            Regulatory Impact........................................   514
            Changes in Existing Law..................................   515
    ADDITIONAL VIEWS.................................................   516
            Additional Views of Mr. Reed.............................   516
            Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe...........................   518
            Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte...........................   520
            Additional Views of Mr. Tillis...........................   524
                                                            Calendar No. 88
    114th Congress                                                   Report
                                     SENATE
     1st Session                                                     114-49

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

    AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
        OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO
     PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                    _______

                      May 19, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                                    _______

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

                                  R E P O R T

                             [To accompany S. 1376]

        The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
    original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year
    -------- 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 2016;
              (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
            military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
            fiscal year 2016;
              (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
            Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
            the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2016;
              (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 2016; and
              (7) authorize appropriations for national security
            programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
            2016.

    Committee overview

        For seven decades, the U.S. military has been the most
    reliable guarantor of the foundations of international order
    that American statesmen of both parties helped to establish in
    the aftermath of World War II. The relative security and
    prosperity that our nation has enjoyed, and made possible for
    so many others across the world, has been painstakingly
    maintained through the deterrence of adversaries, the
    cooperation with allies and partners, the global leadership of
    the United States, and the credibility and capability of our
    Armed Forces.
        The committee is concerned that growing threats abroad and
    continued limitations on defense spending at home are
    increasingly harming the ability of the United States, and its
    military, to play an effective leadership role in the world.
    Indeed, military readiness and capabilities have deteriorated
    to the point where senior military leaders have warned that we
    are putting at risk the lives of the men and women who serve in
    our Armed Forces. There is a growing consensus that we must
    reverse this damage so that we can respond adequately to a host
    of disturbing challenges to the international order that
    adversely impact our national security. These challenges
    include:
               In Ukraine, Russia has sought to redraw an
            international border and annex the territory of another
            sovereign country through the use of military force. It
            continues aggressively to destabilize Ukraine, with
            troubling implications for security in Europe.
               A terrorist army with tens of thousands of
            fighters, many holding Western passports, has taken
            over a vast swath of territory and declared an Islamic
            State in the heart of the Middle East. Nearly 3,000
            U.S. troops have returned to Iraq to combat this
            threat, with U.S. aircraft flying hundreds of strike
            missions a month over Iraq and Syria.
               Amid negotiations over its nuclear program,
            Iran continues to pursue its ambitions to challenge
            regional order in the Middle East by increasing its
            development of ballistic missiles, support for
            terrorism, training and arming of pro-Iranian militant
            groups, and other malign activities in places such as
            Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Bahrain, and Yemen.
               Yemen has collapsed, as a Shia insurgency
            with ties to the Iranian regime has toppled the U.S.-
            backed government in Sanaa, Al-Qaeda continues to use
            parts of the country to plan attacks against the West,
            the U.S. Embassy has been evacuated, and a U.S.-backed
            coalition of Arab nations has intervened militarily to
            reverse the gains of the Houthi insurgency and to
            restore the previous government to power.
               Libya has become a failed state, beset by
            civil war and a growing presence of transnational
            terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda and ISIL, similar to
            Afghanistan in 2001.
               North Korea, while continuing to develop its
            nuclear arsenal and ever-more capable ballistic
            missiles, committed the most destructive cyberattack
            ever on U.S. territory.
               China is increasingly taking coercive
            actions to assert expansive territorial claims that
            unilaterally change the status quo in the South and
            East China Seas and raise tensions with U.S. allies and
            partners, all while continuing to expand and modernize
            its military in ways that challenge U.S. access and
            freedom of movement in the Western Pacific.
        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 these challenges on our
    behalf, 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.
        Despite the challenges we face and our commitment to the
    men and women of the Department of Defense (DOD), the
    President's budget for fiscal year 2016 proposes reductions in
    force structure and compensation that increase risk for our
    nation and for the men and women who protect us. These
    reductions are driven by fiscal limitations that Congress
    dictated when we enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 and
    reaffirmed (with minor relief in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for
    the DOD and other agencies) in the Bipartisan Budget Act of
    2013. The impact of these budget limitations on our Armed
    Forces has been a major oversight priority for the committee.
        To date, in this 1st Session of the 114th Congress, the
    Senate Committee on Armed Services has conducted 49 hearings
    and formal briefings on the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2016. We have received testimony from many of
    America's most respected statesmen, thinkers, and former
    military commanders and these leaders have all conveyed a
    similar message: We are experiencing a nearly unprecedented
    period of global turmoil and at current sequestration levels
    will not be able effectively respond to these threats. In order
    to provide a framework for the consideration of these matters,
    the committee identified 10 guidelines for its consideration of
    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
    These guidelines are as follows:
              (1) Ensure 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 enhanced retirement
            benefits, and by addressing the needs of the wounded,
            ill and injured service members and their families.
              (2) Ensure 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, by
            initiating a comprehensive overhaul of the acquisition
            system.
              (3) Initiate a reorganization of the Department of
            Defense in order:
              a. to focus limited resources on operations rather
            than administration
              b. ensure military personnel can develop critical
            military skills
              c. stabilize organizations and programs
              (4) Drive innovation by allocating funds for advanced
            technology development and next generation
            capabilities.
              (5) Build capacity and capability by reducing the
            strike fighter shortfall, munitions deficit, and
            increasing fleet capabilities
              (6) Advance our ability to protect our eastern
            European friends and allies
              (7) Reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking
            action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the
            readiness of the military services to conduct the full
            range of their assigned missions.
              (5) Enhance 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.
              (6) Improve 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.
              (7) Address the threats from nuclear weapons and
            materials by strengthening nonproliferation programs,
            modernizing our nuclear deterrent, and ensuring the
            safety, security and reliability of the stockpile, the
            delivery systems, and the nuclear infrastructure.
              (8) Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and
            activities, identify efficiencies, and reduce defense
            expenditures in light of the Nation's budget deficit
            problems. Ensure the future capability, viability, and
            fiscal sustainability of the all-volunteer force.
              (10) Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the
            Department's programs and activities to ensure proper
            stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with
            relevant laws and regulations.

    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 2016 was $604.1
    billion. Of this amount, $534.2 billion was requested for base
    Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $19.0 billion was
    requested for national security programs in the Department of
    Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
    (DNFSB), and $50.9 billion was requested for Overseas
    Contingency Operations (OCO).
        The committee recommends an overall discretionary
    authorization of $604.1 billion in fiscal year 2016, including
    $496.5 billion for base DOD programs, $18.7 billion for
    national security programs in the DOE and the DNFSB, and $88.9
    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 2016 defense
    programs. The first table summarizes the committee's
    recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation
    account for fiscal year 2016 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--Navy Programs

    Amendment to cost limitation baseline for CVN-78 class aircraft carrier
            program (sec. 111)
        The committee recommends a provision that would further
    amend section 122 of the John Warner National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) as
    amended by section 121(a) of the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) by striking
    ``$11,498,000,000'' and inserting ``$11,398,000,000''. While
    the lead ship (CVN-78) cost cap remains $12.9 billion, this
    change would apply to CVN-79 and subsequent CVN-78 class
    nuclear aircraft carriers.
        The initial CVN-78 class aircraft carrier cost cap was
    established by the John Warner National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), which set the
    cost cap for the lead ship at $10.5 billion, plus adjustments
    for inflation and other factors, and at $8.1 billion for
    subsequent CVN-78 class carriers, plus adjustments for
    inflation and other factors. The cost cap was amended by the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
    Law 113-66) to $12.9 billion and $11.5 billion, respectively.
        While the estimated procurement cost of each of the first
    three CVN-78 class aircraft carriers increased more than $2.0
    billion since 2008, the Navy has held cost relatively constant
    over the past three years. The committee is encouraged by the
    fiscal year 2016 budget request, which indicates the lead ship
    is on track to deliver in March 2016 at its cost cap and the
    estimated procurement costs for CVN-79 and CVN-80 are
    decreasing. From the fiscal year 2015 budget request to the
    fiscal year 2016 budget request, the estimated procurement
    costs for CVN-79 and CVN-80 decreased by $150.0 million and
    $402.2 million, respectively.
        In recognition of the gains made in controlling the cost of
    CVN-78 class aircraft carriers and to allow for $50.0 million
    of unexpected growth in the CVN-79 procurement cost, the
    committee recommends reducing the cost cap by $100.0 million
    from $11.5 billion to $11.4 billion, plus adjustments for
    inflation and other factors, for CVN-79 and subsequent aircraft
    carriers.
    Limitation on availability of funds for USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
            (sec. 112)
        The committee recommends a provision that would limit
    $100.0 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy procurement
    funds for USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) subject to the
    submission of a certification regarding full ship shock trials
    and two reports.
        The committee is concerned by the Navy's decision to delay
    by up to 7 years full ship shock trials on CVN-78 class nuclear
    aircraft carriers from the lead ship, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-
    78), to CVN-79. While the committee understands the Navy is
    concerned with the cost of the test and potential deployment
    delay, it is the committee's view that the benefits outweigh
    these concerns. With the abundance of new technology, including
    the catapult, arresting gear, and radar, as well as the
    reliance on electricity rather than steam to power key systems,
    there continues to be a great deal of risk in this program.
    Testing CVN-78 will not only improve the design of future
    carriers, but also reduce the costs associated with
    retrofitting engineering changes. Even more importantly, the
    thought that CVN-78 could deploy and potentially fight without
    this testing would be imprudent and puts sailors at risk. As a
    result, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
    certify that the Navy will conduct by not later than September
    30, 2017, full ship shock trials on CVN-78.
        The committee is also concerned by the cost growth in CVN-
    78 class aircraft carrier program and the potential for further
    growth in the future. The committee understands the $2.4
    billion in CVN-78 cost growth is attributable to government
    furnished equipment, design and engineering changes, and
    shipbuilder performance. The committee views cost reduction
    efforts in all three of these areas as essential. As a result,
    the committee directs the specified report.
        The committee views CVN-78 class aircraft carriers as
    extraordinarily important instruments of U.S. national military
    power. However, with costs ranging from $11.5 billion to more
    than $13.0 billion, these ships are also extraordinarily
    expensive, and only one shipbuilder in the world is capable of
    building these ships. Since the first advance procurement
    funding for this program was appropriated in fiscal year 2001,
    each of the first three ships in the class have experienced
    more than $2.0 billion in procurement cost growth. In view of
    the vital importance of aircraft carriers to national defense,
    the cost per ship, lack of competition, and history of cost
    overruns, the committee directs a report, which examines
    potential requirements, capabilities, and alternatives for
    future development of aircraft carriers that would replace or
    supplement CVN-78 class aircraft carriers.
    Limitation on availability of funds for USS Enterprise (CVN-80) (sec.
            113)
        The committee recommends a provision that would limit
    $191.4 million in advance procurement funds for USS Enterprise
    (CVN-80), until the Secretary of the Navy submits a
    certification and report to the Committees on Armed Services of
    the Senate and of the House of Representatives. $191.4 million
    is the sum of funding requested for plans (detailed) and basic
    construction for CVN-80.
        The committee is concerned by the $13.5 billion estimated
    procurement cost of CVN-80. This cost is $2.1 billion, or 18
    percent greater, than the estimated procurement cost of USS
    John F. Kennedy (CVN-79). While the committee understands
    inflation contributes to this cost increase, the committee
    believes greater savings should be achieved through a stable
    design and the benefits of industrial base learning curve
    efficiencies.
        As a result, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to
    submit a certification that the design of CVN-80 will repeat
    that of CVN-79, with exceptions only as specified, and pursuant
    to section 114 of this Act. In addition, the Secretary of the
    Navy is directed to submit a report on the plans costs of CVN-
    80, including a detailed description and justification of the
    cost elements.

    Modification of CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 114)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    subsection (f) of section 122 of the John Warner National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
    364; 120 Stat. 2104), as added by section 121(c) of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
    Law 113-66; 127 Stat. 692), by adding a reporting requirement
    to the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) quarterly report.
        The committee is concerned by the continuing substantial
    plans costs, design changes, and engineering changes associated
    with the CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program. While non-
    recurring plans costs are expected for the lead ship in a
    class, the committee would expect these costs to drop
    substantially once the class design is complete and the follow-
    on ships enter construction. The plans cost for the lead ship,
    USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), amounts to $3.3 billion, which is
    25 percent of the overall ship cost ($12.9 billion). The plans
    cost for the next ship, CVN-79, is estimated at $880.0 million.
    The committee understands these costs are attributable to
    detail design and lead yard services, which include: planning,
    material sourcing, engineering, and program management
    performed by the shipbuilder.
        The committee is also acutely aware of past cost growth and
    schedule delays associated with design and engineering changes
    to this program. The committee believes design and engineering
    changes to this program should be limited to operational
    necessity, safety, or cost reduction initiatives that meet
    threshold requirements.
        As a result, beginning January 1, 2016, the committee
    directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit, as part of the
    CVN-79 quarterly report, a description of new design and
    engineering changes to CVN--78 class aircraft carriers that
    exceed $5.0 million and occurred during the reporting period.
    The report shall include program or ship cost increases for
    each design or engineering change and any cost reduction
    achieved. The Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval
    Operations shall each personally sign (not autopen) this
    additional reporting requirement. This certification may not be
    delegated. The certification shall include a determination that
    each change serves the national security interests of the
    United States; cannot be deferred to a future ship due to
    operational necessity, safety, or substantial cost reduction;
    and was personally reviewed and endorsed by the Secretary of
    the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations.

    Limitation on availability of funds for Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 115)

        The committee recommends a provision that would limit 75
    percent of fiscal year 2016 funds for research and development,
    design, construction, procurement or advance procurement of
    materials for the upgraded Littoral Combat Ships (LCS),
    designated as LCS-33 and subsequent, until the Secretary of the
    Navy submits to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
    and of the House of Representatives: a capabilities based
    assessment to assess capability gaps and associated capability
    requirements and risks for the upgraded LCS, an updated
    capabilities development document for the upgraded LCS, and a
    report describing the upgraded LCS modernization.
        The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense
    directed the Navy to explore ``alternative proposals to procure
    a capable and lethal small surface combatant, generally
    consistent with the capabilities of a frigate''. The outcome of
    this analysis, subsequently approved by the Secretary of
    Defense, was modifications to the two existing variants of the
    LCS. The committee recognizes the significant analysis the Navy
    did accomplish, which is similar to an analysis of alternatives
    in defense acquisition.
        However, the committee is concerned by the absence of
    analysis to identify the specific capability gaps and mission
    needs that the Navy is seeking to address, which would have
    been appropriate prior the Secretary of Defense's initial
    tasking. Without this analysis, it is unclear why the
    capabilities of the current LCS are inadequate and if the
    proposed modifications will be sufficient to address a defined
    warfighting gap. In addition, given the significant proposed
    changes to the LCS, the committee believes an updated
    capabilities development document is warranted and understands
    the Navy is pursuing this action.
        Finally, the committee believes this modernization of the
    LCS class needs to be pursued in a comprehensive and
    analytically-derived manner, particularly because these ships
    are planned to be in service until 2050. Large surface
    combatants, submarines, and tactical aircraft follow
    documented, proven modernization processes to outpace the
    advances of potential adversaries. Most relevant for the LCS is
    the advanced capability build process for large surface
    combatants, which is based on a naval capabilities document.
    The 14 sections of this document are listed in the recommended
    provision.
        Therefore, this provision would direct the Navy to deliver
    a capabilities based assessment, an updated capabilities
    development document certified by the Joint Requirements
    Oversight Council, and a report on LCS modernization.

    Extension and modification of limitation on availability of funds for
            Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 116)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 123 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291) by extending the limitation on funds for LCS-25
    and LCS-26 until pre-existing requirements are met and would
    additionally require the Navy to provide to the congressional
    defense committees the following: an acquisition strategy for
    LCS-25 through LCS-32; a LCS mission module acquisition
    strategy; a plan to outfit Flight 0 and Flight 0+ Littoral
    Combat Ships with capabilities identified for the upgraded
    Littoral Combat Ship; and a current test and evaluation master
    plan for the Littoral Combat Ship mission modules.
        The committee believes the additional requirements are in
    keeping with defense acquisition policies and best practices.
    The committee is concerned that the introduction of an upgraded
    LCS, beginning with LCS-33, will further complicate
    configuration management of the LCS seaframes and mission
    modules. Opportunistic modifications or ``backfits'' of
    existing LCS with some, but not all, of these upgraded
    capabilities are another source of concern. The committee needs
    clarity on the LCS seaframe acquisition strategy, requirement
    for mission modules in light of the upgraded LCS decision, cost
    and schedule of the Navy's plan to modify or ``backfit''
    existing LCS, and how the Navy will achieve developmental and
    operational testing for each component and mission module.

    Construction of additional Arleigh Burke destroyer (sec. 117)

        The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
    Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract beginning with
    the fiscal year 2016 program year for the procurement of one
    Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in addition to the ten DDG-51s in
    the fiscal year 2013 through 2017 multiyear procurement
    contract or for one DDG-51 in fiscal year 2018. The Secretary
    may employ incremental funding for such procurement.
        Additional funding and incremental funding authority would
    help relieve pressure on the shipbuilding budget as funding
    requirements grow for the Ohio-class replacement program over
    the next several years. As a result, the committee recommends
    incremental funding authority for 1 Arleigh Burke-class
    destroyer in addition to the 10 DDG-51s in the fiscal year
    2013-2017 multiyear procurement contract or for a DDG-51 in
    fiscal year 2018.

    Fleet replenishment oiler program (sec. 118)

        The committee recommends a provision that would grant the
    Secretary of the Navy contracting authority to procure up to
    six fleet replenishment oilers (T-AO(X)). This new ship class
    is a non-developmental recapitalization program based on
    existing commercial technology and standards. The ship design
    is considered to be low risk by the Navy, with the design
    scheduled to be complete prior to the start of construction on
    the lead ship. This provision would generate an estimated $45.0
    million in savings per ship compared to annual procurement cost
    estimates. In addition, the provision would provide a long-term
    commitment to the shipbuilder and vendors, which would enable
    workforce stability and planning efficiency.

    Reporting requirement for Ohio-class replacement submarine program
            (sec. 119)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to submit Ohio-class replacement submarine
    cost tracking information, together with annual budget
    justification materials. While the first Ohio-class replacement
    submarine is not planned to be authorized until fiscal year
    2021, the national importance of this program and significant
    cost will continue to merit close oversight by the
    congressional defense committees. In response to a committee
    request, the Navy provided the committee an information paper
    dated February 3, 2015 with the following elements in fiscal
    year 2010 dollars and then-year dollars: lead ship end cost
    (with plans), lead ship end cost (less plans), lead ship non-
    recurring engineering cost, average follow-on ship (hulls 2-12)
    cost, operations and sustainment cost per hull per year, Office
    of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
    and Logistics (OSD AT&L) average follow-on ship (hulls 2-12)
    affordability target, and OSD AT&L operations & sustainment
    cost per hull per year affordability target (including
    disposal). The committee recommends this format continue to be
    used to enable cost visibility, direct comparison of cost
    elements, and year-on-year trend analysis.

                         Subtitle C--Air Force Programs

    Limitations on retirement of B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber aircraft (sec.
            131)

        The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
    retirement of B-1, B-2, or B-52 bomber aircraft to be retired
    during a fiscal year prior to initial operational capability
    (IOC) of the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) unless the
    Secretary of Defense certifies, in the materials submitted in
    support of the budget of the President for that fiscal year as
    submitted to Congress, that:
              (1) the retirement of the aircraft is required to
            reallocate funding and manpower resources to enable
            LRS-B to reach IOC and full operational capability
            (FOC); and
              (2) the Secretary has concluded that retirements of
            B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber aircraft in the near-term
            will not detrimentally affect operational capability.
        The committee acknowledges the need to recapitalize the Air
    Force's bomber fleet with the LRS-B and recognizes the need for
    a carefully phased retirement of legacy bomber aircraft to
    facilitate this transition as LRS-B approaches IOC.

    Limitation on retirement of Air Force fighter aircraft (sec. 132)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 8062 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new
    subsection requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain
    a minimum total active inventory of 1,950 fighter aircraft,
    within which the Secretary must also maintain a minimum of
    1,116 fighter aircraft as primary mission aircraft inventory
    (combat-coded).
        The provision would also provide additional limitations on
    fighter retirements by requiring the Secretary of the Air Force
    to certify to the defense committees that:
              (1) the retirement of such fighter aircraft will not
            increase the operational risk of meeting the National
            Defense Strategy; and
              (2) the retirement of such aircraft will not reduce
            the total fighter force structure below 1,950 fighter
            aircraft or primary mission aircraft inventory below
            1,116 and would require a report setting forth the
            following:
                      (a) The rationale for the retirement of
                    existing fighter aircraft and an operational
                    analysis of replacement fighter aircraft that
                    demonstrates performance of the designated
                    mission at an equal or greater level of
                    effectiveness as the retiring aircraft;
                      (b) An assessment of the implications for the
                    Air Force, the Air National Guard, and the Air
                    Force Reserve of the force mix ratio of fighter
                    aircraft; and
                      (c) Such other matters relating to the
                    retirement of fighter aircraft as the Secretary
                    considers appropriate.
        Lastly, the provision would also require a report at least
    90 days prior to the date on which a fighter aircraft is
    retired that includes the following:
              (1) A list of each aircraft in the inventory of
            fighter aircraft, including for each such aircraft:
                      (a) the mission design series type;
                      (b) the variant; and
                      (c) the assigned unit and military
                    installation where such aircraft is based.
              (2) A list of each fighter aircraft proposed for
            retirement, including for each such aircraft:
                      (a) the mission design series type;
                      (b) the variant; and
                      (c) the assigned unit and military
                    installation where such aircraft is based.
              (3) A list of each unit affected by a proposed
            retirement listed under (2) above and how such unit is
            affected.
              (4) For each military installation and unit listed
            under (2)(c) above, changes, if any, to the designed
            operational capability (DOC) statement of the unit as a
            result of a proposed retirement.
              (5) Any anticipated changes in manpower
            authorizations as a result of a proposed retirement
            listed under (2) above.
        The committee understands the Air Force determined through
    extensive analysis that a force structure of 1,200 primary
    mission aircraft and 2,000 total aircraft is required to
    execute the National Defense Strategy with increased
    operational risk. Subsequently, based on the 2012 Defense
    Strategic Guidance and fiscal constraints, analysis showed the
    Air Force could decrease fighter force structure by
    approximately 100 additional aircraft; however, at an even
    higher level of risk.
        The committee acknowledges that the original F-35
    procurement plan projected 516 F-35A variants to be delivered
    by fiscal year 2016, but schedule delays and subsequent re-
    baselining of the program now projects only 103 F-35A aircraft
    delivered by fiscal year 2016. This occurred simultaneously
    with the Air Force retiring over 400 fighter aircraft in the
    period since fiscal year 2010. These factors result in a
    fighter aircraft shortfall that will gradually improve as the
    F-35A procurement rate increases.
        The Air Force currently fields 54 fighter squadrons in
    fiscal year 2015. The proposed fiscal year 2016 retirement of
    an additional five A-10 combat squadrons would reduce the total
    to 49 fighter squadrons. Of the 49 squadrons remaining in
    fiscal year 2016, the Air Force estimates less than half would
    be fully combat mission ready. Therefore, the committee has
    proposed a provision elsewhere in this act prohibiting the
    retirement of additional A-10 aircraft. The limitation on total
    aircraft numbers proposed by the committee in the provision
    would allow the Air Force to stand down one 24 primary assigned
    aircraft squadron at Hill Air Force Base in fiscal year 2016,
    in order to transition the people and resources of the squadron
    to the F-35A aircraft.
        The committee believes further reductions in fighter force
    capacity, in light of ongoing and anticipated operations in
    Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State of Iraq and the
    Levant, coupled with a potential delay of force withdrawals
    from Afghanistan, poses excessive risk to the Air Force's
    ability to execute the National Defense Strategy, causes
    remaining fighter squadrons to deploy more frequently, and
    drives even lower readiness rates across the combat air forces.
    The committee expects the Air Force to execute the fiscal year
    program in accordance with the spirit and intent of this
    provision.

    Limitation on availability of funds for F-35A aircraft procurement
            (sec. 133)

        The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
    availability of fiscal year 2016 funds for F-35A procurement to
    not more than $4.3 billion until the Secretary of Defense
    certifies to the congressional defense committees that F-35A
    aircraft delivered in fiscal year 2018 will have full combat
    capability with currently planned Block 3F hardware, software,
    and weapons carriage.
        The committee acknowledges that in light of increasing
    potential adversary capabilities and growing anti-access/area
    denial threat environments around the globe, the requirement
    for a robust fifth generation fighter capability is a necessary
    element for our combatant commanders' continued ability to
    execute their warfighting responsibilities. The committee also
    acknowledges the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program represents
    our only in-production fifth generation fighter aircraft and is
    a crucial capability that cannot be understated. The committee
    encourages the Secretary to exhibit increased management
    oversight of this critical program to ensure compliance with
    cost, schedule, and performance objectives.
        The committee is concerned, however, that the 57 percent
    increase in F-35A production to 44 aircraft in the budget
    request, over the fiscal year 2015 level of 28 aircraft,
    presents an increased risk of cost growth and schedule delays.
    The ongoing System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase is
    now approximately 65 percent complete, and continues
    development, testing, and evaluation concurrently with
    production. Any further software development delays or test and
    evaluation deficiency discoveries and deferments could incur
    increased retrofit costs for delivered aircraft, and delay
    required capabilities to the warfighter.

    Prohibition on retirement of A-10 aircraft (sec. 134)

        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    the use of any funds during fiscal year 2016 to retire, prepare
    to retire, or place in storage any A-10 aircraft. The provision
    would also require the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain a
    minimum of 171 A-10 aircraft in primary mission aircraft
    inventory (combat-coded) status. The committee directs the
    Secretary of the Air Force to commission an independent entity
    outside the Department of Defense to conduct an assessment of
    the required capabilities and mission platform to replace the
    A-10 aircraft. The committee expects the Air Force to execute
    the fiscal year program in accordance with the spirit of this
    provision.
        The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
    retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
    environment and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air
    forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
    commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
    that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
    against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),
    providing a theater security package in Europe to assure our
    allies and partners, and continuing rotational deployment
    operations to Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this
    time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of
    the combat air forces without a suitable replacement available.
        Additionally, in fiscal year 2015 the Air Force implemented
    the move of 18 A-10s to backup aircraft inventory status,
    reducing all but two of the A-10 fleet's combat squadrons to 18
    primary assigned aircraft each.
        Specifically, the Secretary of the Air Force should ensure
    that the Air Force does not close or consolidate A-10 units,
    make changes to standard sustainment processes, or reduce A-10
    pilot training or A-10 flying hours disproportionally to
    reductions applied to pilots or flying hours for other Air
    Force aircraft. Additionally, the provision would require the
    Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that the Air Force
    maintains a minimum of 171 A-10 aircraft designated as primary
    mission aircraft inventory (PMAI) to retain viable combat
    squadron sizes through sufficient primary assigned aircraft.
        The committee also recommends an increase of $279.7 million
    for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force; $16.2 million for
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force; and
    $38.5 million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.
        The committee recommends no increase in Air Force military
    personnel accounts. The Air Force is encouraged to find the
    billets necessary to fill A-10 and F-35 manpower authorizations
    from within the 2,200 billets reduced from its management
    headquarters and its 6,000 billet increase request authorized
    in title IV of this Act. The committee expects that the
    Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force will use some of
    the thousands of military positions freed up in the 4-year, 30
    percent reduction of headquarter and defense agency staffs to
    recruit the necessary maintenance personnel for these aircraft.
    The committee believes that combat capability, not headquarter
    staffs, should be the priority of the service leaders.

    Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of EC-130H Compass
            Call aircraft (sec. 135)

        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    the use of any funds during fiscal year 2016 to retire, prepare
    to retire, or place in storage any EC-130H Compass Call
    aircraft. The committee believes that the Air Force is
    proposing the retirement of EC-130H Compass Call aircraft
    purely on the basis of the fiscal environment and not on
    grounds of the ability of the Air Force to meet effectively the
    requirements of the combatant commanders and the national
    defense strategy.
        The EC-130H Compass Call provides an unparalleled
    capability for our combatant commanders to disrupt enemy
    command and control communications and limit adversary
    coordination essential for enemy force management. As a manned
    platform, Compass Call is able to operate independently in a
    degraded communications environment. The Compass Call is also
    flexible since the crew includes electronic warfare officers
    and linguists who can make real-time decisions in the execution
    of electronic warfare.
        The committee was concerned with the Air Force's fiscal
    year 2015 budget proposal to retire half the EC-130H fleet
    beginning in fiscal year 2016. The Senate report accompanying
    S. 2410 (S. Rept. 113-176) of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
    ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) directed the Air Force to
    develop a plan, including milestones and resource requirements,
    to replace, modernize, or re-host the current Compass Call
    capabilities.
        In the Air Force's report transmitted to the committee by
    the Under Secretary of the Air Force in September 2014, the Air
    Force stated, ``. . . budget realities have forced the Air
    Force to extreme measures to cut costs and yet attempt to
    maintain capabilities. The decision to reduce the Compass Call
    fleet by nearly half after [fiscal year 2015] is one of those
    extreme measures . . .''
        Additionally, the Air Force stated, ``This decision is not
    without risk, in that the Air Force will NOT be able to meet
    combatant commander operations plan capacity requirements,
    however, it is made fully informed of those risks. Because of
    this, alternatives to ensure capabilities will not be lost to
    combatant commanders will be analyzed, assessed, and selected
    in a disciplined, rigorous fashion, with answers expected no
    later than [fiscal year 2017].''
        The committee believes the Air Force response in the report
    indicates it has not yet sufficiently identified, through
    studies and analysis, how it will continue to provide the
    required capability and capacity to meet combatant commander
    requirements for this segment of the airborne electronic attack
    mission at acceptable risk, and will not gain insight through
    observations and conclusions until at least fiscal year 2017.
    Additionally, the Air Force has placed the restoration of the
    EC-130H Compass Call fleet on its fiscal year 2016 unfunded
    priority list received by the committee in March 2015.
        The committee also notes that while the primary mission
    electronic warfare capabilities are critical, the EC-130H is
    not the ideal platform for anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)
    combat environments, and gaps may continue to exist even with
    planned platform upgrades.
        The committee understands there may be options available to
    transition Compass Call capabilities to a new platform that can
    address capability requirements in combatant commander
    operations plans. The committee is interested in ways the Air
    Force could potentially use existing and future EC-130H
    modernization and sustainment funds to begin procurement of a
    new platform to meet an initial operations capability in 2019,
    provide full-spectrum electronic attack capabilities against an
    advanced threat in highly contested environments, and thereby
    obviate mission capability gaps.
        The committee recommends an increase of $27.3 million for
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force and $28.7 million for
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends no
    increase for Air Force military personnel accounts and directs
    the Air Force to examine its existing force structure and
    reduction of management headquarters military personnel billets
    to adequately staff the EC-130H fleet at its current
    operational capability.

    Limitation on transfer of C-130 aircraft (sec. 136)

        The committee recommends a provision that would place a
    limitation on all of the funds authorized or appropriated by
    this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2016 for
    the Air Force that may be obligated or expended to transfer
    from one facility of the Department of Defense to another any
    C-130H aircraft, initiate any C-130 manpower authorization
    adjustments, retire or prepare to retire any C-130H aircraft,
    or close any C-130H unit until 90 days after the date on which
    the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the
    Secretary of the Army, and after certification by the
    commanders of the XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd Airborne Division,
    and United States Army Special Operations Command, certifies to
    the committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House
    of Representatives that:
              (1) the United States Air Force will maintain
            dedicated C-130 wings to support the daily training and
            contingency requirements of the XVIII Airborne Corps,
            82nd Airborne Division, and United States Army Special
            Operations Command at manning levels required to
            support and operate the number of aircraft that existed
            as part of the regular and reserve Air Force operations
            in support of such units as of September 30, 2014; and
              (2) failure to maintain such Air Force operations
            will not adversely impact the daily training
            requirement of those airborne and special operations
            units.

    Limitation on use of funds for T-1A Jayhawk aircraft (sec. 137)

        The committee recommends a provision that would limit all
    the funds authorized or appropriated by this Act or that
    otherwise may be obligated or expended for fiscal year 2016 for
    avionics modifications to the T-1A Jayhawk aircraft until 30
    days after the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the
    congressional defense committees the report required under
    section 142 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291).

    Restriction on retirement of the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
            System (JSTARS), EC-130H Compass Call, and Airborne Early
            Warning and Control (AWACS) aircraft (sec. 138)

        The committee recommends a provision that would restrict
    the Secretary of the Air Force from retiring any Joint
    Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), EC-130H
    Compass Call, and Airborne Early Warning and Control System
    (AWACS) aircraft until the follow-on replacement aircraft
    program enters low-rate initial production.

    Sense of the Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the F-35A aircraft
            (sec. 139)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of Congress regarding basing of the F-35A aircraft
    outside of the continental United States.

    Sense of Congress on F-16 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
            radar upgrade (sec. 140)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Congress on F-16 Active Electronically Scanned
    Array (AESA) radar upgrades.

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

    Report on Army and Marine Corps modernization plan for small arms (sec.
            151)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretaries of the Army and Navy to jointly submit to the
    Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
    Representatives a report on the plan of the Army and Marine
    Corps to modernize small arms.

                                  Budget Items

                                      Army

    Common missile warning system

        The budget request included $78.3 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Army (APA) for common missile warning system. The
    committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million in APA for
    procurement of common missile warning systems. Additional
    funding for common missile warning systems was included on the
    Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priorities list.

    PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement

        The budget included $414.9 million in Missile Procurement,
    Army (MPA) for PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles
    for use in the Medium Extended Air Defense System and Patriot
    missile defense systems. The PAC-3 MSE provides substantial
    improvement in interceptor altitude, range, propulsion,
    lethality and agility while furthering insensitive munitions
    compliance. The committee recommends an increase of $200.0
    million in MPA for procurement of MSE missiles. Additional
    funding was included on the Chief of Staff of the Army's
    unfunded priority list.

    Army Tactical Missile System

        The budget request included $30.1 million in Missile
    Procurement, Army (MPA) for Army Tactical Missile Systems
    (ATACMS) modifications. The committee is concerned about the
    Army's plan to enter into a production contract prior to the
    completion of testing. Therefore, the committee recommends a
    decrease of $10.0 million in MPA for ATACMS.

    Improved recovery vehicle

        The budget request included $123.6 million in Weapons and
    Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for improved recovery
    vehicles (M88A2 Hercules). The committee recommends an increase
    of $72.0 million in WTCV for the procurement of 16 additional
    M88A2s. Additional funding for the improved recovery vehicle
    was included on the Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded
    priorities list.

    Precision sniper rifle

        The budget request included $2.0 million in Weapons and
    Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for the precision sniper
    rifle. Given this requirement is early to need, the committee
    recommends a decrease of $2.0 million in WTCV for the precision
    sniper rifle due to program delay.

    Compact semi-automatic sniper system

        The budget request included $1.5 million in Weapons and
    Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for the compact semi-
    automatic sniper system. Given this requirement is early to
    need, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.5 million in
    WTCV for the compact semi-automatic sniper system due to
    program delay.

    Common remotely operated weapons station

        The budget request included $8.4 million in Weapons and
    Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for common remotely
    operated weapons station (CROWS). At the Army's request, the
    committee recommends an increase of $6.4 million in WTCV for
    the CROWS. The Army will use the additional funds to
    synchronize the conversion and fielding of systems in a
    sustainable configuration.

    Handgun

        The budget request included $5.4 million in Weapons and
    Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for handguns. The
    committee recommends a decrease of $5.4 million in WTCV for
    handguns due to program delay.

    Sniper rifle modifications

        The budget request included $2.4 million in Weapons and
    Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for sniper rifle
    modifications. Given this requirement is early to need, the
    committee recommends a decrease of $1.4 million in WTCV for
    sniper rifle modifications due to program delay.

    Items less than $5.0 million

        The budget request included $391,000 in Weapons and Tracked
    Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for items less than $5.0 million.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in WTCV
    for the items less than $5.0 million. The Army would use the
    additional funds to procure nonstandard weapons for Regionally
    Aligned Forces training.

    Army ammunition decrease

        The budget request included $1.2 billion in Procurement of
    Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $7.7 million was for LI
    1450EA3000 CTG, Handgun, All Types and $79.9 million was for LI
    3222ER8001 CTG, 40mm, All Types.
        The committee believes that funding related to both line
    items are requested ahead of need.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of
    $952,000 in LI 1450EA3000 PAA for CTG, Handgun, All Types and
    $10.0 million in LI 3222ER8001 CTG, 40mm, All Types.

    Transportable Tactical Command Communications

         The budget request included $45.0 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Transportable Tactical Command
    Communications (T2C2) system. The committee notes that the
    program's Milestone C decision has been delayed to late fiscal
    year 2015. Therefore, a portion of the funds requested for
    fiscal year 2016 are early to need. The committee recommends a
    decrease of $15.0 million in OPA for T2C2.

    Prophet Ground System

        The budget request included $63.6 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for Prophet ground systems. The
    committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in OPA for the
    Prophet due to unjustified growth in production.

    Counterfire radars

         The budget request included $217.4 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA), for counterfire radars (AN/TPQ-53).
    The committee notes that this program is delayed due to
    problems discovered during initial operational test and
    evaluation resulting in unobligated funds available from prior
    year appropriations. Procurement funds requested for fiscal
    year 2016 are not operationally urgent and appear early to
    need. The committee recommends a decrease of $75.0 million in
    OPA for counterfire radars to allow the program test and
    production schedules to synchronize in fiscal year 2017.
        The committee directs that not later than 180 days after
    the dates of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
    Army shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
    report on counterfire radars explaining the under execution of
    fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 funds as well as repair
    problems. The report should also include actions planned and
    taken to correct the deficiencies. Specifically, the report
    should address problems discovered during initial operation
    testing and evaluation. The committee directs that not later
    than 60 days after the report of the Secretary, the Comptroller
    General of the United States shall review the report and submit
    to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the
    matter contained in the report.

    Global Combat Support System--Army

         The budget request included $162.7 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Global Combat Support System--
    Army (GCSS-A). The committee recommends a decrease of $16.0
    million in OPA for GCSS-A due to unjustified program growth.

    Automated data processing equipment

        The budget request included $106.4 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for automated data processing
    equipment. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 million
    to this program. The committee recommends that the Army should
    ensure that information technology procurements are not
    redundant with capabilities available under joint, other
    Service, or other agency programs.

    Non-system training devices

         The budget request included $303.2 million in Other
    Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The
    committee recommends a decrease of $25.0 million in OPA for
    non-system training devices due to unjustified cost growth.

                                      Navy

    F/A-18E/F aircraft procurement

        The budget request included no funds in Aircraft
    Procurement, Navy (APN), for F/A-18E/F aircraft. Procuring
    additional F/A-
    18E/F aircraft will reduce near-term strike fighter inventory
    gaps and risk. This item was included on the Chief of Naval
    Operations' unfunded priorities list. Therefore, the committee
    recommends an increase of $1.2 billion in APN for 12 F/A-18E/F
    aircraft and initial spares.

    F-35C

        The budget request included $897.5 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Navy (APN), for four F-35C aircraft. The committee
    recommends a decrease of $24.5 million in APN due to
    anticipated efficiencies savings and excess support equipment
    cost growth.

    F-35B

        The budget request included $1.5 billion in Aircraft
    Procurement, Navy (APN), for nine F-35B aircraft. The committee
    recommends a decrease of $25.1 million in APN due to
    anticipated efficiencies savings and excess support equipment
    cost growth. Additionally, the committee recommends an increase
    in F-35B procurement to a total quantity of 15 F-35B aircraft
    to mitigate the strike fighter shortfall. This request was on
    the Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priority list.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.1
    billion in APN for the procurement of six additional F-35B
    aircraft.

    AV-8 series aircraft

        The budget request included $83.2 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Navy (APN), for AV-8 series aircraft. Link 16
    upgrades are necessary for the fleet of AV-8 aircraft to
    improve pilot situational awareness, joint communications, and
    force protection. Therefore, the committee recommends an
    increase of $3.3 million in APN. This item was included on the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priorities list.

    F-18 series kill chain enhancements

        The budget request included $986.8 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Navy (APN), for F-18 series aircraft
    modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $170.0
    million in APN for F-18 aircraft series radio frequency kill
    chain enhancements to counter sophisticated digital weapons and
    combat systems currently proliferated around the world. This
    item was included on the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded
    priorities list.

    V-22 Osprey

        The base budget request included $121.2 million for
    procurement of V-22 Osprey. The committee notes the Commandant
    of the Marine Corps' unfunded requirement for MV-22 integrated
    aircraft survivability ($15.0 million) and MV-22 ballistic
    protection ($8.0 million). As a result, the committee
    recommends an increase of $23.0 million to this program.

    Tomahawk

        The budget request included $184.8 million in Weapons
    Procurement, Navy to procure 100 Tomahawk missiles. The future
    years defense program envisions shutting down the Tomahawk
    production line after the fiscal year 2016 procurement.
        The committee is concerned about the Navy's decision to
    truncate production. The Tomahawk is a combat-proven missile,
    having been used well over 2,000 times in the last two decades,
    most recently against targets in Syria during Operation
    Inherent Resolve in September 2014 and remains the country's
    first-strike weapon of choice. The Navy has stated that the
    current Tomahawk inventory is sufficient for munitions
    requirements and will meet the Navy's needs until its
    replacement is operational in the mid-2020s. The Next
    Generation Land Attack Weapon, however, is only in initial
    planning stages and is not due to enter service until 2024. The
    committee believes the assumption of this much risk in a
    capability as important as long-range strike is not prudent in
    the current and projected security environment.
        Additionally, the Navy plans to begin recertification of
    its existing Block IV missiles beginning in 2019. By its own
    analysis, the Navy recognizes that the existence of a
    production gap between the end of new missile builds and the
    start of recertification will put tremendous strain on the
    Tomahawk supplier base and involve millions of dollars to
    requalify suppliers for recertification. The committee is
    concerned by the Navy's plan as it moves toward
    recertification.
        The committee believes that it would be imprudent to ramp
    down and close production of the Tomahawk missile at this time.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0
    million to keep Tomahawk production at the minimum sustaining
    rate of 196 missiles per year.

    Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile

        The budget request included $192.9 million in Weapons
    Procurement, Navy funding to procure 192 Advanced Medium Range
    Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM). The AMRAAM remains the preeminent
    all-weather, radar-guided missile fielded by the U.S. Navy and
    Air Force. The most up-to-date version, the AIM-120D, provides
    enhanced lethality to the warfighter and is essential to
    success in any potential conflict involving air combat. Chief
    of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert testified to the Navy's
    shortfall in AMRAAM before the committee. The committee
    believes the Navy needs to address the shortfall and therefore
    recommends an increase of $15.0 million to procure additional
    missiles.

    Ordnance support equipment

        The budget request included $57.6 million in Weapons
    Procurement, Navy for Ordnance Support Equipment. The committee
    recommends an increase of $3.7 million.

    Virginia-class submarines

        The budget request included $2.0 billion in advance
    procurement and $3.3 billion in procurement in Shipbuilding and
    Conversion, Navy for Virginia-class submarines.
        The committee notes that the Virginia-class submarine
    program has continued to perform well, delivering submarines
    early and within budget to combatant commanders. As Assistant
    Secretary of Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition
    Sean Stackley testified on March 18, 2015, ``Submarines'
    stealth and ability to conduct sustained forward-deployed
    operations in anti-access/area-denial environments serve as
    force multipliers by providing high-quality intelligence,
    surveillance, and reconnaissance as well as indication and
    warning of potential hostile action. In addition, attack
    submarines are effective in anti-surface warfare and undersea
    warfare in almost every environment, thus eliminating any safe-
    haven that an adversary might pursue with access-denial
    systems. As such, they represent a significant conventional
    deterrent.''
        Despite these important capabilities and the success of the
    Virginia-class submarine program, the committee notes that on
    March 18, 2015, Vice Admiral Joseph P. Mulloy testified that
    the Navy is only meeting approximately 54 percent of combatant
    commander requests for attack submarines.
        The Navy has a validated requirement for 48 attack
    submarines, and currently has a fleet of 53 attack submarines.
    However, the committee notes that the Navy's attack submarine
    fleet will drop to 41 submarines in fiscal year 2029. This
    smaller attack submarine fleet, combined with an increasing
    demand for the unique capabilities they provide, could result
    in the Navy meeting an even smaller percentage of combatant
    commander requests for attack submarines. The committee
    believes it is important that the Navy procure two Virginia-
    class submarines per year in fiscal years 2016 to 2020.
        The committee understands that the Virginia Payload Module
    (VPM) will help mitigate the nearly 60 percent decrease in
    undersea strike capacity associated with the declining number
    of attack submarines and retirement of the Navy's guided
    missile submarines (SSGNs) in the 2020s. The VPM will increase
    the capacity of Virginia-class submarines from 12 to 40 cruise
    missiles. The committee believes it is essential to accelerate
    as soon as practicable the inclusion of the VPM on Virginia-
    class submarines. Furthermore, once inclusion of the VPM is
    determined to be feasible, the committee supports inclusion of
    the VPM on every new construction Virginia-class submarine.
        Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit
    a report to the committee no later than December 1, 2015 on the
    feasibility of accelerating the VPM introduction to Virginia-
    class submarines, as well as an assessment of the industrial
    base impact of building Ohio-class replacement submarines,
    Virginia-class submarines with the VPM, and Virginia-class
    submarines without the VPM, simultaneously.
        Furthermore, in light of the importance of Virginia-class
    submarines and the VPM, the committee recommends an increase of
    $800.0 million in advance procurement and the full requested
    amount in procurement for Virginia-class submarines.

    Arleigh Burke-class destroyers

        The budget request included $3.1 billion in Shipbuilding
    and Conversion, Navy for procurement of Arleigh Burke-class
    destroyers (DDG-51). Additional funding and incremental funding
    authority would help relieve pressure on the shipbuilding
    budget as funding requirements grow for the Ohio-class
    replacement program over the next several years. As a result,
    the committee recommends an increase of $400.0 million and
    incremental funding authority for 1 Arleigh Burke-class
    destroyer in addition to the 10 DDG-51s in the fiscal year
    2013-2017 multiyear procurement contract or for a DDG-51 in
    fiscal year 2018.

    Afloat Forward Staging Base

        The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and
    Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of afloat forward
    staging base (AFSB). The committee notes the Navy has procured
    two AFSBs and has a new requirement to provide support to the
    Crisis Response Security Force that justifies an increase in
    AFSBs from two to three. As a result, the committee recommends
    an increase of $97.0 million to this program for advance
    procurement.

    Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) Replacement

        The budget request included $277.5 million in Shipbuilding
    and Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of amphibious
    assault ship (LHA) replacement. The committee notes additional
    advance procurement funding would expedite delivery of this
    ship enabling the Navy to reach the force structure assessment
    objective of 11 large deck amphibious ships as early as fiscal
    year 2023. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of
    $199.0 million to this program.

    LX(R)

        The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and
    Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of LX(R), which is
    expected to functionally replace LSD-41 and LSD-49 class ships.
    The committee notes accelerating the delivery of LX(R) class
    ships to the fleet will enable the Navy to meet a greater
    amount of combatant commander demand for amphibious warships.
    As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $51.0
    million in advance procurement for this program.

    Landing craft utility replacement

        The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and
    Conversion, Navy for procurement of landing craft utility
    replacement. The committee understands accelerating this
    program from fiscal year 2018 to 2016 has acceptable technical
    risk and will alleviate some pressure on the shipbuilding
    budget in future years. As a result, the committee recommends
    an increase of $34.0 million to this program to procure one
    landing craft utility replacement.

    T-ATS(X)

        The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and
    Conversion, Navy for procurement of T-ATS(X). The committee
    notes T-ATS(X) will replace two ship classes--Safeguard-class
    salvage and rescue ships (T-ARS) and Powhatan-class fleet ocean
    tugs (T-ATF). The committee understands accelerating this
    program by one year from fiscal year 2017 to 2016 has
    acceptable technical risk and will alleviate some pressure on
    the shipbuilding budget in future years. As a result, the
    committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million to this
    program to procure one T-ATS(X).

    Destroyer modernization

        The budget request included $364.2 million in Other
    Procurement, Navy for DDG modernization. The committee notes
    the Navy's DDG modernization program increases the Fleet's Navy
    Integrated Fire Control--Counter Air and Ballistic Missile
    Defense capacity, which improves the U.S. ability to pace high-
    end adversary weapons systems. Procuring one additional combat
    system ship set in fiscal year 2016 will allow the Navy to
    modernize an additional DDG in fiscal year 2018 with these
    capabilities. As a result, the committee recommends an increase
    of $60.0 million to this program. This was a Chief of Naval
    Operations' unfunded priority.

    Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission Module

        The budget request included $85.1 million in Other
    Procurement, Navy to procure Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Mine
    Countermeasures (MCM) mission modules. The committee notes the
    Navy has two MCM mission modules delivered and four MCM mission
    modules procured through fiscal year 2015. The Director of
    Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has stated that only
    one MCM module of each increment is required to complete
    operational testing. During developmental testing, as noted by
    DOT&E, ``attempts to demonstrate the sequence of events
    necessary for an LCS to complete end-to-end mine clearance
    operations have been limited by low operator proficiency,
    software immaturity, system integration problems, and poor
    reliability of MCM components including RMS/RMMV.'' As a
    result, the committee recommends a decrease of $55.8 million
    for this program due to procurement in excess of need ahead of
    satisfactory operational testing.
        This reduction would reduce the hardware components to the
    manufacturer minimum sustaining rate--a reduction from two to
    one Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems (AMNS), two to one
    Airborne Laser Mine Detection Systems (ALMDS), six to one AN/
    AQS-20A Minehunting Sonars, and two to zero COBRA systems (two
    other COBRA systems are requested in LI 2624, which satisfies
    the manufacturer minimum sustaining rate).

    Remote Minehunting System

        The budget request included $87.6 million in Other
    Procurement, Navy for the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). In
    January 2015, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
    noted in his annual report, ``RMS had not demonstrated
    sufficient performance or successful integration with
    interfacing LCS systems to demonstrate the Navy's minimum
    Increment 1 warfighting capability, and developmental testing
    completed in the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 demonstrated
    continued performance issues and RMS mission package
    integration challenges.'' The committee believes that upgrading
    two previously procured systems may provide further assets for
    testing to demonstrate whether upgrades improve performance and
    reliability. As a result, the committee recommends a decrease
    of $65.6 million for this program due to procurement in excess
    of need, ahead of satisfactory developmental and operational
    testing.

    Submarine towed arrays

        The budget request included $214.8 million in Other
    Procurement, Navy for fast attack submarine (SSN) acoustics.
    The committee notes TB-29X and TB-34X submarine towed arrays
    improve detection, classification, and tracking capabilities
    for deployed Virginia-class SSNs. Accelerating procurement by
    four additional TB-29X and four additional TB-34X arrays will
    improve operational availability of advanced towed sensors and
    flexibility of operational, forward-deployed submarines. This
    was a Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priority. As a
    result, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million
    to this program.

    Surface electronic warfare improvement program

        The budget request included $324.7 million in Other
    Procurement, Navy for AN/SLQ-32. The committee notes the
    Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) provides
    for upgraded electromagnetic sensing capabilities for surface
    ships. SEWIP Block II provides an upgraded receiver/antenna
    group and improved electromagnetic interference mitigation and
    combat system interface. Procuring two additional units in
    fiscal year 2016 would outfit two additional ships in fiscal
    year 2018. This was a Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded
    priority. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of
    $28.0 million to this program.

    Tube-launched, optically-tracked, wireless-guided missile

        The budget request included $12.5 million in Procurement,
    Marine Corps (PMC) for tube-launched, optically-tracked,
    wireless-guided (TOW) missiles. The committee recommends an
    increase of $140.0 million in PMC for TOW missiles to replenish
    a depleted inventory. The additional funding was included on
    the Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priority list.

    Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar

        The budget request included $130.7 million in Procurement,
    Marine Corps (PMC) for the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/
    ATOR). The committee notes that excessive concurrency makes the
    G/ATOR program a relatively high risk development effort. This
    has been demonstrated in poor developmental test results to
    date and a major system design change introducing a less mature
    technology not tested in previous radars. G/ATOR continues to
    struggle with software performance and reliability problems
    resulting in significant schedule delays. The committee
    recommends a decrease of $32.1 million in PMC for G/ATOR
    procurement.
        Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
    Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to Congress a
    report on G/ATOR regarding the procurement in excess of need
    and ahead of satisfactory testing. The report should explain
    the poor development test results and why there has been major
    system changes. Furthermore, the report should address the
    software performance and reliability problems that have
    resulted in significant schedule delays. Not later than 60 days
    after the report of the Secretary is submitted, the Comptroller
    General of the United States shall review the report and submit
    to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the
    matters contained in the report.

                                   Air Force

    F-35A

        The budget request included $5.3 billion in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for 44 F-35A aircraft. The
    committee recommends a decrease of $99.1 million in APAF due to
    anticipated efficiencies savings and excess support equipment
    cost growth.

    MQ-9

        The budget request included $553.0 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for 29 MQ-9 aircraft. The
    committee recommends an increase of $480.0 million in APAF for
    24 additional MQ-9 aircraft and initial spares to support
    increased combatant commander requirements for medium altitude
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support.
    Additional funding was included on the Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force's unfunded priorities list.
        The committee also recommends under title V in this Act a
    provision that would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to
    submit a report on actions the Air Force will take to rectify
    persistent remotely piloted aircraft career field manning
    shortfalls. The committee expects the Air Force to take
    required actions to correct these shortfalls to facilitate
    these additional aircraft to fulfill combatant commander
    requirements.

    F-15 capability upgrades

        The budget request included $464.4 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for F-15 fighter aircraft
    modifications. The F-15 series of fighter aircraft will be
    operated through the 2030 decade, and must have capability
    upgrades to increase its operational effectiveness against
    advanced threats and operate in increasingly contested
    environments, and training aircraft modified to mirror combat
    configurations for the most effective aircrew training.
    Additional funding was included in the Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force's unfunded priorities list.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.6
    million for the Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability
    System (EPAWSS), an increase of $48.0 million for six F-15C
    advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) radar upgrades, an
    increase of $192.5 million for 24 F-15D AESA radar upgrades,
    and an increase of $10.0 million for Advanced Display/Core
    Processor II (ADCP II) upgrades to support AESA upgrades. The
    total recommended increase for APAF is $262.1 million.

    Budget request realignment

        At the Air Force's request, the committee recommends
    realignments in the following table to correct various errors
    in the budget request for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
    (APAF), and Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF).

                        AIR FORCE REQUESTED REALIGNMENTS
                                  (in millions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Item Quantity              Account     Line Item      Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    QF-16..........................          APAF           12           -25
    F-15...........................          APAF           22        -$12.8
    F-15...........................        RDTEAF          136        +$12.8
    C2ISR TDL......................          APAF           59         -$2.2
    COMSEC Equip...................          OPAF           11         +$2.2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C-130H Propulsion System Enhancements

        The budget request included $7.0 million in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for C-130 modifications. The Air
    National Guard and Air Force Reserve will operate C-130H
    aircraft for the next two decades. Enhancements to the C-130H
    propulsion system will provide increased performance, improved
    fuel efficiency, and greater reliability. Therefore, the
    committee recommends increases of $33.2 million for T-56 3.5
    Engine Modifications, $1.5 million for In-flight Propeller
    Balancing System certification, and $13.5 million for
    Electronic Propeller Control System for a total increase in
    APAF of $48.2 million.

    C-130H avionics modernization program

        The budget request included no funding in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the C-130H Avionics
    Modernization Program (AMP). The committee believes the term
    ``avionics modernization program of record for C-130 aircraft''
    in section 134 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. `Buck' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291) includes C-130H safety modifications and airspace
    compliance modifications that will be required to operate in
    both Federal Aviation Administration-controlled airspace and
    International Civil Aviation Organization-controlled airspace
    after January 1, 2020.
        The current Air Force plan includes making those airspace
    compliance modifications within the C-130H Avionics
    Modernization Program (AMP) effort. However, as the Air Force
    plan for making airspace compliance modifications (AMP
    Increment 1) would not achieve airspace compliance for the
    entire C-130H aircraft fleet until well after that deadline,
    the committee expects the Air Force to accelerate the AMP
    Increment I schedule as rapidly as possible. Additionally, the
    committee also expects the Air Force to accelerate the effort
    for AMP increment 2 modifications, using previously purchased
    components and leveraging research and development efforts to
    the maximum extent practical. The committee expects the Air
    Force to comply with the spirit and intent of section 134 of
    the Carl Levin and Howard P. `Buck' McKeon National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) for
    executing the C-130H AMP program of record.
        The committee understands that the Air Force is
    restructuring the AMP program of record, but also recognizes
    that it has no completed design, cost estimates, or schedule
    plan on how it will execute AMP Increment 2. The committee
    expects the Air Force to continue to execute AMP and field C-
    130H aircraft previously upgraded by the AMP program until the
    Air Force provides a concrete plan that describes the final
    modification configuration for AMP Increment 2, a service cost
    position, and a procurement and installation schedule that
    would realistically support a fleet viability requirement.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $75.0
    million in APAF for C-130H AMP aircraft modifications.

    A-10 Munitions Buyback

        The budget request included $1.7 billion for Procurement of
    Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) of which $131.1 million was for LI
    352010 Cartridges.
        The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
    retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
    environment and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air
    forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
    commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
    that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
    against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, providing a
    theater security package in Europe to assure our allies and
    partners, and continuing rotational deployments operations to
    Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this time incurs
    unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of the combat
    air forces without a suitable replacement available.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $38.5
    million for LI 352010 Cartridges for munitions for the A-10
    buyback.

    Battlefield air operations kits

        The budget request included $13.1 million in Other
    Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for mobility command and control
    equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $19.9
    million in OPAF for additional battlefield air operations kits
    which decrease the risk of fratricide and lowers by 30 percent
    the weight of equipment carried by battlefield airmen.
    Additional funding was included on the Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force's unfunded priorities list.

    Air Force Network Procurements

        The budget request included $103.8 million in Other
    Procurement, Air Force for Air Force network (AFNet)
    procurements. The committee recommends a decrease of $17.0
    million for this program. The committee notes that many network
    and maintenance functions can be outsourced to reduce costs and
    leverage commercial technologies. The committee also notes that
    some of the systems being procured will be better delivered
    through the Department-wide Joint Information Environment.

    Joint terminal attack controller training and rehearsal system
            simulators

        The budget request included $81.6 million in Other
    Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for tactical communications-
    electronics equipment. The committee recommends an increase of
    $36.0 million in OPAF for additional Joint Terminal Attack
    Controller Training and Rehearsal System Simulators to increase
    availability of Joint Terminal Attack Control personnel and
    increase unit readiness for combat deployments. Additional
    funding was included on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's
    unfunded priorities list.

                                  Defense Wide

    MC-12

        The budget request included $63.2 million in Procurement,
    Defense-Wide (PDW), to modify MC-12 aircraft that were to be
    transferred from the Air Force to U.S. Special Operations
    Command (SOCOM) to replace the existing U-28 fleet and support
    the tactical airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (ISR) requirements of deployed special
    operations forces. The committee notes that the Carl Levin and
    Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) prohibited the
    transfer of MC-12 aircraft from the Air Force to SOCOM until an
    analysis and justification for the transfer of such aircraft
    was submitted to the congressional defense committees.
    According to the resulting analysis of alternatives, SOCOM
    identified the U-28 as the most cost-effective ISR platform to
    meet special operations requirements through 2020. Therefore,
    at the request of SOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of
    $63.2 million from PDW for MC-12 modifications (P-1 Line # 41)
    to PDW for U-28 modifications (P-1 Line #45).

    MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

        The budget request included $11.7 million in Procurement,
    Defense-Wide (PDW), for the acquisition and support of special
    operations-unique mission kits for the 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
    increase of $10.0 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 3 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.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Armored vehicle transmission industrial base

        The committee remains interested in the Army's management
    of strategic risk in the armored vehicle industrial base,
    including its related transmission industrial base.
        Accordingly, last year's Senate report accompanying S. 2410
    (S. Rept. 113-176) the Carl Levin National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 required the Secretary
    of the Army to conduct a business case analysis of the armored
    vehicle transmission industrial base. The required analysis
    would assess the costs, benefits, risks, feasibility, and
    advisability of strategies to manage risks in the armored
    vehicle transmission industrial base including, but not limited
    to, increased competition, consolidation, or other industrial
    approaches across public depot, private commercial, and public-
    private partnership entities and facilities.
        The committee was recently notified by the Assistant
    Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
    Technology (ASA-ALT) that the analysis required by last year's
    committee report has been delayed until June 2015. Included
    with this notification the ASA-ALT indicated that the Army is
    working with its current transmission suppliers to carefully
    manage increasingly constrained resources, maintain combat
    vehicle fleet readiness, foster future competition, reset
    production facilities, invest as necessary in selected critical
    and fragile suppliers to sustain capabilities, and use
    investments in science and technology to retain important
    engineering capabilities.
        The committee agrees that successful management of risk in
    this important sector of the industrial base will require the
    Army to develop plans and programs, sufficiently funded, to
    address each of these areas. Although the current fiscal
    environment is challenging, it could be an opportunity to
    develop new technologies, implement creative partnerships, and
    take advantage of opportunities for competition that may
    achieve improved technical performance, cost savings, and
    greater value for the warfighter and taxpayers. The committee
    expects the Army's final report no later than June 30, 2015.

    Army UH-60A to UH-60L conversions for the National Guard

        The committee is aware that the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter
    is one of the most versatile and heavily used aviation
    capabilities in the Army National Guard, as well as by all the
    states in which they serve. The UH-60A is the oldest model
    Black Hawk in service and currently flown almost exclusively by
    the Army National Guard. Although old, these A-model Black
    Hawks continue to provide a reliable and critically important
    medium-lift capability to the National Guard in support of its
    state role in homeland defense and support for civil
    authorities in response to emergencies. While the Army National
    Guard currently uses UH-60A Black Hawk helicopters for the
    range of state and domestic requirements for medium-lift, the
    lack of modern on-board capabilities means these helicopters
    are not ordinarily available for deployment overseas into
    hostile environments without significant upgrades to their
    current configuration.
        The committee notes that based on the Army's current budget
    projections Army National Guard units will not replace their
    aging UH-60A Black Hawk helicopters until the end of fiscal
    year 2025. This naturally results in higher operational tempo
    and increased flight hours for the rest of the Army's rotary
    wing aviation in support of overseas contingency operations. To
    sustain the readiness and increase the availability of the Army
    National Guard's UH-60 fleet, and close the A-model capability
    gap, the committee encourages the Army to review the
    feasibility of accelerating the replacement of all UH-60A
    aircraft through the production of new UH-60M helicopters, the
    UH-60V upgrade program, and the conversion of A-model Black
    Hawks to UH-60L model aircraft.

    Combat logistics fleet

        The ability of U.S. naval forces to deter aggression and
    rapidly respond to crisis around the world is sustained by
    Military Sealift Command ships. U.S. global logistics
    capability provides a significant advantage over the regionally
    focused fleets of potential adversaries. With challenges to
    U.S. allies and interests growing, the committee believes U.S.
    naval forces must be able to remain deployed and at sea, even
    in the face of enemy anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) threats.
        The size and structure of today's logistics force appears
    to be based on a longstanding operating concept in which naval
    forces operate almost exclusively in strike groups or ready
    groups with accompanying logistics ships. While such a model
    applied in the years following the end of the Cold War, today a
    smaller fleet, new missions, such as ballistic missile defense
    and counter-piracy, and improving adversary A2/AD capabilities
    cause strike groups and ready groups to disperse over more
    expansive areas. Additionally, global shipping systems place
    fuel and supplies at depots closer to naval forces, enabling
    logistics ships to shuttle them out to the fleet as opposed to
    having to carry them for the whole deployment.
        As the Navy finalizes the requirements for the new oiler,
    T-AO(X), the changes in naval operations and threats since its
    predecessor, the Henry J. Kaiser-class, was designed should be
    a foremost consideration. Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy,
    in coordination with U.S. Pacific Command, is directed to
    provide the committee a report no later than February 1, 2016,
    describing the requirements for T-AO(X) that addresses the
    following elements:
              (1) Ship's capacity for fuel, dry stores, and chilled
            or frozen stores;
              (2) Operational concept for fleet resupply that forms
            the basis for the T-AO(X) requirement, including how T-
            AO(X) will complement existing T-AKE class logistics
            ships and how the concept will evolve over the life of
            the T-AO(X) class;
              (3) Number of T-AO(X) hulls required, how this
            requirement addresses a more dispersed fleet and combat
            losses likely in a modern conflict, and how the
            requirement may evolve over the next 30 years;
              (4) How the T-AO(X) will be protected from missile
            and submarine attack as it supports a more widely
            distributed fleet; and
              (5) An analysis of various fleet resupply force
            structures to meet projected mission needs in the 2025
            timeframe, including: the current program of record, an
            alternative consisting a larger number of smaller ships
            with the same overall resupply capacity, and a mixture
            of the program of record and smaller ships.

    Comptroller General of the United States review of the implementation
            of recommendations from the National Commission on the
            Structure of the Air Force

        Section 1055 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
    McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
    (Public Law 113-291) requires that, not later than 30 days
    after the date of the submittal to Congress pursuant to section
    1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, of the budget of the
    President for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2019, the
    Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the congressional
    defense committees a report on the response of the Air Force to
    the 42 specific recommendations of the National Commission on
    the Structure of the Air Force in the report of the Commission
    pursuant to section 363(b) of the National Commission on the
    Structure of the Air Force Act of 2012 (subtitle G of title III
    of Public Law 112-19 239; 126 Stat. 1704). The committee
    received the initial report from the Secretary of the Air Force
    in March 2015.
        The committee is concerned that although the Air Force was
    required by the statute to provide discernible milestones for
    review of the recommendations or preliminary implementation
    plans, none were included in the initial report. Additionally,
    several of the Commission's recommendations concerned the force
    mix ratio between the active and reserve components, which the
    Air Force elected to review through its High Velocity Analysis
    process. None of the analysis from this process was included in
    the report.
        Additionally, section 138 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
    ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) required the Secretary of the
    Air Force to submit to the congressional defense committees an
    assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed transfer
    from one facility of the Department of Defense to another of C-
    130H or C-130J aircraft. The committee received this report in
    April 2015.
        The committee is concerned that while the Air Force stated
    it would provide a review of the force mix balance between the
    active and reserve components through its High Velocity
    Analysis process, and in response to specific recommendations
    of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force,
    no reference to observations, conclusions, or recommendations
    are found in the C-130 force structure report that refers to
    this High Velocity Analysis review process on the C-130 mission
    area.
        In addition, the report also contains no range or weighting
    of criteria, similar to the Air Force's strategic basing
    process, that would determine the operational effectiveness of
    stationing C-130 units at one location over another.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
    States to review the Air Force's methodology and effectiveness
    in its effort to plan for and implement the National Commission
    recommendations. The review should include, at a minimum,
    assessments of:
              (1) the Air Force's plans for review and
            implementation of the Commission's recommendations;
              (2) the sufficiency of the Air Force's High Velocity
            Analysis process to provide decision level information
            to senior Air Force leaders on appropriate force mix
            balance between the components;
              (3) the applicability and appropriateness of the
            models used in the High Velocity Analysis process;
              (4) the decision process used following data
            collection and analysis; and
              (5) any other matters the Comptroller General
            determines are appropriate during the review.
        The Comptroller General shall submit a preliminary review
    to the congressional defense committees not later than August
    31, 2015, and a final report to follow on February 1, 2016.

    Comptroller General review of the CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program

        The committee notes the estimated procurement costs for the
    first three CVN-78 class aircraft carriers are $12.9 billion,
    $11.3 billion, and $13.5 billion, respectively. In fiscal year
    2008, the procurement costs for these ships were estimated to
    be $10.5 billion, $9.2 billion, and $10.7 billion,
    respectively. The committee remains concerned with the current
    and potential future cost growth in this program. In light of
    the significant cost growth since the original estimates and
    substantial costs that continue to be requested for the CVN-78
    aircraft carrier program, the committee directs the Comptroller
    General of the United States to submit a report, not later than
    February 1, 2016, that includes analysis and recommendations
    for the following:
              (1) Cost estimates and cost estimating practices for
            the development and acquisition of the first three CVN-
            78 class aircraft carriers, including the factors that
            contributed to the quality of these estimates and the
            extent to which the cost estimates are reliable;
              (2) Effectiveness of current cost accounting and cost
            surveillance practices in providing reliable
            information for budget and program planning and
            execution, in light of the cost caps; and
              (3) Reporting format for CVN-78 aircraft carrier
            program costs, including annual budget requests and
            selected acquisition reports.

    Enhance cockpit displays to improve safety and mission effectiveness

        The committee notes that advancements in cockpit display
    technologies have the potential to improve safety and mission
    effectiveness for military aircrews operating a wide range of
    fixed wing and rotary aircraft. These technologies include but
    are not limited to enhanced vision and video overlays,
    integration of aircraft data with real world and stored
    imagery, ability to display three dimensional information, and
    ability to share information both on and off the aircraft. The
    committee also understands these technologies may be available
    as commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment.
        The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology & Logistics to investigate recently
    developed cockpit display technologies to improve flight safety
    and enhance mission effectiveness through improved situational
    awareness. The committee believes that Department of Defense
    may be able to improve flight safety, reduce aircrew workload
    and increase combat effectiveness by incorporating new cockpits
    display technologies into aircraft cockpits, to include the use
    of existing COTS systems.

    Expeditionary Health Services Systems

        The committee supports the Department of the Navy's
    Expeditionary Health Services Systems (EHSS) and notes with
    interest the goal of transitioning dated legacy systems to
    rapidly erectable Expeditionary Medical Facilities (EMF).
    Improving and/or correcting performance and safety issues in
    the EMF legacy systems should be a high priority in the Navy's
    EHSS Equipment Purchases. Therefore, the committee urges the
    Department of the Navy to make the modernization and upgrading
    of the EMFs a priority focused on improving the safety of
    legacy systems while upgrading their performance. This would
    include fast-tracking improved material technology insertion
    for immediate impact on legacy equipment.

    F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program

        The committee supports, and is committed to, the F-35 Joint
    Strike Fighter program. The committee notes the progress made
    in the System Development and Demonstration phase since the
    program was re-baselined following the Nunn-McCurdy breach in
    2011, generally achieving program schedule goals and driving
    aircraft flyaway costs downward despite ongoing technological
    challenges and deficiencies revealed in both hardware and
    software testing. The committee desires to increase the annual
    procurement quantities for all three variants insofar as
    program performance and available funding allow.
        The committee is concerned with the growing fighter force
    structure capacity shortfalls in the Departments of the Air
    Force and Navy due to delays in the F-35 program, noting the
    original program delivery plan expected to have 1,013 aircraft
    of all three variants delivered by fiscal year 2016, with
    actual and currently planned deliveries now only totaling 179.
    These program delivery delays occurred while legacy fighter
    aircraft continue to reach the end of their designed service
    lives, become increasingly less capable due to adversaries'
    technological advances, or are being divested in significant
    numbers due to shrinking defense budgets.
        The committee is also concerned that the Department of
    Defense established the requirement for the F-35 program of
    record total buy quantity under very different strategic
    circumstances nearly 20 years ago. In addition, prospective
    adversary technological advances and increased capabilities
    with regard to establishing contested combat environments,
    combined with updated threat assessments and an evolving
    national defense strategy, have significantly changed the
    calculus for force sizing constructs.
        The committee notes that the rapid pace of new
    technological developments in such areas as unmanned systems,
    robotics, cyber, directed energy, propulsion, hypersonics,
    nanotechnology, and composites, among many others, is pointing
    the way to the future. Moreover, 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.
        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
    F-35 Joint Strike Fighter total program of record quantity, or
    identify a new requirement for the total number of F-35
    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 and fulfilling warfighting
    capability and capacity requirements in the areas of an
    optimized force mix of long-range versus medium/short-range
    ISR/strike platforms; manned versus unmanned platforms;
    observability characteristics; land-based versus sea-based;
    advanced fourth-generation platforms of proven design; next
    generation air superiority capabilities; and promising, game-
    changing, advanced technology innovations.
        The required report may be classified, but must include an
    unclassified executive summary.

    Joint Standoff Weapon

        The committee is concerned with the lack of clarity in the
    Navy's proposal to terminate the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW).
    The Secretary of the Navy is directed to provide to the
    congressional defense committees, within 60 days of the
    enactment of this act, a detailed analysis of Navy JSOW
    inventory, wartime requirements and the impact of termination
    on U.S. war plans and JSOW Foreign Military Sales. Should the
    Navy's analysis determine the need for more JSOWs, the
    committee would be supportive of additional procurement.

    Land mobile radio

        The committee is aware that some U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR)
    installations may be operating with outdated installation
    security and public safety communications systems that do not
    support multiple-party conversations in the event of an
    emergency. A land mobile radio (LMR) study conducted by the
    Naval Surface Warfare Center--Crane found that insufficient
    radio coverage could occur between installations over large
    distances within the Army's Installation Management Command--
    Europe (IMCOM-E). In order to improve radio coverage, the study
    recommended that the Army join an initiative with the U.S. Air
    Force--Europe (USAFE) on its Enterprise Land Mobile Radio
    program. The committee also notes that cost savings may be
    realized if IMCOM-E and USAFE pursue a joint LMR system rather
    than if IMCOM-E upgrades its LMR independently. Additionally,
    migrating to a joint USAREUR-USAFE installation security
    network could allow for the reuse of system frequencies
    throughout the area, resulting in reduced spectrum use.
    Accordingly, the committee encourages IMCOM-E and USAFE to
    coordinate efforts to find and implement an effective and
    affordable system that meets requirements.

    Missile and munitions industrial base

        The committee is concerned by the fragility of the missile
    and munitions industrial base. Unstable and declining budgets
    and a lack of new start programs continue to pressure tier two
    and tier three suppliers, particularly in the solid rocket
    motor, fuse and energetic materials segments. The committee
    notes the importance of sustaining design engineering and
    systems integration skills and the critical sub-tier supply
    chain and is encouraged by Department of Defense efforts to
    mitigate some of the most acute risks. The committee looks
    forward to working with the Department to ensure a healthy
    missile and munitions industrial base.

    Modernization for Light Armored Vehicles

        The committee finds that the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV)
    Family of Vehicles (FoV) has been plagued by inadequate and
    unreliable power due to technological increases in
    communications, command and control, situational awareness,
    modern weapon systems, and an aging electrical infrastructure.
    The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue
    to seek ways to modernize the LAV FoV to meet the existing and
    future vehicle power requirements.

    Navy maritime security barriers

        Given the continued terrorist threat to U.S. military
    personnel and installations, the committee believes the
    department must seek to continually improve force protection
    measures. Security at Navy shipyards and bases depends not only
    on land-based security measures, but also on effective maritime
    barriers. As we tragically observed in the 2000 attack on the
    USS Cole, an attack against a U.S. vessel in port can result in
    a significant loss of American life.
        The committee understands that the maritime barriers on
    many Naval bases and shipyards may utilize dated technology
    that may not provide the best available protection.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
    to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no
    later than March 31, 2016. That report should: (1) assess the
    force protection capability of maritime barriers used by the
    Navy; (2) assess the force protection capability of maritime
    barriers that are currently available on the commercial market;
    (3) describe whether additional force protection capability
    could be achieved by employing new maritime barriers; (4)
    estimate acquisition costs for the alternative maritime
    barriers currently available on the commercial market; (5)
    compare the operating and support costs of current barriers
    with the projected operating and support costs of maritime
    barriers available on the commercial market; and (6) evaluate
    whether any potential increase in force protection capability,
    as well as potential reduced operating and support costs, would
    be worth the costs of deploying that capability. In assessing
    potential differences in force protection capability, the
    Secretary should examine such factors as the estimated stopping
    power and stopping distance of the respective maritime
    barriers.

    Navy training helicopters

        The committee is aware that the Navy and Army have used the
    TH-57 Sea Ranger and TH-67 Creek helicopters respectively for
    initial pilot training for more than 30 years. The TH-57 Sea
    Ranger has been a reliable and affordable training aircraft,
    however, this fleet of aircraft is becoming increasingly
    expensive to maintain and may require significant upgrades to
    extend the fleet's service life. The committee also notes that
    the Army has started to divest itself of the TH-67 Creek
    trainers and is procuring a modern, dual-engine training
    helicopter to improve initial pilot training and make pilot
    transitions to operational aircraft more effective and
    efficient.
        Given the challenges associated with the sustainment and
    cost to extend the life of the Navy's aging TH-57 fleet, the
    committee is interested to know the Navy's near and long-term
    plans for training helicopter modernization. Accordingly, the
    committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report
    on the TH-57 fleet to the Committee on Armed Services of the
    Senate no later than September 30, 2015. That report should
    provide: (1) an assessment of the current and a 5-year
    projection of TH-57 fleet reliability, including related
    maintenance and sustainment costs; and (2) the Navy's 10-year
    plan for training helicopter modernization, including funding
    profile and schedule assumed in the future years defense
    program, as provided in the fiscal year 2016 budget request.

    Night Vision Reset

        Night vision systems are an essential capability for
    successful conventional military and counterterrorism
    operations.
        As night vision technologies continue to proliferate around
    the world, 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
    notes that the Army has plans and programs in place to address
    the technological opportunities, operational requirements, and
    industrial base challenges associated with current and future
    night vision systems. In this regard, the committee encourages
    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.

    Patriot Product Improvement Future Lower Tier Sensor Alternatives

        The Congress supports retention of the Integrated Air and
    Missile Defense (IAMD) technical superiority in balance with
    affordability to protect our forces and our coalition partners.
    To that end, the Army is conducting an analysis of alternatives
    (AoA) to determine the future path for IAMD Lower Tier
    investment and modernization within the overarching IAMD
    Strategy.
        To achieve this end state, the Army should thoroughly
    assess and consider all alternatives for modernizing the Lower
    Tier Patriot radar, including system solutions incorporating
    Active Electronic Scan Array (AESA) and Gallium Nitride (GaN)
    technology insertion into the existing Lower Tier Patriot
    radar. The committee believes the Army analysis should also
    consider relative risks, affordability and lead times of
    alternatives to maintain this capability.
        The committee directs the Army to report within 90 days of
    completion of the AoA on the overall results of the AoA and on
    the relative merits of various technology options to sustain
    and modernize the existing Patriot radar.

    Route and area clearance mine protected vehicles

        The budget request included $131.0 million in Other
    Procurement, Army for the modification of in service equipment
    that would upgrade a mix of route and area clearance mine
    protected vehicles. Route and area clearance mine protected
    vehicles, such as the Panther, Husky, Buffalo, and RG31, are
    special purpose vehicles with a combination of on board mine
    detection and clearing capabilities. All of these vehicles have
    been proven effective by U.S. forces and those of other nations
    in detecting and countering improvised explosive devices in
    combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        The committee notes that the Army plans to retain 1,840 of
    these route and area clearance mine protected vehicles for
    distribution to units, pre-positioned stocks, training, and for
    repair cycle spares. Of these, 650 would be Husky and 324 would
    be Buffalo vehicles.
        The committee understands that the budget request would
    complete the Army's acquisition objective for the Buffalo and
    Husky, however, the committee is concerned that to date neither
    of them has a sustainment or modernization plan. Therefore, the
    committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the
    Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
    Representatives, no later than 120 days after the date of the
    enactment of this Act, a report detailing plans to sustain and
    modernize the route and area clearance mine protected vehicle
    fleet. The report required shall include details regarding the
    plan's schedule as well as funding profiles in relevant
    research and development and procurement accounts from fiscal
    year 2017 to fiscal year 2020.

    San Antonio-Class Amphibious Transport Dock program

        The committee recognizes final requirements are still under
    development for the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock
    ship designated LPD-28 and expects the fiscal year 2017 budget
    request to fully fund LPD-28 in the future years defense
    program.

    Single-source providers of critical acquisition program components

        The committee notes with concern the February 2015 fire in
    the United Kingdom that destroyed the factory of the single-
    source provider of propellers for C-130J aircraft.
        While the committee received assurances from the Air Force
    that actions have been taken to avoid C-130J manufacturing
    delays, the committee is concerned there are other single-
    source or single-location providers of critical components of
    major defense acquisition programs where the loss of which, for
    any reason, could undermine the national security interests of
    the United States.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
    classified report to the congressional defense committees, not
    later than February 1, 2016, that identifies major defense
    acquisition programs with operational implications, a list of
    critical components of such major defense acquisition programs
    provided by single-source and/or single-provider suppliers, the
    severity of the operational impact of the loss of such
    suppliers, and risk management actions with associated
    implementation plans and timelines the Department will take to
    prevent negative operational impact in the event of such loss.

    Standoff precision guided weapons

        As the air and missile defense capabilities of potential
    adversaries rapidly advance, the ability of the U.S. Armed
    Forces to employ short-range precision guided weapons such as
    Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) will be increasingly
    challenged. The capability to employ precision guided weapons
    at standoff ranges in large numbers will be necessary to ensure
    operational success in any high-end engagement. Advanced
    weapons such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile--
    Extended Range (JASSM-ER), the Longe Range Anti-Ship Missile
    (LRASM), the Tomahawk missile and others will be key elements
    in attack execution, but are cost prohibitive to use in the
    numbers that future strike scenarios may require.
        The committee is concerned the Navy is not adequately
    planning for a future environment in which large scale use of
    standoff precision guided munitions is a prerequisite for
    victory. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
    provide, prior to submission of the fiscal year 2017 budget
    request, a report on the Navy's plan for standoff precision
    guided munitions in the 2025-2030 timeframe to include ship-,
    submarine- and air-launched weapons. The report should include
    what actions are being taken to ensure that cost-effective
    solutions are part of the planning. The Navy should provide
    this information in an unclassified report with an accompanying
    classified annex.

    Unmanned Undersea Vehicles

        The sophistication and endurance of autonomous undersea
    vehicles (AUVs) are dramatically improving as they incorporate
    new civilian and military technologies. Vehicles in development
    will likely be able to take over some missions performed today
    by submarines, reducing stress on the force and enabling
    greater capacity for undersea warfare. The decision-making
    limitations of AUVs, however, will constrain the degree to
    which they can replace or augment submarines for the
    foreseeable future.
        A large number of AUVs are in development. However, the
    committee is concerned that the size and capabilities of these
    AUVs are not necessarily well suited for the missions they can
    perform. For example, AUVs that are small enough to be carried
    on submarines are not likely to have space for the redundant
    power and control systems needed to support independent long-
    endurance operations. They may be best suited for missions
    where the AUV is expended or acts as an extension of the host
    submarine's sensors or weapons. Conversely, large AUVs that can
    carry redundant power and control systems are likely to be
    launched from shore or large surface ships, and may be best
    suited for long-endurance surveillance or transport missions.
    Vehicles in the middle, such as the Large Displacement Unmanned
    Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV), are too large and expensive to deploy
    in quantity but are likely too small to host the systems needed
    for long-endurance independent operations.
        As AUVs transition from science and technology projects to
    acquisition programs, the Navy should assess the number and
    type of AUVs needed so it can most effectively use the
    resources allocated to these systems. Therefore, the Secretary
    of the Navy is directed to provide the committee a report no
    later than February 1, 2016, describing its projected AUV force
    structure requirement for 2025 that addresses the following:
              (1) The missions expected to be conducted by
            different AUV classes and how this mission set relates
            to current and future submarine mission sets;
              (2) The different AUV classes, as well as other
            deployable undersea sensor and communications systems,
            anticipated in this timeframe and their host
            platform(s), as appropriate; and
              (3) The required number of AUVs in each class and the
            impact, if any, on submarine force structure
            requirements.
        In the report on the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
    McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
    (Report 113-176), the committee expressed its belief that the
    Navy should, where feasible, take full advantage of existing
    expertise and infrastructure at the public shipyards for
    unmanned undersea vehicle development and maintenance.
        The committee continues to expect the Navy to capitalize,
    where feasible, on existing expertise and infrastructure at the
    public shipyards for research, development, engineering,
    configuration management, acquisition support, technical
    problem solving, and operations and logistics support,
    including life-cycle maintenance and mission package support.

    Vehicle occupant protection technology

        The committee has followed with interest the development of
    unique technology to detect and autonomously respond to
    underbody explosive incidents with an active response to
    counter vehicle flight and reduce the physical effects on
    occupants. The committee is interested in the testing conducted
    under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between
    industry and the Army. The committee directs the Secretary of
    the Army to submit a report within 90 days of enactment of this
    Act which evaluates the results of the testing on this
    technology.
             TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

                  Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

    Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)
        This provision 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

    Centers for science, technology, and engineering partnership (sec. 211)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    Chapter 139 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
    program that would enhance the Department of Defense
    laboratories with innovative academic and industry partners in
    research and development activities. The provision would enable
    more effective transfer of laboratory-generated innovations to
    small businesses and other industry partners to promote their
    transition into military systems or for development into
    commercial technologies. The provision would also improve the
    overall quality of research efforts, while reducing the costs
    of ownership and maintenance of world-class research
    infrastructure, and enhance the return on taxpayer investment
    in facilities and personnel at the laboratories. The provision
    is modeled on similar authority that has been provided to
    Department of Defense agencies by Congress under the Center of
    Industrial and Technical Excellence program. The provision is
    also supportive of the Department's ``Better Buying Power''
    efforts to ``improve the return on investment in Department of
    Defense laboratories.''
        The labs have a tradition of partnerships with industry and
    academia that has led to significant advances in mission areas
    and technologies ranging from robotics to cyber security to
    aeronautics. A recent example is the development of the Army
    Research Laboratory's (ARL's) ``Open Campus''' initiative, the
    goal of which is to develop processes and engagements through
    which the academic community, industry, small business, and
    other government laboratories can efficiently engage with ARL's
    specialized research staff and unique technical facilities in a
    broad range of Army technology mission areas. Another is the
    Air Force Research Laboratory partnership with the Wright
    Brothers Institute on the Tec-Edge Innovation and Collaboration
    Center, which promotes public-private research partnerships in
    unmanned air systems, advanced sensors, and rapid prototyping
    of advanced materials. The committee believes that more can be
    done to encourage and strengthen these types of activities.
        A recent report by the Institute for Defense Analyses
    indicates that mutually beneficial partnerships between
    Department of Defense laboratories and academia ``are not as
    abundant as those in the intramural research programs at the
    Department of Energy.'' The committee believes that this
    provision would support the enhancement of beneficial
    activities with both academia and the private sector.
    Department of Defense technology offset program to build and maintain
            the military technological superiority of the United States
            (sec. 212)
        The committee notes with concern that the United States has
    not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the
    end of World War II, and that taken together, they constitute
    the greatest challenge in a generation to the integrity of the
    liberal world order, which has consistently been underwritten
    by U.S. military technological superiority. At the same time,
    the committee is alarmed by the apparent erosion in recent
    years of this technological advantage, which is in danger of
    disappearing altogether. To prevent such a scenario and to
    maintain the country's global military technological edge, the
    committee recommends a provision that would establish a new
    $400.0 million initiative.
        In doing so, the committee notes that the Defense
    Department is facing an emerging innovation gap. Commercial
    research and development in the United States now represents 80
    percent of the national total, and the top four U.S. defense
    contractors combined spend only one-quarter of what the single
    biggest internet company does on research and development.
    Furthermore, global research and development is now more than
    twice that of the United States. The committee also notes that
    defense innovation is moving too slowly--in cycles that can
    last up to 18 years, whereas commercial innovation can be
    measured in cycles of 18 months or less.
        The committee understands that accessing sources of
    innovation beyond the Defense Department is critical for
    national security, particularly in the areas of directed
    energy, low-cost high-speed munitions, cyber capabilities,
    autonomous systems, undersea warfare, and intelligence data
    analytics. However, there are currently too many barriers that
    limit cooperation with U.S. allies and global commercial firms,
    posing a threat to the country's future military technological
    dominance.
        For the past several years, U.S. adversaries have been
    rapidly improving their own military capabilities to counter
    our unique advantages. Structural trends, such as the diffusion
    of certain advanced military technologies, pose new operational
    challenges to U.S. armed forces. As a result, the dominance of
    the United States military can no longer be taken for granted.
    Consequently, the Department of Defense must remain focused on
    the myriad potential threats of the future and thus maintain
    technological superiority against potential adversaries.
        The committee notes that since 1960, the department has
    invested more than $6.0 billion in directed energy science and
    technology initiatives. The committee is 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 is encouraged by the Navy's demonstration a 100-150
    kilowatt prototype laser and by the Air Force's demonstration
    of high-powered electromagnetic weapons capabilities. However,
    the committee is concerned about the future of directed energy
    technologies as a whole. The committee notes that there is no
    inter-service entity dedicated to advancing promising directed
    energy platforms beyond the development point towards
    acquisition.
        The committee is encouraged that the department established
    a department-wide Defense Innovation Initiative in November
    2014 to pursue innovative ways to sustain and advance our
    military superiority and to improve business operations
    throughout the department. However, the committee is concerned
    by the possibility that this initiative is not being
    implemented in an appropriate and expeditious manner.
        In response to these factors, the committee recommends a
    provision that would establish an initiative within the
    Department of Defense to maintain and enhance the military
    technological superiority of the United States. The provision
    would establish a program to accelerate the fielding of offset
    technologies, including, but not limited to, directed energy,
    low-cost high-speed munitions, autonomous systems, undersea
    warfare, cyber technology, and intelligence data analytics,
    developed by the department and to accelerate the
    commercialization of such technologies. As part of this
    program, the committee expects that the Secretary of Defense
    would also establish updated policies and new acquisition and
    management practices that would speed the delivery of offset
    technologies into operational use.
        The provision would authorize $400.0 million for fiscal
    year 2016 for the initiative, of which $200.0 million would be
    authorized specifically for directed energy technology.
    Accordingly, the provision would mandate the Secretary to
    develop a directed energy strategy to ensure that appropriate
    technologies are developed and deployed at an accelerated pace,
    and update it every 2 years. The committee expects that this
    strategy would include a recommendation on rationalizing the
    roles and authorities of the Joint Technology Office for High
    Energy Lasers. The provision would further direct the Secretary
    to submit this strategy to the Senate Armed Services Committee
    and the House Armed Services Committee no later than 90 days
    after completing the strategy, and biennially thereafter.
        To speed up the development of these vitally needed
    national security capabilities, the committee directs that the
    Secretary of Defense shall consider all appropriate flexible
    acquisition authorities granted in law and in this Act. These
    should include the management structure and streamlined
    procedures for rapid prototyping outlined in section 803 of
    this Act on the middle tier of acquisition for rapid
    prototyping and rapid fielding, and the procedures and
    authorities to be considered under section 805 of this Act on
    use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical
    national security capabilities to include other transactions,
    rapid acquisition, and commercial item authorities.
        The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would
    keep the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
    Committee on Armed Services regularly updated on progress of
    activities under this technology offsets initiative.
    Reauthorization of Defense Research and Development Rapid Innovation
            Program (sec. 213)
        The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    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 DOD
    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 the
    congressional defense components participating in the program
    have practices and tools in place to manage and monitor the
    execution of projects.
        According to the Government Accountability Office, some
    completed projects have already successfully transitioned
    technology to acquisition programs and other military users
    through the Rapid Innovation Program. In addition, the DOD
    estimates that 50 percent of all fiscal year 2011 funding
    projects have out-year funding commitments from military users
    indicating the likelihood that they will transition
    technologies. The Government Accountability Office assessed
    projects scheduled to be completed through July 2014 and found
    that 50 percent successfully transitioned to acquisition
    programs or other users. Although it is too soon to accurately
    assess the overall success of the Rapid Innovation Program, the
    committee is encouraged by the results achieved thus far. The
    committee notes that the Rapid Innovation Program has been
    highlighted as a part of the department's Better Buying Power
    Acquisition Initiative.
        The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize
    the Rapid Innovation Program for an additional 5 years. At the
    same time, the committee recommends that the DOD takes steps to
    ensure that the selection of projects through the Program is
    not subject to improper influence outside of the established
    selection process.
    Reauthorization of Global Research Watch Program (sec. 214)
        The committee notes that since its inception in 2003, the
    Global Research Watch Program has made significant progress
    toward its program goals, as outlined in the original
    authorizing legislation. The committee also notes that the
    current authorization in section 2365 of title 10, United
    States Code, will expire on September 30, 2015.
        Consequently, the committee recommends a provision that
    would reauthorize the program for an additional 10 years. The
    committee further recommends that the program be expanded to
    include private sector persons as part of its global focus. The
    definition of ``person'' is in section 1 of title 1, United
    States Code, and it includes corporations, companies,
    associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock
    companies.
    Science and technology activities to support business systems
            information technology acquisition programs (sec. 215)
        The committee recommends a provision that would mandate the
    establishment of science and technology activities that would
    help reduce the technical risk and life cycle costs of major
    information technology acquisition programs. The committee
    notes that the Government Accountability Office and the
    Director of Operational Test and Evaluation have repeatedly
    reported to Congress failures in the acquisition of major
    information technology business systems programs. Among these
    are the Expeditionary Combat Support System and the Defense
    Integrated Military Human Resources System, which spent
    billions of dollars and delivered no useful capability.
        The committee notes that current information technology
    programs, including those intended to support efforts at
    achieving audit ability, track pay and personnel records, and
    manage health care information, are also not performing in a
    manner that inspires confidence in the delivery of useful
    technologies within current cost and schedule estimates.
        The committee believes that failures of these acquisition
    programs are the result of myriad causes, one of which is the
    weakness of the Department of Defense's acquisition workforce
    in developing and deploying these systems. The Department does
    not internally employ or have external access to expertise that
    can develop and technically manage these programs. The
    Department also does not maintain sufficient expertise to
    support the modification of antiquated business processes,
    thereby precluding department-wide organizational support by
    commercially-available modern information technology products
    and services. Furthermore, the Department does not have the
    testing infrastructure or workforce expertise to adequately
    ensure that systems will perform when deployed.
        The committee believes another cause of failure is the
    expensive and technically complex modification of commercially
    available software to support perceived departmental needs. The
    business systems covered in this provision support business
    functions that are similar to those found in the private
    sector, such as accounting, contract management, health
    records, and pay systems. The Department lacks the expertise to
    modify their antiquated and labor-intensive business processes
    so that lower-cost, commercially-available solutions can be
    applied to support departmental operations. Instead, the
    Department employs contractors to customize commercial software
    programs with the expectation that they can support existing
    processes, thereby expending minimal effort or rigor to modify
    the processes themselves.
        Finally, the committee believes these programs are
    suffering from the same cybersecurity challenges that all
    private and public sector information technology programs are
    facing. Given the importance of these systems in supporting
    departmental operations and deployed forces, they can be
    inviting targets for cyberattack.
        The committee's recommended provision is based on the
    precepts built into the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act
    of 2009 and in the strong tradition of developing technical
    expertise to improve acquisition outcomes of conventional
    weapons systems. The provision would require the Department to
    fund appropriate research, development, and capability-building
    activities to make it a ``smarter buyer'' of these programs.
    Activities under the program would include using industry,
    academic, and government expertise to: develop technologies and
    processes that manage the customization of commercial software
    in a cost-effective manner; control problems when attempting to
    scale commercial solutions to the scope of the defense
    enterprise; and secure the networks, computers, and information
    associated with these programs. The provision would also
    support the development of smaller-scale information technology
    prototypes with limited deployments that can then be scaled to
    full operational capability.
        The provision, if implemented, would also spur the
    Department to engage with industry and academia to address the
    business process and management issues that currently haunt
    these programs. The committee notes that there is significant
    business management expertise resident in academia and the
    private sector, yet it is rarely engaged to address management
    challenges facing department and costing taxpayers billions of
    dollars.
        The committee believes that successful implementation of
    this provision would help build the expertise and tools
    necessary to develop information technology business systems in
    the future. The committee also believes that these efforts,
    when applied to the management of business information
    technology systems, would improve cost, schedule, and
    performance outcomes.
    Expansion of eligibility for financial assistance under Department of
            Defense science, mathematics, and research for transformation
            program to include citizens of countries participating in the
            technical cooperation program (sec. 216)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2192a of title 10, United States Code, to expand the
    Department of Defense's Science, Mathematics, and Research for
    Transformation (SMART) program, which awards service-based
    scholarships to students studying in the fields of science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics, to include students
    from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
    The selection of these countries is based on those which are
    currently parties to the Technical Cooperation Program
    Memorandum of Understanding of October 24, 1995.
        Current authority for the program limits scholarship awards
    to only U.S. citizens. However, National Science Foundation
    data indicate that over 50 percent of engineering doctorates
    are granted to foreign graduate students, with the percentage
    growing annually. By removing this restriction, the Department
    can recruit foreign nationals from these four countries to
    participate in the program, with the goal of bringing on the
    best and brightest students to defense laboratories. The
    limited easing of this restriction would serve as a pilot
    project for assessing potential future expansion of this
    authority to other friendly countries.
    Streamlining the Joint Federated Assurance Center (sec. 217)
        The committee recommends a provision that would streamline
    the structure of the Joint Federated Assurance Center (JFAC).
        Section 937 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) established JFAC to serve
    as a joint, department-wide federation of existing capabilities
    to ensure security in the software and hardware developed,
    acquired, maintained, and used by the Department of Defense.
    Section 937 directed the Center for Assured Software of the
    National Security Agency to coordinate research and development
    to improve software assurance and the Defense Microelectronics
    Activity to coordinate research and development to improve
    hardware assurance. These designations resulted in an
    unnecessary layer of bureaucracy in the JFAC structure and
    should be eliminated.
    Limitation on availability of funds for development of the Shallow
            Water Combat Submersible (sec. 218)
        The committee remains concerned about cost and schedule
    overruns associated with U.S. Special Operations Command's
    (SOCOM) undersea mobility acquisition programs generally and,
    specifically, the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS)
    program.
        According to the Government Accountability Office,
    approximately $677.5 million was expended to develop and
    procure the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) to fill
    SOCOM's requirement for a dry combat submersible for special
    operations personnel, more than $600.0 million over original
    budget projections. The ASDS program suffered from ineffective
    contract oversight, technical challenges, and reliability and
    performance issues. Unfortunately, the SWCS program has
    experienced many of the same deficiencies as its predecessor.
        In June 2014, the SWCS program was re-baselined as a result
    of significant cost and schedule overruns. Less than a year
    after this re-baselining, the SWCS program is again 19 percent
    over budget and 21 percent behind schedule (as of January
    2015). Overall, the committee understands the engineering and
    management development phase of the program is approximately
    126 percent over budget and more than a year behind schedule.
        The committee has sought to encourage better acquisition
    oversight of the SWCS program through various legislative
    provisions and report language in past National Defense
    Authorization Acts. For example, the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)
    directed the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
    Operations and Low-intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) to provide a
    report to the congressional defense committees on cost and
    schedule overruns associated with the SWCS program and efforts
    to correct such deficiencies. The National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) also
    clarified that the SOCOM Acquisition Executive is subordinate
    to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
    and Logistics (USD AT&L) for acquisition matters and directed
    the USD AT&L and ASD SOLIC to improve oversight of SOCOM
    acquisition programs--particularly those special operations-
    peculiar platforms, like SWCS, that are at greatest risk of
    incurring delays and additional costs. Lastly, the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
    81) directed increased oversight of SOCOM undersea acquisition
    programs by the USD AT&L, but exempted the SWCS program from
    such requirements at the request of SOCOM due to perceived
    program stability and low technological risk at the time.
        Given the concerns outlined above, the committee recommends
    a provision that would prohibit the expenditure of more than 25
    percent of the funds available for the SWCS program for fiscal
    year 2016 until the USD (AT&L) designates a civilian official
    within his office responsible for providing oversight and
    assistance to SOCOM for all undersea mobility programs and, in
    coordination with the ASD SOLIC, provides the congressional
    defense committees a report on the SWCS program outlining:
              (1) An analysis of the reasons for cost and schedule
            overruns associated with the SWCS program;
              (2) The revised timeline for SWCS initial and full
            operational capability;
              (3) The projected cost to meet the basis of issue
            requirement;
              (4) A plan to prevent, identify, and mitigate any
            additional cost and schedule overruns;
              (5) Any opportunities to recover cost or schedule;
              (6) Any lessons learned from the SWCS program that
            could be applied to future undersea mobility
            acquisition programs; and
              (7) Any other matters the Under Secretary deems
            relevant.
    Limitation on availability of funds for distributed common ground
            system of the Army (sec. 219)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for
    the Department of Defense by section 201 and available for
    research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, for the
    distributed common ground system of the Army (DCGS-A), not more
    than 75 percent may be obligated or expended until the
    Secretary of the Army reviews program planning and submits to
    congressional defense committees, the Select Committee on
    Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent Select Committee
    on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a report. The
    report is to address segmentation of software components;
    identification of commercial software capable of fulfilling
    DCGS-A system requirements; cost analysis; determination of
    commercial software compliance relative to guidance in
    Intelligence Community Technology Enterprise, the Defense
    Intelligence Information Enterprise, and the Joint Information
    Environment; identification of software which may be acquired
    through competitive means; an acquisition plan; and a review of
    the time table for the DCGS-A program.
    Limitation on availability of funds for Distributed Common Ground
            System of the United States Special Operations Command (sec.
            220)
        The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
    availability of research, development, test, and evaluation
    funds for the distributed common ground system of the U.S.
    Special Operations Command (SOCOM) until the Commander of SOCOM
    submits a report to the committee.

                           Subtitle C--Other Matters

    Assessment of air-land mobile tactical communications and data network
            requirements and capabilities (sec. 231)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to
    contract with an independent entity to conduct a comprehensive
    assessment of current and future requirements and capabilities
    to determine the technological feasibility, achievability,
    suitability, and survivability of a tactical communications and
    data network. Subject to the submission of the independent
    entity's report, the provision would prohibit the Secretary of
    the Army from obligating more that 50 percent of funds
    available in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Warfighter
    Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T), Increment 2.
        WIN-T, in its current or previous forms, has been in
    development for over 10 years with numerous changes in
    requirements, technology, architecture, and acquisition
    strategy. Most recently, the committee has received notice from
    the Secretary of the Army of a Nunn-McCurdy significant breach
    for WIN-T.
        WIN-T is designed to ensure effective and efficient mission
    command both ``at-the-halt'' and while ``on-the-move.'' WIN-T's
    currently fielded configuration, called ``Increment 1'', was
    assessed as providing suitable and effective enterprise
    tactical communications and data networking ``at the halt'' or
    while stationary or in fixed sites. Technology improvements
    planned for WIN-T's next configuration, called ``Increment 2'',
    are intended to achieve communications and data networking for
    forces ``on the move.'' Increment 2, however, faces many
    challenges.
        Given these technical challenges, the committee is
    concerned about the feasibility of an effective and affordable
    mobile tactical communications and data network. The budget
    request included $783.1 million in Other Procurement, Army
    (OPA) for WIN-T. The committee recommends a decrease of $200.0
    million in OPA only for WIN-T, Increment 2.

    Study of field failures involving counterfeit electronic parts (sec.
            232)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to task the Joint Federated Assurance
    Center (JFAC) to conduct a hardware assurance study to assess
    the presence, scope, and effect on Department of Defense
    operations of counterfeit electronic parts that have passed
    through the Department of Defense supply chain and into fielded
    systems.
        In recent years, the committee has expressed concern about
    counterfeit electronic parts in the Department of Defense
    supply chain. To address this threat, the committee established
    JFAC to support the trusted defense system needs of the
    Department of Defense. At the direction of the committee, both
    Department of Defense and the Comptroller General of the United
    States have reviewed and analyzed reports relating to
    counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts submitted
    to the Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP). While
    past reports based on GIDEP data have provided insight into
    counterfeit parts detected in the supply chain, they have not
    addressed those counterfeit parts that have made it through the
    supply chain and into fielded systems.

    Demonstration of persistent close air support capabilities (sec. 233)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Army, and the
    Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    (DARPA) to jointly conduct a demonstration of the Persistent
    Close Air Support (PCAS) capability in fiscal year 2016. The
    provision would require that the Air Force use in the
    demonstration at least two platforms with which the Air Force
    intends to employ future CAS missions.
        The demonstration would require operations featuring
    multiple tactical radio networks representing diverse ground
    force user communities; two-way digital exchanges of
    situational awareness data, video, and calls for fire between
    aircraft and ground users without modification to aircraft
    operational flight programs (OFP); real-time sharing of
    friendly forces, aircraft, and target location data to reduce
    fratricide risks; and lightweight digital tools, such as
    tablets and smart phones, based on commercial-off-the-shelf
    technology for pilots and joint terminal air controllers
    (JTACs). The provision would require operations in both simple
    and complex operating environments--the latter to stress the
    process of synchronization between pilots and JTACs.
        The provision would also require the Secretary of the Air
    Force, the Secretary of the Army, and the Director of DARPA to
    jointly assess the impact of the demonstrated capabilities on
    the time required to conduct CAS operations, on friendly force
    effectiveness in achieving tactical objectives, and on the risk
    of fratricide and collateral damage; and to estimate the costs
    that would be incurred in transitioning this technology to the
    Army and the Air Force.
        The committee notes that despite advances in networking,
    computer processing, and digital displays, close air support
    has not materially changed in the decades since the
    introduction of precision-guided munitions. In many cases,
    pilots and ground controllers still rely on voice
    communications and paper maps to try to achieve a common
    understanding to exactly identify and locate desired targets.
    In complex urban environments, this synchronization process can
    take up to an hour and still not adequately reduce the risk of
    fratricide or collateral damage.
        This situation has persisted because there are dozens of
    aircraft that perform close air support (CAS), even more
    numbers of different types of sensors employed, and a large
    array of different radios, target designation methods,
    peripheral equipment, and displays. Additionally, OFPs to
    update software embedded in aircraft avionics systems are all
    on different and lengthy upgrade cycles.
        In response to this problem, the Joint Requirements
    Oversight Council, in 2009, in its Close Air Support
    Capabilities-Based Assessment, recommended that ``Platforms
    should field flexible systems that utilize an improved
    architecture which migrates the processing of digital messages
    to a Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) based processor and away
    from the [aircraft] operational flight programs.''
        DARPA has achieved some level of success in implementing
    that recommendation through its PCAS program, shrinking
    synchronization time by a factor of five in simple environments
    and a factor of 10 in more complex situations. DARPA achieved
    this with off-the-shelf commodity products and radios in
    lightweight and easily installable form factors, without
    affecting individual aircraft OFPs.
        The Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command
    (SOCOM) are currently transitioning PCAS into fielded
    capabilities with over 5,000 and 2,000 users, respectively. The
    committee is persuaded that DARPA's approach holds sufficient
    promise of rapid and affordable improvements in close air
    support--with the potential to save lives and win on the
    battlefield--to warrant serious consideration by the Army and
    the Air Force, the largest consumer and provider of close air
    support in the Department of Defense.

    Airborne data link plan (sec. 234)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
    Logistics and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
    jointly develop a plan, in consultation with the Secretary of
    the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy, to enable secure
    and survivable communications between and among fifth- and
    fourth-generation fighter aircraft, and the aircraft that
    support them, in anti-access/area denial environments. The
    capabilities to be covered by the plan include gateways and
    direct data links for the reception and dissemination of
    intelligence from and to low-observable aircraft and fifth-
    generation fighters of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.
        The provision would require the plan to achieve these
    communication capabilities with minimal changes to the outer
    surfaces of the aircraft and to the operational flight programs
    of these aircraft. The provision would also require that the
    plan include non-proprietary and open systems approaches that
    are compatible with the Open Missions Systems initiative of the
    Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) and the Future
    Airborne Capability Environment of the Navy.
        Finally, the provision would prohibit the obligation and
    expenditure of funds on the Talon Hate and Multi-domain
    Adaptable Processing System interim or bridge solutions to
    these interoperability problems until the congressional defense
    committees are briefed on the plan.
        The committee is concerned by the Department's failure to
    address a critical shortfall with regard to secure and
    survivable communications among and between advanced and legacy
    platforms. There is widespread agreement that next-generation
    air dominance hinges on highly networked ``systems of
    systems,'' and yet the Department lacks an integrated plan to
    securely share national-level intelligence information with
    combat aircraft, or to receive data from the sophisticated
    sensors on board those aircraft. The Nation's premier fifth-
    generation fighters, built by the same prime contractor,
    utilize unique proprietary data links that cannot securely
    communicate with one another, nor with fourth-generation
    fighters and other supporting aircraft.
        The Air Force is expending substantial funds on interim
    solutions in the form of pods or other gateway solutions on a
    small fraction of the F-15 fleet, but these are neither robust
    nor survivable. The Air Force sponsored a promising
    demonstration called Project Missouri, to link the F-22 and the
    F-35 via an L-band low-probability of intercept data link using
    existing common apertures in conformance with the AFRCO Open
    Mission Systems initiative, but is no longer pursuing the
    effort. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) mandated
    the use of the F-35 Multi-function Advanced Data Link (MADL) on
    the F-22 and B-2, but the Air Force has refused to comply due
    to cost and complexity barriers. OSD will not rescind its
    mandate, thus discouraging innovation and competition.

    Report on the technology readiness levels of the technologies and
            capabilities critical to the Long Range Strike Bomber aircraft
            (sec. 235)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress, not later
    than 180 days after enactment of this Act, on the technology
    readiness levels of the technologies and capabilities critical
    to the Long Range Strike Bomber aircraft. The provision would
    also direct the Comptroller General of the United States to
    review the report and provide an assessment to the
    congressional defense committees of the matters contained in
    the report.

                                  Budget Items

    Army defense research sciences

        The budget request included $239.1 million in PE 61102A for
    defense research sciences. The committee notes that the budget
    request for Army basic research has been reduced across the
    board by almost 8 percent relative to the amount enacted in
    fiscal year 2015. Such reductions would likely have a
    significant negative impact on the Department of Defense's
    ability to advance technology development.
        The committee notes that basic research activities focused
    in technical areas of interest to Department missions lay the
    foundation upon which other technology development and new
    defense systems are built. These programs fund efforts at
    universities, small businesses, and government laboratories.
    These investments also serve to help train the next generation
    of scientists and engineers who may work on defense technology
    problems in government, industry, and academia.
        To help address the significant reduction in basic research
    funding, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million
    in PE 61102A. The committee directs that these funds be awarded
    through well-established and competitive processes that already
    exist for defense research sciences.

    High-performance computing modernization

        The budget request included $177.2 million in PE 63461A for
    the high-performance computing modernization program. The
    committee notes that the budget request in this program has
    been reduced by over $40.0 million relative to the amount
    enacted in fiscal year 2015. The committee believes, however,
    that greater efforts could be made to take advantage of
    commercially-available technology, which is often as
    sophisticated, if not more sophisticated, than technology
    developed by the Department of Defense. The committee believes
    that additional savings could be found by engaging more
    comprehensively with the private sector and the Department of
    Energy national labs. Therefore, the committee recommends a
    program decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63461A.

    Infantry support weapons

        The budget request included $74.1 million in PE 64601A for
    infantry support weapons of which $20.3 million would be for
    small arms improvement and $3.1 million would be for the common
    remotely operated weapons station (CROWS). The committee
    recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 64601A of which
    $1.5 million would be for small arms improvement and $1.0
    million would be for CROWS.

    Integrated personnel and pay systems for Army and Air Force

        The budget request included $136.0 million in PE 65018A for
    Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army (IPPS-A) and $69.7
    million in PE 65018F for AF Integrated Personnel and Pay System
    (AFIPPS). These two integrated personnel and pay systems are
    Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) business system intended to
    replace legacy human resource systems used by the Army and Air
    Force.
        The committee is concerned that the current life-cycle
    costs for IPPS-A and AFIPPS are now $2.0 billion and $1.8
    billion respectively.
        The committee believes the Army and Air Force should each
    restructure their versions of integrated pay and personnel
    systems to achieve a low-risk, low-cost improvement to human
    resource challenges. Doing so would allow the Army and Air
    Force greater resources to address its combat readiness and
    modernization needs.
        The committee directs the Secretaries of the Army and Air
    Force, in coordination with the Deputy Chief Management
    Officer, to develop alternatives to the current integrated
    personnel and pay system strategy of ERP implementation. These
    alternative strategies should:
              (1) Reduce errors for pay and benefits for
            servicemembers, including reserve component
            servicemembers;
              (2) Provide accurate, timely, and reliable
            information about pay and benefits accessible by
            servicemembers and auditors (as appropriate);
              (3) Reduce costs for the Department in administering
            pay and benefits with a significant return on
            investment (ROI) of less than 2 years;
              (4) Provide accurate financial information with
            strong internal controls that is retrievable,
            traceable, and reproducible for financial statement
            audits; and
              (5) Leverage the existing investment and capabilities
            of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
            for military and civilian pay.
        The committee notes that these strategies will not be
    limited to the implementation or improvement of a business
    system solution only but must also address the business
    processes of the Army and the Air Force for their respective
    human resource activity.
        As a result of this restructuring, the committee recommends
    a decrease of $50.0 million for research and development of
    IPPS-A and a decrease of $45.4 million for AFIPPS.
        Further, the committee directs the Army and Air Force to
    provide an interim report on its restructure alternatives by
    March 30, 2016 and a final report by September 30, 2016.

    Common infrared countermeasures

        The budget request included $77.6 million in PE 65035A for
    common infrared countermeasures (CIRCM). The committee
    recommends an increase of $24.0 million in PE 65035A for CIRCM.
    Additional funding for CIRCM system development was included on
    the Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priorities list.

    Aircraft survivability development

        The budget request included $18.1 million in PE 65051A for
    aircraft survivability development. The committee recommends an
    increase of $60.0 million in PE 65051A for common missile
    warning system. Additional funding for common missile warning
    system development was included on the Chief of Staff of the
    Army's unfunded priorities list.

    Joint Tactical Radio System

        The budget request included $13.0 million in PE 65380A for
    the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) of which $6.8 million
    would be for the Small Airborne Link 16 Terminal (SALT) radio.
    The committee notes that the Army is installing an already
    available Link 16 capability onto its attack helicopter fleet
    and may reevaluate whether SALT will be the objective
    capability for Army aviation. The committee recommends a
    decrease of $6.8 million in PE 65380A only for the SALT radio.
        The committee directs that not later than 180 days after
    the dates of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
    Army shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
    report on the Link 16 Terminals, which are currently being
    installed onto its attack helicopter fleet and the Army's plan
    for communication and data interoperability with ground forces.
    The committee directs that not later than 60 days after the
    report of the Secretary, the Comptroller General of the United
    States shall review the report and submit to the congressional
    defense committees an assessment of the matter contained in the
    report.

    Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety

        The budget request included $32.6 million in PE 65805A for
    munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety. Due to
    unexecuted prior years' funds, the committee recommends a
    decrease of $8.0 million in PE 65805A for munitions
    standardization.

    Stryker modification and improvement

        The budget request included $257.6 million in PE 23735A for
    the combat vehicle improvement program of which $105.8 million
    would be for Stryker improvement.
        The committee notes that Army deployments in Iraq and
    Afghanistan placed a strain on its combat vehicle fleets
    prompting a significant investment in the force protection and
    survivability of the Stryker family of wheeled combat vehicles
    in order to protect soldiers against rocket propelled grenades,
    anti-armor grenades, and improvised explosive devices (IED). In
    this regard, the committee commends the Army for the success of
    the double-V hull modification to the Stryker providing
    improved protection from under belly IED blasts.
        The committee understands that these high priority often
    operationally urgent vehicle modifications for force protection
    and survivability resulted in the deferral of lower priority
    investments for improved vehicle lethality.
        The committee has also learned that the Army has recently
    approved an operational needs statement requesting a
    significant lethality upgrade for some, but not all Stryker
    infantry carrier and reconnaissance vehicles. The committee is
    aware that the Army is considering the delivery of such a
    Stryker lethality upgrade, when identified and proven feasible
    and suitable, to its forward stationed Stryker brigade.
        The committee supports the Army's efforts to improve
    Stryker lethality and recommends an increase of $40.0 million
    in PE 23735A only for development and testing of Stryker
    lethality upgrades.

    Navy defense research sciences

        The budget request included $451.6 million in PE 61153N for
    defense research sciences. The committee notes that the budget
    request for Navy basic research has been reduced across the
    board by almost 10 percent relative to the amount enacted in
    fiscal year 2015. Such reductions would likely have a
    significant negative impact on the department's ability to
    advance technology development.
        The committee notes that basic research activities focused
    in technical areas of interest to Department of Defense
    missions lay the foundation upon which other technology
    development and new defense systems are built. These programs
    fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government
    laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the
    next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on
    defense technology problems in government, industry, and
    academia.
        To help address the significant reduction in basic research
    funding, the committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million
    in PE 61153N. The committee directs that these funds be awarded
    through well-established and competitive processes that already
    exist for defense research sciences.

    Undersea warfare applied research

        The budget request included $123.8 million in PE 62747N for
    research, development, test, and evaluation of undersea warfare
    applied research. The committee notes the promise of developing
    systems in the following areas: remote detection of ocean
    acoustic fields using light detection and ranging (LIDAR),
    upper ocean acoustic structure, high strain materials for sonar
    applications, surface decluttering, and novel anti-submarine
    warfare detection methods. As a result, the committee
    recommends an increase of $18.6 million to this program.

    Capable manpower, enablers, and sea basing

        The budget request included $258.9 million in PE 63673N for
    future naval capabilities advanced technology developments. The
    activities listed under this program element include capable
    manpower, enterprise and platform enablers, and sea basing. The
    committee believes that the work plans for fiscal year 2016 on
    these activities do not warrant the level of funding included
    in the budget request, and is concerned about the ability of
    the activities to absorb the requested funds. In addition, the
    committee notes that many of the technologies being developed
    under these programs are also in development by the private
    sector and savings could be extracted through increased
    external collaboration. Consequently, the committee recommends
    an aggregate decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63673N to be
    distributed appropriately from capable manpower, enterprise and
    platform enablers, and sea basing.

    Advanced submarine system development

        The budget request included $87.2 million in PE 63561N for
    research, development, test, and evaluation of advanced
    submarine system development. The committee notes the promise
    of the fleet modular autonomous unmanned vehicle (FMAUV) and
    submarine launched unmanned aerial system (UAS). The committee
    understands additional funding could be used to accelerate
    getting both capabilities to the fleet. As a result, the
    committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million to this
    program.

    USS Gerald R. Ford full ship shock trials

        The budget request included $48.1 million in PE 64112N for
    research, development, test, and evaluation of the USS Gerald
    R. Ford-class nuclear aircraft carrier. The committee notes the
    Department of Defense is reviewing the Navy decision to delay
    full ship shock trials from CVN-78 to CVN-79. The committee
    urges the Department of Defense to restore full ship shock
    trials to CVN-78. As a result, the committee recommends an
    increase of $79.1 million to this program.

    LX(R)

        The budget request included $46.5 million in PE 64454N for
    research, development, test, and evaluation of LX(R), which is
    expected to functionally replace LSD-41 and LSD-49 class ships.
    The committee notes accelerating the delivery of LX(R) class
    ships to the fleet will enable the Navy to meet a greater
    amount of combatant commander demand for amphibious warships.
    As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $29.0
    million for this program.

    Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System

        The budget request included $134.7 million in PE 64501N for
    the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike
    (UCLASS) system. The committee notes the directed pause in the
    program during the Department of Defense's Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Strategic Portfolio
    Review, which will inform the Department's fiscal year 2017
    budget submission. Therefore, the committee recommends a
    decrease of $134.7 million due to excess fiscal year 2015 funds
    that may be used to wholly offset fiscal year 2016 budget
    requirements.
        The committee looks forward to reviewing the results of the
    Department of Defense ISR Strategic Portfolio Review and also
    the report directed in section 217 of the Carl Levin and Howard
    P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2015.

    Submarine tactical warfare systems development

        The budget request included $48.2 million in PE 64562N for
    research, development, test, and evaluation of submarine
    tactical warfare systems development. The committee notes that
    additional funding would enable acceleration of the Fleet
    requested ``Attack In a Minute'' capability, support Torpedo
    Advanced Processor Build (APB) 5+ upgrade, and cybersecurity
    and information assurance capability improvements. As a result,
    the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to this
    program.

    F-35B/C engineering and manufacturing development

        The budget request included $537.9 million in PE 64800M for
    F-35B engineering and manufacturing development, and $504.7
    million in PE 64800N for F-35C engineering and manufacturing
    development. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.5
    million in each PE, $25.0 million total, due to funding early
    to need for Block 4 software development.

    Submarine acoustic warfare development

        The budget request included $3.9 million in PE 11226N for
    research, development, test, and evaluation of submarine
    acoustic warfare development. The committee notes the Compact
    Rapid Attack Weapon is a rapid development project to address
    emerging Fleet capability needs. Additional funding would
    provide the Navy with an advanced countermeasure for
    submarines. As a result, the committee recommends an increase
    of $0.8 million to this program.

    Mk-48 ADCAP

        The budget request included $42.2 million in PE 25632N for
    research, development, test, and evaluation of Mk-48 ADCAP
    torpedo. The committee notes that additional funding would
    enable hardware and software upgrades to the weapon system and
    accelerate implementation, validation, and verification of
    advanced weapon performance models. As a result, the committee
    recommends an increase of $5.5 million to this program.

    Air Force defense research sciences

        The budget request included $329.7 million in PE 61102F for
    defense research sciences. The committee notes that the budget
    request for Air Force basic research has been reduced across
    the board by almost 12 percent relative to the amount enacted
    in fiscal year 2015. Such reductions would likely have a
    significant negative impact on the department's ability to
    advance technology development.
        The committee notes that basic research activities focused
    in technical areas of interest to Department of Defense
    missions lay the foundation upon which other technology
    development and new defense systems are built. These programs
    fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government
    laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the
    next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on
    defense technology problems in government, industry, and
    academia.
        To help address the significant reduction in basic research
    funding, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million
    in PE 61102F. The committee directs that these funds be awarded
    through well-established and competitive processes that already
    exist in defense research sciences.

    Nanostructured and biological materials

        The budget request included $125.2 million in PE 62102F for
    materials, of which $8.7 million was requested for
    nanostructured and biological materials, and $16.5 million for
    sensing technologies. The committee believes that while such
    work is of scientific importance, these are areas in which
    significant savings could be gained through closer
    collaboration and interaction with the private sector and other
    government agencies. Particularly during a time of constrained
    budgets and vigilance for overlapping efforts, the committee
    believes that such work can be coordinated more fully to reduce
    costs. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of
    $10.0 million in PE 62102F for nanostructured and biological
    materials and for sensing technologies.

    Long range strike--bomber

        The budget request included $1.2 billion in PE 64015F for
    the Long Range Strike Bomber. The committee recommends a
    decrease of $460.0 million in PE 64015F due to availability of
    unobligated prior year funds.

    F-35A engineering and manufacturing development

        The budget request included $589.5 million in PE 64800F for
    F-35A engineering and manufacturing development. The committee
    recommends a decrease of $25.0 million in PE 64800F due to
    funding early to need for Block 4 software development.

    KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program

        The budget request included $602.4 million in PE 65221F for
    KC-46A tanker development and $2.4 billion in Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for 12 KC-46A tanker aircraft.
    The KC-46 tanker aircraft is being developed and procured to
    replace the aging Department of the Air Force KC-135 aerial
    refueling tanker fleets.
        The committee continues its long-standing support of the
    KC-46A tanker aircraft program, and believes that the KC-46A
    tanker aircraft is necessary to meet current and future
    warfighter requirements for aerial refueling and airlift.
    However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified
    $200.0 million of funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal
    year 2015 for KC-46A development that are excess to need
    because engineering change orders planned for fiscal year 2015
    have not occurred, and these funds could be used to meet fiscal
    year 2016 requirements. The GAO has also identified $24.0
    million of fiscal year 2015 KC-46A procurement funds that are
    excess to need for a similar reason. Department of the Air
    Force KC-46A program officials agree with the GAO
    determination.
        The committee understands that the reduction of funds in
    fiscal year 2016 will not impact the program delivery schedule
    of the KC-46A tanker aircraft.
        Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $200.0
    million in PE 65221F and $24.0 million in APAF due to
    availability of unobligated prior year funds.

    F-15 capability upgrades

        The budget request included $186.5 million in PE 27171F for
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force. The
    committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million for
    nonrecurring engineering in support of Advanced Display/Core
    Processor II (ADCP II) upgrades, and an increase of $1.5
    million for flight test support. The total recommended increase
    in PE 27171F is $29.5 million.

    Budget request realignment

        At the Air Force's request, the committee recommends the
    realignment in the following table to correct an error in the
    budget request for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
    Air Force (RDTEAF), and Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF).

                         AIR FORCE REQUESTED REALIGNMENT
                                  (In millions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Item                  Account     Line Item      Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NATO AGS.......................        RDTEAF          216        -$59.1
    NATO AWAC......................         SAPAF           79        +$59.1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Logistics information technology

        The budget request included $112.3 million in PE 78610F for
    Logistics Information Technology to develop a software system
    as a follow-on to the Expeditionary Combat Support System
    (ECSS). The committee recommends a decrease of $31.0 million to
    this program. The committee notes that the significant growth
    in this program has not been justified given that the program
    schedule has been delayed and that the Department has requested
    funding be transferred out of this program in a recent
    reprogramming action. The committee also notes that the
    independent assessment of the program required by the Carl
    Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
    Senate Report 113-176, has not yet been delivered to the
    Congress.

    Applied research for the advancement of science and technology
            priorities

        The budget request included $48.2 million in PE 62251D8Z
    for applied research for the advancement of science and
    technology priorities. The committee appreciates the need for
    this program and the importance of creating communities of
    interest to identify gaps in collaborative funding. However,
    the committee notes that only 24 percent of the enacted funds
    for fiscal year 2014 have thus far been expended, and none of
    the enacted funds for fiscal year 2015, calling into question
    the efficiency of the activities under this program.
    Accordingly, the committee is concerned that the program will
    be unable to incorporate the large increase in funds requested
    for fiscal year 2016. Consequently, the committee recommends a
    general program decrease of $15.0 million for PE 62251D8Z.
    Furthermore, the committee recommends that the Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering continue to
    focus on existing activities to demonstrate the effectiveness
    of this program.

    Multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement system

        The budget request included $314.6 million in PE 62702E for
    tactical technology, of which $17.7 million was requested for
    the multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement
    system. The committee notes that this request for the
    engagement system represents an almost 50 percent increase in
    funding above the amount enacted in fiscal year 2015, and is
    concerned about the ability of this activity to grow at such a
    fast rate. In addition, the committee is concerned about
    transition potential for this technology, particularly two
    years into the program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
    decrease of $5.0 million in PE 62702E for multi-azimuth defense
    fast intercept round engagement system.

    Materials and biological technology

        The budget request included $220.1 million in PE 62715E for
    materials and biological technology. The committee notes that
    this request represents an almost 50 percent increase in
    funding relative to the amount enacted in fiscal year 2015, and
    includes several programs which do not show much promise for
    transition. While the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    is well-positioned to focus on these activities and drive
    technological developments, the committee is concerned about
    the Agency's ability to use fully such a large increase in
    funds within 1 year, and about transition opportunities.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
    million in PE 62715E to decrease program growth.

    Science and technology analytic assessments

        The budget request included $14.6 million in PE 63288D8Z
    for science and technology analytic assessments. The committee
    supported the establishment of this program in fiscal year
    2015, believing that the need to develop innovative
    capabilities to counter emerging threats should be a top
    priority for the Department of Defense. At the same time, the
    committee believes it is too early to make an assessment on the
    impact and success of the activities in this program, and that
    providing an increase in funds is thus premature. The committee
    is particularly concerned about the slow progress in the area
    of anti-access/area denial environments. Consequently, the
    committee recommends a general decrease of $5.0 million in PE
    63288D8Z. The committee expects the Department to focus on
    demonstrating the utility and effectiveness of this program.

    Joint capability technology demonstration

        The budget request included $141.5 million in PE 63648D8Z
    for joint capability technology demonstration. The committee
    notes that the request represents an increase of over $20.0
    million relative to the amount enacted in fiscal year 2015, and
    also notes that the program is supporting several activities
    that appear to have limited potential for transitioning into
    service programs of records. As a result, the committee
    recommends a general decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63648D8Z.
    The committee further recommends that the Department use this
    program to emphasize and prioritize prototypes that have
    greater potential for transition.

    Network-centric warfare technology

        The budget request included $452.9 million in PE 63766E for
    network-centric warfare technology. The committee is encouraged
    by the focus that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
    is placing on advanced technology development, the umbrella
    budget activity for this program element. Addressing high-
    payoff opportunities to develop and rapidly mature advanced
    technologies, as well as transition them to appropriate
    services or the private sector, is of prime importance in
    developing and maintaining the technological advantage of the
    United States.
        At the same time, the committee is concerned that the
    Agency appears to be developing this technology independently.
    Given the vast expertise on network-centric technology in the
    United States and abroad, the committee would expect that
    development of network-centric technologies would take
    advantage of the significant commercial technologies that may
    already be available. The committee is further concerned that
    efforts to work with traditional defense industry contractors
    to develop system of systems architecture are not likely to
    transfer successfully to the military services. The committee
    believes that costs in this program can be reduced through more
    aggressive interaction and engagement with the private sector.
    Consequently, the committee recommends a general decrease of
    $20.0 million in PE 63766E.

    Quick Reaction Special Projects

         The budget request included $90.5 million in PE 63826D8Z
    for Quick Reaction Special Projects (QRSP). The committee notes
    that QRSP is intended to invest in technology opportunities
    that might arise during the execution of the fiscal year 2016
    budget. The committee further notes that this program has not
    fully executed its appropriated funds for fiscal year 2014 or
    2015 to date, and that many other programs in the Department of
    Defense are similarly intended to accelerate research program
    advances into deployable systems. Therefore, the committee
    recommends a reduction of $20.0 million for this program. The
    committee recommends the Department fully fund research efforts
    to assure the trust of hardware and software systems used in
    defense systems, which are supported within this program.

    Advanced sensor application program

         The budget request included $18.3 billion for Research,
    Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, of which $15.9
    million was for PE 0603714D8Z for the Advanced Sensor
    Application Program (ASAP).
        This represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal
    year 2015 of $19.5 million.
        The committee believes that this reduction will cause the
    program to postpone important testing and experiments. The
    committee additionally believes that these efforts are too
    important to postpone or cancel.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
    million for PE 0603714D8Z for the Advanced Sensor Application
    Program (ASAP).

    Corrosion control and prevention funding increase

         The budget request included $6.8 billion in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Advanced
    Component Development & Prototypes, of which $1.5 million was
    for the PE 604016D8Z Department of Defense Corrosion Program.
        The committee continues to be concerned that the Department
    has consistently underfunded the DOD Corrosion Program since
    fiscal year 2011. The Department estimates that the negative
    effects of corrosion cost approximately $20.8 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 $10.0
    million in RDT&E, PE 604016D8Z, for the Department of Defense
    Corrosion Program.

    Global Combat Support System--Joint

        The budget request included $15.2 million in PE 65018A for
    the Global Combat Support System--Joint (GCSS-J). The committee
    believes this funding should be realigned to support high
    priority readiness requirements. According, the committee
    recommends a decrease of $10.0 million to this program.

    Systems engineering

        The budget request included $37.7 million in PE 65142D8Z
    for Systems Engineering. In the interest of increasing
    efficiencies within the Department of Defense, the committee
    elsewhere in this Act is recommending the repeal of several
    reporting requirements regarding systems engineering. In
    addition, the committee believes that further efficiencies can
    be found within these activities. Taken together, the committee
    recommends a general decrease of $5.0 million in PE 65142D8Z.

    MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

        The budget request included $18.2 million in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for
    the development, integration, and testing of special
    operations-unique mission kits for the 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 $5.0 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 3 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.

    C-130 terrain following/terrain avoidance radar

        The budget request included $35.5 million in Procurement,
    Defense-wide (PDW), to field terrain following/terrain
    avoidance (TF/TA) radar with associated controls and displays
    to fulfill special operations-peculiar requirements for MC-130J
    aircraft. During the development phase of the existing program
    of record, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) identified
    significant concerns with the TF/TA radar performance and
    ability meet defined user requirements. After conducting a
    comprehensive programmatic assessment, SOCOM recently decided
    to revise its acquisition strategy and adapt an alternative TF/
    TA capability to meet operational needs. Therefore, at the
    request of SOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of $15.2
    million to Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
    Defense-wide (PE 1160403BB) for the development of a TF/TA
    radar for its MC-130J fleet. The remaining funds requested for
    TF/TA radar procurement have been identified by SOCOM as excess
    to requirements and, elsewhere in this bill, the committee
    recommends re-purposing such funds for high priority airborne
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.

    Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Payload Technology
            Improvements Program

        The budget request included $1.3 million in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for
    the development, integration, and testing of special
    operations-unique intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (ISR) sensor technologies on tactical unmanned
    aerial vehicles. 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 ISR sensor technology gaps identified by
    SOCOM on its fleet of tactical UAVs. Therefore, the committee
    recommends an additional $2.0 million in RDTEDW for the ISR
    Payload Technology Improvements Program.

    Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration and prototyping

        The budget request included no funding in PE 64402N for
    research, development, test, and evaluation of unmanned combat
    air vehicle advanced concept/prototype development. The
    committee notes the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System
    Demonstration (UCAS-D) successfully demonstrated the first
    unmanned aircraft operation in conjunction with manned aircraft
    aboard an aircraft carrier in 2014 and the first unmanned
    aerial refueling in 2015. The committee believes the two UCAS-D
    aircraft, Salty Dog 501 and Salty Dog 502, should continue
    development and risk reduction that will benefit the Unmanned
    Carrier-Launched Strike and Surveillance (UCLASS) program,
    including: carrier launch and recovery operations, carrier
    airspace operations, carrier flight deck handling, automated
    aerial refueling, and UCLASS mission architecture and common
    control station integration. As a result, the committee
    recommends an increase of $350.0 million to the Defense-wide
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation account and directs
    the Secretary of Defense to accomplish this testing in fiscal
    year 2016 to the fullest extent possible. In addition, any
    contractual arrangements executed with this funding shall
    ensure that the Department has sufficient technical data rights
    to support competitive prototyping follow-on development
    efforts.
        Moreover, using the lessons learned from the UCAS-D
    program, including the fiscal year 2016 extension, the
    Department of Defense shall conduct such a competitive
    prototyping of at least two follow-on air systems that move the
    Department toward a UCLASS program capable of long-range strike
    in a contested environment. As a result, the committee
    recommends an increase of $375.0 million to the Defense-wide
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, account and
    directs the Secretary of Defense accomplish this competitive
    prototyping in fiscal year 2017 to the fullest extent possible.
        To speed up the development of this vitally needed national
    security capability, the committee directs that the Secretary
    of Defense shall consider all appropriate flexible acquisition
    authorities granted in law and in this Act. These should
    include the management structure and streamlined procedures for
    rapid prototyping outlined in section 803 of this Act on the
    middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid
    fielding, and the procedures and authorities to be considered
    under section 805 of this Act on use of alternative acquisition
    paths to acquire critical national security capabilities. In
    addition, any contractual arrangements executed with this
    funding shall ensure that the Department has sufficient
    technical data rights to support a subsequent level of
    competitive prototyping follow-on development or future
    multiple sourced production efforts.
        Overall, the committee recommends an increase of $725.0
    million to this program.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Advancement in radar technologies

        The committee notes that substantial advances have been
    made in the field of radar technologies, allowing for the
    design of multi-function phased array radars that will be able
    to track both weather patterns and aircraft simultaneously. The
    committee considers the development of these new radars a
    critical enabler for the Department of Defense. The committee
    supports the ongoing efforts by the Air Force and expects to be
    kept updated on current radar research and capabilities. This
    includes efforts by the Air Force Research Laboratories to
    create radar technologies for multi-mission capability.

    Advancements in Antenna Research and Capabilities

        The committee notes that, over the past several years,
    there have been substantive advances in antenna research to
    include conformal phased array, which have resulted in dramatic
    leaps forward in the aerodynamic capability of aircraft and the
    potential for reducing the size and weight of both manned and
    unmanned aircraft. The committee also notes that these antenna
    advances can provide higher performance for communications and
    electronic warfare missions. The committee believes these
    capabilities are critical to future air operations in
    congested, contested, and aerial denial environments.
        The committee expects the Air Force to keep the committee
    updated on current antenna research and capabilities to include
    advance antenna technologies on manned and unmanned aircraft.
    Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force
    to incorporate advancements developed through this research
    into legacy and future aircraft, and expects the Secretary to
    keep the committee updated on these efforts.

    Air Force seismic activity research

        The committee notes with concern the continuing threat of
    nuclear proliferation. The committee also notes and authorizes
    the Air Force's request for $7.5 million for the Air Force
    Research Laboratory's seismic technologies program. The
    committee supports the the laboratory's efforts to develop
    seismic technology to improve the capability of the United
    States to monitor nuclear tests. The committee expects the Air
    Force to continue to keep the committee updated on the efforts
    of the seismic technologies program.

    Conditions and Capabilities of the Undersea Warfare Test Capabilities

        The committee is concerned about the state of readiness and
    modernization of test ranges that support undersea warfare
    missions. The committee notes that in September of 2012, the
    Commander of the Submarine Force for the U.S. Pacific Fleet
    noted that capabilities at one range had deteriorated, stating,
    ``Materiel conditions at Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking
    Sands Tactical Underwater Range have been deteriorating over
    several years and risk loss of a critical capability here in
    the Pacific.'' The committee notes that the Navy is attempting
    to refurbish these facilities as resources permit, but is
    concerned that test capabilities in this critical mission area
    are still not on a path to meet Navy requirements in the
    future.
        The committee expects the Secretary of the Navy, in
    conjunction with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics, to keep the committee updated on the
    current condition of the undersea warfare test range
    capabilities. Updates should include data and analyses on the
    current use and future needs for underwater test range
    capabilities, and plans for updating and maintaining range
    equipment and capabilities.

    Cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun program

        The committee is aware that the efforts within the Navy to
    develop an electromagnetic railgun have been successful in
    demonstrating early capabilities for naval applications.
    Further, the committee recognizes that the Navy's initial
    success has spawned investments within the Strategic
    Capabilities Office of the Office of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to pursue
    development of a land-based electromagnetic railgun to support
    missile defense.
        Recognizing that such investments are still in the
    demonstration phase, the committee believes it is important to
    do as much as possible to plan concurrently for how to proceed
    with railgun technology to improve the possibility of
    transition into a program of record. Therefore, the committee
    directs the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
    (CAPE) to conduct a cost estimate for a land-based
    electromagnetic railgun program, and provide the results to the
    Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services
    Committee by January 1, 2016. As part of the cost estimate
    briefing, CAPE should examine the potential costs for the
    projected life cycle of the railgun system, as well as
    comparison of those costs against current systems and other
    systems supporting missile defense missions projected to be
    fielded in the next 10 years.

    Database on Department of Defense research grants

        The committee recognizes the value of transparency and the
    ability of publicly available information to drive effective
    and accountable government. Further, the committee believes
    that increased transparency regarding the Department of
    Defense's external grants will improve the coordination of
    efforts department-wide. Consistent with the Administration's
    Open Government Initiative, the committee directs the Secretary
    of Defense to establish a publicly-available, searchable
    database of the Department's active grants. The committee also
    directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that currently
    active grants remain in the database after the completion of
    the grant, and that all future grants are added. The database
    shall be searchable by a variety of codes, such as type of
    research grant, the research entity managing the grant, the
    Department of Defense program, and the area of interest. The
    committee notes that the National Science Foundation has
    already established an award search database (the ``NSF Funding
    Opportunities search page''), and directs the Department to use
    that database as a model for its own, including maintaining
    accurate data in the same categories of information, at a
    minimum. The committee expects that this database would only be
    used to aggregate information on grants whose publication would
    not violate any procedures for handling sensitive information.

    Entrepreneurial sabbatical for Department of Defense laboratory
            scientists

        The Committee directs the Department of Defense to expand
    an authorized program for government scientists, specifically
    scientists at defense laboratories, to take an
    ``entrepreneurial sabbatical'' to work for a private sector
    firm. The committee notes that the department's Developmental
    Opportunities Program (DOP) currently allows scientists to
    pursue further education by attending business school or a war
    college, for example, but does not explicitly allow for
    pursuing opportunities in the private sector. The committee
    also notes that the Air Force Research Laboratory is
    implementing guidance for its entrepreneurial leave program,
    which may be a good model for an expanded program across the
    defense research enterprise.
        The committee notes that the guidance by the Air Force
    Research Laboratory explicitly defines an approval process for
    entrepreneurial sabbatical at the directorate level, and
    establishes a multi-phase program for a sabbatical of between
    six months and two years. The committee notes that the Air
    Force guidance allows for a scientist to be paid by the
    directorate for up to one year, with further funding provided
    at the discretion of the directorate. The committee expects
    that in carrying out this mandate, all conflict-of-interest and
    other administrative issues would be addressed by the defense
    laboratories in a manner consistent with department guidelines.
        In mandating this expansion, the committee notes the
    success of entrepreneurial leave programs established by the
    Department of Energy. For example, 145 employees have taken
    advantage of the Department of Energy's Sandia National Lab
    Entrepreneurial Separation to Technology Transfer program since
    its enactment in 1994. The committee is encouraged that forty
    percent of these participants have started new businesses, and
    sixty percent have expanded existing businesses. Overall, the
    scientists in the program created 49 new companies and
    positively impacted 99 others.
        The committee notes that the benefits from an
    entrepreneurial sabbatical program to the country, the
    Department of Defense, and defense research laboratories could
    be significant, and could energize technology transfer from
    within the department to the regional and national economy and
    ultimately to the warfighter. This committee believes this
    would increase the department's ability to competitively
    recruit top talent, and both create and grow high-tech startups
    and small businesses. The committee also believes that the
    resulting direct interaction between Department of Defense
    scientists and the private sector would increase the amount of
    valuable technologies that are placed into operational systems,
    thereby benefiting both national security and economic
    prosperity.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report on
    the department's progress and success in implementing an
    entrepreneurial sabbatical program, including levels of
    employee participation, and contributions of Department of
    Defense technologies to the formation or growth of private
    sector companies. The committee further directs that this
    report be submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
    and the House Committee on Armed Services no later than 1 year
    after the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter.

    Expedited approval for attendance at conferences in support of science
            and innovation activities of Department of Defense and the
            National Nuclear Security Administration

        The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy
    to establish respective expedited approval processes for
    scientists and engineers to attend science and technology
    conferences. The committee notes with concern that since the
    two departments implemented updated conference policies, in
    response to requirements from the Office of Management and
    Budget, attendance at such conferences by department personnel
    has reduced dramatically. According to a report from the
    Government Accountability Office in March 2015, conference
    attendance from the Army Research Laboratory declined from
    about 1300 attendees in 2011 to about 100 attendees in 2013. A
    similar drop in attendance was reported from Sandia National
    Laboratories. The report highlights that such a drop in
    attendance risks a decline in the quality of scientific
    research, difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified
    scientists and engineers, and a diminished leadership role for
    the two departments within the global science and technology
    community. The report also notes that the new departmental
    policies are not meeting the needs of personnel requesting
    approval to travel to conferences.
        Given the importance of conference attendance for an active
    exchange of scientific information and for recruiting and
    retaining high-quality technical talent, the committee is
    concerned that the conference attendance approval policies are
    undermining the science and technology missions of both
    departments and undermining the ability of personnel to engage
    in cutting-edge research, development, testing, and evaluation.
    The committee believes that technical conference participation
    is especially important to keep program managers aware of new
    trends in technology, so that they may make better informed
    decisions on behalf of taxpayers.
        To maintain global technology awareness and to support
    retention of technical staff, the committee believes that the
    Departments should strive to follow the best practices of
    innovative private and academic institutions in developing
    management and oversight practices for conference
    participation. The committee is concerned that in specific
    technical fields of interest to defense, such as hypersonics
    and cybersecurity, the lack of participation in conferences is
    ceding U.S. leadership to competitor nations.
        In response to these findings and concerns, the committee
    directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to establish
    processes within the Department of Defense and National Nuclear
    Security Administration, respectively, whereby requests for
    scientific conference attendance are adjudicated within 1
    month, and approvals are granted as appropriate within 1 month.
    Further, the committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and
    Energy to ensure that any decisions to disapprove conference
    attendance through these processes are made if and only if the
    appropriate officials determine that the disapproval would have
    a net positive impact on research and development and on
    program management quality, and not simply default disapprovals
    necessitated by a bureaucratic inability to make a timely
    decision. In addition, the committee directs that these
    approval processes be implemented no later than 90 days after
    the enactment of this act.
        The committee recommends that, as part of these new
    approval processes, laboratory and test center directors be
    given the authority to approve conference attendance, provided
    that the attendance would meet the mission of the laboratory or
    test center and that sufficient laboratory or test center funds
    are available.
        The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy
    each to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the
    House Armed Services Committee with an assessment of the
    expedited process and its benefits and drawbacks, along with a
    recommendation on continuing their use. The committee further
    directs that this report be submitted no later than 1 year
    after the establishment of the approval process.

    High Power Microwave Counter-electronics Capabilities

        The committee notes the development of promising new high-
    powered microwave technologies that can be used to disable and
    destroy the electronics of threat systems. The committee notes
    that the Air Force is currently investing in a research program
    to develop a counter-electronics, high-power microwave advanced
    missile, following from a successful joint capabilities
    technology demonstration in October 2012. The committee
    supports efforts to develop an operational prototype of a high-
    power microwave weapons system, and expects the Air Force to
    keep the committee updated on progress towards this goal.

    Improved turbine engine program

        The budget request included $51.2 million in PE 67139A for
    the improved turbine engine program (ITEP). The committee
    supports the Army and its plans to competitively develop, test,
    qualify, and integrate a next generation turboshaft engine for
    the Blackhawk and Apache combat helicopters. The committee
    notes that funding continues to support at least two engine
    developers over the next few years and through completion of
    the technology-development phase. The committee further notes
    recent public statements by Army civilian and military
    leadership expressing their commitment to reduce risk, achieve
    appropriate technology maturity, and set the conditions for
    ultimate program success. The committee recommends full funding
    as requested for ITEP and encourages the Army to maintain
    stability and therefore momentum in the program as resources
    and technical progress allow.

    Improvised Explosive Device Detection Systems

        The committee understands that improved stand-off
    hyperspectral imaging (HSI) technologies may offer improved
    detection of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and the
    explosive constituent chemicals and other materials used in the
    manufacture of IEDs, such as nitrates, nitrites, phosphates,
    and ammonia.
        The committee notes that the goal of these efforts is to
    develop technologies that provide the fastest possible
    detection, with the longest ranges and sensitivities, as well
    as lowest false alarm rate. To achieve this goal, the committee
    notes the importance of spectral imaging technologies and real
    time detection hardware and software.
        The committee expects the Undersecretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to keep the committee
    updated on current HSI technologies employed by the Department
    of Defense to counter IEDs, including HSI technologies that are
    commercially-available, and DOD's plan for ensuring DOD is
    employing the best technologies available.

    Market survey of active protection systems

        The committee notes that technologies related to active
    protection systems for armored combat and tactical vehicles may
    have matured since the Director of Operational Test and
    Evaluation conducted live fire demonstrations at Aberdeen
    Proving Ground, Maryland in 2010. Accordingly, the committee
    directs that the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation,
    supported by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics, and in consultation with the
    Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
    Technology, conduct a comprehensive market survey to assess, to
    the extent practical, the current state of the art with respect
    to active protection systems for armored and tactical vehicles.
    The survey should include those U.S. and international active
    protection systems that are fielded, in development with
    prototypes having completed or undergoing operational tests, or
    otherwise demonstrating or showing evidence of technology
    readiness levels that the Director deems relevant or
    appropriate. The Director shall report the findings of this
    market survey to the congressional defense committees not later
    than May 1, 2016. The Director's report shall include an
    assessment and recommendation as to whether or not there has
    been sufficient technological progress in active protection
    systems since and related to the live fire demonstration in
    2010 to justify another live fire demonstration in the near
    future.

    Medical evaluation of Anthropomorphic data on vehicle blast testing

        The committee remains concerned with serious injuries and
    deaths that often result from improvised explosive device (IED)
    attacks and the subsequent vehicle flight and rollover events.
    The committee supports the Army's future ground vehicle
    development and testing initiatives designed to mitigate these
    often fatal injuries. As the Army continues evaluating emerging
    technologies, the committee recommends that medical research
    using anthropomorphic testing be included in ongoing
    Cooperative Research and Development Agreement testing between
    the commercial sector and the Army on new sensors and active
    protective technologies.

    National Defense Education Program

        The budget request included $49.5 million in PE 61120D8Z
    for the National Defense Education Program, of which $3.0
    million for the P-12 military child STEM educational pilot
    program consistent with section 233 of the Carl Levin and
    Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) and the Further
    Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. The committee notes that
    this program supports competitive awards to programs that
    improve the effectiveness of educational activities in science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics focused primarily on
    military children. The committee further notes that military
    children face additional challenges relative to their peers due
    to frequent relocations, the stress of parental deployments,
    and sometimes underperforming schools in the vicinity of
    military installations. The committee continues to believe that
    the Department of Defense has a distinct obligation for the
    education of military children. Moreover, the committee
    recognizes the importance of STEM education and its
    contribution to the technical workforce on which the defense
    industrial base, in particular, depends. As such, the committee
    believes the Department has a unique interest in fostering a
    robust pipeline of qualified individuals and its promotion of
    STEM education programs will provide both short and long term
    advantages to military children and the nation.

    Training Range Upgrades

        Training operational forces is one of the most important
    missions for which the military services are directly
    responsible. The committee also notes that the military
    services have traditionally allocated limited resources to
    research and development initiatives, including modeling and
    simulation, or to modernizing training range capabilities to
    support this mission area. The committee believes that
    modernization of training capabilities will both increase
    operational effectiveness of military forces and potentially
    reduce costs by displacing legacy training techniques and
    systems with more advanced approaches enabled by new
    technology.
        The committee believes that the Central Test and Evaluation
    Investment Program, administered by the Director of the
    Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center, has
    proven to be an effective approach to prioritize and fund the
    development and deployment of advanced test capabilities at the
    test ranges. Similarly, the Test and Evaluation Science and
    Technology program has provided funds to support next
    generation test capabilities. The committee believes that these
    approaches may also benefit the modernization of training range
    capabilities.
        The committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for
    Personnel and Readiness and the Undersecretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to develop jointly a
    strategic plan to assess and modernize overall training costs,
    with the goal of improving overall training range and training
    systems effectiveness and efficiency. The plan should also
    address policy options that can: enable enhanced leveraging of
    science and technology programs, including those of the Defense
    Advanced Research Projects Agency and the services; increase
    access to experts and new technologies from industry and
    academia, including through the use of Small Business
    Innovation Research programs and technology prizes; and revise
    management, resourcing, range charge practices, personnel
    practices, and acquisition practices.
                      TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                  Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

    Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)
        This provision 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

    Modification of energy management reporting requirements (sec. 311)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2925(a) of title 10, United States Code, by striking a
    subsection listing renewable energy credits (RECs) and
    clarifying and strengthening the reporting requirements on
    commercial and non-commercial utility outages. The committee
    notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) no longer purchases
    RECs. The provision would also clarify electricity outage
    reporting requirements to include non-commercial utility
    outages and DOD-owned infrastructure.
    Report on efforts to reduce high energy costs at military installations
            (sec. 312)
        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.
    Southern Sea Otter military readiness areas (sec. 313)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of the Navy to establish areas, to be known as the
    Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas, for national
    defense purposes. The areas are defined by coordinate
    boundaries in the provision. Sections 4 and 9 of the Endangered
    Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533, 1538) and sections 101 and
    102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
    1371, 1372) would not apply with respect to the incidental
    takings of any southern sea otter in the Southern Sea Otter
    Military Readiness Areas in the course of conducting a military
    readiness activity. For purposes of military readiness
    activities, the otters within the readiness areas would be
    treated, for purposes of section 7 of the Endangered Species
    Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), as a member of a species that is
    proposed to be listed as an endangered species or threatened
    species under section 4 of that Act.
        The Secretary of the Interior would be able to revise or
    terminate the exceptions to the Endangered Species Act and the
    marine Mammal Protection Act if the Secretary were to
    determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy and
    the Marine Mammal Commission, that the military activities
    occurring in the readiness areas were impeding southern sea
    otter conservation or the return of the sea otters to optimum
    sustainable population levels.
        The provision would also repeal section 1 of Public Law 99-
    625 (16 U.S.C. 1536 note).

                     Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment

    Repeal of limitation on authority to enter into a contract for the
            sustainment, maintenance, repair, or overhaul of the F117
            engine (sec. 321)
        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    Section 341 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3345).

                              Subtitle D--Reports

    Modification of annual report on prepositioned materiel and equipment
            (sec. 331)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2229a(a) of title 10, United States Code, to update the
    list of named contingency operations slated for retrograde and
    subsequent inclusion in the prepositioned stocks.

              Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority

    Modification of requirements for transferring aircraft within the Air
            Force inventory (sec. 341)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 345 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111--383) to ease
    administrative burdens and facilitate non-contentious transfers
    of aircraft from the Air Reserve Components (ARC) to the
    regular component of the Air Force (RegAF).
        The provision would remove uncontentious, routine
    transfers, and short-term transfers from Section 345 reporting
    requirements. The provision also would exempt transfers that
    terminate the reserve component's interest in the aircraft (due
    to aircraft retirement or mission transfer) when that transfer
    has been the subject of prior notification to the defense
    committees.
        Additionally, the provision would direct administrative
    changes, such as requiring a signature from the Chief of the
    Air Force Reserve (a staff position) rather than the Commander,
    Air Force Reserve Command (a command position) and removing
    references to ``ownership'' of the aircraft. Because title
    vests in the United States government, aircraft ownership does
    not transfer; the components are merely assigned possessory
    rights.
        The provision would clarify that when a written agreement
    is required, only leaders of the affected components need sign
    the agreement. For example, an agreement documenting a 180-day
    transfer of aircraft from the Air National Guard to the Regular
    Air Force would not require signature by the Chief of the Air
    Force Reserve.
        The provision would not create an oversight vacuum or allow
    aircraft transfers to occur without coordination and agreement.
    The Air Force would still be required to comply with Department
    of Defense Instruction 1225.06, Equipping the Reserve Forces,
    May 16, 2012, Enclosure 3, which requires coordination,
    approval, and a written agreement signed by a general officer
    or civilian equivalent for equipment transfers, including
    aircraft.
    Limitation on use of funds for Department of Defense sponsorships,
            advertising, or marketing associated with sports-related
            organizations or sporting events (sec. 342)
        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    the Department of Defense (DOD) from using appropriated funds
    to procure sponsorships, advertising, or marketing associated
    with sports-related organizations or sporting events until the
    Director, Accessions Policy within the Office of the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness conducts a
    review of current departmental activities in this area,
    including those by the active duty, reserve, and guard
    components to ensure that such activities enable the DOD to
    achieve recruiting goals and provide an appropriate return on
    investment. The committee is aware that for fiscal year 2016,
    DOD has requested $507.5 million to fund its advertising
    activities.
        While the committee recognizes that sports marketing and
    advertising activities can help DOD achieve its recruiting and
    retention goals, the committee is also concerned that in a
    period of declining budgets, the Department may not be ensuring
    that it is maximizing its return on investment of sports
    marketing and advertising funds. In particular, the committee
    is concerned with the Department's continued use of funds for
    sports-related sponsorships, advertising and marketing. The
    committee notes that DOD components do not appear to be
    utilizing specific metrics, such as leads generated that lead
    to recruit accessions, in a uniform and consistent way to
    measure the return on investment associated with these
    activities. The committee further notes that the approach to
    managing contracts used to procure these activities differs
    across DOD components, and in the case of the Army National
    Guard, is highly decentralized and managed at the individual
    state level. The committee is concerned that such differences
    and decentralization hinder the ability to apply best
    practices, minimize potential duplication, and ensure that
    appropriate oversight into these activities occurs.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to assess DOD sponsorship, sports
    marketing and advertising activities, including the active
    duty, and reserve, and guard components. The assessment shall
    include, but not be limited to: (1) Whether DOD marketing and
    advertising activities are achieving their stated goals; (2)
    How DOD determines whether its marketing and advertising
    activities are effective and providing an appropriate return on
    investment; (3) The extent to which the effectiveness of DOD
    marketing and advertising activities are consistent with best
    commercial practices; (4) DOD actions to reduce unnecessary
    redundancies in its marketing and advertising activities; and
    (5) an assessment of the activities required under section
    (a)(1) and (a)(2) in this provision.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to deliver a
    report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2016.

    Temporary authority to extend contracts and leases under ARMS
            Initiative (sec. 343)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 4554(a)(3)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to
    temporarily extend the authority to extend contracts and leases
    under the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS)
    Initiative.

                           Subtitle F--Other Matters

    Streamlining of Department of Defense management and operational
            headquarters (sec. 351)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the
    management, headquarters, and organization of the Department of
    Defense (DOD) for purposes of consolidating and streamlining
    headquarters functions. The provision would require the
    Secretary, to the extent practicable, to consult with subject
    matter experts outside of DOD and to submit the required report
    no later than March 1, 2016. To implement this comprehensive
    plan, the Secretary of Defense shall make required personnel
    and budget reductions. Section 904 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66)
    required the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for
    streamlining DOD management headquarters, including the Office
    of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff, the
    military services, and others that was to be provided to the
    congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after
    passage. The Secretary has yet to provide the required plan.
    Therefore, the committee initiates the streamlining with a 7.5
    percent reduction to these organizations (except Special
    Operations Command, classified programs, Department of Defense
    Educational Activities, and programs related to sexual assault
    prevention and response) in fiscal year 2016 and increasing the
    reductions 7.5 percent each year for 4 years. Furthermore, the
    funding reductions should be matched by personnel reductions
    (military, civilian, and contractor) across the defense
    agencies, OSD, Service Secretariats, service military staffs,
    combatant commands, and service subordinate commands with
    military personnel transferred to operating forces. In
    executing the plan to reduce the overhead costs, the Secretary
    is directed to provide details of any personnel or functions
    that are transferred to any other organization in DOD.
    Elsewhere in this bill the committee recommends four provisions
    that would provide the Secretary with the force shaping tools
    necessary to retain the highest performing workforce when
    determining which employees should be retained. These
    provisions will: (1) make performance the key factor when the
    DOD conducts reductions in force to its civilian and contractor
    workforce; (2) require employees receiving a less than
    satisfactory performance evaluation to be held at their current
    step-level for within-grade increases until they achieve
    satisfactory job performance; (3) extend the probationary
    period for new employees of DOD to 2 years; and (4) direct DOD
    to conduct a study, to be reviewed by the Comptroller General
    of the United States for sufficiency, of the fully-burdened
    costs to DOD for civilian and contractor employees at clerical,
    mid-level manager, and senior management levels. In executing
    this plan, the committee directs that operating forces and
    organizations such as depots, shipyards and similar functions
    not be cut in order to retain headquarter staffing levels.
        To monitor the implementation of this plan, the provision
    would require the Comptroller General, through the end of
    fiscal year 2019, to conduct an annual review of DOD's
    implementation efforts. Finally, to ensure compliance, the
    provision would limit the availability of funds for contract
    personnel in OSD should the Secretary fail to achieve the
    underlying reductions of the provision. In addition, the
    committee would defer two military construction projects for
    headquarters-related functions pending the outcome of this
    review and plan.
        The committee remains concerned with the growth in
    headquarters, administration, and overhead costs of DOD at a
    time of fiscal austerity and reductions in force structure.
    According to the Comptroller General, the Army Staff has
    increased by 60 percent, from 2,272 in 2001 to 3,639 in 2013.
    This increase in Army staff largely remains intact despite a
    reduction of the Army's Active-Duty, Reserve, and National
    Guard end strengths. The Air Force appears to have avoided OSD
    requirements to reduce unnecessary and duplicative headquarters
    functions and overhead activity. Instead, the Air Force grew
    subordinate units by shifting individuals from higher
    headquarters to two newly created subordinate headquarters
    (e.g., the Twenty-Fifth Air Force and the Installation and
    Mission Support Center). The Air Force appears to have made no
    significant reductions to its overall civilian personnel or
    obtained any savings to the Air Force wide budget. The budget
    for DOD Washington Headquarters Service (WHS), whose job it is
    to support all the growing headquarters and bureaucracy in the
    National Capital Region, has grown over 40 percent in the last
    8 years from $443.0 million to $621.0 million. Budget growth in
    WHS is a clear sign the headquarters and overhead at DOD are
    getting larger, not smaller. The Joint Staff has also nearly
    doubled in size in the last five years to over 2,500 military
    and civilian employees. This growth is primarily attributable
    to the transfer of personnel from the supposed closure of
    United States Joint Forces Command. The committee is also
    concerned that significant duplicative activities may exist
    between OSD, the Joint Staff, the military services, defense
    agencies, and other temporary organizations within DOD.
        The Defense Business Board estimates DOD could save $25.0
    billion per year if it better managed its civilian and
    contractor workforce through targeted reductions and contract
    elimination and other efficiency initiatives. The National
    Defense Panel (NDP) noted that ``additional changes are
    required to right size the civilian Defense Department and
    federal contracting workforces. Pentagon civilians have
    continued to grow even after the active duty forces have been
    shrinking for some time. From 2001 to 2012, the active duty
    military grew by 3.4 percent while at the same time the size of
    the USG civilian workforce in the Department has grown by 15%
    to over 800,000. CBO calculates that the rising costs of
    civilian pay accounts for two-thirds of projected growth in
    operations and maintenance spending in the next decade.
    Clearly, controlling or reducing civilian pay costs is
    essential to ensuring that the operations and maintenance
    accounts can be effectively leveraged to provide for the
    readiness of the Joint Force.'' The NDP further stated: ``The
    defense contracting workforce is also in need of review. By
    2012, the number of civilian contractors working inside the
    Department of Defense had grown to approximately 670,000. While
    some of these contractors are performing critical functions in
    support of the U.S. military, others are a legacy of the
    tremendous growth in the use of civilian contractors that
    attended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. We urge the Department
    to undertake a detailed examination of both the size of it
    civilian workforce and its reliance on civilian contractors in
    an effort to identify and eliminate excess overhead and right-
    size the civilian workforce.''

    Adoption of retired military working dogs (sec. 352)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2583 of title 10, United States Code, to give
    preference in the adoption of retired military working dogs
    (MWDs) to their former handlers, consistent with the best
    interests of the MWDs.
        The committee recognizes the value MWDs in support of the
    various training missions and combat operations of the U.S.
    Armed Forces. The committee also recognizes the efforts of the
    341st Training Squadron at Lackland Air Force Base in their
    role of training and handling MWDs across the Department of
    Defense.

    Modification of required review of projects relating to potential
            obstructions to aviation (sec. 353)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2011 to expand the coverage of the
    Department of Defense (DOD) Siting Clearinghouse to requests
    for informal reviews from Indian tribes and landowners. The
    Siting Clearinghouse is an office in the Office of the Deputy
    Under Secretary of Defense (Energy Installations and
    Environment) that serves as the DOD's point of contact under
    which the DOD evaluates projects for military mission
    compatibility and attempts to develop mitigations with
    developers.
        This provision would clarify that information received from
    private entities, which is frequently confidential business
    information, is not required to be publicly released, as this
    reduces the willingness of private developers to seek early
    consultation with the DOD.
        Further, the provision would eliminate an arbitrary and
    undesirable manner of distinguishing categories of adverse risk
    impact.

    Pilot program on intensive instruction in certain Asian languages (sec.
            354)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the National
    Security Education Board, to carry out a pilot program to
    assess the feasibility and advisability of providing
    scholarships in accordance with the David L. Boren National
    Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) to
    individuals for intensive language instruction in a covered
    Asian language where deficiencies exist.

                                  Budget Items

    Transfer to overseas contingency operations

        The budget request included $210.0 billion in service,
    component, and defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts.
    The committee recommends a decrease of $39.0 billion in
    operation and maintenance in this title and as specified in the
    table in section 4301 and a corresponding increase in operation
    and maintenance accounts in title XV (Overseas Contingency
    Operations) and as specified in the table in section 4302.
    Recommended decreases and increases are summarized in the below
    table.
        The Budget Control Act limits national defense
    discretionary spending to $523.0 billion for fiscal year 2016.
    In order to meet the defense funding levels requested by the
    President and avoid triggering automatic cuts, known as
    sequestration, the committee recommends transferring funding
    authority from base budget operation and maintenance in this
    title to Overseas Contingency Operations in title XV.
        The committee believes that the transfer of these funds to
    title XV should seek to limit any complications for the
    Department of Defense in the obligations of these funds. The
    committee notes the Armed Forces has been for the past 13
    years, and continues to be today, engaged in overseas
    operations. Currently, the Armed Forces is expanding their
    presence abroad. As such, the budget request included
    significant overseas contingency operation funding in the
    operation and maintenance account, specifically for the
    operating forces activities. Therefore, the committee
    recommends the transfer of title III to title XV funds for the
    activities itemized below. The Department of Defense has
    executed both base and overseas contingency operations funding
    for the activities listed below in the past. In addition, in
    previous years the President has deemed the operation and
    maintenance account eligible for overseas contingency operation
    funding.

      TRANSFER OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (OM) FUNDS FROM SECTION 4301 TO
                                  SECTION 4302
                                  ($ millions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Increase Sec.
               Activity ($M)            Decrease Sec.4301         4302
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OM, Army, Maneuver Units, 10......            1,094.4  .................
    OM, Army, Theater Level Assets, 40  .................              763.3
    OM, Army, Land Forces Operations              1,054.3  .................
     Support, 50......................
    OM, Army, Aviation Assets, 60.....            1,546.1  .................
    OM, Army, Force Readiness                     3,158.6  .................
     Operations Support, 70...........
    OM, Navy, Mission and Other Flight            4,940.4  .................
     Operations, 10...................
    OM, Navy, Aircraft Depot            .................              897.5
     Maintenance, 60..................
    OM, Navy, Mission and Other Ship              4,287.7  .................
     Operations, 90...................
    OM, Navy, Ship Depot Maintenance,             5,961.0  .................
     110..............................
    OM, Marine Corps, Operational       .................              931.1
     Forces, 10.......................
    OM, Marine Corps, Field Logistics,  .................              931.8
     20...............................
    OM, Air Force, Primary Combat                 3,336.9  .................
     Forces, 10.......................
    OM, Air Force, Combat Enhancement             1,897.3  .................
     Forces, 20.......................
    OM, Air Force, Depot Maintenance,             6,537.1  .................
     40...............................
    OM, Air Force, Depot Maintenance,             1,617.6            1,617.6
     160..............................
                                       -------------------------------------
            Total Transfer............           38,955.0           38,955.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities increases

        The budget request included $31.7 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance (OMA), of which $1.2 billion was for SAG 123 Land
    Forces Depot Maintenance, $2.6 billion was for SAG 132
    Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization (FSRM) and
    $981.0 million was for SAG 321 Specialized Skill Training. The
    budget request also included $2.6 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $59.5 million was
    for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
        The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness
    accounts that could help accelerate readiness recovery. The
    committee notes that these recommended increases will restore
    critical depot maintenance as well as increase both cyber and
    unmanned aircraft systems training capabilities. Additionally,
    the committee understands these funds will maintain the
    operations of strategic missile defense test sites.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
    increases in OMA: $77.2 million for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot
    Maintenance, $34.0 million for SAG 132 FSRM, and $33.2 million
    for SAG 321 Specialized Skill Training. The committee also
    recommends an increase of $32.4 million in OMAR for SAG 123
    Land Forces Depot Maintenance.

    Insider threat unfunded priorities increases

        The budget request included $31.7 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance (OMA), of which $7.6 billion was for SAG 131 Base
    Operations Support and $1.1 billion was for SAG 411 Security
    Programs.
        The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness
    accounts that could help reduce the risk of insider threat
    attacks. The committee notes that these recommended increases
    will improve physical security and information management.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of OMA in
    SAG 131 Base Operations Support for $10.5 million and $5.5
    million in SAG 411 Security Programs to help reduce the risk of
    insider threat attacks.

    Streamlining Combatant Commands

        The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $448.6 million was for SAG
    138 Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support, $42.2 billion
    for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $73.1
    million was for SAG 1CCM Combatant Commands Direct Mission
    Support, $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
    (OMAF), of which $900.6 million was for SAG 015A Combatant
    Commands Direct Mission Support.
        The committee is concerned that duplicative activities may
    exist between the staff of the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense, the Joint Staff, the military services, and many
    defense agencies. In addition, new regulations and procedures
    have been implemented over the years that drive many of these
    costs. The committee recommends a reduction of 7.5 percent to
    operation and maintenance accounts for Combatant Commands
    Direct Mission Support.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends undistributed
    decreases to the following: $12.3 million in OMA to SAG 138
    Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support, $5.4 million in OMN
    to SAG 1CCM Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support, and
    $15.3 million in OMAF to SAG 015A Combatant Commands Direct
    Mission Support.

    Army outreach reduction

        The budget request included $31.7 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 435 Other
    Service Support.
        The committee understands that within the Other Service
    Support request was an increase of $4.5 million to fund two
    additional cities for the Army's Spirit of America outreach
    program. The committee believes these funds should be realigned
    to support higher priority readiness requirements.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.5
    million in OMA to SAG 435 Other Service Support.

    United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase

        The budget request included $35.1 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for Security
    Programs.
        United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has identified
    specific amounts in this readiness account that could help
    offset the negative impacts from sequestration and resource
    critical mission shortfalls. The committee notes that in
    written testimony submitted to the committee on March 12, 2015,
    General John Kelly, Commander of SOUTHCOM, stated that in his
    area of responsibility the ``limited tactical ISR allocation
    and national technical focus is impairing virtually every one
    of our assigned missions and exposing the southern approaches
    to the United States to significant risk''.'' General John
    Kelly further stated that ``we could be talking not high risk
    anymore, or severe risk, to our plans, but really we could be
    talking defeat if sequestration happens.''
        Accordingly, the committee recommends increases in OMA of
    $20.0 million for Security Programs for SOUTHCOM, including
    airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and
    other intelligence and counter-intelligence support.

    Streamlining Management Headquarters

        The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $7.4 billion was for
    Administration and Servicewide Activities, $2.6 billion in
    Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $105.8
    million was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $6.7
    billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
    (OMARNG), of which $430.1 million was for Administration and
    Servicewide Activities, $42.2 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $4.3 billion was for
    Administration and Servicewide Activities, $6.2 billion for
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $471.8
    million was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $1.0
    billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), of
    which $1.0 billion was for Administration and Servicewide
    Activities, $277.0 million for Operation and Maintenance,
    Marine Corps Reserve (OMMCR), of which $20.5 million was for
    Administration and Servicewide Activities, $38.1 billion for
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $5.6
    billion was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $3.0
    billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
    (OMAFR), of which $88.5 million was for Administration and
    Servicewide Activities, $6.9 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $54.2 million
    was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, and $32.4
    billion for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of
    which $7.1 billion was for was for Administration and
    Servicewide Activities.
        The committee is concerned that duplicative activities may
    exist between the staff of the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense, the Joint Staff, the military services, and many
    defense agencies. In addition, new regulations and procedures
    have been implemented over the years that drive many of these
    costs. The committee recommends a reduction of 7.5 percent to
    the Defense-wide and military service operations and
    maintenance accounts for Administration and Servicewide
    Activities.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends undistributed
    decreases to the following Administration and Servicewide
    Activities accounts: $238.4 million to OMA, $6.0 million to
    OMAR, $26.6 million to OMARNG, $209.8 million to OMN, $32.5
    million to OMMC, $1.3 million to OMNR, $1.4 to OMMCR, $276.2
    million to OMAF, $4.6 million to OMAFR, $3.0 million to OMANG,
    and $897.5 million to OMDW for streamlining of headquarters
    management.

    Foreign currency fluctuation deductions

        The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Army (OMA), $42.2 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.2 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $38.1 billion for Operation
    and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.4 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 2015, the Department
    has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to
    replenish the account for fiscal year 2015 from a beginning
    balance of $970.0 million. GAO analysis projects that the
    Department will experience a net gain of $739.8 million in
    fiscal year 2015 due to favorable foreign exchange rates, of
    which $456.1 million is attributed to Operation and Maintenance
    (O&M). Additionally, GAO analysis projects the Department will
    experience a net gain of $891.4 million in fiscal year 2016 in
    FCF, of which $587.4 million is attributed to O&M.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of: $281.5
    million to OMA, $59.9 million to OMN, $19.8 million to OMMC,
    $137.8 million to OMAF, and $51.9 million to OMDW for FCF.

    Bulk fuel savings

        The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Army (OMA), $2.6 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), $6.7 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), $42.2 billion for
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.2 billion for
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $1.0 billion
    for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), $277
    million for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
    (OMMCR), $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
    (OMAF), $3.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
    Reserve (OMAFR), $6.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air
    National Guard (OMANG), and $32.4 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 2016 by $1.7 billion.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
    decreases: $260.1 million to OMA, $7.6 million to OMAR, $25.3
    to OMARNG, $482.3 million to OMN, $17.0 million to OMMC, $39.7
    to OMNR, $1.0 million to OMMCR, $618.3 million to OMAF, $101.1
    to OMAFR, $162.6 million to OMANG, and $36.0 million to OMDW
    for bulk fuel savings.

    Army and Air National Guard Operation Phalanx increase

        The budget request included $6.7 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $88.7
    million was for SAG 114 Theater Level Assets and $943.6 million
    was for SAG 116 Aviation Assets. The budget request also
    included $6.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air
    National Guard (OMANG), of which $740.7 million was for SAG 11G
    Mission Support Operations.
        The committee remains concerned that the southern border of
    the United States remains unsecure. The committee notes that in
    testimony on March 12, 2015, Admiral William Gortney, Commander
    of U.S. Northern Command stated that ``the southern border can
    be more secure.'' At the same hearing General John Kelly,
    Commander of U.S. Southern Command testified that ``with the
    amount of drugs and people that move across our southwest
    border, it doesn't seem all that secure to me.''
        The committee notes that the Army National Guard has been
    providing support to the Department of Homeland Security along
    the southwest border under a program entitled Operation Phalanx
    since 2010. Since its inception, Operation Phalanx has
    consisted of ground-based Entry Identification Teams, criminal
    analyst support, and aerial surveillance support to civil
    authorities along the southwest border. According to the Army
    National Guard, since Operation Phalanx began in July of 2010,
    operations have contributed to the apprehension of over 122,000
    individuals and the seizure of over 377,000 pounds of
    marijuana.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
    increases in OMARNG: $7.7 million for SAG 114 Theater Level
    Assets, and $13.0 million for SAG 116 Aviation Assets.
    Additionally, the committee recommends an increase of $2.6
    million in OMANG for SAG 11G Mission Support Operations.

    Army National Guard portrait cuts

        The budget request included $6.7 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $59.6
    million was for SAG 431 Administration.
        The committee understands that a portion of the requested
    increase is for the Chief National Guard Bureau (CNBG) Heritage
    Paintings, which the CNGB commissions each year. The committee
    also understands that this increase would be to pay for a
    backlog of four other paintings at a cost of $62,500 thousand
    per painting, which includes personnel and framing associated
    costs. The committee believes these funds should be realigned
    to support higher priority readiness requirements.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of
    $250,000 in OMARNG for SAG 431 Administration.

    Army National Guard marketing program reduction

        The budget request included $283.6 million in Other
    Personnel Support within Operation and Maintenance, Army
    National Guard (OMARNG), of which $283.0 million was for SAG
    434 Other Personnel Support.
        The committee understands that $11.5 million is an increase
    to the Army Marketing Program. The committee believes that
    these funds should be realigned to support higher priority
    readiness requirements.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.5
    million for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.

    Army National Guard readiness funding increase

        The budget request included $6.7 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $166.8
    million was for $943.6 million in SAG 116 Aviation Assets and
    SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
        The committee understands that the Army National Guard has
    identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that
    could accelerate readiness recovery while also increasing both
    actual and simulated flying hour programs increasing aviator
    readiness.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
    increases in OMARNG: $39.6 million in Aviation Assets and $22.5
    million for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance.

    Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases

        The budget request included $42.2 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $4.9 billion was for SAG 1A1A
    Mission and Other Flight Operations, $376.8 million was for SAG
    1A4N Air System Support, $897.5 million for SAG 1A5A Aircraft
    Depot Maintenance, $544.0 million was for SAG 1A9A Aviation
    Logistics, $4.4 billion was for BSS1 Base Operating Support,
    and $6.4 million for SAG 2B1G Aircraft Activations/
    Inactivations.
        The committee understands that the Marine Corps has
    identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that
    could accelerate readiness recovery. Specifically, the
    committee understands the Marine Corps has identified aviation
    readiness gaps in the CH-53E, MV-22, F/A-18, and AV-8B. The
    committee notes that this recommended increase will improve the
    Marine Corps' Ready Basic Aircraft goal to meet internal goals
    for the AV-8B Harrier and improve readiness and availability of
    the MV-22 aircraft. The committee also notes this recommended
    increase will reduce expected maintenance time for the AV-8B
    Harrier, making additional aircraft available to the fleet.
    Finally, the committee notes that this recommended increase
    will increase support and counseling services for Marines and
    their family members.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMN of
    $3.3 million to SAG 1A1A Mission and Other Flight Operations,
    $13.9 million to SAG 1A4N Air System Support, $17.0 million to
    SAG 1A5A Aircraft Depot Maintenance, $5.3 million to SAG 1A9A
    Aviation Logistics, $14.0 million to SAG BSS1 Base Operating
    Support, and $0.5 million for SAG 2B1G Aircraft Activations/
    Inactivations.

    Criminal Investigative Equipment

        The budget request included $6.2 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $2.0 billion was for
    SAG BSS1 Base Operating Support.
        The committee is aware the Marine Corps has identified an
    unfunded requirement that would improve its criminal
    investigative capabilities.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2
    million for SAG BSS1 Base Operating Support for criminal
    investigative equipment.

    A-10 to F-15E training transition

        The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.7 billion was for
    SAG 011D Air Operations Training.
        The committee understands that within this budget request
    is $79.6 million to be used to transition training resources
    from the A-10 to the F-15E.
        The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
    retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
    environment and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air
    forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
    commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
    that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
    against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, providing a
    theater security package in Europe to assure our allies and
    partners, and continuing rotational deployments operations to
    Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this time incurs
    unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of the combat
    air forces without a suitable replacement available.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF of
    $78.0 million in SAG 011D Air Operations Training.

    Air Force readiness unfunded priorities increases

        The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.8 billion was for
    SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces and $1.7 billion was for SAG
    011D Air Operations Training.
        The Air Force has identified specific amounts in this
    readiness account that could help accelerate readiness
    recovery. The committee notes that this recommended increase
    will improve training capabilities at 18 ranges as well as
    improve cyber incident reporting.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
    increases in OMAF: $4.3 million to SAG 011C Combat Enhancement
    Forces and $37.7 million in OMAF for SAG 011D Air Operations
    Training.

    Joint Enabling Capabilities Command

        The budget request included $205.1 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Core
    Operations, of which $41.0 million was for Joint Enabling
    Capabilities Command (JECC).
        The committee notes that JECC provides deployable units for
    planning, communications, and public affairs as a subordinate
    command to the U.S. Transportation Command. However, since the
    creation and establishment of JECC, combatant commands are now
    organized with planning, communications, and public affairs
    assets or can obtain these planning, communications, and public
    affairs forces through the military services.
        The committee believes this funding should be realigned to
    support high priority readiness requirements.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $41.0
    million in OMAF for JECC.

    Air Force Headquarters reductions

         The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation
    and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.3 billion was
    for SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces, $1.8 billion was for SAG
    011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $907.4 million was for SAG 012F
    Tactical Intel and Other Special Activities, and $1.1 billion
    was for SAG 043A Security Programs.
        The committee is aware of the Air Force's request for
    increasing civilian end strength within OMAF by 215 full-time
    employees (FTEs). The committee believes the Air Force has not
    adequately justified these 215 additional FTEs, and that any
    unjustified growth in headquarters funding is inconsistent with
    the 2013 headquarter reductions mandated by then-Secretary of
    Defense Chuck Hagel and communicated to the military
    departments and agencies through a July 31, 2013 memorandum
    (OSD008519-13) sent by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton
    Carter.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF to
    the following: $2.1 million to SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces,
    $14.0 million to SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $3.2
    million to SAG 012F Tactical Intel and Other Special
    Activities, and $4.9 million to SAG 043A Security Programs.

    Remotely piloted aircraft

        The budget request included $35.4 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $359.3 million was for
    SAG 032A Specialized Skill Training.
        The committee is aware that the remotely piloted aircraft
    (RPA) career field has been under stress due to the high demand
    of combat operations.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $43.1
    million in OMAF to SAG 032A Specialized Skill Training to
    increase RPA training and schoolhouse throughput for pilots.

    Air Force acquisition tools reduction

        The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $862 million was for
    SAG 041B Technical Support Activities.
        The committee understands that the Air Force is requesting
    a $32.4 million increase for ``Acquisition Tools, Services, and
    Training'' within Technical Support Activities. The committee
    understands that the Air Force intends to use a portion of
    these funds for skills training and officer development within
    the acquisition workforce. The committee believes these efforts
    are duplicative of the work done by the Defense Acquisition
    Workforce Development Fund.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF of
    $10.0 million for SAG 041B Technical Support Activities.

    Air Force enterprise information technology systems

        The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.5 billion was for
    SAG 3400F Logistics Operations, of which $1.1 billion is for
    Base Support. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.0
    million to this account to reduce support for redundant
    enterprise information systems. The committee notes that the
    Department of Defense and Air Force is working to continue to
    reduce its computing infrastructure, including data centers and
    legacy networks, through shutting down of legacy systems,
    consolidation of redundant systems, and adoption of advanced
    commercial technologies, such as cloud computing.

    Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System reduction

        The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $689.7 million was for
    SAG 042A Administration.
        The committee understands that within SAG 042A
    Administration is a $65.0 million increase request for Defense
    Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS). The
    committee is aware of $12.6 million allocated to ``Funds
    required to develop and deploy DEAMS'' and $8.1 million is for
    ``DEAMS sustainment.'' The committee is aware that within the
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding for DEAMS,
    separate funds are identified for a similar purpose. The
    committee also understands that, according to the Office of the
    Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, DEAMS has
    experienced significant software problems and that the program
    is not currently mature enough to transition to sustainment.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.7
    million in OMAF to SAG 042A Administration for DEAMS.

    EC-130H Buyback

         The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation
    and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF).
        The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
    retirement of EC-130H Compass Call aircraft purely on the basis
    of the fiscal environment and not on grounds of the ability of
    the Air Force to meet effectively the requirements of the
    combatant commanders and the national defense strategy.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $27.3
    million in OMAF for EC-130H buyback.

    A-10 Operation and Maintenance Buyback

        The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), $3.0 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), and $6.9 billion in
    Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG).
        The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
    retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
    environment and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air
    forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
    commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
    that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
    against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, providing a
    theater security package in Europe to assure our allies and
    partners, and continuing rotational deployments operations to
    Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this time incurs
    unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of the combat
    air forces without a suitable replacement available.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
    increases for A-10 buyback: $235.3 million in OMAF, $2.5
    million in OMAFR, and $42.2 million in OMANG.

    Middle East Assurance Initiative

        The budget request included $495.7 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
    of which $9.7 million was for the Combatant Commander Exercise
    Engagement and Training Transformation (CE2T2) program.
        The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in
    OMDW for the CE2T2 program for bilateral and multilateral
    exercises and activities to build the capability, capacity, and
    interoperability of allies and partner nations in the Middle
    East to conduct multilateral contingency operations.
        The committee notes the need for enhancements in a region
    of increasing unrest and the importance of the commitment of
    the United States to provide leadership in order to continue to
    develop critical multilateral partner capacity and capability
    as well as the interoperability of those partners with United
    States forces.
        The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff, in coordination with the Commander of United States
    Central Command, to provide a briefing to the Committees on
    Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate,
    not later than December 31, 2017, with a summary of the
    activities conducted with the additional funding.

    Department of Defense Rewards Program reduction

        The budget request included $1.9 billion in the Operation
    and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $12.3 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 $4.0
    million in OMDW for the DOD Rewards Program (SAG 4GTN).
    Additionally, the committee is encouraged by the DOD Rewards
    Program as an effective tool against counterterrorism
    worldwide. The committee is also encouraged by the prospect of
    DOD developing a budgeting forecasting tool to help improve the
    use of future resources.

    Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program

        The budget request included $32.4 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $32.6 million is for
    the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CFTP). While the
    committee remains supportive of the CTFP, the committee is
    concerned about the expanding activities and increased
    operating costs of the CTFP at a time of fiscal challenges. The
    committee encourages the CTFP to focus its activities on its
    core counterterrorism training and education mission and a
    limited number of regions where the threat posed by terrorism
    is most significant.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0
    million in OMDW for the CTFP.

    Funding for impact aid

        The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide, 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

    Defense-wide funding decreases for Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)

        The budget request included $110.6 million in Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic
    Adjustment (OEA), of which $33.1 million was for the Defense
    Industry Adjustment (DIA) program and $20.0 million was for
    water and civilian water and wastewater infrastructure
    improvements.
        The committee believes this funding should be realigned to
    support high priority readiness and modernization requirements.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $53.1
    million in OMDW for the OEA.

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

        The budget request included $32.4 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.3 billion was for
    SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense.
        The committee understands that $10.5 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 $10.5
    million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of
    Defense.

    Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy

        The budget request included $1.4 million for Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for SAG 4GTN Admin Service-
    wide Activities.
        This Act includes a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Defense to commission three studies to be
    submitted to the congressional defense committees on potential
    future fleet architectures no later than May 1, 2016. These
    studies would provide competing visions and alternatives for
    future fleet architectures. One study would be performed by the
    Department of the Navy, with input from the Naval Surface
    Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. The second study would be
    performed by a federally funded research and development
    center. The third study would be conducted by a qualified
    independent, non-governmental institute, as selected by the
    Secretary of Defense.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
    million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Admin Service-wide Activities for
    the performance of these studies.

    A-10 retirement manpower transfer

        The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.3 billion was for
    SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces (PCF).
        The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
    retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
    environment, despite concerns that the retirement of the A-10
    fleet could adversely impact the ability of the combat air
    forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
    commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
    that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
    against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),
    providing a theater security package in Europe to assure our
    allies and partners, and continuing rotational deployments
    operations to Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this
    time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of
    the combat air forces without a suitable replacement available.
    Additionally, in fiscal year 2015 the Air Force implemented the
    move of 18 primary mission aircraft inventory A-10s to backup
    aircraft inventory status, reducing all but 2 of the A-10
    fleet's combat squadrons to 18 primary assigned aircraft each.
        The committee understands that a portion of the requested
    increase for PCF was for the transfer of manpower towards
    retirement of the A-10.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.4
    million for SAG 011A PCF.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Army and Air Force full spectrum training requirements

        The committee notes that for more than a decade, the Army
    and Air Force have focused the training of their forces in
    support of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. The Department of Defense established a range of
    resource-intensive training requirements deemed necessary to
    conduct missions in these locations while deprioritizing
    training in other areas. The committee notes that in the coming
    years, both the Army and the Air Force will confront an
    increasingly complex security environment that will demand a
    full spectrum of missions, ranging from additional
    counterinsurgency operations to humanitarian assistance and
    disaster relief. To accomplish a broader set of missions, the
    committee is encouraged by both services having established
    plans to refocus their training to conduct the full spectrum of
    military operations.
        However, the committee notes that under the Budget Control
    Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), the Department faces an
    environment of constrained budgetary resources until at least
    2021. For example, in fiscal year 2013, the Department's
    operation and maintenance accounts--which fund the military
    services' training programs--were reduced by approximately
    $20.0 billion. Due to these sequestration-level budget caps,
    the Army curtailed training for all units except those
    deployed, preparing to deploy, or stationed overseas.
    Meanwhile, the Air Force ceased flight operations from April
    through June 2013 for about one third of its active duty combat
    units and reduced the number of its larger training exercises.
        Unless the Budget Control Act of 2011 is amended, the
    Department faces another adverse impact to training and
    readiness in fiscal year 2016. The committee remains concerned
    that under sequestration, the Department will be unable to
    balance necessary training investments with available
    resources. Additionally, if sequestration persists until 2021,
    the committee notes that the Department may have to
    fundamentally reexamine the requirements for training its
    forces. Finally, the committee notes that the Department should
    continue to explore how to best achieve additional efficiencies
    and cost savings during training, while preparing for mission
    requirements.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to provide the committee with an
    assessment of the Army and Air Force training plans and
    requirements. This assessment shall include, but not be limited
    to: the extent to which the Army and Air Force have established
    full-spectrum readiness goals, plans, and timeframes to train
    their forces; have adjusted training plans and identified
    resource requirements in light of prepare ready units for
    counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; have
    considered options for increasing the use of simulated training
    and other technologies to achieve efficiencies or other cost
    savings, while meeting training requirements; and any other
    issues the Comptroller General determines relevant and
    appropriate with respect to Army and Air Force training.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
    report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.

    Body armor modernization

        The committee continues to monitor the Department of
    Defense's plans and actions to ensure the continued
    availability and improvement of the best possible body armor
    and other protective equipment for our troops serving in harm's
    way. The committee has received the interim technical study and
    business case analysis of body armor plates required by the
    Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
        The committee looks forward to receiving the final report
    no later than March 1, 2016 which will evaluate the full range
    of options for body armor modernization and sustainment. The
    committee directs that the final report shall include a
    strategy to address body armor demand and sustainment in light
    of the current industry consolidation and potential
    restructuring, to ensure that the Department can respond to
    future warfighter requirements.
        The committee expects the Department to continue to ensure
    that those who fight to protect our nation have the best
    available equipment and protection to meet mission
    requirements, including body armor specifically designed for
    women. Additionally, the Department is strongly encouraged to
    apply appropriate resources to ensure the modernization of body
    armor occurs through the appropriate research, development,
    test, and evaluation.

    Care of stock in storage

        The committee notes that the military services have
    established several locations of pre-positioned stock and
    equipment around the globe in support of combatant commanders'
    requirements for operational plans, training, and
    contingencies. The committee is concerned such military
    equipment suffers varying degrees of degradation and corrosion
    while being stored outdoors for extended periods of time. Such
    degradation and corrosion is caused by weatherization and
    equipment being stored in a stagnant state without minimal
    levels of care of stock in storage (COSIS). The Government
    Accountability Office has estimated that the Department of
    Defense incurs over $20.0 billion every year in corrosion costs
    for its weapon systems and infrastructure.
        The committee is concerned that minimal funding has been
    allocated to COSIS, historically, and instead has gone to other
    priorities, which ultimately leads to higher costs in the long-
    term. Furthermore, the committee believes that moving equipment
    under basic COSIS and cover--even indoor facilities that are
    not necessarily climate-controlled or using equipment covers--
    could generate significant cost avoidance for pre-positioned
    stock and military equipment.
        The committee is aware of a recent effort by the Army in
    Kuwait to move some pre-positioned equipment to indoor storage,
    but the committee is concerned that such a move was merely a
    target of opportunity and not part of a broad strategy backed
    by effective planning and resources.
        Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Department
    and the military services to identify and implement
    opportunities to improve the COSIS and covered storage of its
    pre-positioned stock, and to notify the committee of potential
    opportunities where additional resources could be applied to
    improve COSIS.
        Additionally, 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, 2016 on specific locations and opportunities where
    COSIS could improve for outdoor pre-positioned stock to ensure
    equipment is stored in a way that minimizes weatherization and
    weapon system degradation. The report shall include an estimate
    of the return on investment of storing pre-positioned equipment
    indoors.

    Category I ammunition items in OCONUS environments

        The committee continues to note that Category I ammunition
    items, including certain man-portable missiles and rockets, are
    highly explosive, 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),
    among other security measures, have sound inventory controls
    and accountability while transferring custody of Category I
    ammunition items in outside the contiguous United States
    (OCONUS) environments. The committee notes that recent
    Government Accountability Office reports on inventory
    management have found that DOD information systems used to
    facilitate inventory management have some limitations that
    prevent DOD's ability to have Department-wide visibility of its
    inventory, including Category I ammunition items in OCONUS
    environments.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to evaluate the extent to which the
    military Services, in accordance with policies and procedures,
    have: (1) Have conducted physical inventories of Category I
    ammunition items in OCONUS locations and compared the results
    to records and adjusted the records as needed; (2) Are able to
    maintain accountability and track Category I ammunition items
    while they are being shipped to OCONUS locations and between
    OCONUS locations, as well as shipments back to the continental
    United States; and (3) Adhere to policies and procedures for
    maintaining accountability over the process for how Category I
    ammunition items are distributed, expended, and turned-in in
    OCONUS locations.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to deliver a
    report to the committee no later than March 15, 2016.

    Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)

        The committee notes the vital national security
    contribution of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) to Operation
    Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New
    Dawn as well as its essential role for the military in quickly
    responding to crisis situations such as humanitarian and
    disaster relief operations.
        The National Airlift Policy of 1987 established clear
    policy regarding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). The
    committee directs the Department to continue to comply with the
    National Airlift Policy to maintain the effectiveness of the
    Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) through appropriate peacetime
    cargo airlift augmentation and training within the military
    airlift system.
        The committee encourages the Department to continue
    coordination with the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) on matters
    of long-range planning, capability, training, and readiness.

    Commercial innovation in energy technologies

        The committee notes that innovation in advanced energy
    technologies by the commercial sector is frequently generating
    both significant revenues for industry, as well as enhancing
    the energy efficiency of organizations that are adopting novel
    technical solutions. Similarly, technologies ranging from more
    energy efficient engines to micro-grids to information
    technology-based intelligent management of energy and power
    systems can have significant impacts on defense missions, both
    improving combat capability and reducing costs.
        The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    has had limited success in engaging innovative small businesses
    and university researchers in the development and maturation of
    these types of technologies to meet DOD needs. One example of a
    successful endeavor to identify, develop, and potentially adopt
    innovative energy technology solutions, especially those being
    developed in the commercial sector is the Marine Corps'
    Experimental Forward Operating Base, currently run by the
    Expeditionary Energy Office. The committee believes that this
    type of effort should be replicated by other DOD organizations
    that have a mission to develop and adopt advanced energy
    technologies to support military missions.
        The committee further notes that DOD has a wide range of
    authorities that can be used to engage with and potentially
    invest in commercial technologies and non-traditional industry
    partners to develop next generation, game-changing
    technologies. Specifically, the committee notes that DOD makes
    limited use of the authorities to award advanced technology
    prizes (as codified in section 2374 of title 10, United States
    Code, and in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,
    Public Law 111-358), funding under Small Business Innovation
    Research program, transition activities supported by the Rapid
    Innovation Program, and other flexible and agile acquisition
    processes.
        Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the
    Department to consider using these types of authorities to
    identify and engage innovation companies.

    Defense Logistics Agency and military services' integrated demand
            planning for spare parts

        The committee recognizes that the Defense Logistics Agency
    (DLA) and the military services have jointly worked to
    integrate demand planning for consumable items to enhance
    materiel support at shipyards, depots and industrial operation
    sites. The committee continues to be concerned about DLA's
    ability to ensure the timely delivery and availability of spare
    parts to the depots and industrial sites, such as the Navy's
    Shipyards and Fleet Readiness Centers, Air Force's Air
    Logistics Centers (ALC), and the Army and Marine Corps' depots.
    While DLA has provided shipyards and depots with 80 percent of
    required parts in a timely and effective manner, our military
    services need 100 percent of the parts delivered on time to
    have combat/mission ready equipment.
        Reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and
    the Department of Defense have identified shortages of spare
    parts at depots and shipyards, which affected maintenance
    operations and weapon system availability and overall
    readiness. In one report, the GAO analysis of Air Force data
    showed that the average monthly backorders and part shortages
    at the ALCs had grown significantly in recent years. The GAO
    also identified issues between DLA and the Air Force and Navy
    in support of their depot operations. Specifically, efforts to
    improve demand forecast accuracy for items needed to support
    the workload at the depots were not managed through a
    comprehensive framework and were not producing the intended
    outcomes.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to evaluate the extent to which: (1) DLA
    and the military services have established a framework for
    monitoring DLA's supply support depots and industrial
    operations while meeting performance targets for improving
    materiel availability, reducing backorders, and minimizing the
    accumulation of excess inventory; (2) backorders for DLA-
    managed items at the depots and industrial operation sites have
    affected the availability and readiness of weapon systems; (3)
    DLA and the military services implemented and measured
    collaborative forecasting efforts--like demand data exchange or
    gross demand planning--to integrate demand planning and improve
    materiel availability in support of efficient operations at the
    depots and industrial sites; and (4) DLA and the military
    services identified and applied leading best practices for
    integrating demand planning that could be used to enhance the
    availability of DLA-managed consumable items, decrease the
    likelihood of excess inventory, and improve depot and
    industrial operations.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
    report to the committee no later than March 15, 2016.

    Department of Defense airfield reflective pavement markings

        The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for
    its continued safe execution of airfield operations to include
    maintaining and sustaining the airfield environment. The
    committee understands the Air Force has been assessing its
    airfield markings to include reflective airfield, runway, and
    taxiway markings. The assessment includes factors such as
    reflectivity, friction coefficient, durability, and life cycle
    costs. This committee encourages all DOD services to assess the
    different types of reflective materials to maximize safety and
    ensure Unified Facilities Guide Specifications for pavement
    markings (UFGS 32 17 23.00 20 Pavement Markings, UFGS 32 17
    24.00 10 Pavement Markings) are adequate for minimum reflective
    marking requirements for continued safe nighttime and low
    visibility conditions.

    Department of Defense energy security and efficiency technologies

        The committee is aware that new energy security and
    efficiency technology is being tested by the military services
    at Department of Defense (DOD) installations and is supported
    by the Department. The committee applauds DOD's efforts to find
    efficiencies in its energy programs. The committee encourages
    the types of technology that can provide energy infrastructure
    protections, maintain vital energy supplies during man-made and
    natural disasters and achieve energy efficiencies and cost
    savings. As such, the committee also encourages DOD's continued
    testing and evaluation of energy security and efficiency
    technologies and recommends all military services and DOD
    continue to look for additional evaluation and testing
    opportunities. Lastly, the committee notes that microgrid
    demonstrations that specifically target highest reliability of
    critical infrastructure at low implementation costs will be
    imperative in today's fiscally constrained environment.

    Department of Defense fuel consumption estimates

        The committee remains concerned that the Department of
    Defense (DOD) actual fuel costs have differed considerably from
    budget estimates. For example, the Department underestimated
    its fuel costs by about $3.0 billion for fiscal years 2010
    through 2012. The committee notes the inherent challenge the
    DOD faces in having to plan real-time fuel prices well in
    advance of execution, and the Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) found in 2014 that fluctuations in global fuel prices
    accounted for a large portion of the differences between
    estimated and actual fuel costs. However, the GAO also found
    that differences between the military services' estimated and
    actual fuel consumption levels accounted for, on average, 26
    percent of the difference between the DOD's estimated and
    actual fuel costs for fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
        The committee notes that when developing annual operation
    and maintenance budget requests, the military services develop
    fuel funding requirements based on their estimated activity
    levels, such as flying hours, steaming days, tank miles, and
    base operations, along with the standard price of fuel provided
    to them by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
    (Comptroller).
        The committee believes that as the DOD transitions from
    large-scale contingency operations in Afghanistan, the
    services' consumption estimates should be more consistent as
    full spectrum training resumes. The committee also believes
    that given recent fuel price fluctuations due to changes in the
    global oil market, accurate fuel consumption estimates become
    even more important in trying to adequately determine budget
    requests, particularly in times of fiscal constraints.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to provide the committee with an
    assessment of the military services' approaches to estimating
    fuel consumption in annual budget requests. This assessment
    shall include, but not be limited to: the processes the
    military services use to estimate their fuel consumption
    requirements each fiscal year, the factors that contribute to
    any differences between actual and estimated fuel consumption,
    and the extent to which DOD and the services have considered
    options for adjusting the approach to estimating fuel
    consumption in light of any differences in recent years between
    estimated and actual fuel use.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
    report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.

    Department of Defense investment in community relations activities

        The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    engages in a variety of community relations activities and
    programs, such as aircraft flyovers and musical performances,
    which have a goal of increasing the understanding and mission
    of the DOD. The committee understands that some of these
    activities are also intended to support recruiting and
    retention programs. According to the DOD Directive 5410.18, the
    planning and execution of community relation programs are
    decentralized because of the variety of local conditions and
    environments in which they are used. However, because of their
    decentralized nature, it is difficult to determine the cost or
    effectiveness of these activities across the Department.
        For instance, the committee understands the budget request
    included $37.0 million in Military Construction, Army for an
    instruction building for the U.S. Army band, which does not
    include the costs of sustainment and operation of the facility.
    While the committee recognizes that community relations are
    needed and important, it also is interested in understanding
    the extent of investment in these activities and their
    benefits.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to identify the personnel, facilities, and
    other support costs associated with community relations
    activities in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and
    evaluate the extent to which the military services determine
    requirements for these activities.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
    States to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services
    of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than
    March 15, 2016.

    Depot maintenance core workload capability

        The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
    (DOD) maintains many complex weapon systems and equipment that
    require regular and emergency maintenance in order to be
    available for DOD to meet the National Military Strategy. To
    sustain these weapon systems and equipment, at the depot level,
    DOD uses both organic depots and contractors. The committee
    notes that the military services are constantly in the process
    of assessing the critical skills and competencies necessary by
    the depot maintenance civilian workforce to support current and
    future national security requirements, along with projecting
    trends in the workforce based on expected losses due to
    retirement and other attrition.
        The committee continues to recognize the key role the
    depots, arsenals, and ammunition plants serve, along with
    industry. Section 2464 of title 10 United States Code, required
    DOD to maintain a core maintenance capability--a combination of
    personnel, facilities, equipment, processes, data, and
    technology that is government-owned and government-operated--
    needed to meet mobilization, contingency, and emergency
    requirements. The committee notes that as DOD continues to
    operate in a fiscally-constrained environment, DOD will need to
    prioritize available funds to support the depots to ensure core
    capabilities are sustained.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to evaluate the extent to which DOD: uses
    core capability requirements to manage the current and future
    depot maintenance workloads, is able to provide information
    that identifies trends in core capability workloads at selected
    military depots, and the effects, if any, they are having on
    capability; and agreements such as public private partnerships
    with industry and the impact they have on DOD meeting core
    capability requirements.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
    report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.

    Effects of operation and maintenance funding levels

        The committee notes that the operation and maintenance
    (O&M) accounts provide the resources for military readiness and
    fund programs and activities such as training, maintenance, and
    base operations. The committee also notes that as a result of
    sequestration-level budget caps in fiscal year 2013, the
    Department of Defense's O&M accounts were reduced by
    approximately $20.0 billion. Due to these sequestration
    reductions, the military services took a variety of actions,
    such as curtailing training, reducing the number of large
    training exercises, and ceasing flight operations for many
    combat units. As a result of these actions, and given the time
    required to retrain personnel and perform deferred maintenance,
    the military services have faced challenges in restoring their
    units to pre-sequestration levels of readiness. While the
    Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-67) provided some
    relief to the Department by increasing discretionary spending
    caps, established under the Budget Control Act of 2011, for
    fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the committee is concerned that the
    readiness and cost impacts associated with lower levels of O&M
    funding over time could lead to a high level of risk in the
    near future, with significant shortfalls in both present and
    future capabilities.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to evaluate the effects of budgetary
    constraints on the O&M accounts, including an assessment of,
    but not limited to the following: the trends in funding
    provided for the Department's O&M accounts since fiscal year
    2009 and a comparison of how O&M resources compared with
    funding plans; how the Department has identified immediate and
    long-term readiness and cost impacts resulting from any
    reductions in O&M resources; and how the Department assessed
    any degradation, if any, on core mission readiness and
    identified plans to mitigate such degradation.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
    report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.

    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.
        The committee understands the IRT program offers complex
    and challenging training opportunities for domestic and
    international crises, opportunities which can seldom be
    replicated outside of these crises. The committee is also aware
    that states that utilize the IRT program include, Alabama,
    Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine,
    Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North
    Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota.
        The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
    continue to utilize the IRT programs as well as the other
    training opportunities that also provide hands-on and mission-
    essential training and are available to Active, Reserve, and
    National Guard forces.

    Enhanced Performance Round and Special Operations Science and
            Technology review

        The committee believes that the Army and Marine Corps have
    taken duplicative courses of action to improve its 5.56mm small
    arms ammunition. While the committee recognizes and supports
    the requirement for an improved small arms round against both
    hard and soft targets, the committee also believes that the
    Department may be incurring unnecessary costs to procure,
    store, and field almost identically-capable small arms
    ammunition. The committee is also concerned regarding a recent
    court case alleging that the Army infringed upon a patent in
    developing the enhanced performance round (EPR).
        Additionally, the committee is concerned that an
    independent comparison of the EPR, or M855A1, and Special
    Operations Science and Technology (SOST), round has not been
    completed, leaving both the Army and Marine Corps to develop
    separate ammunition procurement strategies.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
    Defense, in consultation with the Director, Operational Test
    and Evaluation, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed
    Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no
    later than March 1, 2016. The report shall include a comparison
    and analysis of the EPR and SOST rounds to include but not
    limited to: (1) cost; (2) performance including range,
    accuracy, and lethality; and (3) effects on the weapon. The
    report may include a classified annex, as appropriate.

    Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment

        The committee is aware of emerging technologies in fabrics
    and respiratory protection that are designed to minimize
    service member exposure to inhalation of sand, dust, smoke, and
    pollutants. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
    coordination with the relevant military departments and their
    research, development, test, and evaluation directorates, to
    submit a report to the committee no later than March 1, 2016 on
    fabric-based respiratory protective equipment. The report shall
    evaluate the technology, and document any efforts underway to
    develop, design, and test wearable fabric-based respiratory
    protection solutions, and any potential applications for
    service members and military civilians. The report shall also
    include an assessment of the commercial availability of any
    fabric-based respiratory protection.

    Foreign language training

        The committee believes that foreign language proficiency,
    particularly for slang and other colloquialisms in target
    languages, is an essential component of military readiness.
    Additionally, the committee understands that foreign language
    proficiency education materials are utilized by numerous
    agencies and services, to include but not limited to the
    Defense Language Institute, Office of the Secretary of Defense,
    Defense Intelligence Agency, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air
    Force, members of the intelligence community as well as the
    Department of State and other non-defense customers. The
    committee is concerned that reductions to such capabilities may
    have a far reaching impact on the ability of civilian and
    military personnel of the Department of Defense, and possibly
    also the cryptanalytic personnel of other agencies, to support
    combatant commanders and major commands of the military
    services.
        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 not later than 90 days
    after the date of enactment of this Act that identifies
    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 further directs the
    Secretary of Defense to consult with such agencies, including
    the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in the
    preparation of this report, providing these agencies with an
    opportunity to submit additional views to the congressional
    defense committees as they deem necessary. The committee
    directs that this report should propose a plan for eliminating
    shortfalls in advanced foreign language proficiency and include
    a recommendation as to the most appropriate budget function,
    such as within a military service, other government agencies
    that support military operations, or the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense, for advanced foreign language training.
    The committee further directs that this report should propose a
    plan for the aforementioned agencies to identify and reduce
    duplicative services that could reduce costs while increasing
    information and skill sharing.

    Installation access programs and systems

        The committee continues to be concerned about the lack of
    coordination among the efforts of the military services and
    defense agencies to support credentialing at defense
    installations. The Senate report accompanying S. 2410 (S. Rept.
    113-176) of the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2015 directed the Department of Defense (DOD)
    to provide a report concurrent with the budget submission for
    fiscal year 2016 that identified DOD credentialing and physical
    access control programs and systems, including commercially
    contracted services and other commercially provided services.
    While DOD delivered an interim report, the final report on
    physical access control systems has not been received.
        The committee directs Secretary of Defense to immediately
    provide the required report on its efforts to deploy physical
    access control systems. As directed by the committee, this
    report should cover all programs and systems intended to
    provide credentials and/or manage installation access, include
    all programs and systems the services and DOD have
    operationally deployed, are in research and development, or in
    pilot or prototype demonstration, and include both direct and
    indirect costs.

    Major test range and test facility bases reimbursement

        The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    established the major range and test facility bases (MRTFBs)
    management concept to provide effective coordination among
    military installations, promote multi-service use, and reduce
    unnecessary duplication of assets.
        The committee is aware that MRTFBs in the United States
    currently are reimbursed for training activities by the
    training units upon completion of a training event. The
    committee understands that some training units do not routinely
    encounter this type of reimbursement process, which may create
    unnecessary difficulty and confusion for reimbursement at
    MRTFBs.
        Accordingly, the committee urges DOD to examine the current
    reimbursement process for MRTFBs and, where appropriate,
    simplify the reimbursement process in order to maximize
    effectiveness and efficiency for training units.

    Medical textile apparel for healthcare workers and patients

        The committee is aware of emerging technologies in textiles
    and medical apparel that are designed to minimize unanticipated
    exposures to blood and bodily fluids, by reducing the amount of
    pathogens on garments and decreasing the risk of infectious
    disease transmission in healthcare settings. Accordingly, the
    committee encourages the Department of Defense to incorporate
    the effective use of such emerging technologies, including
    innovative textile products designed to reduce the chances of
    spreading infections in healthcare settings, where appropriate.

    Mentor Protege program

        The congressionally-mandated Mentor Protege program is
    intended to support efforts of small and disadvantaged
    businesses to partner with established defense suppliers in
    order to improve their ability to deliver needed technologies
    and services to the Department of Defense. The committee is
    concerned that the program may not always be currently executed
    to most efficiently achieve mandated goals. For example, the
    committee's analysis of this program indicates that in some
    cases, protege firms participating in this program had received
    millions of dollars in federal prime contract awards prior to
    the establishment of their Mentor-Protege agreements. This
    raises questions as to whether appropriate criteria are in
    place to ensure that the companies participating as proteges
    truly require the developmental assistance that is being
    provided under this program. In addition, the committee is
    concerned that in some cases the developmental assistance
    provided by mentors and reimbursed by the Department under this
    program may not be targeted to those activities most critical
    to enhancing the capabilities of the supplier base that the
    Department needs.
        The committee will continue to work with the Department to
    ensure that the program meets the policy goals of enhancing the
    defense supplier base, in the most effective and efficient
    manner, and to determine if there are better ways to
    incentivize participation in the program other than direct
    reimbursement as well as program metrics that would better
    convey the actual impact of the development assistance on the
    protege's business.

    Obstructions on or near military installations

        The committee is concerned that the installation of
    renewable energy projects on or near military bases may cause
    unacceptable interference with military operations or safety.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to
    ensure the Siting Clearinghouse process appropriately takes
    into account the views of senior military officers of the
    uniformed services for the military compatibility of renewable
    energy projects. The committee believes senior military
    officials can best assess potential impacts to the safety or
    readiness of military servicemembers as well as the
    effectiveness of mitigation strategies proposed for renewable
    energy projects.

    Operational Energy

        The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense
    (DOD)'s fiscal year 2016 commitment to improving military
    capability, decrease tactical risk, and reduce cost through
    efforts to improve energy security and to better manage both
    operational and installation energy.
        The committee understands that generators used by the
    military services consume a large percentage of the fuel used
    in overseas contingency operations and the Department should
    continue to examine ways to increase fuel efficiency, improve
    combat capability, decrease tactical risk, and reduce cost of
    generators.
        Additionally, the committee understands that the Army's
    planned Abrams tank auxiliary power unit will use 92 percent
    less fuel idling and 9 percent less fuel during maneuvers.
    Similarly, the improved turbine engine program for Army
    Blackhawk and Apache helicopters is expected to extend combat
    range by 85 percent.
        The committee is also encouraged by the Navy's focus on
    enhancing combat capability, increasing endurance and range,
    and using energy investments to increase readiness. The
    committee understands that planned technologies such as
    improved ship hull coatings, stern flaps, lighting, and bow
    bulbs may create an additional week of steaming days on the
    same amount of fuel. Hybrid electric drives, currently
    installed in amphibious assault ships, can add 10 steaming days
    which would allow the Navy and Marine Corps more presence on
    station and to spend less time refueling and replenishing at
    sea.
        Consequently, the committee encourages DOD to continue the
    progress made towards improving combat capabilities through
    appropriate investments in operational and installation energy.

    Personal protection equipment

        The committee notes that section 141 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (P.L. 113-66)
    required the Secretary of Defense to submit, as part of the
    defense budget materials for each fiscal year, a consolidated
    budget justification display that covers all programs and
    activities associated with the procurement of personal
    protection equipment (PPE).
        While the Department of Defense's fiscal year 2016 budget
    display for PPE is a positive step, the submission did not
    provide many of the required details regarding body armor
    components, combat helmets, and combat protective eyewear. The
    committee expects the Department to comply with section 141 of
    the fiscal year 2014 NDAA and strongly encourages the
    Department to consider including similar budget displays for
    environmental and fire resistant clothing, footwear, and
    organizational clothing and individual equipment as well.

    Red Hill underground fuel storage facility

        The committee is aware that the Commander, U.S. Pacific
    Command (PACOM) has stated that the Red Hill Underground Fuel
    Storage Facility ``serves as a critical asset supporting United
    States Pacific Command operations in peacetime and
    contingency'' and will ``remain vitally important to our
    security interests for the next thirty years.'' The committee
    is also aware that PACOM, the Department of the Navy, and the
    Defense Logistics Agency have determined the storage
    requirement at the Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility
    to remain between 13 and 15 operational storage tanks to
    support the most demanding scenario within the Pacific theater,
    with the ability to bring additional tanks online at the end of
    the repair and modernization cycle should future requirements
    warrant. Additionally, the committee is aware that the Naval
    Facilities Engineering Command is currently conducting an
    engineering assessment to determine the best available
    practicable technological (BAPT) solutions for the
    recapitalization of the storage tanks to ensure long-term
    integrity and environmental compliance in a cost effective
    manner. The committee is further aware that the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted a proposed rule to amend
    Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation (Parts 280 and 281) to
    regulate field-constructed underground storage tanks, such as
    those at the facility, and directs the Naval Facilities
    Engineering Command to factor in these potential regulations in
    their BAPT solutions.

    Report on those at-risk of exposure to perflourochemicals from the
            Haven Well in Portsmouth, New Hampshire

        The committee notes that in April 2014, the Air Force in
    coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
    the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and the
    City of Portsmouth--discovered the presence of
    perflourochemicals (PFCs) in the Haven Well in Portsmouth, New
    Hampshire. The presence of the chemicals in the well in
    Portsmouth is likely due to the Air Force's use of fire-
    fighting foam at Pease Air National Guard Base.
        Research has associated exposure to these chemicals with
    certain types of cancer. Portsmouth residents who believe they
    were at risk of exposure have requested tests to check their
    blood serum levels of PFCs. The committee is unaware of any
    affirmative steps by the Air Force to identify and notify
    everyone at risk of contamination from the Haven Well--
    including the service members and civilians who may have been
    exposed while stationed at the Pease Air Base.
        The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
    submit a report to the defense committees no later than
    September 30, 2015, detailing the Air Force's efforts to
    identify and notify the servicemembers and Department of
    Defense civilian employees who may have been exposed while
    stationed at Pease. If such notification is not complete by the
    completion of the report, the Secretary shall include the Air
    Force's plan to complete the notification within 90 days of
    submission of the report.

    Resilience of Department of Defense-owned utility infrastructure

        The committee notes that Department of Defense (DOD)
    installations serve as platforms from which the Department
    deploys forces across the full spectrum of military operations.
    To accomplish their missions, DOD installations, inside and
    outside the continental United States, must have assurance that
    they can continue to operate in the face of man-made and
    weather-induced utility disruptions that affect electricity,
    potable water, wastewater, and natural gas utility service. The
    committee notes that threats--such as cyberattacks--and
    hazards--such as severe weather events--pose significant risks
    to the utility infrastructure that provides military
    installations with utility services. The committee also notes
    that DOD installations rely upon utility infrastructure owned
    by non-DOD entities, such as commercial utility companies, and
    on-installation infrastructure owned by the Department.
        The committee believes that the condition of the utility
    infrastructure can play a significant role in a military
    installation's resilience to utility disruptions, either by
    threat or hazard. For example, aging infrastructure is more
    likely to fail when subjected to extreme weather conditions.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to evaluate, (1) from fiscal years 2009 to
    2015, utility disruptions on DOD installations that have been
    caused by the failure of DOD-owned infrastructure and what have
    been the operational and fiscal impacts of such disruptions,
    (2) how DOD has assessed the condition of its utility
    infrastructure on military installations and invested in the
    sustainment of its utility infrastructure, (3) to what extent,
    if any, is information on the condition of DOD-owned utility
    infrastructure used by the Department when it makes utility
    resilience or other resources decisions; and (4) any other
    issues identified by the Comptroller General.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
    briefing or deliver a report to the committee no later than
    March 15, 2016.

    Tubular light-emitting diode technology

        The committee recognizes that the Department of the Navy is
    replacing fluorescent light bulbs aboard U.S. Navy vessels with
    tubular light-emitting diodes (T-LEDs). The committee notes
    that these fixtures may consume less energy, realize life-cycle
    cost savings, and provide a return on investment. Should the
    Secretary of the Navy determine that further investment in this
    technology will lead to consistent return on investments across
    the fleet and ashore, the committee encourages the Secretary to
    fully develop an approved products list for T-LEDs that is
    broadly available for use in vessels and facilities. In
    addition, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to
    request updates to the Unified Facilities Criteria and other
    related Department of Defense regulations, to include new
    lighting technologies as an option for vessels and facilities.

    Utah Test and Training Range

        The committee recognizes the important role Air Force test
    and training ranges play in maintaining and improving the
    readiness, proficiency, safety, and cost effectiveness of
    Department of Defense personnel and equipment. The committee
    further recognizes the need for the Air Force to enhance and
    modernize their ranges to test and train units on fifth-
    generation weapons systems to maintain the United States Armed
    Forces' technological advantage over prospective adversaries.
    Fifth-generation weapons such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
    and F-22 Raptor are approaching or already attained benchmarks
    in operational capacity and use. The Long Range Strike Bomber
    and other advanced weapons continue into planning and
    development stages. The Department must retain and sustain the
    capability to test and train appropriately on these
    technologically advanced weapons systems.
        The Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) provides the
    largest overland safety footprint available in the Department
    for aircrew training and weapons testing, to include fifth-
    generation and future weapons systems. The UTTR provides a
    realistic and similar terrain to actual combat locations. Each
    year, the Department submits a Sustainable Ranges Report to
    Congress, outlining the Department's position on military
    training range needs, resources, and constraints. Identified in
    these reports are three needed areas of improvement for UTTR:
    inability to accommodate fifth-generation aircraft and weapons
    testing, encroachment through natural community expansion and
    environmental constraints, and congestion with increased
    unmanned aerial vehicle testing at U.S. Army Dugway Proving
    Grounds.
        To maintain current UTTR mission capability and meet future
    mission requirements, the committee recommends the Air Force,
    Bureau of Land Management, Congress, the State of Utah, local
    governments, and community leaders continue efforts to create
    buffer areas surrounding the range to prevent against
    encroachment, and provide the Department with the necessary
    capabilities needed to fulfill future mission requirements.
                  TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                           Subtitle A--Active Forces

    End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2016, as shown below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         FY 2016                  Change from
                                                      FY 2015  -----------------------------------------------------
                        Service                     authorized                              FY 2016       FY 2015
                                                                 Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army..........................................     490,000    475,000         475,000          0         -15,000
    Navy..........................................     323,600    329,200         329,200          0          +5,600
    Marine Corps..................................     184,100    184,000         184,000          0            -100
    Air Force.....................................     312,980    317,000         317,000          0          +4,020
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
        DOD Total.................................   1,310,680  1,305,200       1,305,200          0          -5,480
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enhancement of authority for management of end strengths for military
            personnel (sec. 402)
        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    section 691 of title 10, United States Code. The provision
    would also amend section 115 of title 10, United States Code,
    to provide the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries
    authority to vary military personnel end strengths below those
    authorized in title IV of this Act.

                           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 2016, as shown
    below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         FY 2016                  Change from
                                                      FY 2015  -----------------------------------------------------
                        Service                     authorized                              FY 2016       FY 2015
                                                                 Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army National Guard...........................     350,200    342,000         342,000          0          -8,200
    Army Reserve..................................     202,000    198,000         198,000          0          -4,000
    Navy Reserve..................................      57,300     57,400          57,400          0            +100
    Marine Corps Reserve..........................      39,200     38,900          38,900          0            -300
    Air National Guard............................     105,000    105,500         105,500          0            +500
    Air Force Reserve.............................      67,100     69,200          69,200          0          +2,100
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
        DOD Total.................................     820,800    811,000         811,000          0          -9,800
    Coast Guard Reserve...........................       9,000      7,000           7,000          0          -2,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2016, as shown
    below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         FY 2016                  Change from
                                                      FY 2015  -----------------------------------------------------
                        Service                     authorized                              FY 2016       FY 2015
                                                                 Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army National Guard...........................      31,385     30,770          30,770          0            -615
    Army Reserve..................................      16,261     16,261          16,261          0               0
    Navy Reserve..................................       9,973      9,934           9,934          0             -39
    Marine Corps Reserve..........................       2,261      2,260           2,260          0              -1
    Air National Guard............................      14,704     14,748          14,748          0             +44
    Air Force Reserve.............................       2,830      3,032           3,032          0            +202
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
        DOD Total.................................      77,414     77,005          77,005          0            -409
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The provision also expresses the sense of Senate that the
    National Guard Bureau should account for States that routinely
    recruit and retain members of the National Guard in excess of
    State authorizations when allocating full-time duty personnel.
    The committee further recommends that the Chief of the National
    Guard Bureau shall take into account the actual number of
    members of the Army National Guard of the United States serving
    in each State as of September 20 each year when allocating
    full-time duty personnel in the Army National Guard of the
    United States.
    End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
        The committee recommends a provision that would establish
    the minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for
    the reserve components of the Army and Air Force as of the last
    day of fiscal year 2016, as shown below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         FY 2016                  Change from
                                                      FY 2015  -----------------------------------------------------
                        Service                     authorized                              FY 2016       FY 2015
                                                                 Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army National Guard...........................      27,210     26,099          26,099          0          -1,111
    Army Reserve..................................       7,895      7,395           7,395          0            -500
    Air National Guard............................      21,792     22,104          22,104          0            +312
    Air Force Reserve.............................       9,789      9,814           9,814          0             +25
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
        DOD Total.................................      66,686     65,412          65,412          0          -1,274
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fiscal year 2016 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, 2016,
    as shown below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         FY 2016                  Change from
                                                      FY 2015  -----------------------------------------------------
                        Service                     authorized                              FY 2016       FY 2015
                                                                 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        595             595          0               0
    Air Force Reserve.............................          90         90              90          0               0
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
        DOD Total.................................       2,635      2,635           2,635          0               0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 2016, as
    shown below:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         FY 2016                  Change from
                                                      FY 2015  -----------------------------------------------------
                        Service                     authorized                              FY 2016       FY 2015
                                                                 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
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chief of the National Guard Bureau authority in increase certain end
            strengths applicable to the Army National Guard (sec. 416)
        The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
    Chief of the National Guard Bureau with the authority to
    increase the fiscal year 2016 end strength of the Selected
    Reserve personnel of the Army National Guard as specified in
    section 411(a)(1) by up to 3,000 members, the end strength of
    the Reserves serving on full-time duty for the Army National
    Guard as specified in section 412(1) by 615 Reserves, and
    military technicians (dual status) for the Army National Guard
    as specified in section 413(1) by 1,111. The provision contains
    a limitation stating that the Chief of the National Guard
    Bureau may only increase an end strength using the authority
    contained in this section if such increase is paid for entirely
    out of the readiness funds appropriated for fiscal year 2016
    for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard.

                  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.....................            -987.2
    Additional support for the National Guard's Operation              +21.7
     Phalanx..............................................
    Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE                          -85.0
     consolidation........................................
    TRICARE program improvement initiatives...............             +15.0
    Financial literacy improvement........................             +85.0
    Foreign currency fluctuation adjustment...............            -304.0
                                                           -----------------
        Total.............................................          -1,254.5

        The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military
    Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $1,254.5 million. This
    amount includes: (1) A reduction of $987.2 million to reflect
    the Government Accountability Office's most recent assessment
    of the average annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) An increase
    of $21.7 million to fund increased support for the National
    Guard's Operation Phalanx mission in support of the United
    States-Mexico border; (3) A reduction of $85.0 million to
    reflect costs avoided by the Department of Defense relative to
    its proposal to consolidate the TRICARE program; (4) An
    increase of $15 million to improve access to care, quality of
    care, health outcomes, and the experience of care for military
    beneficiaries under the TRICARE program; (5) An increase of
    $85.0 million to reflect the additional financial literacy
    training recommended by the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission; and (6) An adjustment of
    $304 million to reflect the foreign currency fluctuation.
                       TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                      Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

    Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of particular merit
            be placed at the top of the promotion list (sec. 501)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 616 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize an
    officer promotion board to recommend officers of particular
    merit to be placed at the top of the promotion list.
    Minimum grades for certain corps and related positions in the Army,
            Navy, and Air Force (sec. 502)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    various provisions of title 10, United States Code, to revise
    general or flag officer grades in the Army, Navy and Air Force.
        The provision would amend section 3023(a) of title 10,
    United States Code, to require that the Army Chief of
    Legislative Affairs be an officer in a grade above the grade of
    colonel.
        The provision would amend section 3039(b) of title 10,
    United States Code, to require that the Army Assistant Surgeon
    General be an officer in a grade above the grade of colonel.
        The provision would amend section 3069(b) of title 10,
    United States Code, to require that the Army Chief of the Nurse
    Corps be an officer in a grade above the grade of colonel.
        The provision would amend section 3084 of title 10, United
    States Code, to require that the Army Chief of the Veterinary
    Corps be an officer in a grade above the grade of lieutenant
    colonel.
        The provision would amend section 5027(a) of title 10,
    United States Code, to require that the Navy Chief of
    Legislative Affairs be an officer in a grade above the grade of
    captain.
        The provision would amend section 5138 of title 10, United
    States Code, to require that the Navy Chief of the Dental Corps
    be an officer in a grade above the grade of captain. The
    provision would also remove the authority in section 5138(b)
    that entitles the Navy Chief of the Dental Corps to the same
    privileges of retirement as provided for chiefs of bureaus in
    section 5133 of title 10, United States Code.
        The provision would amend section 5150(c) of title 10,
    United States Code, to require that the Navy Directors of
    Medical Corps be officers in a grade above the grade of
    captain.
        The provision would amend section 8023(a) of title 10,
    United States Code, to require that the Air Force Chief of
    Legislative Liaison be an officer in a grade above the grade of
    colonel.
        The provision would amend section 8069(b) of title 10,
    United States Code, to require that the Air Force Chief of the
    Nurse Corps be an officer in a grade above the grade of
    colonel.
        The provision would amend section 8081 of title 10, United
    States Code, to require that the Air Force Assistant Surgeon
    General for Dental Services be an officer in a grade above the
    grade of colonel.
        The provision would provide that in the case of an officer
    who on the date of enactment of the Act is serving in a
    position that is covered by this provision, the continued
    service of that officer in such position after the date of
    enactment of the Act shall not be affected by the provision.
    Enhancement of military personnel authorities in connection with the
            defense acquisition workforce (sec. 503)
        The committee recommends a provision that would improve the
    management of the military acquisition workforce and enhance
    the quality and effectiveness of military acquisition
    personnel. The committee is concerned that in the years since
    the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
    Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433) the Department
    of Defense senior leadership's focus on the importance of the
    military acquisition workforce has declined. This provision is
    designed to increase the attractiveness of acquisition
    functions to skilled military officers and enlisted personnel
    and would: (1) provide for credit for joint duty assignments
    for acquisition related assignments in order to broaden the
    promotion preference and career opportunities of military
    acquisition professionals; (2) provide for an enhanced dual
    track career path in combat arms and a functional secondary
    career in acquisition to more closely align military
    operational requirements and acquisition; (3) include business
    and commercial training as joint professional military
    education; and (4) require an annual report to Congress on
    promotion rates for officers in acquisition positions.
    Enhanced flexibility for determination of officers to continue on
            active duty and for selective early retirement and early
            discharge (sec. 504)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 638(a) of title 10, United States Code, relating to the
    authority for selective early retirement and early discharges.
    The provision would eliminate the restriction that the number
    of officers recommended for discharge by a selection board may
    not be more than 30 percent of the number of officers in each
    grade, year group, or specialty (or combination thereof) in
    each competitive category. The provision would impose the same
    restriction that applies to boards to select officers for early
    retirement, which provides that the number of officers
    recommended for retirement may not be more than 30 percent of
    the number of officers considered.
    Authority to defer until age 68 mandatory retirement for age of a
            general or flag officer serving as Chief or Deputy Chief of
            Chaplains of the Army, Navy or Air Force (sec. 505)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1253 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
    service secretaries to defer the retirement of general and flag
    officers serving as the Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains in
    their respective Services to age 68. Section 1251 of title 10,
    United States Code, allows for the deferred retirement of
    regular officers serving as chaplains in grades below general
    and flag officer grades to age 68. However, no provision is
    contained in section 1253 of title 10, United States Code, to
    authorize regular officers serving as chaplains in flag or
    general officer grades, the grades associated with service as
    the Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains, to serve beyond age 64.
    Reinstatement of enhanced authority for selective early discharge of
            warrant officers (sec. 506)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 508a of title 10, United States Code, to reinstate
    authority for the service secretaries to convene, if necessary,
    selection boards to consider regular warrant officers on the
    Active-Duty list for involuntary discharge. The authority to
    selectively discharge regular warrant officers pursuant to
    section 580a expired on October 1, 1999. The proposal would
    authorize such boards during the period October 1, 2015,
    through September 30, 2019.
    Authority to conduct warrant officer retired grade determinations (sec.
            507)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1371 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
    service secretary to retire warrant officers in the highest
    grade in which they served satisfactorily before retirement.

                    Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

    Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be considered
            for selection for promotion (sec. 511)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify
    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 desirability for selection to be
    promoted should the individual elect to return to military
    service.

    Clarification of purpose of reserve component special selection boards
            as limited to correction of error at a mandatory promotion
            board (sec. 512)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify
    section 14502(b) of title 10, United States Code, to conform
    the authority for convening special selection boards for
    Reserve officers with the authority for Active-Duty officers in
    cases in which an officer is considered by a mandatory
    promotion board, but is not selected due to a material error of
    fact, material administrative error, or the board did not have
    before it material information for its consideration.

    Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to citizenship
            qualifications for enlistment in the reserve components of the
            Armed Forces (sec. 513)

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

    Authority for certain Air Force reserve component personnel to provide
            training and instruction regarding pilot instructor training
            (sec. 514)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of the Air Force to utilize, during fiscal year
    2016, up to 50 Active, Guard, and Reserve (AGR) members and
    dual status military technicians to provide training and
    instruction to active duty and foreign military personnel in
    excess of what is currently authorized by the AGR and military
    technician statutes. The provision would also require the
    Secretary, by no later than 180 days after the date of
    enactment of this Act, to provide the Committees on Armed
    Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report
    setting forth a plan to eliminate pilot instructor shortages
    within the Air Force using authorities available to the
    Secretary under current law.

                    Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

    Duty required for eligibility for preseparation counseling for members
            being discharged or released from active duty (sec. 521)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1142 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
    Secretary concerned to provide pre-separation counseling to all
    Active-Duty servicemembers and all reserve component
    servicemembers called or ordered to Active Duty or full-time
    operational support after completion of their first 180
    continuous days of service whose discharge or release from
    Active Duty is anticipated as of a specific date.

    Expansion of pilot programs on career flexibility to enhance retention
            of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 522)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify
    section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to remove the
    prohibition for participation by members of the Armed Forces
    serving under an agreement upon entry, or members receiving a
    critical military skill retention bonus under section 355 of
    title 37, United States Code, from participating in pilot
    programs on career flexibility to enhance retention. The
    provision would also remove the restriction that limits the
    number of participants in the program to 20 officers and 20
    enlisted members who may be selected to participate in the
    pilot program during a calendar year.

    Sense of Senate on development of gender-neutral occupational standards
            for occupational assignments in the Armed Forces (sec. 523)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate that: (1) the development of gender-neutral
    occupational standards is vital in determining the occupational
    assignments of all members of the Armed Forces; (2) studies
    being conducted by the Armed Forces are important to the
    development of these standards and should incorporate the best
    scientific practices available; and (3) the Armed Forces should
    consider these studies carefully to ensure they do not result
    in unnecessary barriers to service and that decisions on
    occupational assignments be based on objective analysis and not
    negatively impact combat effectiveness, including units whose
    primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat at the
    tactical level.

                   Subtitle D--Member Education and Training

                     Part I--Educational Assistance Reform

    Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty training or education
            (sec. 531)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary concerned to determine that off-duty training or
    education through the tuition assistance program is likely to
    contribute to the professional development of a 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
    good stewardship of the tuition assistance program.

    Termination of program of educational assistance for reserve component
            members supporting contingency operations and other operations
            (sec. 532)

        The committee recommends a provision that would sunset the
    program of educational assistance for reserve component members
    supporting contingency operations and other operations in 4
    years after the date of enactment of this Act. The committee
    agrees with the finding of the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission that this program is
    duplicative with the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which provides a more
    robust benefit for service members.

    Reports on educational levels attained by certain members of the Armed
            Forces at time of separation from the Armed Forces (sec. 533)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require an
    annual report by each Secretary concerned on the educational
    levels attained by members of the Armed Forces who transferred
    unused education benefits to family members pursuant to section
    3319 of title 38, United States Code, while serving as members
    of the Armed Forces and separated from the Armed Forces during
    the preceding year. The provision was recommended by the
    Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.

    Sense of Congress on transferability of unused education benefits to
            family members (sec. 534)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express a
    sense of Congress that each Secretary concerned should exercise
    the authority to be more selective in permitting the
    transferability of unused education benefits to family members
    in a manner that encourages the retention of individuals in the
    Armed Forces.

    No entitlement to unemployment insurance while receiving Post-9/11
            Education Assistance (sec. 535)

        The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
    that individuals receiving Post-9/11 Education Assistance may
    not also receive unemployment insurance while receiving the
    post-9/11 education benefit.

                             Part II--Other Matters

    Repeal of statutory specification of minimum duration of in-resident
            instruction for courses of instruction offered as part of Phase
            II Joint Professional Military Education (sec. 536)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2154 of title 10, United States Code to remove the
    statutory minimum residency requirements for Joint Professional
    Military Education Phase II courses taught at the Joint Forces
    Staff College. The provision would also repeal section 2156 of
    title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that
    the duration of the principal course of instruction offered at
    the Joint Forces Staff College may not be less than 10 weeks of
    resident instruction, and allow the Secretary of Defense or the
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to designate and certify
    various curricula and delivery methods that adhere to joint
    curricula content, student acculturation, and faculty
    requirements.

    Quality assurance of certification programs and standards for
            professional credentials obtained by members of the Armed
            Forces (sec. 537)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by
    section 551 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291) to require the Secretaries of the military
    departments to ensure the accreditation provided for
    servicemembers meet recognized national and international
    standards.
        The committee believes that the Department of Defense must
    ensure that accrediting bodies meet certain recognized
    standards in order to allow service members to receive
    credentials that will have credibility as they seek employment
    in the private sector. The committee believes the Secretary is
    in the best position to determine these standards, but urges
    the Secretary to first review applicable national and
    international standards, such as the International Organization
    for Standardization (ISO/IEC) Standard 17024:2012, pertaining
    to general requirements for bodies operating certification
    programs.

    Support for athletic programs of the United States Military Academy
            (sec. 538)

        The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
    section 4362 to title 10, United States Code, that would
    authorize the Secretary of the Army to:
              (1)  Enter into contracts and cooperative agreements
            with the Army West Point Athletic Association
            (Association) for the purpose of supporting the
            athletic and physical fitness programs of the United
            Stated Military Academy (Academy);
              (2) Establish financial controls to account for
            resources of the Academy and the Association, in
            accordance with accepted accounting principles;
              (3) Enter into leases or licenses for the purpose of
            supporting the athletic and physical fitness programs
            of the Academy;
              (4) Provide support services to the Association;
              (5) Accept from the Association funds, supplies, and
            services to support the athletic and physical fitness
            programs of the Academy;
              (6) Enter into contracts and cooperative agreements
            with the Association. This provision would also
            authorize the Association to enter into licensing,
            marketing, and sponsorship agreements relating to
            trademark and service marks identifying the Academy,
            subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Army.

    Online access to the higher education component of the transition
            assistance program (sec. 539)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify service members,
    veterans, or dependents of the availability of the higher
    education component of the Transition Assistance Program on the
    Transition GPS Standalone Training Internet web site of the
    Department of Defense. The provision would also direct the
    Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs, to assess the feasibility of providing access
    for veterans and dependents to the higher education component
    of the Transition Assistance Program on the eBenefits Internet
    website of the Department of Veterans Affairs and tracking the
    completion of that component through that Internet web site.
        The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
    setting forth a description of the cost and length of time
    required to provide access and begin tracking completion of the
    higher education component of the Transition Assistance
    Program.

                          Subtitle E--Military Justice

    Modification of Rule 304 of the Military Rules of Evidence relating to
            the corroboration of a confession or admission (sec. 546)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend Rule
    304(c) of the Military Rules of Evidence to provide that a
    confession by an accused may be considered as evidence against
    the accused only if independent evidence, direct or
    circumstantial, has been admitted into evidence that would tend
    to establish the trustworthiness of the confession.

    Modification of Rule 104 of the Rules for Courts-Martial to establish
            certain prohibitions concerning evaluations of Special Victims'
            Counsel (sec. 547)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require
    Rule 104(b) of the Rules for Courts-Martial be modified within
    180 days after the date of enactment to prohibit giving a less
    favorable rating to any member of the Armed Forces serving as a
    Special Victims' Counsel because of the zeal with which such
    Counsel represented a victim.

    Right of victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
            to timely disclosure of certain materials and information in
            connection with prosecution of offenses (sec. 548)

        The provision would amend section section 806b(a) of title
    10, United States Code, (Article 6b(a), UCMJ) to require timely
    disclosure by the trial counsel to a Special Victims' Counsel,
    if the victim is so represented, to charges and specifications
    related to any offenses, motions filed by trial or defense
    counsel, statements of the accused, statements of the victim in
    connection with the offense, portions of the government
    investigation relating to the victim, and the advice, if any,
    by a staff judge advocate recommending any charge or
    specification not be referred to trial.

    Enforcement of certain crime victims' rights by the Court of Criminal
            Appeals (sec. 549)

        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 allow an
    interlocutory appeal by a victim based on assertion that the
    victim's rights at an Article 32, UCMJ investigation were
    violated.

    Release to victims upon request of complete record of proceedings and
            testimony of courts-martial in cases in which sentences
            adjudged could include punitive discharge (sec. 550)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 854(e) of title 10, United States Code (article 54(e),
    UCMJ, to expand the circumstances under which an alleged victim
    must be provided a copy of all prepared records of the
    proceedings of a court-martial.

    Representation and assistance of victims by Special Victims' Counsel in
            questioning by military criminal investigators (sec. 551)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1044e(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require a
    military criminal investigator seeking to question an
    individual eligible for assistance of Special Victims' Counsel
    (SVC) to inform the victim of the right to be represented by a
    SVC in connection with such questioning. If a victim invokes
    the right then the SVC shall assist the victim during
    questioning, the investigator shall only contact the victim
    through the SVC, and the military criminal investigations may
    not question the victim without consent of the SVC.

    Authority of Special Victims' Counsel to provide legal consultation and
            assistance in connection with various government proceedings
            (sec. 552)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify
    section 1044e(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
    Special Victims' Counsel to provide legal consultation and
    assistance to victims of an alleged sex-related offense, in
    connection with inspector general and equal opportunity
    complaints, requests for information under the Freedom of
    Information Act, and communications with Congress.

    Enhancement of confidentiality of restricted reporting of sexual
            assault in the military (sec. 553)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    subsection (b) of section 1565b of title 10, United States
    Code, to provide that federal law protecting the privacy of
    victims who are servicemembers or adult military dependents and
    who file restricted reports of sexual assault would preempt any
    State laws that require mandatory reporting made to a sexual
    assault response coordinator, a sexual assault victim advocate,
    or healthcare personnel providing assistance to a military
    sexual assault victim under section 1525b of title 10, United
    States Code, except when reporting is necessary to prevent or
    mitigate a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety
    of an individual.

    Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within the National
            Guard Bureau (sec. 554)

        The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
    section to Chapter 1101 of title 10, United States Code, that
    would establish an Office of Complex Investigations within the
    National Guard Bureau (NGB), with authority to assist the
    States in administrative investigations of sexual assault
    involving members of the National Guard, and circumstances
    involving members of the Guard where States have limited
    jurisdiction or authority and such other circumstances as the
    Chief of the NGB directs. It also allows individual
    investigators established under this provision to request
    information from any Federal, State or local government.

    Modification of deadline for establishment of Defense Advisory
            Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual
            Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 555)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 546(a)(2) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
    McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
    (Public Law 113-291) to require the Secretary of Defense to
    establish the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation,
    Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces
    not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act.

    Comptroller General of the United States reports on prevention and
            response to sexual assault by the Army National Guard and the
            Army Reserve (sec. 556)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report of
    the extent to which the Army National Guard and Army Reserve
    have in place policies and programs to prevent and respond to
    incidents of sexual assault involving members of the Army
    National Guard and Army Reserve, and provide medical and mental
    health services to members of the Army National Guard and Army
    Reserve following a sexual assault, and to identify whether
    service in the Army National Guard or Army Reserve pose
    challenges to the prevention of or response to sexual assault.
    The Comptroller General will provide the initial report
    Congress not later than April 1, 2016.

    Sense of Congress on the service of military families and on sentencing
            retirement eligible members of the Armed Forces (sec. 557)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of Congress that military juries should not face the
    difficult choice between imposing a fair sentence or protecting
    the benefits of a member of the Armed Forces for the sake of
    family members, that family members of retirement-eligible
    members should not be adversely affected by the loss of the
    member's military benefits as a result of a court-martial
    conviction, and welcoming the opportunity to work with the
    Department of Defense to develop authorities to improve the
    military justice system and protect benefits that military
    families have helped earn.

    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. 561)

        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 that are impacted by
    enrollment of dependent children of military members and DOD
    civilian employees.

    Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 562)

        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 under
    section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), 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.

    Authority to use appropriated funds to support Department of Defense
            student meal programs in domestic dependent elementary and
            secondary schools located outside the United States (sec. 563)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2243 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
    use of appropriated funds to support student meal programs in
    domestic defense dependents' schools located outside of the
    United States.

    Biennial surveys of military dependents on military family readiness
            matters (sec. 564)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Director of the Office of Family Policy of the Department of
    Defense to conduct biennial surveys of adult dependents of
    members of the Armed Forces on matters of military family
    readiness.

                Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements

    Extension of semiannual reports on the involuntary separation of
            members of the Armed Forces (sec. 571)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 525(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to extend the requirement
    for semiannual reports on involuntary separation of members of
    the Armed Forces through calendar year 2017.

    Remotely piloted aircraft career field manning shortfalls (sec. 572)

        The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
    availability of more than 85 percent of fiscal year 2016
    operation and maintenance funds for the Office of the Secretary
    of the Air Force until the Secretary submits a report, not
    later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, on remotely
    piloted aircraft career field manning policies and actions the
    Air Force will take to rectify personnel shortfalls. Such
    actions should include a description and associated timeline of
    actions the Air Force will take to increase remotely piloted
    aircraft career field manpower authorizations and manning
    levels to at least the equal of the normative levels of manning
    and readiness of all other combat aircraft career fields, and
    also recruitment/retention bonuses, incentive pay, use of
    enlisted personnel, and increased weighting to remotely piloted
    aircraft personnel on promotion boards as well as ensuring the
    school house for remotely piloted aircraft personnel is
    sufficient to meet increased manning demands.
        The committee is concerned that the remotely piloted
    aircraft career field is under severe strain because of
    increased combatant commander requirements, consistently
    insufficient Air Force personnel policy actions to improve
    manning levels, and is compounded by the Air Force losing more
    remotely piloted aircraft pilots than it is training. The
    increased demand has resulted in lower crew ratios, longer duty
    days, and longer time-on-station assignments for affected
    personnel, and ultimately less capability than required by the
    combatant commanders.
        The Air Force has been playing catch-up in fielding
    sufficient crews to support the number of medium altitude
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) combat air
    patrols (CAPs) required to support combatant commander
    requirements. In 2009, the Air Force was tasked to support 50
    CAPs. Air Force plans in 2009 showed that the Air Force would
    be able to support 50 CAPs with sufficient crews by 2011, and
    have sufficient crews to support 65 CAPs by fiscal year 2016.
    Subsequently, the Department increased the demand to 65 CAPs.
    Last year, the 65-CAP goal was reduced to 55 CAPs, but, even
    with the reduction, Air Force capabilities have not lived up to
    the demand or achieved its own projections.
        The Air Force still faces a projected annual shortfall in
    fiscal year 2016 of nearly 400 MQ-1/9 aircraft pilots to
    sustain the regular Air Force requirement of 1,200 pilots. The
    Air Force's fiscal year 2016 budget request would increase the
    number of MQ-9 combat air patrols from 55 to 60, and maintain
    five combat air patrols for MQ-1. The Air Force indicated in
    its budget submission that it intends to add 434 personnel
    authorizations to the MQ-9 force structure, but increased
    authorizations do not necessarily equate to additional
    personnel and sufficient manning levels in squadrons. Had the
    Air Force realized its own proposed manpower authorization
    increases to the RPA community planned in 2009, we would not be
    experiencing the current manning shortfalls still plaguing the
    career field.

                           Subtitle H--Other Matters

      Part I--Financial Literacy and Preparedness of Members of the Armed
                                     Forces

    Improvement of financial literacy and preparedness of members of the
            Armed Forces (sec. 581)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require
    servicemember financial literacy training upon arrival at the
    first duty station and upon arrival at each subsequent duty
    station for servicemembers below the pay grade of E-5 in the
    case of enlisted personnel and below the pay grade of O-4 in
    the case of officers. The provision would further require
    financial literacy training for each servicemember at various
    career and life milestones. The provision would also direct the
    Department of Defense to include a financial literacy and
    preparedness survey in the status of forces survey. This
    provision was recommended by the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission.

    Financial literacy training with respect to certain financial services
            for members of the uniformed services (sec. 582)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary concerned to provide financial literacy training to
    members of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of
    such Secretary commencing not later than 6 months after the
    date of the enactment of this Act. The provision is based on
    the final report of the Military Compensation and Retirement
    Modernization Commission.

    Sense of Congress on financial literacy and preparedness of members of
            the Armed Forces (sec. 583)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense should work
    with other departments, agencies, and nonprofit organizations
    to improve financial literacy and preparedness with support
    from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and service secretaries.

                             Part II--Other Matters

    Authority for applications for correction of military records to be
            initiated by the Secretary concerned (sec. 586)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1552(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
    the service secretaries to apply for a correction to military
    records on behalf of an individual.

    Recordation of obligations for installment payments of incentive pays,
            allowances, and similar benefits when payment is due (sec. 587)

        The committee recommends a provision that would provide
    statutory authority for the long-established practice of the
    Department of Defense (DOD) of obligating bonus and special and
    incentive pay installment payments at the time payment is due
    and payable. This provision is in response to a recent U.S.
    Government Accountability Office opinion, Comp. Gen. B-325526--
    ``Obligation of Bonuses under Military Service Agreements,''
    July 16, 2014, which concluded that DOD cedes fiscal exposure
    to servicemembers when it enters into such agreements and
    should change its obligational practices to obligate the entire
    bonus amount when the agreement is signed.

    Enhancements to Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (sec. 588)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to enhance and improve
    the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program for National Guard and
    Reserve members and their families. The provision would provide
    flexibility to deliver events and activities through alternate
    methods, and would eliminate redundancy by reducing the number
    of required events and activities to a minimum of four during a
    servicemember's deployment cycle. The provision would continue
    strong support for suicide prevention efforts and outreach
    programs led by the states.

    Priority processing of applications for Transportation Worker
            Identification Credentials for members undergoing discharge or
            release from the Armed Forces (sec. 589)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to consult with the Secretary of Homeland
    Security to afford a priority in the processing of applications
    for a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
    submitted by members of the Armed Forces who are undergoing
    separation, discharge, or release from the Armed Forces under
    honorable conditions. The provision would also require the
    Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to
    jointly submit a report on the implementation requirements of
    this provision not later than 1 year after the date of
    enactment of this Act.

    Issuance of Recognition of Service ID cards to certain members
            separating from the Armed Forces (sec. 590)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require
    Secretary of Defense to issue an identification card that
    identifies individuals as veterans, personalized with name and
    photo of the individual. The Secretary of Defense would be
    authorized to work with retailers for reduced prices on
    services, consumer products, and pharmaceuticals. Cards would
    be issued prospectively from 1 year after effective date of the
    Act.

    Revised policy on network services for military services (sec. 591)

        The committee recommends a provision that would generally
    prohibit the use of uniformed military personnel in the
    provision of network services for military installations in the
    United States.
        The committee notes that the current budget environment has
    forced the Services to significantly reduce end strength.
    However, the Services now have increasing requirements and
    demands which require additional people. The committee believes
    that the Services must transfer responsibility for certain
    missions, such as network services, away from military
    personnel and instead acquire these services as a commodity.
        The provision would generally prohibit the use of military
    personnel to provide network services such as email, voice,
    file sharing, and directory and Internet services in the United
    States 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. The
    committee believes this will give the Department of Defense
    (DOD) time to begin a transition plan.
        The provision includes both an exception and a waiver to
    this policy for network services in support of combatant
    commands, special operations, the intelligence community, or
    Cyber Command. Further, the Secretary of Defense or Chief
    Information Officer may waive this provision for safety reasons
    or combat operations.
        The bill provision further requires a report from DOD,
    which also requires validation from the Director of Cost
    Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) on the potential
    savings in both resources and military personnel that could be
    achieved with this section.

    Increase in number of days of Active Duty required to be performed by
            reserve component members for duty to be considered federal
            service for purposes of unemployment compensation for ex-
            servicemembers (sec. 592)

        The committee recommends a provision that would increase
    from 90 to 180 days the number of continuous days of Active
    Duty required to be performed by reserve component members for
    that duty to be considered satisfactory federal service for
    purposes of unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Assessment on Servicemembers lacking post-transition housing

        The committee commends the Departments of Defense and
    Veterans Affairs in coordinating efforts to combat veteran
    homelessness. The committee supports the collaboration between
    the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
    Affairs to assist servicemembers during the transition process,
    particularly the program that identifies servicemembers during
    the Transition Assistance Program who may lack post-transition
    housing, and who may therefore be at greater risk for becoming
    homeless.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
    coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to submit
    to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
    Representatives, by no later than December 1, 2015, a report on
    the number of servicemembers who have indicated a lack of post-
    transition housing during the Transition Assistance process,
    broken down by fiscal year, gender, location, and who were
    therefore referred to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The
    report required shall include an analysis of what steps may be
    taken to lessen the number of servicemembers with no post-
    transition housing.

    Availability of Special Victims' Counsel as Individual Military Counsel

        In section 1716 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), Congress required
    each military department to provide Special Victims' Counsel to
    provide legal representation to survivors of alleged sex-
    related offenses.
        Special Victims' Counsel form an attorney-client
    relationship when representing these survivors throughout the
    military justice process, where they actively advise the
    survivors, protect their legal rights, and help them to
    navigate the military's criminal justice system.
        In some cases, survivors also face criminal charges or
    disciplinary action. Some survivors have expressed a desire to
    be represented in criminal and adverse administrative actions
    by their Special Victims Counsel with whom they already have an
    attorney-client relationship and who understands their personal
    situation. The committee believes that when survivors become
    the accused they should, to the maximum extent possible, have a
    choice over which attorney will represent and advise them.
        Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)(10
    U.S.C. 838), authorizes an accused to be represented by
    military counsel of his or her own selection if that counsel is
    determined to be reasonably available under applicable
    regulations. It is the committee's intent that nothing should
    preclude a survivor from requesting his or her Special Victims'
    Counsel as individual military counsel, and that the Special
    Victims' Counsel should be authorized to represent the survivor
    in trials by courts-martial, at non-judicial punishment
    proceedings under Article 15 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. 815), and
    in connection with adverse administrative actions when the
    counsel is reasonably available. It is the committee's
    expectation that survivors be provided with a choice of counsel
    to the maximum extent possible.

    Changes to the Joint Travel Regulation

        On November 1, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD)
    revised Joint Travel Regulations were implemented resulting in
    a flat rate per diem for travelers performing temporary duty
    travel (TDY) for more than 30 days in one location. Depending
    on the duration of the travel, the authorized flat rate was
    adjusted to reflect 75 percent and 55 percent of the locality
    rate for long-term TDY with the DOD reimbursing travelers for
    actual lodging and government meal rates if suitable lodging at
    the reduced rate is not available.
        The committee wants to ensure that the current policy does
    not discourage some DOD personnel--including civilian workers
    at shipyards and depots--from volunteering for important TDY
    assignments.
        The committee supports the DOD's initiatives to achieve
    efficiencies, including in the area of temporary duty travel
    costs. However, the committee expects the DOD 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.

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

        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
    for the purposes of the report, due no later than March 1,
    2016, to examine the Department of Defense's personnel
    strategies for unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The report shall
    include an examination of how the services have done the
    following: (1) Analyzed the personnel requirements for
    positions required to fly UAS including the existing and future
    critical skills and competencies needed; (2) examined
    alternative populations, such as civilians and contractors,
    that could be assigned to UAS units; (3) coordinated their
    strategies to recruit and retain personnel to operate UAS; and
    (4) conducted a cost benefit analysis to determine the risks
    and advantages of the varying personnel assignment strategies
    they are pursuing for UAS operators.

    Comptroller General report on Department of Defense credentialing and
            licensing programs

        In section 551 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
    McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
    (Public Law 113-291), the committee directed the Secretary of
    Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to
    the Coast Guard, to carry out a credentialing program that
    would allow servicemembers to obtain professional credentials
    related to their military training that were acquired during
    service in the Armed Forces. The purpose of this program is to
    ensure that servicemembers receive professional recognition of
    skills acquired during military service that translate into
    civilian life. The committee expects that successful
    implementation of this program will reduce veteran unemployment
    and related unemployment costs borne by the military services.
    The committee is concerned that this program is implemented in
    a timely fashion, and meets the needs of servicemembers as
    veteran unemployment and attendant costs remain high.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
    the United States to review DOD's credentialing and licensing
    programs, and to provide a briefing on preliminary results by
    no later than May 1, 2016, to the Committees on Armed Services
    of the Senate and House of Representatives with a report to
    follow on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. The
    review should address, at a minimum, the following: (1) The
    extent to which DOD has successfully implemented the
    credentialing program required by section 551 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015; (2) the
    challenges that still exist with respect to full
    implementation; (3) the steps the Department has taken to
    ensure quality control over the credentialing process with
    respect to third-party credentialing entities; (4) challenges
    DOD is encountering regarding compatibility between their
    credentialing programs with federal, state, and local
    credentialing requirements; and (5) existing gaps in law and
    policy with respect to meeting the program's goal of providing
    professional credentials to servicemembers, on the basis of
    their military education and training, before they transition
    to civilian life.

    Cyber security training, testing and certification

        The committee continues to encourage the Department of
    Defense (DOD) to enhance its ongoing efforts related to
    providing certifications to personnel pursuant to Department of
    Defense Directive (DODD) 8570.01. While DODD 8570.01 is highly
    effective, this program is limited to coverage to only DOD
    personnel with information assurance (IA) job responsibilities.
    The committee believes in addition to these IA functions,
    technical support and network infrastructure oversight remain
    critical areas for network defense. Ensuring these positions
    receive training, testing, and industry-recognized
    certification would enhance the security of DOD networks and
    ensure members of the Armed Forces receive the same credentials
    recognized in the civilian workforce. By instituting testing
    after training, DOD can ensure that cyber security and IT
    skills are retained. Therefore, the committee urges DOD to
    include them in DODD 8570.01 and any successor directives.

    Disability pilot program feasibility report

        Department of Defense (DOD) civilians with disabilities and
    servicemembers who have been wounded or injured in the line of
    duty serve honorably, meet certain standards required for their
    positions, and contribute to the national security of the
    United States.
        In recognition of the dedicated service of the DOD's
    disabled civilian employees and servicemembers, and in order to
    evaluate opportunities to employ the full range of abilities
    that they may contribute to certain military specialties, the
    committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
    Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
    Representatives a report assessing the feasibility of a pilot
    program to determine whether civilians with certain medical
    conditions that are currently grounds for rejection for
    military service under Department of Defense Instruction
    6130.03 may be appointed, enlisted or inducted in the military
    services.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare
    the report through the Accession Medical Standards Working
    Group (AWSWG) that convened in February 2015.
        The report should specifically describe a plan to conduct a
    pilot program that would evaluate conditions necessary to
    appoint, enlist, or induct, at a minimum, persons with deafness
    or hearing impairment, amblyopia or partial visual impairment,
    a lost or missing limb or limbs, paraplegia, a history of
    surgical procedures, or a history of asthma. The feasibility
    report should consider whether individuals with certain medical
    conditions might be more suited to certain jobs than able-
    bodied individuals, as could be the case with a deaf individual
    working in high-noise environments.
        The report should address validity of assumptions contained
    in Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03 that result in
    individuals with designated medical conditions being rejected
    for military service while currently serving military members
    with the same or a similar disability may be allowed to
    continue to serve. The report should assess the feasibility of
    including currently-serving military members of DOD and
    civilians with similar disabilities who are not DOD military
    members or civilians as participants in a pilot program. The
    report should identify, at a minimum, the potential size of the
    cohort (by specific disability); the disabilities that are
    amenable to objective evaluation through a pilot program; the
    optimal duration of the potential pilot program; applicability
    of human subject research requirements to a pilot program;
    considerations for determining the status of individuals
    selected to participate in the pilot program when the pilot
    program is completed; and the likely cost.
        The committee notes that Senate Report 113-211, which
    accompanied H.R. 4870, directed the Department of the Air Force
    to study the feasibility and advisability of permitting
    individuals with auditory impairment, including deafness, to
    access as officers in the Armed Forces.
        While this reporting requirement is broader in scope than
    the report required in Senate Report 113-211, the committee
    expects the department to coordinate with the Air Force to
    benefit from their analysis and to avoid duplicative work.
        The committee directs that the feasibility report be
    submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2016.

    Extending Special Victims' Counsel eligibility for civilian sexual
            assault survivors

        The statute requiring the military services to provide
    Special Victims' Counsel (SVC) to certain victims of alleged
    sex-related offenses identifies the following individuals as
    eligible for this assistance: (1) Active duty servicemembers
    and their dependents; (2) Reserve and National Guard members
    when on active duty or inactive duty and their dependents; (3)
    retired servicemembers and their dependents; and (4) certain
    civilians overseas. Initial reports indicate this novel program
    that provides victims with their own attorney to represent them
    during the investigation and prosecution of sexual offenses is
    well-received by survivors of sexual assaults.
        In its initial report, the Judicial Proceedings Panel
    (JPP), established by section 576 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to
    conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial
    proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military
    Justice, expressed the following initial observation: ``The JPP
    is concerned that the statutory basis creating eligibility for
    SVC services is tied to eligibility for legal assistance
    services. This requirement precludes the program from
    supporting all victims of sexual assault perpetrated by
    Servicemembers, because many such individuals are not eligible
    for legal assistance under the statute.'' The committee agrees
    with this observation. Many civilian survivors of a sexual
    assault perpetrated by a servicemember are not familiar with
    the military. Navigating the military justice system is
    especially confusing for civilians unaccustomed to military
    culture and procedure. Further, this lack of familiarity is
    compounded by fact that many survivors are young and
    financially disadvantaged.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess
    the feasibility of providing Special Victims' Counsel to
    civilian survivors of sexual assaults by a servicemember who
    are not otherwise eligible for legal assistance services from
    the military and to submit a report to the Committees on Armed
    Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not
    later than August 31, 2015. The assessment should address the
    impact on the current SVC program of extending SVC eligibility
    to civilian survivors; views of civilian bar associations on
    providing legal representation to civilians not entitled to
    legal assistance; and the feasibility of a pilot program in
    which National Guard and Reserve judge advocates provide
    military justice and victim advocacy training to civilian
    attorneys serving military communities.

    Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview

        The U.S. Army Military Police School is training the next
    generation of Army criminal investigators and judge advocates
    in the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI), a
    technique that utilizes the latest information about the parts
    of the brain that experience trauma, including sexual assault
    trauma. Because stress and trauma routinely interrupt the
    memory process, FETI techniques are an important investigatory
    tool that reduces the inaccuracy of the information obtained
    from trauma victims, increases the confidence of assault
    survivors to participate in the criminal justice system, and
    increases the likelihood of successful criminal convictions
    without revictimizing survivors in the way that traditional
    interviews can. The FETI technique also enhances the
    questioning of suspects, who frequently provide more useful
    information than would be obtained using traditional
    interrogation techniques. Bringing the latest science to the
    fight against sexual assault provides criminal investigators a
    better way to relate to the survivors' experience, to identify
    sex offenders, and to hold them accountable.
        In light of the demonstrated value of FETI, the committee
    directs the service secretaries to submit a report to the
    Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
    Representatives not later than August 31, 2015, that describes
    how widely FETI training has been provided to criminal
    investigators and judge advocates of that Service and plans for
    future training. If any service is not utilizing FETI training,
    the report should include an explanation of the Service's
    decision to not employ FETI and a description of the
    alternative training and techniques used by that Service.
        The committee believes that the U.S. Army is a leader in
    effective interviewing techniques of sexual assault survivors
    and recommends that the U.S. Army Military Police School, upon
    the request of other federal agencies, facilitate FETI training
    of members of that agency whenever possible.
        Finally, the Department of Defense's Sexual Assault
    Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) has demonstrated
    sustained effort to eliminate sexual assault in the Armed
    Forces. The committee encourages SAPRO to incorporate FETI best
    practices on how to deal appropriately with sexual assault
    survivors into all levels of SAPRO's sexual assault prevention
    and response training.

    Increase in number of persons from U.S. Pacific Command area of
            operations who receive instruction at military academies

        Each service secretary is authorized to permit up to 60
    persons from foreign countries to receive instruction at the
    military academy of that Service. The committee encourages
    service secretaries to promote the Asia-Pacific rebalance by
    increasing, among the 60-persons authorized, the percentage of
    persons from countries in the U.S. Pacific Command area of
    operations who receive instruction at the military academies.

    Increasing the transparency of the military justice system

        Making the results of courts-martial public is important to
    instill public confidence in the administration of justice in
    the military.
        The committee is aware of the current practices of the
    military services to make the results of general and special
    courts-martial available to the general public. The Air Force
    publishes sexual assault courts-martial convictions
    periodically on the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps
    website. The Marine Corps posts information on courts-martial
    actions monthly on the Marine Corps homepage. The Army and Navy
    both publicly release service-wide summaries of courts-martial
    actions, the results of which are routinely published in
    military magazines.
        The committee believes that transparency of the military
    justice system would be improved by a more consistent practice
    by all services to make the results of court-martial available
    to the public. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
    of Defense to examine the various reporting methods being used
    and to prescribe a consistent and regular method of making
    public the results of general and special courts-martial by all
    the services. The committee believes that the public has an
    interest in knowing, at a minimum, the date, location, level of
    courts-martial, name of the accused if convicted, charges,
    verdict and, if applicable, the sentence adjudged.

    Leadership reorganization of the United States Air Force Judge Advocate
            General's Corps

        The committee is concerned that the organizational
    leadership of the United States Air Force Judge Advocate
    General's Corps has become adversely impacted by the loss of
    three general officer billets. Former Secretary of Defense
    Gates directed, in 2011, reductions in flag and general officer
    billets in the Armed Forces in an initiative to streamline
    headquarters. That reduction resulted in the loss of several
    senior officer billets in the Air Force Judge Advocate
    General's Corps. None of the other military services' judge
    advocates general corps were similarly affected. The committee
    commends the intent of the Gates' initiative to make needed and
    long overdue reductions in the number of flag and general
    officers in the Armed Forces and is not directing nor does it
    support an increase in the number of general or flag officers
    authorized. The impact of the Gates' initiative to the Air
    Force Judge Advocate General's Corps, however, was to eliminate
    important professional and career development opportunities for
    senior judge advocates who form the body of qualified officers
    from which the Air Force would select the Judge Advocate
    General. The loss of these billets occurred during a period of
    unprecedented growth in the important role of judge advocates
    in key mission support areas while our Nation is at war. At the
    same time, senior judge advocates are the key advisers to the
    Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force
    to implement congressionally-mandated military justice reforms
    and new initiatives to combat sexual assault and sexual
    harassment in the Armed Forces. The essential role for senior
    judge advocates is expected to continue. Elsewhere in this Act,
    the committee has directed significant acquisition reforms
    which would increase the responsibilities of the service chiefs
    for execution of acquisition of major defense acquisition
    programs. The Air Force is unique among the military
    departments in the use of judge advocates in acquisition
    programs while, as a result of the Gates' initiative, it was
    required to give up the senior judge advocate general officer
    billet responsible to lead and supervise the Air Force Judge
    Advocate General's uniformed acquisition attorneys.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
    Force, with advice from the Judge Advocate General of the Air
    Force, to determine the impact of the elimination of those
    three general officer positions on the legal leadership for the
    Department of the Air Force and to report any actions that will
    be implemented by the Air Force to address this leadership
    shortfall, and to provide recommendations of any legislative
    relief necessary to address such impact, to the Committees on
    Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
    no later than September 1, 2015.

    National Guard and Reserve headquarters

        The committee notes that the reserve component, both the
    National Guard and Reserves, are key components of the
    Department of Defense's (DOD) organizational structure and
    strategic capability. Reserve components compromise
    approximately 50 percent of the Army's total end strength,
    while reserve components compromise about 30 percent of the Air
    Force's total end strength. The committee notes that the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in 2013 that amid
    the DOD's efforts to trim budgets by finding efficiencies and
    reducing overhead, some reserve component headquarters have
    grown. In its report, the GAO found the processes intended to
    efficiently size and oversee reserve component headquarters
    have not been consistently applied.
        The committee is interested in determining whether DOD has
    taken steps to eliminate overlapping, fragmented, or
    duplicative functions within the National Guard and Reserve
    headquarters could lead to greater efficiencies and cost
    reductions within the reserve components.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to evaluate the extent to which the
    National Guard and Reserves have taken steps to eliminate or
    consolidate overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative functions,
    and whether the National Guard reviewed its Joint Force
    Headquarters for greater efficiencies by consolidating roles
    that are filled by both Army and Air National Guard members.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
    report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.

    Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations

        The committee is aware that there are more than 150 public
    schools located on Department of Defense installations, serving
    a significant number of military dependent children. Although
    these schools are on-base, these schools are run by the local
    public school districts, but do not receive DODEA funds.
    Recognizing that many of these schools have severe overcrowding
    or are in deteriorating physical condition, in fiscal year
    2011, the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment
    was provided authority to evaluate the condition and capacity
    of such schools, and approved a Priority List in July 2011. The
    committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has since
    provided grants to renovate, repair, or expand such public
    schools on military installations, focusing on the schools with
    the most severe overcrowding or facilities needs in priority
    order. Since 2011, many schools on the list may have had
    changes in enrollment due to military activity, and may have
    experienced changes in physical condition. Therefore, the
    committee directs the Department of Defense to provide the
    congressional defense committees, by September 1, 2016, with an
    updated assessment and priority list on the condition and
    capacity of public schools on military installations not
    already included in bands 1-6 of the July 2011 Priority List.

    Punishment for collateral misconduct revealed by reports of sexual
            misconduct

        The committee agrees with military leaders that a culture
    of prevention, accountability, dignity, and respect must exist
    throughout the ranks. Toward that end, any barriers that deter
    servicemembers from reporting sexual misconduct must be
    eliminated, and all who courageously report these crimes must
    be encouraged and staunchly supported.
        Surveys indicate that the fear of being punished for minor
    misconduct serves as a deterrent to the reporting of sexual
    assault. The larger goal of ensuring that the Armed Forces are
    cohesive and effective, and that the honor and trust that
    sustains our Armed Forces is preserved, dictates that the
    elimination of sexual assault is more important than the
    punishment of minor misconduct.
        The committee encourages military leaders to refrain from
    punishing servicemembers who report sexual misconduct for minor
    collateral misconduct, such as underage drinking,
    fraternization, and adultery when the underlying minor crimes
    would not have come to the chain of command's attention but for
    the servicemember's report of sexual misconduct.

    Religious freedom and role of military chaplains

        The committee continues to encourage the Department of
    Defense and Armed Forces to support servicemembers' right to
    express their sincerely held religious and moral beliefs.
    Individual expressions of religious and moral beliefs in the
    military will be accommodated unless it is determined that such
    individual actions could have an adverse impact on military
    readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline. The
    committee recognizes the vital role of religious beliefs and
    the expression of faith for many servicemembers and their
    families. Preserving a military culture that protects the
    freedom of expression, including the freedom not to believe, is
    important to the morale and to recruiting and retention in the
    Armed Forces.
        The committee further recognizes that a military chaplain
    is a certified religious military professional of a qualified
    religious organization who has satisfied the professional
    religious education and ecclesiastical qualifications of his or
    her endorsing agency and is appointed a commissioned officer in
    an Armed Service's chaplain corps. The chaplain remains a
    representative of and accountable to the endorsing faith group
    for the religious ministry he or she provides to members of the
    Armed Services and to their families. The committee expects
    that commanders will ensure a chaplain's right to religious
    expression and to provide religious exercise and guidance that
    accurately represent the chaplain's faith are protected,
    respected, and unencumbered by any means contrary to section
    533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2013 (Public Law 112-239) as amended by section 532 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
    Law 113-66).
        The committee recognizes the role of the military chaplain
    in the Armed Forces to care for the spiritual well-being of
    servicemembers and their families. As part of their service,
    many chaplains play a critical function in providing for the
    mental health and emotional needs of servicemembers and their
    families by helping them to deal with the unique pressures and
    stresses associated with military service. This includes, but
    is not limited to, suicide prevention, coping with post-
    traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, sexual assault,
    providing marriage and family counseling, and providing
    religious and moral guidance. The committee encourages the
    Department of Defense to continue efforts to integrate military
    chaplains into the programing for mental health and well-being
    and to provide clear guidance for addressing formations and
    groups where attendance by service members is required.
        The committee also notes the results of a RAND Corporation
    survey of Army chaplains published on April 7, 2015 which
    concluded that 44 percent of chaplains and 57 percent of
    chaplain assistants believe they need more training in suicide
    prevention treatment. No later than 180 days after the
    enactment of this Act, the Department of Defense shall provide
    to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
    of Representatives a report on shortfalls in suicide prevention
    training for the chaplain corps in each service branch and a
    strategy to address these shortfalls.

    Report on review of petitions for review of discharge or dismissal from
            the Armed Forces of veterans with mental health issues
            connected with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic
            brain injury

        Section 521 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291) requires that any medical advisory opinion issued
    to a board for correction of military records regarding a
    servicemember or former servicemember who was diagnosed while
    serving in the military as experiencing a mental health
    disorder include the opinion of a clinical psychologist or
    psychiatrist if the individual's request for correction of
    records relates to a mental health disorder. This section also
    requires that boards for review of discharge or dismissal
    include, as a member of the board, a clinical psychologist or
    psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health
    issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder or
    traumatic brain injury, when the board considers a request for
    review of a discharge or dismissal by a former servicemember
    (1) who was diagnosed as experiencing post-traumatic stress
    disorder or traumatic brain injury as a consequence of a
    deployment in support of a contingency operation, or (2) who
    was diagnosed while serving in the military as experiencing a
    mental health disorder.
        In addition, on September 3, 2014, the Secretary of Defense
    issued supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction
    of Military/Naval Records considering discharge upgrade
    requests by veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder
    (PTSD). The Secretary directed the boards to give liberal
    consideration to documentation of one or more symptoms which
    meet the diagnostic criteria of PTSD or related conditions,
    giving special consideration to Department of Veterans Affairs'
    determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions
    connected to military service.
        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 not later than August 31, 2015, on
    the implementation of these authorities. In addition to
    describing the implementation of these authorities, the report
    should include the number of applications submitted to which
    these authorities apply, and the number of cases in which
    relief was granted as a result of these new authorities.

    Report on Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
            Staff decisions on combat integration

        The committee remains interested in the process and results
    of the military services' and United State Special Operations
    Command's (SOCOM) implementation of the January 24, 2013,
    letter from the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff rescinding the direct ground combat exclusion
    and assignment rule and directing the services and SOCOM to
    open all closed positions to service by women by January 1,
    2016, or to request an exception to policy prior to that date
    to keep occupations closed. According to the letter,
    ``exceptions must be narrowly tailored, and based on a rigorous
    analysis of factual data regarding the knowledge, skills, and
    abilities needed for the position.''
        The committee directs the Secretary and Chairman to provide
    to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
    Representatives by no later than March 1, 2016, a report
    describing the conclusions reached by the Secretary and
    Chairman with respect to decisions to open closed occupations
    to service by women, and the reasons behind such conclusions,
    with particular reference to the ``rigorous analysis of factual
    data'' used in reaching these conclusions.

    Social Security Number Use Reduction Plan

        The committee recognizes that service members are
    increasingly vulnerable to identify theft, in part because of
    overly frequent use of Social Security numbers (SSN) in the
    military for identification purposes. The committee commends
    the Department of Defense for establishing the SSN Use
    Reduction Plan in Department of Defense Instruction 1000.30,
    dated August 1, 2012. The SSN Use Reduction Plan directs that
    the collection and use of SSNs be reduced or eliminated where
    possible and requires justification for any continued
    collection and use of SSNs. The plan identifies the Department
    of Defense Identification Number as a suitable replacement for
    SSNs in most processes and business needs and directs that
    Department of Defense Identification Numbers replace the SSN as
    the Geneva Conventions Serial Number on Department of Defense
    identification cards. The committee remains concerned that the
    collection and use of SSNs remains prolific in Department of
    Defense systems and forms, including record of service forms,
    travel and permanent change of station orders, evaluations, and
    others. The Department of Defense's continued widespread,
    unnecessary use of SSNs for identification purposes exposes
    service members to heightened and unacceptable risk of identity
    theft. Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the
    Department of Defense to eliminate the use of SSNs as a method
    of identifying service members.

    Support for military families impacted by grief, behavioral health
            disorders, or substance abuse

        The committee applauds the Services for their recognition
    of military family readiness and resilience as vital elements
    of maintaining an effective fighting force. Ready families
    require knowledge, skills, and support necessary to respond
    with resilience to the challenges of military life, including
    chronic stressors and traumatic events.
        Children of members of the Armed Forces experience unique
    stressors, such as prolonged separation, permanent changes of
    station, and higher rates of parental alcohol and prescription
    drug abuse. The committee is aware that childhood and
    adolescence are particularly important periods for investing in
    resilience, and research shows the single most influential
    factor in promoting resilience in children is the presence of
    supportive relationships, especially parents, but also with
    adults outside the home. Evidence suggests that providing
    children and adolescents with opportunities to develop
    supportive relationships and coping strategies outside the home
    in environments that provide both warmth and structure
    contribute positively to resilience building. Accordingly, the
    committee urges the Secretary of Defense to review and evaluate
    materials, resources, and programs available to children of
    members of the Armed Forces dealing with bereavement or a
    parent, guardian, or sibling who suffers from a behavioral
    health disorder or substance abuse and to continue to support
    partnerships with non-governmental organizations to address any
    identified gaps in support.
              TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                         Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

    Fiscal year 2016 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
    pay raise of 1.3 percent for all members of the uniformed
    services in pay grades O-6 and below effective January 1, 2016.
    Modification of percentage of national average monthly cost of housing
            usable in computation of basic allowance for housing inside the
            United States (sec. 602)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, to authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to reduce the monthly amount of the
    basic allowance for housing (BAH) by up to 5 percent of the
    national average for housing for a given pay grade and
    dependency status. Servicemembers will not see this
    modification of their BAH until they change duty stations.
    Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic
            allowance for housing (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.
    Basic allowance for housing for married members of the uniformed
            services assigned for duty within normal commuting distance and
            for other members living together (sec. 604)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 403 of title 37, United States Code, to limit the basic
    allowance for housing (BAH) for dual military married couples
    who are assigned within normal commuting distance from each
    other to one allowance at the with dependent rate, for the
    member with the higher pay grade. The provision would also
    limit BAH for uniformed service members above E-3 residing with
    other uniformed service members to 75 percent of their
    otherwise prevailing rate, or the E-4 without dependents rate,
    whichever is greater. Affected members would see no reduction
    in their BAH as a result of this provision so long as they
    maintain uninterrupted eligibility to receive BAH within a
    particular housing area.
    Repeal of inapplicability of modification of basic allowance for
            housing to benefits under the laws administered by the
            Secretary of Veterans Affairs (sec. 605)
        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    subsection (b) of section 604 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
    ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) effective January 1, 2016.
    Limitation on eligibility for supplemental subsistence allowances to
            members serving outside the United States and associated
            territory (sec. 606)
        The committee recommends a provision that would sunset on
    September 30, 2016, the supplemental subsistence allowance for
    servicemembers serving inside the United States. Servicemembers
    serving outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto
    Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or Guam would still be
    eligible to receive the supplemental subsistence allowance from
    the Department of Defense. The provision is based on the final
    report of the Military Compensation and Retirement
    Modernization Commission.
    Availability of information (sec. 607)
        The committee recommends a provision that would allow for
    the Secretary of Defense to obtain from the Secretary of
    Agriculture information for the purposes of determining the
    number of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program applicant
    households that contain one or more members of a regular or
    reserve component of the Armed Forces.

               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.
    Increase in maximum annual amount of nuclear officer bonus pay (sec.
            616)
        The committee recommends a provision that would increase
    the maximum annual amount of nuclear officer bonus pay to
    $50,000 for retention purposes. This provision would take
    effect January 1, 2016.
    Repeal of obsolete authority to pay bonus to encourage Army personnel
            to refer persons for enlistment in the Army (sec. 617)
        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    section 3252 of title 10, United States Code. This section
    authorized the Secretary of the Army to pay bonuses to
    encourage Army personnel to refer persons for enlistment in the
    Army. The committee notes that the recent nationwide Army
    National Guard Recruiting Assistance Program scandal, which
    defrauded the American taxpayers of millions of dollars, has
    given the committee serious doubts as to the wisdom of
    authorizing such incentive programs.

                Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

    Repeal of obsolete special travel and transportation allowance for
            survivors of deceased members from the Vietnam conflict (sec.
            621)
        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    section 481f(d) of title 37, United States Code.

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

                           Part I--Retired Pay Reform

    Thrift Savings Plan participation for members of the uniformed services
            (sec. 631)
        The committee recommends a series of provisions that would
    implement recommendations of the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission concerning reform and
    modernization of the military retirement benefit for new
    entrants into service. This provision would provide a
    government-matching Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) element for those
    who would enter uniformed service on or after January 1, 2018,
    or a member serving before that date who makes a voluntary
    election to opt-in to the new plan. The TSP element would
    provide a 1 percent automatic agency contribution to all
    uniformed service members who would reach 60 days of service
    and continue until they would reach their second year of
    service. Once a servicemember passes the 2 years of service
    point, that member's TSP account would vest and the Secretary
    concerned would begin matching TSP contributions up to 5
    percent of that servicemember's base pay at 2 years and 1 day
    of service. Uniformed service members would be automatically
    enrolled at 3 percent matching contributions with the option to
    raise or lower their contribution level. TSP government-funded
    matching contributions would continue until a uniformed service
    member reaches 20 years of service.
        The committee notes that all uniformed service members who
    would enter and serve prior to the date of implementation of
    the modernized retirement system would be grandfathered into
    the old retirement system.
    Modernized retirement system for members of the uniformed services
            (sec. 632)
        The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
    new military retirement defined benefit that, when combined
    with the government-matching Thrift Savings Plan, as described
    elsewhere in this Act, would comprise a new hybrid retirement
    system. This new system would apply to new entrants after
    January 1, 2018, and to those already serving members who
    choose to opt-in to the new system. The new defined benefit
    would continue to apply only to those members who reach 20
    years of service, with a multiplier rate of 2.0 times years of
    service rather than the current rate of 2.5 times years of
    service.
    Lump sum payments of certain retired pay (sec. 633)
        The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
    voluntary election of lump sum payments of retired pay for
    those serving 20 or more years of service. Members who elect to
    take the lump sum may choose to take 100 percent or 50 percent
    of the discounted present value of their defined retirement
    benefit that would be due to them prior to becoming fully
    eligible for Social Security.
        The committee strongly urges the Secretaries concerned to
    coordinate with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on
    counseling, or otherwise informing, new retirees on the impact
    this election may have on their eligibility for certain
    benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
    Continuation pay after 12 years of service for members of the uniformed
            services participating in the modernized retirement systems
            (sec. 634)
        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary concerned to provide continuation pay to
    servicemembers, serving under the new military retirement
    system described above, who reach 12 years of service
    contingent upon such members agreeing to serve another 4 years
    of service. A member receiving continuation pay may elect to
    take the continuation pay in a lump sum or in installments of
    not more than four payments. A member who receives continuation
    pay and fails to complete the obligated service requirement
    shall be subject to repayment.
        The rate for active duty continuation pay would be 2.5
    times a member's monthly basic pay with the Secretary concerned
    having discretionary authority to increase that amount to up to
    13 times monthly basic pay for retention and force shaping
    purposes. The rate for members of the reserve components would
    be 0.5 times a reserve member's monthly basic pay with the
    Secretary concerned having discretionary authority to increase
    that amount to up to 6 months of monthly basic pay as needed
    for retention and force shaping purposes. The committee notes
    that the secretaries concerned would manage continuation pay
    through their special and incentive pay accounts and should
    take into consideration any other incentive pay a member may be
    receiving with any concurrent service obligations owed.
    Authority for retirement flexibility for members of the uniformed
            services (sec. 635)
        The committee recommends a provision that would give the
    Secretary concerned the flexibility to modify the years of
    service required for non-disability retirement under the new
    military retirement system for particular occupational
    specialties or other groupings in order to facilitate force
    shaping or to correct manpower shortages within an occupational
    specialty. The Secretary concerned shall be required to provide
    notice to Congress 1 year in advance of making such a change.
    Treatment of Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund as a
            qualified trust (sec. 636)
        The committee recommends a provision that would treat the
    Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund as a qualified
    trust under title 26, United States Code, section 401(a) for
    purposes of title 26, United States Code, section 1 et seq.

                             Part II--Other Matters

    Death of former spouse beneficiaries and subsequent remarriages under
            Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 641)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1448(b) of title 10, United States Code, to allow for
    the election of a new spouse beneficiary after the death of a
    former spouse beneficiary.
    Transitional compensation and other benefits for dependents of members
            of the Armed Forces ineligible to receive retired pay as a
            result of court-martial sentence (sec. 642)
        The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
    section 1059a to title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
    Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to
    carry out a program that would authorize monthly transitional
    compensation, including commissary and exchange store access,
    to dependents or former dependents of a member of the Armed
    Forces who is ineligible to receive retired pay as a result of
    court-martial sentence. The provision would allow the secretary
    concerned to determine that a dependent or former dependent
    would not be eligible for transitional compensation if that
    person was an active participant in the conduct constituting
    the offense under chapter 47 of title 10.

        Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
                            Benefits and Operations

    Commissary system matters (sec. 651)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    sections 2483, 2484, and 2643 of title 10, United States Code,
    to authorize the Department of Defense to treat second
    destination transportation costs for commissary goods and
    supplies overseas like transportation costs within the United
    States by transferring those costs to the commissary patron in
    the price of goods. Those costs would be evenly spread across
    commissary products worldwide, rather than solely in
    commissaries overseas, to standardize the value of the
    commissary benefit to all customers. This provision would also
    authorize the Department to transfer the cost of obtaining
    supplies required for the daily operations of commissaries and
    store-level offices dedicated to supporting commissary
    operations from the defense working capital fund to the
    surcharge fund.
    Plan on privatization of the Defense Commissary System (sec. 652)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than March
    1, 2016, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
    the House of Representatives, setting forth a plan to privatize
    the Defense Commissary System, in whole or in part. The plan
    should ensure the provision of high quality grocery goods and
    products, savings discounts to patrons, and high levels of
    customer satisfaction. The Secretary should include with the
    plan any recommendations for legislative action required by the
    Department of Defense to implement the plan.
        The provision would also require the Comptroller General of
    the United States to provide a report that assesses the plan of
    the Department to privatize the Defense Commissary System to
    the committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
    Representatives within 120 days following submission of the
    report by the Secretary of Defense.
        Following submission of the Comptroller General's
    assessment of the Department's commissary privatization plan,
    the Department would be required to carry out a 2-year pilot
    program at no fewer than five commissaries in the largest
    markets of the commissary system to assess the feasibility and
    advisability of the plan. The Secretary of Defense may include,
    as part of the pilot program, an online component to permit
    eligible beneficiaries, in catchment areas of the commissaries
    selected for the pilot, to order and purchase grocery goods and
    products through the Internet and to receive those items
    through home delivery. Within 180 days after completion of the
    pilot program, the Secretary of Defense would submit a report
    to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
    of Representatives that provides an assessment of the
    commissary privatization plan.

    Comptroller General of the United States report on the Commissary
            Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and Privately-financed Major
            Construction Program (sec. 653)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Comptroller General of the United States to examine the
    policies and procedures of the Secretary of Defense to ensure
    timely notification of construction projects proposed to be
    funded through the Commissary Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund,
    and Privately-financed Major Construction Program of the
    Department of Defense and to submit to the Committees on Armed
    Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
    report containing an assessment of this program no later than
    180 days after enactment of this Act. The committee is aware
    that the Department of Defense has recently completed certain
    privately-financed major construction projects without prior
    notification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
    and the House of Representatives, contrary to established,
    long-standing practice and contrary to the committee's
    constitutional oversight responsibility and authority.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Comptroller General of the United States assessment of potential costs
            and benefits from privatizing Department of Defense
            commissaries

        Through the Defense Commissary Agency, the Department of
    Defense (DOD) operates over 240 military commissaries, in the
    United States and overseas, to sell grocery merchandise and
    other goods at cost plus a 5 percent surcharge primarily to
    Active-Duty, National Guard, Reserve, and retired
    servicemembers and their family members. The Defense Commissary
    Agency reports that patrons receive an average of 30 percent
    savings on commissary purchases compared to commercial grocery
    prices. Military servicemembers consider the commissaries an
    important benefit because savings derived from commissary
    purchases increase the overall purchasing power of their annual
    pay.
        Defense appropriations subsidize commissary operations, and
    to a large degree, contribute to patron savings. In an effort
    to reduce taxpayer costs of military commissaries, the budget
    request proposed a reduction in appropriated subsidies to the
    Defense Commissary Agency over several years. This change in
    commissary funding would ultimately result in reduced patron
    savings because commissary prices would likely increase to
    compensate for lower government subsidies. With the budget
    request, overseas commissaries and certain commissaries in
    remote locations in the United States would continue to receive
    subsidies.
        To help Congress better understand the potential impact of
    operational changes to the commissary system on commissary
    patrons, section 634 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
    McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
    (Public Law 113-291) required the Secretary of Defense to
    conduct a review of the management, food, and pricing options
    for the commissary system utilizing an independent organization
    experienced in grocery retail analysis. The committee expects
    to receive a report in September 2015. The statute, however,
    did not require an analysis to determine whether privatization
    would be a viable option for reform of commissary operations.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
    the United States to review opportunities for DOD to privatize
    the commissary system, in whole or in part, 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
    February 1, 2016. At a minimum, the review should:
              (1) Determine DOD's requirements and evaluate its
            methodology for defining the total number and locations
            of commissaries;
              (2) Determine and evaluate DOD's costs for commissary
            operations from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year
            2014;
              (3) Determine and evaluate DOD's strategy for pricing
            products sold at commissaries;
              (4) Determine and validate how the Defense Commissary
            Agency calculates savings to its customers as a result
            of its pricing strategy;
              (5) Determine to what extent DOD has evaluated the
            costs or savings and potential benefits to patrons and
            the government of privatizing the commissary system;
              (6) Determine whether any barriers exist to
            privatization of the commissary system; and
              (7) Determine and quantify the extent to which patron
            savings would remain under a commissary privatization
            model.

    Comptroller General of the United States review of the Department of
            Defense special and incentive pay program

        Since 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) has conducted
    ongoing reviews to determine the effectiveness and efficiency
    of its special and incentive pay programs. The committee also
    understands that, in addition to these reviews, DOD continues
    to implement the consolidation of these pays in accordance with
    subtitle F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). Many factors such as emerging
    technologies and new missions impact on the types of skills and
    competencies that the DOD needs to meet mission requirements.
    The committee is concerned that changes may be needed now to
    ensure the efficacy of the special and incentive pay program.
    The committee believes that these pays are not an entitlement.
    The DOD must continue to carefully scrutinize special and
    incentive pays, ensuring they are used where needed,
    particularly in a fiscal environment where every dollar counts,
    to ensure these pays are used effectively, but not
    superfluously, to ensure successful recruitment, retention, and
    assignments in the All-Volunteer Force.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
    States to review the effectiveness of the DOD's special and
    incentive pays program and provide preliminary observations no
    later than February 5, 2016, and a report to follow on a date
    agreed to at the time of the preliminary briefing. The review
    should include: (1) an examination of both active and reserve
    component special and incentive pay programs, particularly
    those programs used to recruit and retain individuals for
    service in high skill occupations such as nuclear maintenance
    and engineering, pilots, critical language skills, information
    technology, cyber warfare, and special operations; (2) an
    analysis of a market-based program that would incentivize top,
    difficult to replace talent and consider civilian contractor
    alternatives for skill sets that can be obtained elsewhere and
    utilized by DOD; and (3) the effect of eliminating or limiting
    authorizations for special and incentive pay for targeted use
    at critical career points for skills the DOD cannot replace.

    Comptroller General of the United States review of the Gold Star
            Advocate Program

        Section 633 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) required each service
    secretary to designate a servicemember or a civilian employee
    of their military department to assist spouses and other
    dependents of members (including reserve component members) who
    die on active duty through services of the Gold Star Advocate
    Program. These services include addressing complaints by
    spouses and other dependents of deceased members regarding
    casualty assistance or receipt of benefits, providing support
    to spouses and dependents regarding casualty assistance or
    receipt of benefits, and making reports to appropriate
    officials in the Department of Defense or the military
    department concerned regarding resolution of complaints,
    including recommendations regarding the settlement of claims
    with respect to benefits, as appropriate.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
    States to review the Gold Star Advocate Program and to provide
    a briefing on preliminary results by March 31, 2016, and a
    report to follow on a date agreed to at the time of the
    briefing. The review should address the following:
              (1) The extent that each military department has
            designated a member of the Armed Forces or a civilian
            employee as a Gold Star Advocate for each of the Armed
            Forces under their jurisdiction;
              (2) The extent that each military department has
            effectively publicized the Gold Star Advocate Program
            to surviving spouses and dependents;
              (3) The extent and frequency that Gold Star Advocates
            have addressed complaints regarding casualty assistance
            or receipt of benefits by spouses or other dependents;
              (4) The extent that Gold Star Advocates have
            developed a process to provide reports to appropriate
            officials regarding the resolution of complaints or to
            make recommendations regarding the settlement of claims
            with respect to benefits; and
              (5) The extent that the Department of Defense has
            developed a standardized comprehensive training program
            on casualty assistance.

    Report on wait-times at child development centers

        The committee understands that it can be difficult for
    servicemembers and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians to
    focus on their duties if they are concerned about the well-
    being of their family members. For this reason, the committee
    believes it is in the best interest of the Department to ensure
    that children of servicemembers and DOD civilians have access
    to safe, quality, and convenient childcare. The committee has
    learned that at some military bases, the wait-times for
    enrolling a child in child development centers exceed 9 months.
    The committee expects the Department to monitor wait-times
    closely at DOD child development centers and to develop
    policies to shorten the wait-times of those facilities
    significantly.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
    the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
    Representatives a report, not later than March 31, 2016,
    listing all DOD child development centers experiencing wait-
    times greater than 3 months. The report should be organized by
    state or country (for overseas child development centers) and
    provide the wait-time at each location as of the date of the
    report. The report should describe the Department's goal for
    wait-times and provide an assessment of the steps necessary to
    meet wait-time goals at child development centers throughout
    the Department. Finally, the report should include a
    description of any legislative action required to assist the
    Department in reducing wait-times at child development centers
    at military bases.
                       TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

               Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits

    Urgent care authorization under the TRICARE program (sec. 701)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
    covered beneficiary under the TRICARE program to access up to
    four urgent care visits per year without the need to obtain
    pre-authorization for such visits.
        The committee understands that the average cost to TRICARE
    for an emergency department visit is $531 while the average
    cost for urgent care is $131 per visit. The committee is also
    aware that TRICARE Prime beneficiaries utilize emergency
    departments at significantly higher rates than civilians in the
    private sector. The committee notes that current TRICARE policy
    requires TRICARE Prime beneficiaries to obtain pre-
    authorization for urgent care visits. The committee concludes
    this administrative burden encourages beneficiaries to utilize
    emergency departments inappropriately for urgent care needs.
    The committee believes this provision would help beneficiaries
    choose the most appropriate source for the health care they
    need and would lower health care costs for the Department of
    Defense.
        The committee recognizes the intent of TRICARE's recently
    introduced Nurse Advice Line is to direct beneficiaries to the
    most appropriate level of health care. The committee encourages
    the Defense Health Agency and the Services to adopt a policy
    directing military medical treatment facility appointment
    clerks to refer beneficiaries to the Nurse Advice Line when the
    appointment clerk cannot provide an acute care appointment
    within access standards.
    Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the TRICARE pharmacy
            benefits program (sec. 702)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require
    modifications of prescription drug co-pays for the TRICARE
    pharmacy benefits program for years 2016 through 2025. After
    2025, the Department of Defense would establish co-pay amounts
    equal to the co-pay amounts for the previous year adjusted by
    an amount, if any, to reflect increases in costs of
    pharmaceutical agents and prescription dispensing fees. With
    this provision, beneficiaries would continue to receive
    prescription drugs at no cost in military medical treatment
    facilities, and there would be no changes to co-pays for
    survivors of members who died on Active Duty or for a disabled
    member retired under chapter 61 of title 10, United States
    Code, and their family members.
        Section 702 of the the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
    McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
    (Public Law 113-291) authorized modest co-pay increases for
    certain pharmaceuticals obtained through the TRICARE retail
    pharmacy network or the mail order pharmacy in fiscal year
    2015, but it did not include the Administration's proposal to
    increase co-pays in subsequent years through 2024. In
    deliberations with the House of Representatives last year,
    there was agreement to reconsider any proposed co-pay changes
    submitted in the fiscal year 2016 budget request if inadequate
    defense budget levels continue to threaten military readiness
    and overall national security. In the committee's view, the
    defense budget situation is no better this year, and it may be
    no better in future years. Therefore, the committee feels
    compelled to recommend pharmacy co-pay increases again this
    year.

    Expansion of continued health benefits coverage to include discharged
            and released members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 703)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1078a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
    member of the Selected Reserve, who is discharged or released
    under other than adverse conditions from service in the
    Selected Reserve, to be eligible to enroll, for a period of 18
    months, in the Department of Defense program of continued
    health benefits coverage.

    Expansion of reimbursement for smoking cessation services for certain
            TRICARE beneficiaries (sec. 704)

        The committee recommends a provision that would expand
    reimbursement for smoking cessation services for certain
    TRICARE beneficiaries.

    Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces for post-
            traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma
            (sec. 705)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to award
    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 abuse, depression,
    and other issues related to those conditions.

                     Subtitle B--Health Care Administration

    Access to health care under the TRICARE program (sec. 711)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to ensure that covered TRICARE
    beneficiaries obtain health care appointments within access
    standards and wait-time goals established by the Department of
    Defense for primary care and specialty care or, if the
    beneficiary is unable to obtain an appointment within the wait-
    time goals, to offer the beneficiary an appointment with a
    contracted health care provider. The provision would also
    require the Secretary to publish health care access standards
    in the Federal Register and on a publicly accessible Internet
    web site of the Department of Defense and to publish
    appointment wait-times for primary and specialty care on the
    publicly accessible Internet web site of each military medical
    treatment facility.

    Portability of health plans under the TRICARE program (sec. 712)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to ensure that beneficiaries who are
    covered under a TRICARE health plan can seamlessly access
    health care under that health plan in each TRICARE program
    region.

    Improvement of mental health care provided by health care providers of
            the Department of Defense (sec. 713)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to ensure that all primary care and mental
    health care providers of the Department of Defense receive, or
    have already received, initial evidence-based training on the
    recognition, assessment, and management of individuals at risk
    for suicide and any additional training that may be required
    based on evidence-based changes in mental health practice.
        Within 1 year of the date of enactment of this Act, the
    Secretary would be required to provide a report to the
    Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
    Representatives that assesses the mental health workforce of
    the Department and the long-term mental health care needs of
    servicemembers and their dependents. The provision would also
    require the Secretary to develop procedures to measure mental
    health data relating to outcomes, variations in outcomes among
    military medical treatment facilities, and barriers to
    implementation of clinical practice guidelines and other
    evidence-based treatments by mental health providers of the
    Department of Defense.

    Comprehensive standards and access to contraception counseling for
            members of the Armed Forces (sec. 714)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Department of Defense to provide, through clinical practice
    guidelines, current and evidence-based standards of care
    regarding contraception methods and counseling to all health
    care providers employed by the Department and to ensure service
    women have access to comprehensive contraception counseling
    prior to deployment and throughout their military careers. The
    provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
    establish a uniform, standard curriculum to be used in family
    planning education programs for all members of the Armed
    Forces.

    Waiver of recoupment of erroneous payments due to administrative error
            under the TRICARE Program (sec. 715)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    Chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
    Secretary of Defense to waive recoupment of payment from a
    covered TRICARE beneficiary who has benefitted from an
    erroneous TRICARE payment in which all of the following apply:
    (1) the payment was made due to an administrative error by an
    employee of the Department of Defense or a TRICARE program
    contractor; (2) the covered beneficiary, or in the case of a
    minor, the parent or guardian of the covered beneficiary,
    reasonably believed the covered beneficiary was entitled to the
    benefit of such payment; (3) the covered beneficiary relied on
    the expectation of benefit entitlement; and (4) the Secretary
    determines that a waiver of recoupment of such payment is
    necessary to prevent an injustice. In the case of
    administrative error on the part of a TRICARE contractor, the
    provision would require the Secretary to impose financial
    responsibility on the contractor for the erroneous payment.

    Designation of certain non-Department mental health care providers with
            knowledge relating to treatment of members of the Armed Forces
            (sec. 716)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense, not later than 1 year after enactment of
    this Act, to develop a system by which any non-Department
    mental health care provider that meets eligibility criteria
    relating to knowledge and understanding of military culture and
    knowledge of evidence-based mental health treatments approved
    by the Secretary, would receive a mental health provider
    readiness designation from the Department. The provision would
    also require the Secretary to establish and update a provider
    list and maintain a publicly available registry of mental
    health providers receiving such designation.

    Limitation on conversion of military medical and dental positions to
            civilian medical and dental positions (sec. 717)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that a
    medical or dental position within the Department of Defense may
    not be converted to a civilian medical or dental position
    unless the Secretary of Defense determines that: (1) the
    position is not a military essential position; (2) conversion
    of the position would not result in the degradation of medical
    or dental care or the medical or dental readiness of the Armed
    Forces; and (3) conversion of the position to a civilian
    medical or dental position is more cost effective than
    retaining the position as a military medical or dental
    position, consistent with Department of Defense Instruction
    7041.04. The committee believes this provision would give the
    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.

    Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-Department of
            Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 718)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1704(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to extend the authority
    for the joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans
    Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund from September 30,
    2016, to September 30, 2017.

    Extension of authority for DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund
            (sec. 719)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 8111 of title 38, United States Code, to extend the
    authority for the DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund
    through September 30, 2020.

    Pilot program on incentive programs to improve health care provided
            under the TRICARE program (sec. 720)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to assess
    value-based incentive programs to encourage institutional and
    individual health care providers under the TRICARE program to
    improve quality of care, experience of care, and health of
    beneficiaries. Under this provision, the Department of Defense
    would be required to submit a report, not later than March 15,
    2019, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
    House of Representatives that provides an assessment of each
    incentive program implemented under this provision along with
    any recommendations for legislative action to expand provider
    incentive programs throughout the TRICARE program.
        The committee remains concerned that the TRICARE program
    continues to use a fee-for-service health care delivery model
    even as more modern health plans now use a variety of value-
    based delivery models. These value-based models more
    effectively promote preventive care and improve health outcomes
    as they foster integrated, coordinated health care delivery
    while controlling health care costs.

                     Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

    Publication of certain information on health care provided by the
            Department of Defense through the Hospital Compare web site of
            the Department of Health and Human Services (sec. 731)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to enter into a memorandum of
    understanding with the Secretary of Health and Human Services
    to report, and make publicly available through the Hospital
    Compare Internet web site of the Department of Health and Human
    Services, information on quality of care and health outcomes
    regarding patients treated at military medical treatment
    facilities.

    Publication of data on patient safety, quality of care, satisfaction,
            and health outcome measures under the TRICARE program (sec.
            732)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to publish public data on measures used to
    assess patient safety, quality of care, patient satisfaction,
    and health outcomes on the primary Internet web site of the
    Department of Defense. The provision would also require data
    for health care provided by a military medical treatment
    facility to be accessible on the primary Internet web site of
    that facility.

    Annual report on patient safety, quality of care, and access to care at
            military medical treatment facilities (sec. 733)

        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, not
    later than March 1, 2016, and each year thereafter, a
    comprehensive report on patient safety, quality of care, and
    access to care at military medical treatment facilities.
        In May 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed a 90-day
    internal review of the military health system to evaluate
    patient safety, quality of care, and access to care. The review
    team completed its work in August 2014, and six civilian
    subject matter experts in health data, health care quality, and
    patient safety validated the methodology of the review. The
    Department of Defense's review team concluded that the military
    health system provides timely, safe, and quality care. However,
    reviewers found that the military health system demonstrates
    performance variability when compared to civilian counterparts
    and national benchmarks.
        As a result of the findings in the report, the Secretary of
    Defense ordered numerous actions to provide more accountability
    in the military health system and to improve quality of care
    and patient safety. The committee commends the Department of
    Defense for conducting this review of the military health
    system. The committee intends to conduct rigorous oversight to
    ensure actions taken by the Department of Defense significantly
    improve patient safety, quality of care, and access to care in
    both the direct and purchased care components of the military
    health system.

    Report on plans to improve experience with and eliminate performance
            variability of health care provided by the Department of
            Defense (sec. 734)

        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, not
    later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a
    comprehensive report describing the current and future plans,
    with estimated completion dates, of the Department of Defense
    to improve the experience of care of beneficiaries and to
    eliminate performance variability for health care provided in
    military medical treatment facilities and in the TRICARE
    purchased care network. This provision would also require the
    Comptroller General of the United States to submit, not later
    than 180 days after the Secretary submits the comprehensive
    report, a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
    Senate and the House of Representatives that assesses the
    report of the Secretary of Defense.

    Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related services for
            children of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 735)

        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, not
    later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a
    report setting forth the plan of the Department to improve
    pediatric care and related services for children of members of
    the Armed Forces.
        Section 735 of the the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the
    Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review and
    analysis of health care provided to dependent children of
    members of the Armed Forces. The Department of Defense
    submitted the report in July 2014. Although the report
    concluded that the military health system meets the health care
    needs of children, including children with special health care
    needs, it acknowledged significant gaps and deficiencies in
    data collection, data utilization, and analysis. The report
    deeply concerns the committee because data gaps and
    deficiencies in this area fail to substantiate the conclusion
    that the military health system meets the health care needs of
    children, especially those children with special needs.

    Report on preliminary mental health screenings for individuals becoming
            members of the Armed Forces (sec. 736)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than 180
    days after enactment of this Act, to the Committees on Armed
    Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on
    mental health screenings of individuals before enlistment or
    accession into the Armed Forces.

    Comptroller General report on use of quality of care metrics at
            military treatment facilities (sec. 737)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report,
    not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
    to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
    of Representatives on the Department of Defense's use of
    quality of care metrics in military treatment facilities.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Annual report on autism care demonstration program

        The joint explanatory statement accompanying section 732 of
    the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) required a semi-annual report,
    without end date, on the status of implementation of the
    TRICARE autism demonstration project then in progress. That
    project ended in 2014, and the expanded TRICARE Comprehensive
    Autism Care Demonstration, which incorporates Applied Behavior
    Analysis (ABA) policies into a single program for all TRICARE
    beneficiaries with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), succeeded
    it. This demonstration program concludes on December 31, 2018.
        The committee remains keenly interested in the Department
    of Defense's response to the needs of children with ASD and
    directs the Secretary of Defense to report no later than April
    1, 2016, and annually thereafter for the duration of the
    program, on the results of the program. No additional semi-
    annual reports on the initial TRICARE autism demonstration
    project are required. The newly required annual report should
    include a discussion of the evidence regarding clinical
    improvement of children with ASD receiving ABA therapy and a
    description of lessons learned to improve administration of the
    demonstration program. In the report, the Department should
    also identify any new legislative authorities required to
    improve the provision of autism services to beneficiaries with
    ASD.

    Antimicrobial coatings

        The committee notes with concern that hospital-acquired
    infections (HAIs) are a major, yet preventable, threat to
    patient safety in both civilian and military healthcare
    settings. HAIs are responsible for billions of dollars each
    year in potentially preventable health care expenditures.
    Research shows that when healthcare facilities and providers
    are aware of the risks of transmission of infections and take
    steps to prevent them, rates of some targeted HAIs decrease by
    more than 70 percent. A key element of HAI prevention is the
    development and use of antimicrobial materials and coatings.
    The committee is aware that antimicrobial coatings for medical
    devices and other touchable surfaces in the hospital and health
    environment are effective but often costly. Accordingly, the
    committee encourages the Department of Defense to investigate
    advanced antimicrobial coating technologies that may enhance
    durability and lower costs.

    Continued support for diagnosis and treatment for traumatic brain
            injury

        Over the past two decades, our service men and women have
    been injured in combat areas by Improvised Explosive Devices
    (IEDs), other military explosive devices and by head impacts
    leading to mild and moderate concussions which have led to both
    physical and mental brain injuries. These injuries are
    disabling, as they may induce short-term memory loss, severe
    headaches, depression, loss of cognitive function, loss of
    impulse control, anger and, in extreme cases, suicide. The
    committee remains committed to continuing support and funding
    for diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury to
    include potential alternative, evidence-based methods of
    treatments.

    Intensive behavioral counseling

        The committee is aware that cardiovascular disease is a
    leading cause of death in the United States, and obesity is
    associated with increased mortality from cardiovascular
    disease. In August 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task
    Force (USPSTF) reported evidence that intensive behavioral
    counseling for overweight or obese adults with increased risk
    of cardiovascular disease can lead to decreases in blood
    pressure, blood glucose levels, and body mass index. As a
    result, the USPSTF recommended that overweight or obese adults
    with additional cardiovascular disease risk be offered
    intensive behavioral counseling interventions to promote
    healthy diets and physical activity to help prevent
    cardiovascular disease. The committee encourages the Department
    of Defense to incorporate intensive behavioral counseling in
    treatment protocols for overweight or obese adults with
    increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

    Mild traumatic brain injury research

        Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), including mild traumatic
    brain injury (mTBI), is a signature wound of the wars in Iraq
    and Afghanistan and a subject of growing public health concerns
    for civilians, particularly in the field of sports medicine.
    Through funding for TBI and psychological health research in
    the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs,
    Congress has annually supported Department of Defense (DOD)
    research aimed to prevent, mitigate, and treat the effects of
    combat-related TBI on function, wellness, and overall quality
    of life, including interventions across the deployment life
    cycle for warriors, veterans, family members, caregivers, and
    communities.
        The committee recognizes the Department's efforts in recent
    years to leverage partnerships with academia and the private
    sector to address health issues of serious concern for military
    personnel. The committee encourages DOD to maintain its
    engagement in large-scale studies of mTBI in order to build a
    deeper understanding of concussion injuries; how they impact
    the brain; how and to what extent the brain recovers; and how
    treatment and prevention can be improved. The committee also
    encourages DOD to leverage private sector and academic
    partnerships to the greatest extent practicable and to ensure
    data sets generated through such partnerships contain no
    personally identifiable information, are protected from
    disclosure or misuse in accordance with the laws on privacy
    applicable to such information, and are available as
    appropriate for further research and to inform concussion care
    and policy.

    Molecular diagnostics

        The committee understands that early disease detection and
    intervention can lead to better health outcomes and lower
    health care costs for patients. The committee is aware of
    emerging, new technologies that use small sample molecular
    diagnostic techniques to diagnose and monitor disease, detect
    disease risk, and allow for development of therapies
    specifically designed for individual patients. The committee
    believes that early detection and subsequent management of
    chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease
    could present an enormous opportunity for the Department of
    Defense to reduce its health care costs significantly and to
    improve the health of military service men and women. The
    committee encourages the Department of Defense to study how
    these emerging molecular diagnostic technologies may improve
    the health and quality of life of military beneficiaries and
    lower health care costs for the Department.

    Newborn infant screening evaluation and treatment

        The direct and purchased care components of the military
    health system averaged over 127,000 childbirths annually during
    the last 3 fiscal years. The committee is aware that current
    screening tests in the military newborn infant population would
    yield a minimum of 70 children with treatable rare genetic
    conditions and a minimum of 200-300 false positive tests that
    would require further evaluation. Historically, newborn infant
    screening test requirements for treatable rare genetic
    conditions have conformed to local state guidelines. Frequent
    relocations of military families within the continental United
    States and overseas have often led to a fragmented system of
    care for military children with rare genetic diseases.
        The committee understands that inadequate specialized
    treatment and management of infants with positive newborn
    infant screening tests can lead to poor or devastating outcomes
    for military families. The committee, therefore, directs the
    Department of Defense to review its newborn infant screening
    program to ensure military families have access to specialized
    follow-up treatment and management of newborn infants with rare
    genetic conditions.

    Preseparation counseling on opioid therapy for chronic pain management

        The committee recognizes the persistently high rate of
    long-term opioid therapy for servicemembers and veterans with
    chronic pain. While pain is the most frequent presenting
    complaint of returning Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation
    Iraqi Freedom soldiers, comorbidities and other factors often
    mean that long-term opioid therapy is an inappropriate
    treatment option for many individuals with chronic pain while
    separating from military service. The Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA) is experiencing a high number of veterans who were
    prescribed opioids while serving on Active Duty, making it more
    difficult to transition those veterans to alternative
    therapies, including those therapies offered as part of the
    VA's Opioid Safety Initiative designed to reduce the use of
    opioids by veterans.
        The committee recommends, not later than 180 days from the
    date of this report, that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    establish a policy to require face-to-face counseling prior to
    discharge for all servicemembers with prescribed opioids. This
    counseling should include: 1) disclosure of the risks of long-
    term opioid use; 2) recognition of relevant co-occurring
    diagnoses of the individual; and 3) discussion of alternatives
    to opioid therapy. During counseling, the servicemember should
    receive a referral for pain management after discharge if
    required. This policy should include a requirement that DOD
    include in the data that is provided to the VA a description of
    the alternative therapies that were discussed with the
    servicemember during preseparation counseling.

    Prosthetic socket manufacturing cells

        The committee notes that the extensive use of improvised
    explosive devices against U.S. forces has dramatically
    increased the number of military amputees in the health care
    systems of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
    Prosthetic socket fabrication methods vary greatly in
    technique, quality, and cost, and they are highly reliant upon
    the skill of the individual prosthetist. Emerging technologies
    and manufacturing processes have demonstrated potential
    improvements in socket customization, performance, weight, and
    standardization at reduced costs.
        The committee understands it is now possible to establish a
    manufacturing framework to digitize and record patient
    dimensions, preserve and update this information within a
    patient's electronic health record, and fabricate new or
    replacement sockets immediately, regardless of patient
    location. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
    modernize its prosthetic socket manufacturing framework to
    improve the quality of care for military amputees.

    Reform of the TRICARE program

        Congress established the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission in section 671 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
    Law 112-239) to conduct a review of the military compensation
    and retirement systems and to make recommendations to modernize
    those systems. The Commission released its report in January
    2015. The Commission's health care recommendations included a
    reform plan to improve access to care and expand beneficiaries'
    choices of health plans by allowing beneficiaries, other than
    Active-Duty servicemembers, to obtain health care coverage from
    a selection of military-unique commercial health insurance
    plans offered through a new DOD health benefit program
    administered by the Office of Personnel Management.
        Following release of the Commission's report, the Personnel
    Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
    held a hearing to explore the health care recommendations in
    detail after which staff members met with various stakeholders
    to ensure full consideration of their views on the
    recommendations. Throughout those meetings, stakeholders
    encouraged the committee to take more time to study the
    healthcare recommendations before enacting comprehensive
    legislation to reform TRICARE.
        Although the committee believes that the Commission's
    healthcare recommendations may address lingering problems
    within the military health system, the committee feels it is
    prudent to take a very deliberate approach to enacting TRICARE
    reform legislation. The committee must better understand the
    implications and unintended consequences of any plan to
    transform a large, complex health program like TRICARE. The
    committee has recommended provisions in this Act, however, that
    would ensure the Department of Defense improves access to care,
    delivers better health outcomes, enhances the experience of
    care for beneficiaries, and controls health care costs. These
    provisions help lay the foundation for comprehensive TRICARE
    modernization and reform legislation in the near future.

    Training for physician assistants specializing in psychiatric care

        The committee is concerned about the effect of nationwide
    mental health provider shortages impacting access to quality
    care for members of the Armed Forces and their families. Demand
    for mental health services among servicemembers and military
    families has increased significantly in the past decade. In
    response to the Senate report accompanying S. 1197 (S. Rept.
    113-44), the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans
    Affairs submitted a joint report in April 2015 indicating near
    100 percent staffing for Department of Defense mental health
    providers, but the number of billets authorized may lag actual
    requirements.
        The committee notes that the most recent report by the
    National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants
    found the number of physician assistants working in psychiatric
    care increased by more than 17 percent from 2013 to 2014. The
    physician assistant profession is growing rapidly with a 36
    percent increase in the number of certified physician
    assistants over the past 5 years and an expected 40 percent
    increase in the number of physician assistant education
    programs between 2013 and 2018.
        The committee is aware that the physician assistant
    profession has a strong historical relationship with the
    military and that the Services rely broadly on physician
    assistants as primary care providers for both the operational
    forces and their families. With physician assistant manning
    levels exceeding 100 percent across the Services, the
    Department of Defense has established fellowship programs to
    provide physician assistants with specialty training in
    emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery and general surgery.
        The committee applauds the Department of Defense for its
    support of cost-effective solutions to mental health provider
    shortages, including established pathways to credential
    psychologists and nurse practitioners as prescribing providers.
    The committee further encourages the Department of Defense to
    consider cost-effective methods of training physician
    assistants to specialize in psychiatric care.

    TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration

        The committee is pleased with the initial favorable reports
    on the success of the TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care
    Demonstration. This demonstration, which began on July 25,
    2014, combines into one program all TRICARE-covered Applied
    Behavior Analysis services from the TRICARE Basic Program, the
    Enhanced Access to Autism Services Demonstration, and the
    Applied Behavior Analysis Pilot for TRICARE beneficiaries
    diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Beneficiaries
    report that this new program is easier to navigate, that
    beneficiaries diagnosed with ASD receive the care they need,
    and that the Department of Defense is addressing challenges as
    they arise in an effective manner. Although this demonstration
    is relatively new and is scheduled to run until December 31,
    2018, initial reports are sufficiently encouraging that the
    committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to make it a
    permanent program to ensure that qualified beneficiaries do not
    face barriers to the care that they need.
      TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
                                    MATTERS

    Acquisition policy reform overview
        With this Act, the committee is embarking on a multi-year
    effort to improve the underlying structure and process that
    delivers warfighting capability to the nation. The acquisition
    system's ``rules of the game'' provide the incentive structure
    for how the underlying industrial base is organized, who
    decides to bid on defense contracts, and who does not. The
    rules and the resulting structure of the industrial base that
    supports the Department of Defense are currently not aligned to
    the emerging national security needs of the coming decades.
        The acquisition system is not a stand-alone system. It is
    comprised of budget, requirements, contracting, engineering,
    test, audit, oversight, financial, information management,
    science and technology, and personnel components. Each of these
    component parts must be aligned and properly incentivized to
    meet national security goals. One goal of this committee's
    effort will be to work to align these components and achieve a
    necessary balance.
        On one level the committee's reform efforts are driven by
    economic efficiency concerns. Current budget constraints argue
    for significant changes to a woefully inefficient system.
    Overarching business reform and overhead reductions as outlined
    in this bill are a necessary first step to free up resources to
    modernize military capability, and the acquisition process
    needs to be more efficient to get the best return on those
    resources.
        Still, the committee's primary concern with the acquisition
    system is that reform is now needed for national security
    reasons to maintain technological and military dominance. An
    inadequate acquisition system is leading to the erosion of
    America's defense technological advantage, which the United
    States will lose altogether if the Department continues with
    business as usual. The Undersecretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology and Logistics stated recently: ``We've
    been complacent. Our technological superiority is very much at
    risk, there are people designing systems [specifically] to
    defeat us in a very thoughtful and strategic way, and we've got
    to wake up, frankly.'' A failing defense acquisition system
    will not only have budgetary implications, but could set the
    stage for a future national security crisis.
        The reasons for this concern are founded in science and
    technology research trends. The Department is facing an
    emerging innovation gap. Commercial research and development
    (R&D) in the United States overtook government R&D in 1980 and
    this threshold was one of the key triggers that led to the
    commercial acquisition reforms of the 1990s. Today, as the
    Department makes it even more difficult to access commercial
    companies and innovation, commercial R&D now represents 75
    percent of the national total. A recent financial analysis
    found that the top four U.S. defense contractors combined spend
    only 27 percent of what a leading commercial information
    technology firm spends annually on R&D.
        The problem grows worse beyond our borders. Global R&D is
    now more than twice that of the United States. Chinese R&D
    levels are projected to surpass the United States in 2022. Even
    when the Department is innovating, it is moving too slowly.
    Innovation is measured in 18-month cycles in the commercial
    market while the Department acquisition cycles are measured in
    decades. At a recent speech at Stanford University, Secretary
    Carter stated: ``The same Internet that enables Wikipedia also
    allows terrorists to learn how to build a bomb. And the same
    technologies we use to target cruise missiles and jam enemy air
    defenses can be used against our own forces--and they're now
    available to the highest bidder. Whether it's the cloud,
    infrared cameras, or the GPS signals that provide navigation
    for ride-sharing apps, but also for aircraft carriers and our
    smart bombs--our reliance on technology has led to real
    vulnerabilities that our adversaries are eager to exploit.''
        Accessing sources of innovation beyond the Department is
    critical for national security in the future, especially in
    areas such as cyber security, robotics, data analytics,
    miniaturization, and autonomy. However, the defense acquisition
    system is leading many commercial firms to choose not to do
    business with the Defense Department, or to limit their
    engagement in ways that prevent the Department from accessing
    the critical technologies that these companies have to offer.
    Export controls, security mandates, and Buy America barriers
    also limit cooperation with our allies and global commercial
    firms. In short, the defense acquisition system itself
    increasingly poses a threat to our future military
    technological dominance.
        For this reason, the United States must create better
    incentives for innovation by removing unnecessary legislative,
    regulatory, and cultural barriers to new commercial
    competition. The Department must also establish alternative
    acquisition paths to get innovative capabilities to our
    warfighters in a matter of months, not decades. Ultimately, the
    defense acquisition system must enable the Department to take
    advantage of the best minds, firms, and technologies that
    America, and the world, have to offer.
        The provisions of this Act would begin to embark on
    alternative acquisition pathways to create more efficient and
    effective results and expand the industrial base that supports
    the nation's national security needs. They have been developed
    based on the committee's review of acquisition reform,
    including the implementation of the Weapon System Acquisition
    Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) (Public Law 111-23), and using
    inputs from the Administration, industry, the Government
    Accountability Office, and others. The acquisition provisions
    of this Act reflect four themes to support the establishment
    and use of these alternative pathways.
        The first theme is to establish effective accountability
    for results. The Act would enhance the role of the service
    chiefs in acquisition, decentralizing to the maximum extent
    practicable decision-making authority to the services. The
    Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) should be providing
    more insight and identification of best practices to the
    services rather than duplicative oversight and micromanagement.
    The method for maintaining accountability within the services
    is to establish performance contracts (to meet cost, schedule
    and performance goals) with service chiefs, service
    secretaries, service acquisition executives and program
    managers signing up to binding management, requirements, and
    resource commitments. If programs fail, as measured by a Nunn-
    McCurdy threshold breach, these programs should then become
    centrally managed by OSD. The Act also establishes a financial
    penalty for cost overruns that OSD can use to fund
    developmental prototypes.
        Ultimately, the way for the services to meet their cost,
    schedule and performance goals and continue to manage their
    programs is to reform the requirements and budget process for
    acquisition programs. A time-based requirements process looking
    at capabilities to be deployed rapidly (within 2 years), in the
    medium term (within 5 years), or longer than 5 years should be
    developed that relies on extensive market research and be based
    in technological reality. The Department should also begin to
    look at the experience of our allies in how they budget for
    capital assets and begin a dialogue with the Congress on best
    practices in capital budgeting that can serve as a basis of
    future reforms.
        The second theme of this effort is to increase access to
    commercial innovation and competition. The barriers and costs
    of defense contracting are so great that advanced technology
    companies and others on the leading edge of innovation choose
    not to partner with the Department of Defense. Commercial item
    reforms in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994
    (Public Law 103-355) and the Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 (Public
    Law 104-106) were designed to remove many of these barriers
    such as requirements for government unique accounting systems,
    cost data, and restrictions on technical data but many of these
    mandates have returned in law, regulation, and practice. Other
    transactions authority was another method to entice non-
    traditional firms into the defense market, but use of this
    authority has atrophied over the years to an exception basis.
    Competitive rapid prototyping, open systems and incremental
    development methods used in the commercial sector have not
    taken hold at the Department, which continues to rely on an
    antiquated multi-decade process with ``winner take all''
    competitions that result in single-source contractors.
        To address these concerns, the Act's provisions would
    incentivize commercial innovation by removing barriers to new
    entrants into the defense market by reforming commercial item,
    other transactions authority, and technical data (protection of
    intellectual property rights) authorities. Rapid acquisition
    authorities would be expanded to better support contingency
    operations and to address cyber security concerns. A new
    approach and funding mechanism would be established for a
    ``Middle Tier of Acquisition'' to conduct rapid prototyping and
    rapid fielding that can be deployed within 5 years. Finally,
    the Act would ensure that the Secretary of Defense has the
    authority to waive unnecessary acquisition laws to acquire
    vital national security capabilities and require the
    development of a series of alternative acquisition pathways
    using flexible acquisition authorities to maintain U.S.
    technological superiority.
        The third acquisition theme in this Act is to deregulate
    and streamline to reduce costs and gain efficiencies. This Act
    includes a number of provisions that would streamline the
    process for buying weapon systems, services, and information
    technology by reducing unnecessary requirements and
    certifications. The committees notes that the implementation of
    WSARA has so far resulted in reductions in the number of
    programs reporting unit cost growth. The committee believes
    that WSARA's knowledge-based acquisition approach, including
    improved cost estimation, systems engineering, and
    developmental testing, have helped improve the outcomes of
    programs. The committee bill retains the positive aspects of
    these reforms, but attempts to streamline processes to support
    more rapid and efficient development and delivery of new
    capabilities. The Act would also establish a review panel
    similar to the ``section 800 expert review panel'' of the early
    1990's, to identify unneeded acquisition regulations. The Act
    would also require a study of the regulatory cost premium of
    the defense-unique acquisition oversight process versus the
    commercial item acquisition oversight process.
        Finally, the Act takes up the challenge to reinvigorate the
    acquisition workforce. The Act would reauthorize the Defense
    Acquisition Workforce Development Fund; authorize the
    continuation of the civilian acquisition workforce personnel
    demonstration project; establish several direct hire
    authorities for engineering and Science, Technology,
    Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) employees to join the
    acquisition workforce; and enhance military personnel
    authorities as they apply to the military acquisition workforce
    giving the service chiefs the ability to manage this workforce
    more effectively.
        The committee believes this is only the beginning of
    necessary changes to transition what is, in essence, a Cold War
    management system into one that is more agile and nimble to
    meet the challenges of a globalized information age. This
    process will be maintained in future legislation as the
    committee continues to explore how to change the acquisition
    system to be more open to next generation technologies that can
    enable the United States to outpace its adversaries.

                 Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management

    Role of service chiefs in the acquisition process (sec. 801)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2547 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance the
    role of the service chiefs in the defense acquisition process.
    This provision would reinforce the roles of the services chiefs
    in decisions regarding the balancing of resources and
    priorities, and associated trade-offs among cost, schedule,
    technical feasibility, and performance on major defense
    acquisition programs. The provision further defines the role of
    the principal military deputies to the service acquisition
    executive to inform the service chief concerned of acquisition
    issues related to cost, schedule, technical feasibility and
    performance of acquisition programs. The committee believes
    that the customer of the defense acquisition system is the
    military service that will have primary responsibility for
    fielding the system or systems acquired. This provision
    reinforces this concept and also outlines the responsibilities
    of the customer to ensure that acquisition systems are acquired
    and managed efficiently and effectively.
    Expansion of rapid acquisition authority (sec. 802)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 806(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (10 U.S.C. 2302 note), as amended by
    section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
    This provision would enhance the rapid acquisition authority
    currently provided to the Secretary of Defense by allowing the
    Secretary to use this authority for two new categories of
    supplies and associated support services that the Secretary
    determines: (1) are urgently needed and impact an ongoing or
    anticipated contingency operation that, if left unfulfilled,
    could potentially result in loss of life or critical mission
    failure; or (2) are urgently needed to eliminate a deficiency
    that as the result of a cyber attack has resulted in critical
    mission failure, the loss of life, property destruction, or
    economic effects, or is likely to result in critical mission
    failure, the significant loss of life, property destruction, or
    economic effects.
        This provision would also increase the amount of rapid
    acquisition authority for contingency operations available to
    the Department from $200.0 million to $400.0 million and
    authorize $200.0 million for cyber security rapid acquisition
    authority.
    Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding
            (sec. 803)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
    Logistics to issue guidance for an expedited and streamlined
    ``middle tier'' of acquisition programs that are intended to be
    completed within 5 years. These programs would be distinctive
    from ``rapid acquisitions'' that are generally completed within
    6 months to 2 years and ``traditional'' acquisitions that last
    much longer than 5 years.
        The provision would establish two acquisition pathways. The
    first would be a rapid prototyping pathway that can demonstrate
    new capabilities to meet emerging military needs which could
    result in a residual operational capability. The second would
    be a rapid fielding pathway for proven technologies to field
    production quantities of new or upgraded systems with minimal
    development required. The provision authorizes the use of
    expedited and streamlined procedures for both of these
    pathways. The provision would also authorize the establishment
    of a Rapid Prototyping Fund to provide funds in addition to
    other funds that may be available for each rapid prototyping
    pathway program. This fund would consist of funds appropriated
    to the account and amounts credited to the account from any
    penalties levied under section 849 of this Act.
    Amendments to other transaction authority (sec. 804)
        The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
    new section in title 10, United States Code, to codify section
    845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    1994 (Public Law 103-160), which authorizes the use of ``other
    transactions'' to carry out prototype projects that should lead
    to more effective and broader usage of this authority. The
    amendments would: (1) make section 845 authority permanent; (2)
    clarify the authority to use section 845 authority to acquire
    prototypes or follow-on production items to be provided to
    contractors as government-furnished equipment; (3) clarify that
    a contractor who has not been required to provide certified
    cost or pricing data under the Truth in Negotiations Act
    (Public Law 87-653; 10 U.S.C. section 2306a) in the previous
    year may qualify as a ``non-traditional contractor'' under the
    statute; (4) ensure that innovative small business firms are
    authorized to participate in other transactions under section
    845 without the requirement for a cost-share (except where the
    small business is partnered with a large business in a
    transaction); and (5) clarify the use of follow-on production
    contracts or other transactions authority.
        The committee believes that other transactions continue to
    serve as an important mechanism to provide the Department of
    Defense with access to innovative, cutting-edge technologies
    developed by companies that might otherwise be unwilling to do
    business with the government. The committee supports the use of
    other transaction authority by the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency (DARPA) for this purpose, and urges the
    military departments to make similar use of the authority.
        The committee supports the rapid regulatory implementation
    of the definitional change in section 812(a) of the Carl Levin
    and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). The committee is
    also aware of many interpretive and cultural barriers that have
    been put in place to impede the use of other transactions.
        The committee believes that the authorities of section 3871
    of title 10, United States Code, and the related and dependent
    authorities of Section 845 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160), as
    modified by this provision, should be used to their maximum
    extent by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies
    in order to streamline acquisition of innovative research and
    technology from the private sector.
    Use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical national
            security capabilities (sec. 805)
        The committee recommends a provision to require the
    Secretary of Defense to establish procedures and guidelines for
    alternative acquisition pathways to acquire capital assets and
    services that meet critical national security needs. These
    procedures shall: (1) be separate from existing acquisition
    procedures; (2) be supported by streamlined contracting,
    budgeting, and requirements processes; (3) establish
    alternative acquisition paths based on the capabilities being
    bought and the time needed to deploy these capabilities; and
    (4) maximize the use of flexible authorities and programs in
    existing law and regulation. Time-based acquisition pathways
    should be linked to any time-based approach for requirements
    required to be developed under this Title. As the Department of
    Defense (DOD) considers how to maintain its technological
    advantage in the future through strategies such as a ``third
    offset'' it should ensure where appropriate that the pathways
    developed under this provision can deliver needed capabilities
    in a manner similar to developments during World War II and the
    two previous offset strategy periods in the 1950s and 1970s.
        The committee is concerned that DOD is in danger of losing
    its technological advantage in many technology areas critical
    to the national defense and is no longer accessing the most
    innovative parts of the industrial base. While Congress in the
    past has granted DOD a number of flexible acquisition
    authorities and created a number of programs to capture this
    innovation, many of these authorities or programs have seen
    little or reduced usage. The provisions included in this Act
    would strengthen or create a number of new authorities that the
    Department could use to acquire critical national security
    capabilities faster.
        When reviewing existing authorities the Secretary should
    consider the following authorities and programs at a minimum:
    (1) Secretary of Defense waiver of acquisition laws to acquire
    vital national security capabilities as added by this Act; (2)
    middle tier acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid
    fielding for capabilities to be deployed in 2 to 5 years as
    added by this Act; (3) rapid acquisition authorities as
    modified by this Act for capabilities to be deployed in less
    than 2 years; (4) other transaction authorities as modified by
    the Act; (5) procurement for experimental purposes authority
    (section 2373 of title 10, United States Code) as modified by
    this Act; (6) commercial item acquisition authorities (FAR Part
    12) as modified by this Act; (7) exceptional circumstances
    Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) (section 2306a of title 10,
    United States Code and chapter 35 of title 41, United States
    Code) waivers; (8) procedures under section 2304(c) of the
    Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (section 2304 of title
    10, United States Code); (9) grants and cooperative research
    and development agreements; and (10) such programs as the
    Foreign Comparative Test Program, DOD Challenge Program, and
    the Small Business Innovation Research program.
        This provision would require the Secretary to identify any
    new authorities required to meet the objectives of this
    provision and report to Congress on a summary of the guidelines
    and any recommendations for new legislation necessary to meet
    the objectives in the guidelines.
    Secretary of Defense waiver of acquisition laws to acquire vital
            national security capabilities (sec. 806)
        The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
    Secretary of Defense to waive acquisition law or regulation for
    the purpose of acquiring a capability that is in the vital
    interest of the United States and is not otherwise available to
    the Armed Forces of the United States. The Secretary shall
    notify the congressional defense committees at least 30 days
    before excercising the waiver authority and designate a senior
    official who shall be personally responsible and accountable
    for the rapid and effective acquisition and deployment of the
    needed capability.
    Acquisition authority of the Commander of United States Cyber Command
            (sec. 807)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    limited acquisition authority for the Commander of United
    States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM). The provision is modeled on
    the authority provided to the Commander of U.S. Special
    Operations Command, but is limited to the acquisition of non-
    major systems.
        The provision would authorize the development and
    acquisition of cyber operations-peculiar equipment and
    capabilities and the acquisition of cyber capability-peculiar
    equipment, capabilities, and services. The provision would
    direct that the staff of the Commander include a command
    acquisition executive who would be responsible for the overall
    supervision of CYBERCOM acquisition matters. The command
    acquisition executive would also be responsible for negotiating
    memoranda of agreement with the military departments,
    supervising the acquisition of equipment, capabilities, and
    services, regardless of whether such acquisitions are carried
    out by the Command or a military department. The command
    acquisition executive would also be responsible for
    representing the Command in discussions with the military
    departments regarding acquisition programs for which the
    Command is a customer, and working with the military
    departments to ensure the Command is appropriately represented
    in discussions with the military departments and joint working
    groups or integrated product teams.
        To support CYBERCOM in fulfilling its acquisition
    responsibilities, the provision would direct the Secretary of
    Defense to provide CYBERCOM with the personnel or funding
    equivalent to ten full-time equivalent personnel to CYBERCOM
    with experience in program acquisition, the Joint Capabilities
    Integration and Development System process, program management,
    system engineering, and costing. The personnel or funding
    equivalent provided would come from existing department
    resources. The provision would require the Department of
    Defense Office of Inspector General conduct internal audits and
    inspections of purchasing and contract actions. The provision
    would also establish a $75.0 million cyber operations
    procurement fund for each fiscal year from fiscal year 2016
    through 2021 out of the funds made available in each fiscal
    year for defense-wide procurement. The provision would sunset
    on September 30, 2021.
        The committee is concerned there is an urgent need for
    cyber capabilities that is not being fulfilled by the military
    services. Major investments to date have been heavily weighted
    towards network defense and network consolidation. For a
    variety of reasons, the services have failed to adequately
    prioritize funding in their budget requests for the development
    of cyber warfighting capabilities. According to the Commander
    of CYBERCOM in testimony before the committee on March 17,
    2015, the Department of Defense is ``at a tipping point where
    we not only need to continue to build on the defensive
    capability, but we have got to broaden our capabilities to
    provide policy makers and operational commanders with a broader
    range of options.''
        The committee is also concerned that traditional service-
    led acquisitions and existing acquisition statutes and
    regulations lack the flexibility, agility, and speed necessary
    to deliver cyber capabilities responsively enough to stay ahead
    of the rapidly evolving threat. According to the Commanding
    General of Marine Forces Cyberspace Command in testimony before
    the committee on April 14, 2015, ``current acquisition
    processes do not adequately support the delivery tempo required
    for emerging cyber solutions. The tempo at which emerging
    technologies must be acquired to meet cyberspace operational
    mandates is occurring at a much greater pace, which creates
    tension within the acquisition process.'' This provision would
    address these shortfalls by providing the Commander of CYBERCOM
    the limited ability to rapidly procure capabilities to meet the
    requirements the military services have been unable to meet
    thus far and are incapable of meeting in operationally relevant
    ways in the future.
        The committee recognizes that CYBERCOM is a new
    organization that is still maturing and has little experience
    or expertise in systems acquisition. However, the committee
    also recognizes that few acquisition models across the DOD have
    demonstrated successes in acquiring cyber capabilities. The
    committee believes that if structured appropriately CYBERCOM
    has the unique opportunity to demonstrate and validate new
    acquisition approaches. The burden is on CYBERCOM and the
    Department as a whole to demonstrate that CYBERCOM can
    effectively exercise these acquisition authorities over the
    next five years.
        There are a number of additional authorities in this title
    that would also improve the ability of the department to more
    rapidly acquire cyber capabilities. These include enhancements
    to commercial item, other transactions, and rapid acquisition
    authorities. Elsewhere in title XVI of this Act, the committee
    also recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of
    Defense to designate within 90 days of the date of enactment an
    entity of the Department of Defense to be responsible for the
    acquisition of critical cyber capabilities to include: (1) The
    unified platform; (2) a persistent cyber training environment;
    and (3) a cyber situational awareness and battle management
    system. The committee believes that today department entities
    with existing acquisition experience are best suited for the
    development of larger foundational programs such as the unified
    platform. However, in the future the committee envisions the
    possibility of a shared acquisition approach where the
    traditional acquisition entities, in partnership with CYBERCOM,
    fund and develop foundational systems and service specific
    capabilities. CYBERCOM's acquisition role would be focused
    primarily on meeting joint cyber operations-peculiar and cyber
    capability-peculiar requirements the services are unable to
    meet.
    Advisory panel on streamlining and codifying acquisition regulations
            (sec. 808)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
    Logistics to establish an advisory panel on streamlining
    acquisition regulations. This panel would be under the
    sponsorship of the Defense Acquisition University and the
    National Defense University.
        25 years ago, the committee proposed the establishment of
    an advisory panel to streamline acquisition laws. This panel,
    referred to as the Section 800 Panel, was mandated in the
    National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 (Public Law 101-510)
    and resulted in many of the reform recommendations that were
    enacted in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994
    (Public Law 103-355) and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public
    Law 104-106). The Committee believes that in the intervening
    quarter of a century the acquisition system is again burdened
    by unnecessary laws and regulations that are creating
    incentives to slow down acquisition and not obtain the best
    value when purchasing goods and services for the warfighter and
    the taxpayer. The committee plans to continue to review and
    propose streamlining measures to eliminate unnecessary laws
    that hamper the Department of Defense and its contractors. The
    committee believes that a parallel effort should be conducted
    by the Department of Defense with regards to the current
    regulatory environment.
        The provision would create a panel that would be composed
    of at least nine individuals who are recognized experts in
    acquisition laws, regulations, and policy. The committee
    intends that persons appointed to the Advisory Panel be able to
    devote a substantial amount of time to this drafting effort.
    The Advisory Panel should not operate as a board that directs
    the work of a staff. Rather, the primary work should be done by
    the members of the Panel, with staff serving to provide
    administrative support and routine research assistance.
        The purpose of this Advisory Panel would be to prepare a
    pragmatic, workable set of recommended changes to current
    acquisition regulations. The committee recommends that the
    first set of regulations to review be those that are
    independent of any statutory mandate. For those regulations
    based in law, the committee expects that the Advisory Panel
    would review whether those regulations have evolved over time
    and may differ from the original intent. The Advisory Panel's
    mandate should be to trace this evolution and recommend changes
    where regulatory trends have resulted in actions that have
    limited necessary discretion or flexibility that exists in
    current law. The Advisory Panel should seek to limit regulatory
    provisions to those necessary to structure buyer-seller
    relations in the context of government procurement, ensure the
    financial and ethical integrity of government programs, and
    protect other fundamental governmental policies.
        There are several significant industrial base evolutions
    that did not exist at the time of the section 800 panel report
    that the Advisory Panel should be cognizant of when it conducts
    its evaluation. The first is the increasing consolidation of
    the defense unique industrial base both at the prime and sub-
    tier levels. The second is the growing dominance of commercial
    technologies in many areas that are important to the Department
    of Defense. The third trend is the globalization of the defense
    and commercial industrial bases and proliferation of advanced
    commercial and defense technologies.
        While the final report of the Advisory Panel would be
    delivered to the congressional defense committees not later
    than 2 years after the Panel's establishment, interim reports
    would be required 6 months and 18 months after the enactment of
    this Act.
    Review of time-based requirements process and budgeting and acquisition
            systems (sec. 809)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff to review the requirements process to provide for a time-
    based or phased distinction between capabilities needed to be
    deployed urgently, within 2 years, within 5 years, and longer
    than 5 years. While the use of rapid acquisition techniques has
    led to the establishment of a rapid requirements process, there
    is no such process that could lead to capabilities being
    pursued in less than 5 years. This 5-year time is significant
    in that this was the average time to achieve Initial
    Operational Capability for many defense programs until the
    1970s and is the time it takes for equivalent commercial
    programs to be deployed today. A recent Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency study found that the current
    requirements process may be a significant hurdle to the
    Department being able to conduct short, iterative development
    and fielding cycles and innovate like the more agile sectors of
    the commercial market. The committee intends this provision to
    be linked to others in the Act concerning the use of
    alternative paths to acquire critical national security
    capabilities and the middle tier of acquisition for rapid
    prototyping and rapid fielding. The committee's intent is that
    these reviews and authorities will offer an opportunity to
    change the paradigm of defense acquisition from a focus on
    decade's long development cycles to agile improvement with
    multiple iterations of capabilities within that same timeframe.
    Improvement of program and project management by the Department of
            Defense (sec. 810)
        The committee recommends a provision to outline Department
    of Defense (DOD) responsibilities 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.
        The committee continues to be concerned over the
    Department's ability to manage service contracts. The committee
    directs the Department to provide a briefing describing
    training activities that improve the quality of program
    management for service contracts. The briefing should include a
    description of how private sector best practices are evaluated
    and adopted as part of DOD training and education programs, as
    well as comparison of current DOD practices with commercial
    best practices in training and education related to contract
    services management. The committee expects DOD to provide this
    briefing no later than 6 months after the date of enactment of
    this Act.

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

    Preference for fixed-price contracts in determining contract type for
            development programs (sec. 821)
        The committee recommends a provision to require the Defense
    Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to be revised to
    establish a preference for fixed-price contracts, including
    fixed-price incentive contracts, in the determination of
    contract type for development programs.
    Applicability of cost and pricing data and certification requirements
            (sec. 822)
        The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
    applicability of the Truth in Negotiations Act (Public Law 87-
    653; 10 U.S.C. section 2306a) to offset agreements. The
    committee is also concerned that the use of contract types
    other than firm-fixed price are unnecessarily extending the
    period of performance of these contracts to address the
    completion of offset agreements.
        The committee is aware that Department of Defense (DOD)
    contracting officials are being put in an untenable situation
    of overseeing offset agreements by a broad application of the
    Truth in Negotiations Act. The committee believes this appears
    to be a violation of the intent of the 1990 Presidential policy
    on offsets codified in the Defense Production Act Amendments of
    1992 (Public Law 102-558, Title 1, Part C, section 123) by
    putting DOD in the position of negotiating, implementing, and
    being responsible for U.S. firms' offset agreements by applying
    fair and reasonable price criteria to these agreements. The
    committee reiterates that it is the policy of the U.S.
    government as codified in the Defense Production Act (Public
    Law 8109774) that offsets for military exports are economically
    inefficient and distort markets. The committee believes it
    should not be the policy of the U.S. government to enforce
    these agreements through contracts. These agreements are
    strictly between the foreign government and private sector and
    the law states that ``the responsibility for negotiating and
    implementing offset arrangements, reside with the company
    involved.'' Thus, it is up to the foreign government to
    determine whether it is getting value from the offset agreement
    and the reasonableness of price paid by a foreign government
    for a U.S. company to execute an offset agreement should not be
    of concern to the DOD unless there are believed to be potential
    violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (section 78dd-1
    of title 15, United States Code) or other criminal violations.
    Risk-based contracting for smaller contract actions under the Truth In
            Negotiations Act (sec. 823)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
    Truth in Negotiations Act (Public Law 87-653; 10 U.S.C. section
    2306a) to raise the threshold for the requirement to provide
    certified cost or pricing data in non-price competitive
    procurements on non-commercial items from the current $750,000
    ($500,000 adjusted for inflation since 1994) to $5.0 million.
    For non-price competitive procurements valued at less than the
    new threshold of $5.0 million but more than the current
    threshold of $750,000, the Department of Defense (DOD) would be
    required to establish a risk-based contracting approach, under
    which certified cost or pricing data would be required for a
    risk-based sample of contracts, to ensure that DOD is getting
    fair and reasonable prices for such contracts.
        The committee believes that a 100 percent review of
    certified cost or pricing data on thousands of small contracts
    is not the best use of DOD's limited acquisition and auditing
    resources, particularly for those contracts that have been
    awarded based on a technical competition. By enabling DOD to
    adopt a risk-based contracting approach, this provision should
    free up significant resources to be applied in areas where they
    are likely to achieve a better return. In addition, the
    provision will enable non-traditional contractors to
    participate in innovative DOD research projects valued at less
    than $5.0 million without triggering government-unique
    contracting procedures, enhancing DOD's access to cutting-edge
    technologies developed by companies that might otherwise be
    unwilling to do business with the government.
    Limitation of the use of reverse auctions and lowest priced technically
            acceptable contracting methods (sec. 824)
        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.
    Rights in technical data (sec. 825)
        The committee recommends a provision that: (1) Would
    clarify procedures for the validation of rights in technical
    data for subsystems and components of major weapon systems; and
    (2) establish a government-industry advisory panel on rights in
    technical data.
        The provision would amend section 2321 of title 10, United
    States Code, that establishes procedures for the validation of
    rights in technical data. Subsection (f) of this section, added
    by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law
    103-355), endeavored to protect intellectual property rights in
    commercial items by adding a presumption that commercial items
    are developed exclusively at private expense. Because almost
    all major weapon systems are developed at government expense,
    section 802 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) added an
    exception to the presumption in subsection (f) in the case of
    items other than commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS)
    items that are included in major weapon systems.
        The exception for major weapon systems in subsection
    2321(f) has created two potential problem areas. First,
    although almost all major weapon systems are developed at
    government expense, a few major weapon systems and subsystems
    of major weapon systems are purchased as commercial items--for
    example, modified civilian aircraft that are purchased for
    military uses. Section 2321(f) requires the contractor to
    demonstrate that components of weapon systems were developed at
    private expense even in the case of commercial-derivative
    aircraft, commercial-derivative engines, and other weapon
    systems and subsystems that are purchased as commercial items.
        Second, although subsection 2321(f) includes an exception
    for COTS items that are included in major weapon systems, this
    exception does not apply if the COTS item is modified in any
    way for government use. Consequently, it the government insists
    on a minor modification of a COTS item for the purpose of
    including it in a weapon system, the burden will fall on the
    contractor to demonstrate that the item was developed
    exclusively at private expense.
        The provision recommended by the committee would address
    these problems by clarifying that the presumption that a
    commercial item was developed exclusively at private expense
    applies in the case of: (1) A component of a weapon system or
    subsystem that was acquired as a commercial item; and (2) any
    other component that is a COTS item or a COTS item with
    modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial
    market place or minor modifications made to meet government
    requirements.
    Procurement of supplies for experimental purposes (sec. 826)
        The committee recommends a provision that would update the
    experimental acquisition authority in section 2373 of title 10,
    United States Code, to apply to transportation, energy,
    medical, and space flight and to clarify when provisions of
    Chapter 137 of title 10 apply to such procurements. The
    committee believes that the authorities of section 2373 (in
    addition to other transaction authority in section 2371 and
    section 845 other transaction prototype authority) offer an
    alternative acquisition path for the Department of Defense to
    pursue technologies and solutions from non-traditional
    contractors to maintain technological superiority in the
    future.
    Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in
            countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec.
            827)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
    year the authority in section 801(f) of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
    Reporting related to failure of contractors to meet goals under
            negotiated comprehensive small business subcontracting plans
            (sec. 828)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 834(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189) to require the
    Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on any negotiated
    comprehensive subcontracting plan that the Secretary determines
    did not meet the subcontracting goals negotiated in the plan
    for the prior fiscal year.
    Competition for religious services contracts (sec. 829)
        The committee recommends a provision to ensure that non-
    profit organizations can compete for contracts for religious
    related services on a United States military installation. It
    has come to the committee's attention that the Department of
    Defense has at times restricted competition for religious
    services contracts on U.S. military installations to for-profit
    firms. The committee believes certain non-profit entities such
    as religious organizations can provide valuable competition and
    are well-qualified to participate in this particular category
    of services and should not be precluded from competing for
    these types of contracts.
    Treatment of interagency and state and local purchases when the
            Department of Defense acts as contract intermediary for the
            General Services Administration (sec. 830)
        The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
    that the requirements under chapter 148 of title 10, United
    States Code would not apply to a contract executed by the
    Department of Defense where the Department is acting as an
    intermediary for the General Services Administration (GSA) for
    purchase of products by other federal agencies or state and
    local governments. This could be as a result of a transfer of
    contract responsibility from GSA or where the Department serves
    as an item manager for these products on behalf of GSA.
    Pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative technology
            projects (sec. 831)
        The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
    pilot program to provide an exception from the requirements
    under sections 2306a(1) and 2313 of title 10, United States
    Code, for contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5
    million that are awarded based on a technical merit based
    selection procedure. Currently, only contract awards based on
    price competition are exempted from government unique auditing
    and certified cost and pricing data requirements. Research and
    development contract awards such those conducted under a broad
    agency announcement or the Small Business Innovation Research
    Program that are based on technical merit based selection
    procedures are often delayed or competition is limited due to
    the application of these requirements. This provision would
    test whether treating a technical based merit competition in
    the same way as a price competition will lead to better
    innovative solutions and expanded competition at lower contract
    award levels. The authority would terminate on October 1, 2020.

     Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

    Acquisition strategy required for each major defense acquisition
            program (sec. 841)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code to add a new
    section that would require the development of an acquisition
    strategy for each Department of Defense major defense
    acquisition program. The program's acquisition strategy is
    already a core document developed and updated in advance of key
    program reviews within the Department. This provision would
    consolidate various related statutory provisions and outline
    conforming changes to existing statute and establish the
    importance of the acquisition strategy as the key management
    document for a major weapon systems acquisition. Currently, a
    number of sections of law require content to be placed in an
    acquisition strategy undefined in statute. By codifying the
    existence of the acquisition strategy and consolidating the
    various content requirements, this proposal eliminates
    uncertainty regarding the open-ended range of requirements that
    can be imposed on an acquisition program's published strategy.

    Risk reduction in major defense acquisition programs (sec. 842)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to ensure that the acquisition strategy
    developed pursuant to section 2431a of title 10, United States
    Code as amended by this Act shall include a comprehensive
    approach to continuously identifying and addressing risk and
    appropriately minimize concurrency.
        The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
    ensure that the acquisition strategy for a major defense
    acquisition program identifies and documents the major sources
    of risk for the program (including technical, cost, and
    schedule risk) and includes a comprehensive approach to
    retiring that risk. The proposal would require that the
    comprehensive approach to retiring risk use some combination of
    12 different elements, including prototyping and competitive
    prototyping, design reviews, program phasing, allocating
    schedule and funding margins to specific risks, multiple design
    approaches, and others measures. This provision would establish
    a preference for competitive prototyping and repeal the
    requirement for mandatory competitive prototyping in section
    203 of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public
    Law 111-23).

    Designation of milestone decision authority (sec. 843)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2430 of title 10, United States Code, to designate the
    service acquisition executives as the milestone decision
    authority for major acquisition programs managed by the
    military services. The Secretary of Defense may designate an
    alternative milestone decision authority for joint programs,
    programs managed by defense agencies and other specific cases.
    The committee is concerned about the amount of time it takes to
    conduct multiple, duplicative reviews within the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense and the services.
        This provision would decentralize decision making authority
    for milestone decisions to the services for service-unique
    programs and would limit the documentation and approvals that
    would be required for these programs outside of the services to
    a minimum. The provision would authorize that if a program
    managed by the services breaches thresholds in the Nunn-McCurdy
    Act, section 2433 of title 10, United States Code, or has
    failed to develop an acquisition program baseline within 2
    years of program initiation, the Secretary of Defense revoke
    service milestone decision authority for the program. The
    Secretary should then consider either terminating the program
    or managing the program centrally from the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense.
        The provision would clarify that for service programs where
    the service acquisition executive is the milestone decision
    authority the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Logistics and Technology would only exercise advisory
    authority. The provision would also require that the service
    secretaries and service chiefs certify in each Selected
    Acquisition Report that program requirements are stable and
    funding is adequate to meet cost, schedule and performance
    objectives for each major defense acquisition program. It is
    the committee's expectation that the service chiefs and the
    service secretaries will take all necessary action to ensure
    that service programs are managed in a way that limits cost,
    schedule and performance issues and are fully budgeted and have
    stable requirements.
        The transfer of milestone decision authority to the
    services for applicable defense programs would become effective
    on October 1, 2016. Prior to the effective date, the Deputy
    Chief Management Officer shall issue guidance to ensure that
    acquisition policy, guidance and practices would support a
    streamlined decision making and approval process that minimizes
    information requests as required by this provision. Not later
    than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
    Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
    plan to implement the Undersecretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology and Logistics advisory authority for
    service acquisition programs.

    Revision of Milestone A decision authority responsibilities for major
            defense acquisition programs (sec. 844)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2366a of title 10, United States Code to require the
    Department official serving as the milestone decision authority
    in the defense acquisition process to ensure that specific
    actions are met before granting a Milestone A approval. This
    requirement would replace current certification requirements
    that have added unnecessary time and duplicative documentation.
    This provision would establish the milestone decision
    authority's responsibility to ensure that an acquisition
    program has demonstrated sufficient knowledge to enter into a
    risk reduction phase following Milestone A and has sound plans
    to progress to the development phase before granting milestone
    approval.

    Revision of Milestone B decision authority responsibilities for major
            defense acquisition programs (sec. 845)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, to streamline
    and simplify legislative requirements for Milestone B approval
    of major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). This provision
    would retain the requirements to make key findings related to
    program risk, but would require the milestone decision
    authority to make a determination that appropriate steps had
    been taken to address such risks, rather than the string of
    specific certifications required by current law. Under the
    provision, the only certification that would be required would
    be a certification of the maturity of key technologies, which
    has been identified by the Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) as the key to successful acquisition programs.
        The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    proposed legislation that would have gone further and
    eliminated key findings in their entirety, substituting a
    general requirement for the milestone decision authority to
    ensure that risks have been reduced and appropriate plans are
    in place. The committee rejects this approach. Milestone B
    findings were instituted to instill discipline into a process
    under which too many MDAPs failed because of unrealistic cost
    estimates, immature technologies, excessive concurrency, and a
    failure to perform appropriate system engineering and
    developmental testing before entering production. The GAO has
    reported that improved discipline in the acquisition system
    since the enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
    Act of 2009 has resulted in improved performance of MDAPs
    initiated since that time. The committee concludes that we
    should not now remove this much-needed discipline from the
    system.
        At the same time, the committee acknowledges that the
    milestone approval process has become too bureaucratic and
    takes too long. The changes made in the provision recommended
    by the committee should provide some relief, but more must be
    done by DOD and the services in implementation and execution of
    this provision. In February 2015, the GAO reported that it
    takes over 2 years, on average, to complete the entire set of
    documents needed for a Milestone B decision. According to GAO:
    ``A primary reason it takes over 2 years to complete the
    information required for a milestone decision is the large
    number of stakeholders that review the documents at the many
    organizational levels above the program office[. . .] The
    information and documentation required at milestones can be
    reviewed by as many as eight different organizational levels
    before a decision is reached on whether a program is ready for
    the next acquisition phase. In general, the information is
    reviewed at each level to gain approval before the program
    provides the information to the next level. This is done
    serially, which takes more time.''
        The GAO reviewed decision-making practices of commercial
    companies and found that these companies avoided this kind of
    layered, sequential decision-making process by using frequent,
    direct interaction between program officials and senior
    functional managers to ensure that program documents are sound
    from the outset. These documents are then subject to one or two
    levels of review and approval, rather than the multiple levels
    required by DOD.
        The committee concludes that DOD could improve the
    efficiency of the milestone approval process by first
    delayering and decentralizing milestone decision authorities as
    outlined in sections of this Title. In addition, the milestone
    decision authority should ensure that functional offices in the
    military services and where appropriate in the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense (OSD) are regularly consulted as key
    documents are developed. With the functional offices having
    informed the development of these documents, they could then be
    removed as independent approval authorities, except where
    specifically required by statute. This would enable DOD to
    institute a streamlined, two- or three-level approval process,
    including only the Program Executive Officer, the Service
    Acquisition Executive, and for those programs designated by the
    Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The committee notes
    that this is the chain of command envisioned by the Packard
    Commission 40 years ago.
        The committee directs the Deputy Chief Management Officer,
    in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology and the service
    acquisition executives, to develop a streamlined process flow
    for milestone decisions, under which functional offices in the
    military services and at OSD are regularly consulted on the
    development of acquisition documents, but no longer serve as
    independent approval authorities, except where specifically
    required by statute. The committee expects senior acquisition
    officials to begin implementation of the new process flow
    within 1 year of the date of the enactment of this Act.

    Tenure and accountability of program managers for program development
            periods (sec. 846)

        The committee recommends a provision that requires the
    Secretary of Defense to revise Department of Defense guidance
    for defense acquisition programs to address the tenure and
    accountability of program managers for the program development
    period of defense acquisition programs. The committee believes
    that program managers in this phase should be assigned to a
    program long enough to prepare for a decision on milestone B
    approval.

    Tenure and accountability of program managers for program execution
            periods (sec. 847)

        The committee recommends a provision that would address the
    tenure and accountability of program managers for the program
    execution period of defense acquisition programs. The provision
    would require each such program manager to enter into a
    performance agreement with the milestone decision authority
    (MDA) that establishes the expected parameters of performance,
    including the commitment of the MDA that adequate funding and
    resources are available and will be provided, and assurance of
    the program manager that the parameters are achievable. The
    provision would also require that program managers be given
    authority comparable to the authority given to private sector
    program managers and that they be assigned to a program until
    the delivery of the first production units, with a narrow
    waiver authority. Past concerns that military program managers'
    careers would be limited by longer program manager tenures is
    addressed by provisions that would modify military personnel
    authorities in this Act.

    Repeal of requirement for stand-alone manpower estimates for major
            defense acquisition programs (sec. 848)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2343 of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the
    requirement for a stand-alone manpower estimate for a program
    prior to the approval of the system development and
    demonstration or the production of a major defense acquisition
    program. A stand-alone requirement is unnecessary and
    duplicative and this provision would embed an estimate for
    total required manpower for a program in the requirements for
    an independent estimate of a program's full life cycle costs.

    Penalty for cost overruns (sec. 849)

        The committee recommends a provision under which each
    military department would pay an annual penalty in the amount
    of 3 percent of the cumulative cost overrun on all of its major
    defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). To avoid ``breaking'' any
    individual acquisition program, the annual penalty would be
    assessed as an across-the-board reduction to the research,
    development, test, and evaluation account of the military
    department.
        Despite the enactment of the Nunn-McCurdy Act (10 U.S.C.
    section 2433), which requires a reexamination and revalidation
    of MDAPs which experience critical cost overruns, the military
    departments continue to incur huge cost overruns on virtually
    every program. The cumulative total of these cost overruns is
    hundreds of billions of dollars.
        This Act would give greater responsibility to the services
    to manage acquisition programs. With this responsibility there
    is a need for greater accountability. The committee concludes
    that one way to incentivize the military departments to
    establish realistic baseline cost estimates for their MDAPs and
    to stick to these estimates is to assess a significant penalty
    for cost overruns. To avoid penalizing the military departments
    for past mistakes, the penalty recommended by the committee
    would apply only to overruns on MDAPs that received an initial
    baseline estimate after the enactment of the Weapon Systems
    Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23). The funds
    decremented under this authority would be transferred to the
    Rapid Prototyping Fund established under section 803 of this
    Act. The Committee is willing to consider greater budgetary
    flexibility when MDAPs underrun their estimated costs and
    requests that the Department develop any necessary legislative
    proposal for congressional consideration that would be
    applicable in those cases.

    Streamlining of reporting requirements applicable to Assistant
            Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering regarding
            major defense acquisition programs (sec. 850)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 138(b) of title 10, United States Code, to change the
    scope of periodic reports the Assistant Secretary of Defense
    for Research and Engineering is required to deliver to the
    congressional defense committees, the Secretary of Defense, and
    the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
    Logistics.

    Configuration steering boards for cost control under major defense
            acquisition programs (sec. 851)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to require each
    Configuration Steering Board to track any changes in program
    requirements for a major defense acquisition program and that
    all such changes must receive approval by the service chief in
    consultation with the service secretary.

               Subtitle D--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 statues 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. The committee intends that
    this provision be used by the Department of Defense to reduce
    unnecessary requirements on contractors providing commercial
    items.

    Market research and preference for commercial items (sec. 862)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
    Logistics to issue guidance to ensure that defense acquisition
    officials fully comply with the requirements of section 2377 of
    title 10, United States Code. The committee is concerned that
    the market research being conducted under 2377 is perfunctory
    and that the preference for the use of commercial items is
    being ignored throughout the Department. Guidance issued
    pursuant to this provision would ensure that commercial
    information technology products and services are first
    determined to be unsuitable to the government's needs before
    purchasing a non-commercial item and that conducted market
    research be used to inform price reasonableness determinations.
        The provision would also require that the Chairman and the
    Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation
    with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
    and Logistics ensure that the requirements process is in
    compliance with section 2377(c) of title 10, United States
    Code, and section 10.001 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
        The committee is aware of an effort known as Technology
    Domain Awareness being considered by the Department of Defense
    (DOD). Technology proliferation driven by the commercial
    marketplace and foreign investments threatens the United
    States' historical military-technology edge. To mitigate this
    threat, the committee believes DOD must pursue multiple defense
    innovation efforts that focus on increasing investments in
    game-changing military capabilities. Given the scale of
    commercial research and development, it is unlikely that the
    DOD will regain a leadership position in every technology area
    relevant to defense. As part of its commercial market research,
    the committee recommends that DOD consider options to
    accelerate efforts to deliver Technology Domain Awareness to
    DOD decision makers. These efforts should consist of
    information, infrastructure, services, and education designed
    to increase the DOD's ability to rapidly identify and
    capitalize on commercial technology innovations and practices
    relevant to military applications. The committee expects the
    Department to keep it informed as to the progress of the
    Technology Domain Awareness initiative.

    Continuing validity of commercial item determinations (sec. 863)

        The committee recommends a provision to require the
    modification of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
    Supplement to address the continuing validity of commercial
    item determinations for multiple procurements. This provision
    would streamline the commercial item determination process and
    provide certainty to the government and contractors by
    presuming that a previous commerciality determination made by
    an authorized agency official is valid, unless such
    determination is found to be made in error or based on
    inadequate information.

    Treatment of commercial items purchased as major weapon systems (sec.
            864)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2379 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the
    purchase of commercial items as major weapon systems. This
    provision would clarify section 2379 by: (1) separating
    commercial item determinations from price reasonableness
    determinations; and (2) spelling out with more specificity the
    types of information that are required to make price
    reasonableness determinations.
        Section 2379 was enacted in the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to
    ensure that the Department of Defense purchases major weapon
    systems as commercial items only when it is in the Department's
    interest to do so. It was amended two years later in an effort
    to ensure that when the Department purchases subsystems or
    components of major weapon systems as commercial items, it
    obtains sufficient information to determine the reasonableness
    of price. Under the 2008 amendment, a subsystem or component of
    a major weapon system may be purchased as a commercial item
    only if the offeror provides sufficient information to evaluate
    price reasonableness.
        The 2008 amendment created two problems. First, it blurred
    the lines between price reasonableness determinations and
    commercial item determinations. Second, the provision provided
    minimal detail on the types of information that should be
    required to determine price reasonableness, leading the Office
    of the Inspector General and others to conclude that in the
    absence of definitive price information for a particular item,
    the disclosure of detailed cost data is required. This is a
    cumbersome process that is inconsistent with standard
    commercial practices, and adds limited value to improving
    acquisition outcomes.
        The provision recommended by the committee would address
    the first problem by clarifying that commercial item status is
    not contingent on the offeror's disclosure of price
    information. Contracting officers would still require offerors
    to disclose information necessary to determine price
    reasonableness, but commercial item determinations would no
    longer hinge on that disclosure.
        The provision would address the second problem by
    reaffirming the statutory preference for commercial item price
    reasonableness determinations based on price information and
    price analysis, rather than cost information and cost analysis,
    and spelling out the types of price information that a
    contracting officer must seek from an offeror before requiring
    the production of cost information.
        The amended provision would not authorize contracting
    officers to require the submission of cost information with
    regard to the components of a commercial system or subsystem,
    with regard to commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS)
    items, or with regard to any other items that are developed
    exclusively at private expense. The committee concludes that
    the amended provision would enable contracting officers to
    require the submission of information needed to make price
    reasonableness determinations, while protecting offerors from
    unnecessary and unreasonable demands for cost information.

    Limitation on conversion of procurements from commercial acquisition
            procedures (sec. 865)

        The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
    conversion of the procurement of a commercial item or
    commercial service to a non-commercial acquisition procedure
    unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional
    defense committees that the Department of Defense will realize
    a significant cost savings as compared to the cost of procuring
    a similar quantity of such item or level of service using
    commercial acquisition procedures. The committee is concerned
    that a number of parts, components, services and systems have
    been converted from Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part
    12 procurements to FAR Part 15 with no assessment of the costs
    of these conversions. The Air Force is currently in
    negotiations to change the contract for the Joint Direct Attack
    Munition (JDAM) from one governed by FAR Part 12 to one
    governed by FAR Part 15. The JDAM was one of the most
    successful acquisition reform pilots authorized under the
    Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
    355). Under this authority, the price of JDAMs has consistently
    dropped over the years while contractors have been incentivized
    to use their own research and development dollars to continue
    to increase quality and performance of the munition. The
    committee is concerned that the cost of this program may
    increase and that the Department will be forced to fund
    directly any new quality or performance enhancement.
        This provision would ensure that under any such future
    conversion the Secretary shall, in addition to price changes,
    factor in forgone commercial research and development costs,
    transaction costs and increased regulatory costs in converting
    existing FAR Part 12 contracts. This provision would also
    require the Department to conduct an inventory (which the
    Comptroller General will review for accuracy) of all contracts
    and subcontracts that have been converted from FAR Part 12 to
    FAR Part 15 over the last 5 years and determine the prices paid
    before and after the conversion.

    Treatment of goods and services provided by a non-traditional
            contractors as commercial items (sec. 866)

        The committee recommends a new provision in chapter 140 of
    title 10, United States Code that authorizes the Department of
    Defense (DOD) to treat goods and services provided by a non-
    traditional contractor as defined in section 2302(9) of title
    10, United States Code, as a commercial item. The committee
    believes that it is critical for the Department of Defense to
    access non-traditional commercial contractors to address future
    technology challenges where commercial technology is rapidly
    advancing beyond military technology. There are significant
    barriers to the participation of these contractors in the DOD
    marketplace. To overcome those barriers Congress has put in
    place a patchwork of authorities to allow these firms to
    participate on a transaction by transaction basis either
    through the use of other transactions authority or through
    defining the product or service to be acquired as a commercial
    item under the commercial item definition in chapter 1 of title
    41, United States Code.
        This committee recognizes that the defense market is not
    large enough for some commercial firms to go to the trouble and
    expense of changing their business processes to comply with a
    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 type contract
    traditionally used for most defense purchases. This provision
    would allow the Department to access a greater share of the
    innovative potential of these commercial, non-traditional firms
    under FAR Part 12 terms and conditions by treating the entire
    business unit and what is produced and provided by these units
    as commercial. Government buyers if they wish to access non-
    traditional commercial entities will need to conduct extensive
    market research to first understand the Department of Defense's
    standing in the relevant commercial sector and market. The
    Department will also likely need to develop and use price and
    value based techniques to be used over the course of the
    relationship with these contractors that will be significantly
    different than the transactions based approach used to ensure
    price reasonableness on a contract by contract basis.

                           Subtitle E--Other Matters

    Streamlining of requirements relating to defense business systems (sec.
            871)

        The committee recommends a provision to streamline
    requirements relative to the acquisition of defense business
    systems. The provision would clarify the lines of
    responsibility and oversight roles for these types of programs.
    Further, it would reduce the oversight burden on the Department
    of Defense (DOD) with respect to lower cost systems. It would
    also mandate that DOD establish guidance for these types of
    programs, which would help to improve their cost and schedule
    outcomes through the emphasis of robust business process re-
    engineering and requirements refinement, prior to any expensive
    customization of commercial software.

    Acquisition workforce (sec. 872)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the
    defense acquisition workforce development fund for 5 additional
    years and modify the requirements of the biennial strategic
    workforce plan to assess any new or expanded critical skills or
    competencies needed by the acquisition workforce. The committee
    expects that the fund be used to improve the capabilities of
    the current acquisition workforce in the use of Federal
    Acquisition Regulation Part 12 commercial contracting and other
    transactions authority.

    Unified information technology services (sec. 873)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO), the Chief Information
    Officer (CIO), and the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to jointly conduct a
    business case analysis, with assistance from the Director of
    Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation, as appropriate, to
    determine the most effective and efficient way to acquire
    common services across Department of Defense (DOD) networks.
        The provision also would require the Secretary of Defense,
    within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, in consultation
    with the DCMO and CIO, to establish a governance mechanism and
    process to ensure essential interoperability across DOD
    networks.
        The provision would require that the business case analysis
    include an assessment of whether DOD should (1) acquire a
    single set of commercially provided enterprise services for
    DOD, or allow the military departments and other components to
    acquire their own; (2) acquire such services as an integrated
    set from a single provider, or require that each service can be
    separately acquired; and (3) acquire multiple versions of each
    type of service, for services where there is no commercial
    standard that ensures interoperability across vendor products,
    to enable interoperability while supporting choice and
    competition.
        The committee is aware that the CIO, the Defense
    Information Systems Agency, and the military services are
    monitoring the rapidly advancing commercial technology and
    offerings for enterprise services, and, in many instances are
    already capitalizing on these commercial offerings. The
    committee is also aware that the CIO is now focusing on
    developing a path forward. The committee is concerned that the
    scope of the ongoing review is too narrow and that the CIO
    lacks the tools and authority to implement solutions that are
    necessary to achieve efficiencies and interoperability.

    Cloud strategy for Department of Defense (sec. 874)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Chief Information Officer (CIO), in consultation with the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Vice Chairman of the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Chief
    Information Officers of the military departments, to develop a
    cloud strategy for the secret level of classified data and the
    Secret Internet Protocol network (SIPRnet). The strategy would
    be required to address security requirements, the ability to
    shift current applications to a cloud computing environment,
    competitive acquisition, and interoperability with Intelligence
    Community cloud systems operating at higher classification
    levels.
        The provision would also require the CIO, in coordination
    with the Director of National Intelligence and in consultation
    with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to develop
    a consistent pricing and cost recovery process for the use by
    Department of Defense components of the Intelligence
    Community's cloud services.
        Finally, the provision would require the CIO to assess the
    feasibility and advisability of imposing a minimum set of open
    standards for cloud infrastructure, middle-ware, metadata, and
    application programming interfaces to promote interoperability,
    information sharing, access to data, and competition.

    Development period for Department of Defense information technology
            systems (sec. 875)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2445b of title 10, United States Code, to modify
    requirements applicable to a major automated information system
    program that fails to achieve a full deployment decision within
    5 years after the initiation of the program. These systems are
    intended to primarily use commercially available software and
    computer systems and the Department of Defense (DOD) has
    policies in place to change business practices so that
    commercial solutions can meet the needs for DOD business
    systems. As such, the committee believes that in most cases,
    these programs should have very limited developmental risk and
    as such can be managed as ``time-certain'' development efforts.
    The provision would require that any failure to achieve a full
    deployment decision within five years would trigger a written
    determination from the Department of Defense that a longer
    period of time is needed for the effort.

    Revisions to pilot program on acquisition of military purpose non-
            developmental items (sec. 876)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 866 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to expand the
    applicability of the pilot program on the acquisition of
    military purpose non-developmental items to additional classes
    of contractors and apply the standards of the Competition in
    Contracting Act of 1984 (10 U.S.C. 2304) to these contracts. In
    January 2015, the Government Accountability Office reported on
    the progress of the pilot and found that it was difficult for
    the Department of Defense (DOD) to test this authority given
    the legislative constraints of the program. These changes would
    allow for DOD to effectively test the usefulness of the
    authority.

    Extension of the Department of Defense Mentor-Protege pilot program
            (sec. 877)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
    year the authority in section 831(j) of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510).

    Improved auditing of contracts (sec. 878)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to provide outside
    audit support to non-Defense Agencies upon certification that
    the backlog for incurred cost audits is less than 12 months of
    incurred cost inventory. The committee understands that DCAA
    has made progress in reducing its incurred cost audit backlog
    but this has come at the expense of a reduction in the number
    of audits and increased backlogs in other areas of its
    responsibilities. The committee believes that DCAA management
    should not be distracted by directing and managing the audit
    responsibilities of other agencies until its own house is
    completely in order. The provision would require the Secretary
    of Defense to use up to 5 percent of the auditing staff of the
    Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
    and the service audit agencies and, if necessary, augmented by
    private audit firms to help address DCAA's audit backlog. The
    provision would also require the Secretary to review the
    oversight and audit structure of the Department of Defense with
    the goal of improving productivity, avoiding duplicative
    program and contract audits, and streamlining oversight
    reviews.

    Survey on the costs of regulatory compliance (sec. 879)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to survey the top ten contractors with the
    highest level of reimbursements for cost-type contracts and
    identify the cost to industry of regulatory compliance with
    government unique acquisition regulations and requirements that
    are not imposed on commercial item contracts. The last such
    survey, known as the Coopers and Lybrand study, was completed
    for Secretary of Defense William Perry in December 1994. This
    study, using an activity based costing methodology, found that
    average acquisition process regulatory compliance costs for
    defense firms were around 18 percent. The Coopers and Lybrand
    study was not a comprehensive estimate of all acquisition
    regulatory costs that industry must comply with, nor did it
    estimate the costs imposed upon the government to oversee this
    compliance. Other studies at the time estimated regulatory
    compliance costs as high as 40 percent of the price paid for a
    defense contract.
        No significant study on the costs of regulatory compliance
    has been conducted since 1994, while in the last two decades
    new acquisition regulatory requirements, such as the business
    system rule, have been imposed on industry to the process of
    acquiring defense unique products. While many of these
    requirements are designed to protect the taxpayer, the layering
    of these requirements upon one another may actually be wasting
    taxpayer dollars rather than achieving their original
    objectives. In one example where a contractor for a defense
    program (the Wideband Global satellite) was allowed to adopt
    more commercial-like practices to lessen the regulatory
    compliance burden, the government was able to achieve a
    significant cost reduction of over $150.0 million while
    achieving the same mission capability. The committee believes
    that it will be more difficult to make decisions about
    achieving the right balance in oversight requirements on large
    defense programs without adequate data on the costs of
    oversight compliance.

    Government Accountability Office report on bid protests (sec. 880)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require
    that the Comptroller General of the United States submit a
    report to the congressional defense committees no later than
    270 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the
    prevalence and impact of bid protests over the previous 10
    years. While the general level of bid protests appears to have
    remained relatively constant in recent years the committee is
    concerned about the level of protests for large contracts and
    for follow on contracts that would potentially replace an
    incumbent contractor. The Comptroller General should also
    assess the ramifications of the protest process on the actions
    of the defense acquisition workforce and the feasibility of
    instituting a system whereby a losing protester would be liable
    for legal fees and protest costs.

    Steps to identify and address potential unfair competitive advantage of
            technical advisors to acquisition officials (sec. 881)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
    Logistics to issue guidance on identifying and addressing
    potential unfair competitive advantage of technical advisors to
    acquisition officials. Organizational conflict of interest and
    personal conflict of interest issues have been addressed for
    contractors in previous legislation. While it would be expected
    that the Undersecretary would review the implementation of
    these efforts, there has been a neglected aspect of potential
    conflicts raised when the Department of Defense uses federally
    funded research and development centers, other non-profit
    entities, or federal laboratories that provide technical advice
    on defense programs and subsequent work has been directed to
    these entities or their clients. The committee believes that
    the Department needs to ensure that the engineering and
    technical advice it is given is free from unmitigated potential
    conflicts of interest.

    HUBZone qualified disaster areas (sec. 882)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
    Small Business Act, title 15, United States Code to authorize
    the inclusion of qualified disaster areas to the Historically
    Underutilized Business Zone program administered by the Small
    Business Administration.

    Base closure HUBZones (sec. 883)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
    Small Business Act, title 15, United States Code to authorize
    the inclusion of base closure areas to the Historically
    Underutilized Business Zone program administered by the Small
    Business Administration.

                           Items of Special Interest

    AbilityOne Program

        The committee notes that AbilityOne Program is the largest
    source of employment, on Federal contracts, for individuals who
    are blind or have significant disabilities in the United
    States. The program has supported the employment of tens of
    thousands of people across the United States who are blind or
    have significant disabilities, including veterans and wounded
    warriors. The Department of Defense (DOD), through the use of
    the AbilityOne program, has been able to secure key mission-
    support services to maintain and improve military readiness, at
    competitive market prices.
        The Committee encourages DOD to continue to cultivate and
    increase business opportunities through the use of AbilityOne
    programs. The committee notes that the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics issued a
    memorandum in 2013 challenging acquisition officials to further
    increase support by procuring more goods and services provided
    by the AbilityOne Program. The committee also commends
    AbilityOne's employment of disabled veterans, and encourages
    AbilityOne to continue its emphasis on hiring disabled veterans
    in providing essential products and services to support the
    warfighter and defense missions.

    Acquisition of Commercial Test, Research, and Measurement Capability

        It is the committee's understanding that current Department
    of Defense (DOD) acquisition practices rely heavily on buying
    commercially-available off the shelf (COTS) research, test, and
    measurement equipment for Research Development Test and
    Evaluation (RDT&E) programs and activities. When this equipment
    is needed, the committee believes that both DOD and its
    contractors should assess the best way to acquire such
    research, test, and measurement capability, particularly when
    this equipment, once purchased, is often used for only limited
    periods of times with a low utilization in an environment where
    research, testing, and measurement technologies can become
    obsolete relatively quickly.
        The committee believes that as a demonstration of DOD
    progress toward the use of commercial best practices in support
    of DOD's Better Buying Power initiative, DOD should assess the
    value of leasing/rental services for COTS research, test, and
    measurement equipment capabilities for DOD requirements in
    support of RD&TE programs and activities rather than purchasing
    equipment to acquire the capabilities.
        The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology
    and Logistics should conduct such a review of the acquisition
    practices for acquiring COTS research, test, and measurement
    equipment and capabilities and report to the congressional
    defense committees not later than 120 days after the date of
    enactment of this Act.

    Barriers to innovation from non-traditional and commercial contractors

        The Department of Defense (DOD) has relied on its research
    and development enterprise to produce new and advanced
    technologies that improve military capabilities and ensure
    technological superiority over adversaries. Traditionally, the
    Department has succeeded in maintaining a technology advantage
    on the battlefield by being a primary driver of technology
    innovation and making substantial investments in basic and
    applied research and technology development in the defense
    industrial base. In the past few decades, however, the focus
    and pace of scientific and technological innovation has changed
    dramatically, and the innovation environment in many leading
    technology areas, such as robotics, cyber, and communications,
    has shifted away from the government to the commercial sector.
    Innovation fueled by commercial market forces has largely taken
    over the government's role in pushing technology advancements.
    DOD's ability to leverage and exploit technology innovations
    developed and funded by the commercial sector is critical to
    its ability to preserve superior warfighting capabilities.
        Although DOD has taken some steps in recent years to
    identify and pursue innovative technologies and products from
    commercial companies outside the defense industrial base, the
    committee is concerned that DOD continues to fall behind in
    leveraging innovation from the commercial sector. Even when the
    DOD has incorporated commercial components, it is often not
    nimble enough to refresh this technology and is left relying on
    obsolete commercial solutions for its major systems. The
    committee is concerned that a key reason for this situation is
    that policies, regulations, and processes within DOD may make
    it difficult for many high-tech companies to collaborate and do
    business with the Department. The committee has heard from
    several companies, for example, that government acquisition and
    contracting regulations, cost accounting standards and audits,
    and intellectual property policies can be a major deterrent to
    working with DOD.
        This Act proposes many changes to remove the barriers to
    the participation of commercial contractors in the DOD
    acquisition process. To gain a better understanding of what
    impediments would still exist after the passage of this Act and
    how to address them, the committee directs the Comptroller
    General of the United States to conduct a review examining
    DOD's efforts to leverage innovative technologies from non-
    traditional companies. The review should at a minimum, include
    meetings with selected companies and discussion of potential
    impediments they perceive or face in conducting business with
    the Department. Not later than 1 year after enactment of this
    Act, the results of this review shall be provided to the
    committee.

    Competition in the procurement of collaboration services

        The committee notes that the Defense Information Systems
    Agency (DISA) internally developed and is fielding an interim
    collaboration services tool called Defense Collaboration
    Services. While DISA has stated that their collaboration
    services tool will reduce costs and use an open system
    architecture, the manner in which DISA developed this tool
    internally raises concerns that cost savings estimates may be
    overly optimistic and that significant reconfiguration will be
    required to use this tool within the Department of Defense. The
    degree of user satisfaction with existing and interim
    collaboration services tools is also unclear.
        Further, the committee believes that adequate consideration
    was not given to competition for this interim service which
    potentially could improve performance and lower costs. The
    committee believes that competition from a wide range of
    alternatives could have a beneficial impact in the area of
    collaboration services in the Department. The committee urges
    the DISA to use competition to improve performance and drive
    down costs for collaboration services.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of Cost
    Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to evaluate the
    Department's use of competition in acquiring collaboration
    services tools to include the development of its interim
    collaboration services tools, the comparative costs and
    capabilities of these tools, and user feedback on both the
    existing and interim collaboration services, and report to the
    committee no later than November 30, 2015 with findings and
    recommendations.

    Inspector General report on pricing of engine sustainment contract

        On December 22, 2014, the Inspector General of the
    Department of Defense issued a report concluding that the Air
    Force may be paying too much for the sustainment of F117
    aircraft engine, the defense version of a commercial aircraft
    engine that powers hundreds of commercial aircraft currently in
    service. The report raises concerns about a lack of
    understanding of the applicable requirements by the Inspector
    General, the Air Force, and the contractor.
        The Inspector General report concluded that the Air Force
    improperly determined that the sustainment services for the
    F117 engine were commercial ``without assessing whether a
    commercial market existed.'' The Inspector General report
    indicates that this determination should be made on the basis
    of an assessment of a ``current market for any comparable F117
    engine fleet management program'' by the contractor in the
    private sector.
        The Inspector General's narrowly-constrained view of
    commercial services is mistaken. Services provided in support
    of commercial items are considered commercial services if the
    source of the item provides ``similar services''--not
    necessarily the same services to the general public (section
    103(5) of title 41, United States Code). The committee
    concludes that this test would be met if, as the Air Force
    concluded, the contractor provides similar sustainment services
    for commercial aircraft engines (even if not the same engines)
    under dozens of fleet management programs valued in the
    billions of dollars.
        On the other hand, the Air Force appears to deserve the
    Inspector General's criticism for its failure to perform market
    research to fully understand the potential marketplace for F117
    engine sustainment. Close to a thousand of similar engines
    remain in service on commercial aircraft. The committee
    concludes that market research should, at a minimum, identify
    other potential competitors who might enable the Air Force to
    avoid a sole source contract for this work.
        The contractor, too, has failed to comply with its
    obligations under the law if, as the Inspector General reports,
    it has ``repeatedly refused'' to provide commercial sales data
    to support the price for F117 sustainment services. Contractors
    providing commercial items and services are required by law to
    submit ``at a minimum, appropriate information on the prices at
    which the same item or similar items have previously been sold
    that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price
    for the procurement'' (10 United States Code Section
    2306a(d)(1)). The committee believes that a company seeking a
    government contract worth billions of dollars should not have
    to be subpoenaed to meet this legal requirement.
        However, both the Inspector General and the Air Force are
    mistaken in insisting that the contractor provide detailed
    information on labor hours and costs, material costs, overhead
    expenses, subcontractor costs, and profits at this time. Under
    section 2379(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, contracting
    officers may require the submission of cost information, such
    as information on labor costs, material costs, and overhead
    rates, only upon a determination that commercial price
    information alone is not sufficient to determine the
    reasonableness of price. It is difficult to understand how
    either the Inspector General or the Air Force could conclude
    that commercial price information alone is insufficient, when
    this information has not yet been received from the contractor.
        The committee concludes that the interests of the
    Department of Defense and the taxpayers would be better served
    if the Inspector General, the Air Force, and the contractor
    were to better understand and carry out their duties under the
    statute.

    Mitigation strategy to prevent fraud and abuse in the Service-Disabled
            Veteran-Owned Small Business Program

        The Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)
    program was established to ensure veterans with service-
    connected disabilities have access to opportunities to contract
    with the federal government. The Department of Defense's Office
    of Small Business Programs reported in 2013, the Department
    awarded over $6.0 billion in SDVOSB contracts. However, the
    Department's reliance on self-certification of veteran status
    to determine eligibility for SDVOSB contracts has allowed
    significant fraud and abuse to persist within the program. The
    Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) estimated in
    2012 that in DOD's SDVOSB program alone, more than $340.0
    million was awarded to firms that potentially misstated their
    SDVOSB status. Each contract awarded to an ineligible firm
    under SDVOSB program takes an opportunity away from a deserving
    service-disabled veteran.
        To address these concerns, the Committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to develop a mitigation strategy to
    prevent fraud and abuse, and to update the committee not later
    than 180 days after enactment of this Act. The committee notes
    that the strategy should incorporate the best practices used by
    the Department of Veterans Affairs' Service-Disabled Veteran
    Owned Small Business Program to prevent fraud and abuse.

    Obtaining technical data for operations, maintenance, installation, and
            training purposes

        The committee understands the importance of obtaining
    technical data for operations, maintenance, installation, and
    training purposes as outlined in section 2320(C)(iii) of title
    10, United States Code. The use of computer-based simulator
    technology for training purposes has significantly evolved in
    the last decade. The committee is aware that in some cases it
    has been difficult to obtain the necessary underlying technical
    data on a defense system to support competition in the
    development of training simulators. A similar issue has been
    identified for the maintenance support of commercial derivative
    aircraft and engines. The committee believes that the
    government industry panel that would be created elsewhere in
    this Act would, at a minimum, review the impact of sections
    2320 and 2331 of title 10, United States Code, on the
    competitiveness of the marketplace for training simulators and
    the sustainment of commercial derivative aircraft and engines.

    Review of should-cost process

        Since 2010, the Department of Defense has correctly
    promoted so-called ``should-cost'' management, which relies on
    government and contractor teams to identify errors that can be
    avoided and process efficiencies that can be gained as well to
    make technical trade-offs for saving money without compromising
    requirements. By eliminating inefficient processes and
    embracing cost savings opportunities, the Department can
    achieve more affordable programs. Should-cost savings should
    not be arbitrary, but rather tied to a specific engineering or
    business change that can be quantified and tracked. To ensure
    should-cost management achieves its effectiveness potential as
    an acquisition tool, the process must be transparent and well
    understood by all parties. The contractor and industry team
    must participate in the process together.
        The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense review
    the policies, procedures, and regulations governing the proper
    use of should-cost management to ensure the process is
    transparent, objective and efficient and, after requisite
    public comment, to make any necessary changes to these
    policies, rules and procedures. As a part of this review the
    Secretary of Defense should also ensure that acquisition
    professionals are adequately educated and trained on the proper
    use of should-cost management.
        The committee believes that the elements of a transparent
    should-cost management process should at a minimum: (1)
    distinguish between should cost review and analysis of program
    direct and indirect costs; (2) establish a process for
    communicating with the contractor the elements of a proposed
    should-cost evaluation; (3) ensure that every identified
    should-cost savings opportunity is accurate, complete, and
    current and is tied to a specific engineering or business
    change that can be quantified and tracked; (4) identify skills
    and capabilities for those participating in should-cost
    management teams to ensure that such teams include sufficient
    members with broad cross functional experience; (5) ensure
    appropriate collaboration with the contractor throughout the
    process; (6) require a process that provides for sufficient
    analysis that minimizes impact on program schedule; and (7)
    require a separate audit to be provided to the contractor.
        The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense report
    to the committee on the Department's review within 180 days of
    enactment of this Act.

    Security and facility clearances

        The cost to investigate, certify, and maintain security
    clearances and facility clearances is a tremendous burden on
    the Department of Defense in labor and resources. It also
    creates barriers that prevent the sharing of solutions,
    technology and information, within the government. The
    clearance processes are a legacy of Cold War requirements and
    will need to be re-engineered to address the multitude of new
    threats that now face the nation, but also address industrial
    base concerns regarding the globalization of technology and
    ubiquity of commercial information technology.
        The committee notes that progress has been made in
    implementing section 906 of the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) on personnel
    security and section 1628 of the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) on personnel
    security and insider threat, but is disappointed by the pace of
    the reform effort. The committee believes that the Department
    of Defense must continue the process of personnel security
    clearance reform and as part of this effort review: (1) the
    value and cost benefits of the current investigative process
    used in security clearance investigations versus other
    alternatives; and (2) the productivity and additional value
    provided by using entities outside of the Department of Defense
    to perform these investigations.
        The committee also believes that the Department should
    begin the process of reengineering the facility clearance
    system process. As with the acquisition process as a whole, the
    security and facility clearance processes need to become more
    agile, efficient, and timely. This should be done in a way that
    enhances security but removes unnecessary costs and barriers to
    the participation of commercial global firms whose business and
    technical solutions are urgently needed by the Department.
          TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                  Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

    Update of statutory specification of functions of Chairman of the Joint
            Chiefs of Staff relating to advice on requirements, programs,
            and budget (sec. 901)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 153 of title 10, United States Code, relating to
    functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
    update that section to reflect additional joint force
    integration functions performed by the Chairman. An update is
    necessary as a result of the disestablishment of United States
    Joint Forces Command on August 31, 2011, and the subsequent
    deletion of that command from the Unified Command Plan.
    Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family Policy and Office
            of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs
            (sec. 902)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    sections 1781, 1781(a), 1781(c), and 131 of title 10, United
    States Code, to reorganize and redesignate the Office of
    Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs and
    the Office of Family Policy/Children and Youth into 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.
    Repeal of requirement for annual Department of Defense funding for
            Ocean Research Advisory Panel (sec. 903)
        The committee recommends a provision that would strike
    subsection (c) of section 7903 of title 10, United States Code.
    In support of the Secretary of Defense's Efficiency
    Initiatives, the committee's recommendation would eliminate the
    requirement that the Department of the Navy provide funding to
    support the functioning of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel.
    The committee believes that this change is consistent with the
    function of the panel and that the support responsibilities are
    more appropriately aligned outside of the Department of
    Defense.
        The committee notes that, as the result of several
    reorganizations by the administration, the panel now reports to
    the Executive Office of the President, yet the Department of
    the Navy maintains responsibility for providing funding and
    selecting nominees to serve on the panel. The committee is also
    concerned that the process of selecting nominees has become so
    slow that the panel currently does not have a quorum of members
    and thus has not met in over a year.
        The committee believes that the panel can still provide
    valuable advice to the administration, but may be of limited
    value to the Department of Defense. Consequently, the
    Department of the Navy is not well placed to support the panel.
    The committee recommends that the Executive Office of the
    President determine by which entity the management and
    oversight of the panel would be most appropriate.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council

        The committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense
    for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC)
    provides ``service secretary-like'' civilian oversight of U.S.
    Special Operations Command (SOCOM) within the Department of
    Defense. These responsibilities include serving as the
    principal civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense on all
    operational, policy, resourcing, and acquisition matters
    impacting special operations forces (SOF). Given SOCOM's
    responsibilities for the readiness of SOF and its unique role
    as the only combatant command with acquisition authorities, the
    committee believes the civilian oversight function of the ASD
    SOLIC is critical to ensuring optimal use of SOF and efficient
    use of taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, the committee believes
    that the ASD SOLIC has not been able to devote sufficient
    attention and resources to adequately fulfill these ``service
    secretary-like'' responsibilities along with other
    responsibilities related to current military operations,
    building partner capacity, counternarcotics, stability
    operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and
    other issues.
        As such, the committee strongly supports the creation of
    the Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council (SOPOC) by
    the ASD SOLIC to help fulfill assigned oversight
    responsibilities and leverage expertise elsewhere within the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense, including through the
    participation of the Under Secretaries of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Personnel and Readiness,
    Intelligence, and Comptroller. The committee understands that
    the SOPOC has already considered and resolved a number of
    issues impacting the operational control of SOF and the
    delineation of funding responsibilities between SOCOM and the
    military services. The committee strongly encourages further
    institutionalization of the SOPOC through continued regular
    meetings and requests that ASD SOLIC keep the committee
    currently informed of any significant policy or programmatic
    decisions impacting SOF.
                          TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                         Subtitle A--Financial Matters

    General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the transfer up to $4.5 billion of fiscal year 2016 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.
    Annual audit of financial statements of Department of Defense
            components by independent external auditors (sec. 1002)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Department of Defense Inspector General to fulfill its
    statutory audit responsibilities to perform financial statement
    audits for the military departments and other designated
    components of the Department by contracting with independent
    external auditors. The committee notes that some organizations
    in DOD are already making use of independent audit services.
    The committee expects that this provision will allow DOD to
    complete its audit requirements in a more cost effective
    manner, by leveraging private sector expertise, and in a manner
    consistent with auditing in other government agencies. The
    committee expects that for each audit, the Inspector General
    will evaluate the qualifications of the independent external
    auditor's staff and their independence, review the scope of the
    audit work, monitor audit progress, and review, if appropriate,
    audit documentation. Upon completion of the audit, the
    Inspector General shall issue a report to Congress that
    includes the independent external auditor's opinion on the
    entity's financial statements, as well as any accompanying
    management letters and any observations on the audit or on the
    financial statements.
    Treatment as part of the base budget of certain amounts authorized for
            overseas contingency operations upon enactment of an act
            revising the Budget Control Act discretionary spending limits
            for fiscal year 2016 (sec. 1003)
        If an act is enacted at a later date that would revise the
    defense and non-defense discretionary spending limits in
    proportionally equal amounts, than amounts authorized in title
    XV above $50.9 billion and equal to the amount of the increase
    to the defense discretionary cap for fiscal year 2016, will be
    deemed to be authorized in title III.
    Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1004)
        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate on the negative impact that the statutory
    budget caps are having on the Department of Defense and United
    States national security, as well as the need for legislation
    to adjust those caps.
        The committee acknowledges that the Budget Control Act of
    2011 (BCA) represented a step forward in tackling the fiscal
    imbalances of our country. It took steps to bring down deficits
    and stabilize debt growth. It included statutory budget caps to
    ensure Congress appropriated within its means. This was an
    important improvement to address the national debt, which the
    former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike
    Mullen, once called the biggest threat to our national
    security.
        However, the BCA also included an enforcement mechanism
    known as sequestration--shortsighted, non-strategic, and
    across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending to achieve the
    BCA's budget caps. Under sequestration, the size of those
    spending reductions was designed to be so unacceptable that
    sequestration would never occur. In its place, Congress was to
    enact targeted measures to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2
    trillion over 10 years. Ultimately, Congress was unable to
    fulfill this requirement and the revised budget caps went into
    effect in March 2013 with enforcement of sequestration.
        The committee understands the harmful impacts that these
    non-strategic cuts to defense spending have had on our national
    security. The readiness of our military forces have been
    degraded, equipment maintenance has been postponed, and
    employees have been furloughed. Furthermore, these
    sequestration-level budget caps are forcing the Department of
    Defense to manage the challenges today based on a spend plan
    set 4 years ago--before the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq
    and the Levant (ISIL), the Ebola crisis, and Russia's
    aggression in Ukraine.
        Additionally, the committee recognizes that there are
    important non-defense agencies tasked with protecting our
    security. From the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the
    Department of Homeland Security, and even the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of
    Health, our nation's security and well-being are at risk of
    harm. The impacts of the BCA caps and sequestration have been
    felt across the country.
        There was success in 2013 to enact targeted cuts and adjust
    some of statutory budget caps. The Murray-Ryan Bipartisan
    Budget Act of 2013 showed there is bipartisan agreement on
    addressing the budget caps in a balanced, equal way between
    defense and non-defense accounts. The committee acknowledges
    the negative impact of the budget caps and the need to adjust
    them.

                      Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities

    Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and
            counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
    2 fiscal years the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
    provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and
    counterterrorism campaign of the Government of Colombia
    (Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as most recently amended
    by section 1011 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291).
        The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has
    made and continues to make progress against transnational
    criminal organizations and designated foreign terrorist
    organizations. Further, the committee notes that the Government
    of Colombia is playing an increasing role in regional security
    efforts and encourages a continuation of the security
    partnership between the United States and Colombia.
    Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional support for
            counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec.
            1012)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most recently amended
    by section 1013 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291). Specifically, the provision would extend the
    Department of Defense's (DOD) authority to provide additional
    support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign
    governments through fiscal year 2017, as well as adds Kenya,
    Tanzania, and Somalia as countries eligible to receive
    assistance under this authority.
        The committee notes the growing presence of transnational
    criminal organizations operating across many parts of Africa--a
    region the committee continues to believe is of increasing
    importance to the security interests of the United States. As
    such, the committee encourages the DOD to initiate additional
    programs in the U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility.

                    Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

    Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy (sec. 1021)
        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Defense to commission three studies to be
    submitted to the congressional defense committees in
    unclassified, and to the extent necessary, in classified
    versions to recommend potential future fleet architectures no
    later than May 1, 2016. These studies would provide competing
    visions and alternatives for future fleet architectures. One
    study would be performed by the Department of the Navy, with
    input from the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division.
    The second study would be performed by a federally funded
    research and development center. The third study would be
    conducted by a qualified independent, non-governmental
    institute, as selected by the Secretary of Defense.
        The Navy will continue to be built around ships of various
    kinds and sizes, along with its supporting aircraft. The Navy
    force structure requirement set forth in the ``Annual Long-
    Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year
    2016'' included 11 large-deck aircraft carriers, 88 large
    surface combatants, 52 small surface combatants, 34 amphibious
    ships, 48 attack submarines, and 4 guided missile submarines.
    Together with associated combat logistics and support ships,
    the Navy's force structure objective totals 308 ships.
    Additionally, this force structure includes 10 carrier air
    wings, additional surface combatant-based helicopters, and
    land-based maritime patrol aircraft.
        This basic combination of ships and aircraft represent the
    Navy's platform architecture. Since the end of the Cold War,
    this architecture has remained relatively static, while
    decreasing in total size. Given the long lead times needed to
    design and build ships and aircraft, their decades-long
    operational life, and the relatively low annual rates at which
    new ships and aircraft are procured, the Navy's overall
    platform architecture evolves gradually over time.
        Due to the confluence of three trends, the committee
    believes now is the time to identify the naval force structure
    the Nation will need to plan to meet the operational
    requirements of the 2030s.
        First, 11 U.S. Navy combatant ship classes begin to retire
    in large numbers between 2020 and 2035, including: Ticonderoga-
    class guided missile cruisers (2020), improved Los Angeles-
    class submarines (2021), Nimitz-class aircraft carriers (2025),
    Flight I Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers (2026),
    Ohio-class guided missile submarines (2026), Whidbey Island-
    class amphibious ships (2027), Seawolf-class submarines (2030),
    Wasp-class amphibious ship (2029), Flight II Arleigh Burke-
    class guided missile destroyers (2033), Littoral Combat Ships
    (2033), and Harpers Ferry-class amphibious ships (2035). The
    Navy should urgently develop capability based assessments and
    analyses of alternatives to identify the best solutions to fill
    the capability gaps left by these retirements.
        Second, as competitor states raise their own modern navies,
    the maritime domain appears to be shifting in ways that will
    again challenge the Navy's ability to conduct sea control and
    project power. It will therefore be vital that the Navy not
    just invest in more robust naval force, but a fleet adaptable
    to the challenges of tomorrow's warfighting regimes.
        Third, as the Ohio-class replacement program proceeds, it
    is projected to consume the equivalent of one-third to one-half
    of the historical shipbuilding budget, which is already
    stretched to maintain the Navy's objective force levels.
        Given these fiscal challenges, it is vital for the Navy to
    review thoroughly its planned architecture and position itself
    to invest carefully in the future fleet. As a result, the
    specified studies are directed and $1.0 million is added to the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense for the performance of these
    studies.
    Amendment to National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1022)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1022(b)(1) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
    McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
    (Public Law 113-291), which established the National Sea-Based
    Deterrence Fund, to clarify what appropriations may be utilized
    as a source of transfer funds. The committee's intent is for
    amounts not to exceed $3.5 billion from unobligated funds
    authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2014, 2015, or
    2016 in any Department of Defense appropriation to be available
    for transfer to the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. As
    stated in the existing provision, the transfer authority
    provided under this provision is in addition to any other
    transfer authority provided to the Secretary of Defense by law.
    Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy
            mess operations afloat (sec. 1023)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authority for reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy mess
    operations afloat authorized in section 1014 of the Duncan
    Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
    (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4585), as amended by section
    1021 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383, 124 Stat. 4348), from
    September 30, 2015 to September 30, 2020, and certain technical
    and clarifying amendments.

                          Subtitle D--Counterterrorism

    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. 1031)
        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    the use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the
    United States to house detainees transferred from Guantanamo.
    The prohibition would only be lifted if the Secretary of
    Defense submits a plan for the disposition of all detainees, as
    provided in a subsequent section, and the plan is approved by
    Congress.

    Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at United
            States Naval Station, Guantanamo (sec. 1032)

        The stated policy of the United States remains to close the
    detention facilities at Guantanamo as soon as possible. The
    committee has long requested a detailed plan for the
    disposition of all individuals held there. Thus far, the
    Secretary of Defense has failed to provide such a plan. Prior
    to authorizing the transfer of detainees into the United States
    the committee seeks a comprehensive plan that will describe the
    disposition of all detainees, including where each detainee
    will be held or transferred, the costs associated with
    continued detention, the legal risks of any transfer, and what
    additional authorities are needed.
        Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
    prohibit the transfer to the United States of detainees in
    Guantanamo except for detention, trial, or incarceration. Such
    domestic transfers could only occur, however, after the
    Secretary of Defense determines that the transfer is in the
    national security interests of the United States, determines
    that appropriate actions have been taken or will be taken to
    address any risk to public safety; and notifies appropriate
    committees of Congress.
        The limited authority to transfer detainees to the United
    States under this provision would only become effective after
    the Secretary of Defense submits a report detailing a plan for
    all individuals held at Guantanamo and Congress approves the
    plan. The provision would provide expedited procedures for
    congressional consideration of the submitted plan.

    Reenactment and modification of certain prior requirements for
            certifications relating to transfer of detainees at Untied
            States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign
            countries and other foreign entities (sec. 1033)

        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    the use of any amounts authorized to be appropriated or
    otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to be
    used to transfer or release any individual detained at United
    States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the individual's
    country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other
    foreign entity. This prohibition would apply unless the
    Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
    State and the Director of National Intelligence, provides a
    written certification to Congress addressing several
    requirements at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such
    individual. This section would also prohibit the Secretary of
    Defense from using any funds for the transfer of any such
    individual to the custody or effective control of the
    individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or
    any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any
    individual transferred from United States Naval Station,
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the same country or entity who engaged
    in terrorist activity subsequent to their transfer. This
    section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive certain
    certification requirements if the Secretary determines that
    alternative actions will be taken, that actions taken will
    substantially mitigate risks posed by the individual to be
    transferred, and that the transfer is in the national security
    interests of the United States. Whenever the Secretary uses the
    waiver, the Secretary must provide a report that includes a
    copy of the waiver and determination, a statement of the basis
    for the determination, and a summary of the alternative actions
    to be taken. The section would also require the certification
    to include a description for the cooperation for which
    favorable consideration was so given and a description of
    operational outcomes, if any, affected by such cooperation.
    Finally, this section would repeal current law, as contained in
    section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
        This provision would expire once a plan for the disposition
    of all detainees is submitted to Congress and that plan is
    approved by Congress, as provided for in a subsequent section.
    The notification requirements of section 1035 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
    66) would, at that point, govern foreign transfers.

    Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at United States
            Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States for
            emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1034)

        The committee recommends a provision that would allow for
    the temporary transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay,
    Cuba, to a Department of Defense medical facility in the United
    States for the sole purpose of providing the individual medical
    treatment if the Secretary determines that: the medical
    treatment is necessary to prevent death or imminent significant
    injury or harm to the health of the individual; the medical
    treatment is not available to be provided at United States
    Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without incurring
    excessive and unreasonable costs; the estimated costs of the
    treatment would be cheaper in the United States; and the
    Department of Defense has provided for appropriate security
    measures for the custody and control of the individual during
    any period in which the individual is temporarily in the United
    States. The provision also requires notice to Congress and
    limitations on the exercise of the authority to provide that
    the individual will be returned to United States Naval Station,
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to Yemen of
            individuals detained at United States Naval Facility,
            Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1035)

        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    the use of funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise
    made available to the Department of Defense to transfer,
    release, or assist in the transfer or release of any individual
    detained in the custody or under the control of the Department
    of Defense at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
    Cuba, to the custody or control of the Republic of Yemen or any
    entity within Yemen.

    Report on current detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
            Bay, Cuba, determined or assessed to be high risk or medium
            risk (sec. 1036).

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress, in
    unclassified form, listing the names of all individuals
    detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
    who have been assessed by the Joint Task Force Guantanamo to be
    a high or medium risk to the United States, its interests, or
    allies.

    Report to Congress on memoranda of understanding with foreign countries
            regarding transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station,
            Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1037).

        The committee recommends a provision that would require a
    report of the Secretary of Defense setting forth the written
    memorandum of understanding between the United States
    Government and the government of the foreign country concerned
    regarding each individual detained at Guantanamo transferred to
    a foreign country during the 18-month period ending on the date
    of the enactment of this Act or, if there was no written
    memorandum of understanding, the report shall contain an
    unclassified statement of that fact.

    Semiannual Reports on use of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
            Bay, Cuba, and any other Department of Defense or Bureau of
            Prisons prison or other detention or disciplinary facility in
            recruitment and other propaganda of terrorist organizations
            (sec. 1038).

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to report to Congress every 6 months on
    the use of Department of Defense and Bureau of Prisons
    detention facilities for recruitment and as propaganda by
    terrorist organizations.

    Extension and modification of authority to make rewards for combating
            terrorism (sec. 1039)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify and
    extend section 127b of title 10, United States Code. This
    section authorizes the payment of a monetary amount, or
    provision of a payment-in-kind, to a person as a reward for
    providing U.S. Government personnel, or government personnel of
    allied forces participating in a combined operation with the
    U.S. armed forces, with information or nonlethal assistance
    that is beneficial to an operation or activity against
    international terrorism or beneficial to force protection.

             Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

    Assistance to secure the southern land border of the United States
            (sec. 1041)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense, with concurrence of the Secretary of
    Homeland Security, to provide assistance to U.S. Customs and
    Border Protection for the purpose of increasing the ongoing
    efforts to secure the southern land border of the United
    States.
        The committee is concerned about the security of the U.S.
    southern land border and notes that in testimony on March 12,
    2015, Admiral William Gortney, Commander of U.S. Northern
    Command (NORTHCOM) stated that ``the southern border can be
    more secure.'' At the same hearing General John Kelly,
    Commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) testified that
    ``with the amount of drugs and people that move across our
    southwest border, it doesn't seem all that secure to me.''
        The committee supports ongoing efforts by the Department of
    Defense (DOD) to provide additional assistance to secure the
    southern land border of the United States and urges DOD to
    continue these efforts and coordinate with the Secretary of
    Homeland Security to identify opportunities to provide
    additional support.

    Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1042)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to protect the buildings, grounds, and
    property that are under the jurisdiction, custody, or control
    of the Department of Defense (DOD) and persons on that
    property. The provision provides that the Secretary may
    designate personnel to: (1) Enforce federal laws and
    regulations for the protection of persons and property; (2)
    Carry firearms; (3) Make arrests; and (4) Conduct
    investigations of offenses against the property of the DOD.
    This new authority would not apply in those locations currently
    under the protection of the Federal Protective Service, for
    example, office buildings provided by the General Services
    Administration in which DOD organizations are tenants.

    Strategy to protect United States national security interests in the
            Arctic region (sec. 1043)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Defense to submit not later than 1 year after the
    date of enactment of this Act a report that sets forth an
    updated military strategy for the protection of United States
    national security interests in the Arctic region.

    Extension of limitations on the transfer to the regular Army of AH-64
            Apache helicopters assigned to the Army National Guard (sec.
            1044)

        The committee recommends a provision that would strike
    ``March 31, 2016'' each place it appears and inserting
    ``September 30, 2016'' in Section 1712 of the Carl Levin
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The
    provision would also strike ``fiscal year 2015'' and insert
    ``fiscal years 2015 and 2016.''

    Treatment of certain previously transferred Army National Guard
            helicopters as counting against number transferrable under
            exception to limitation on transfer of Army National Guard
            helicopters (sec. 1045)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of the Army not later than 90 days after the date of
    enactment of this Act to submit a report to the congressional
    defense committees the number of AH-64 Apaches that have been
    transferred from the Army National Guard (ARNG) to the original
    equipment manufacturer for remanufacture. The Secretary of the
    Army shall treat the number of helicopters specified in the
    report as counting against the total number of AH-64s that may
    be transferred from the ARNG to the regular Army pursuant to
    the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2015.

    Management of military technicians (sec. 1046)

        The committee recommends a provision that would convert not
    less than 20 percent of the general administration, clerical,
    and office service occupation positions identified in the
    report of the Secretary of Defense under section 519 of the Ike
    Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
    (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1397) from military technician
    (dual status) positions to positions filled by individuals who
    are employed under section 3103 of title 5, United States Code,
    by no later than January 1, 2017. The committee also recommends
    the phased-in termination of military technicians (non-dual
    status) to begin on January 1, 2017.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit by
    February 1, 2016, to the Committees on Armed Services of the
    Senate and the House of Representatives, and to the Comptroller
    General of the United States, a report setting forth the
    Department of Defense's plan for converting military technician
    (dual status) positions to positions filled by individuals who
    are employed under section 3103 of title 5, United States Code,
    to include: (1) An analysis of placing such individuals under
    the control and authority of the State Adjutants General; (2)
    an analysis of the employment rights that will now be granted
    to such individuals; (3) an analysis of any statutory change
    the Secretary believes is necessary to execute this provision;
    and (4) such other mechanisms for implementation that the
    Secretary shall recommend, as appropriate.

    Sense of Congress on consideration of the full range of Department of
            Defense manpower worldwide in decisions on the proper mix of
            military, civilian, and contractor personnel to accomplish the
            national defense strategy (sec. 1047)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express a
    sense of the Congress that as the Department of Defense makes
    decisions on military end strength requests, proper sizing of
    the civilian workforce, and the proper mix of these sources of
    manpower with contractor personnel to accomplish the National
    Defense Strategy, the Secretary of Defense should consider the
    full range of manpower available to the Secretary in all
    locations worldwide without arbitrarily or exempting any
    particular group of location of manpower.

    Sense of the Senate on the United States Marine Corps (sec. 1048)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate that the United States Marine Corps, within
    the Department of the Navy, should remain the Nation's
    expeditionary crisis response force and that the Marine Corps
    should be organized, trained, and equipped in the manner and
    for such purposes specified in section 5063 of title 10, United
    States Code.

                        Subtitle F--Studies and Reports

    Repeal of reporting requirements (sec. 1061)

        The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
    certain required reports. Specifically, the provision would
    repeal the following report requirements:
              (1) Annual reports on gifts made for the benefit of
            military musical units required by Section 974(d) of
            title 10, United States Code;
              (2) Biennial report on space, science, and technology
            strategy required by Section 2272(a) of title 10,
            United States Code;
              (3) Annual reports on prizes for advanced technology
            achievements required by Section 2374(a) of title 10,
            United States Code;
              (4) Reports on use of temporary authorities for
            certain positions at DoD research and engineering
            facilities required by Section 1107 of the National
            Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
            Law 113-66);
              (5) Annual reports on advancing small business growth
            required by Section 1611 of the National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law
            Public Law 113-66);
              (6) Annual reports on quality assurance programs for
            medical evaluation boards and related personnel
            required by Section 524 of the National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
            239);
              (7) Annual impact statement on number of members in
            integrated disability evaluation system on readiness
            requirements required by Section 528 of the National
            Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
            Law 112-239);
              (8) Sense of Congress on notice of unfunded
            priorities required by Section 1003 of the National
            Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
            Law 112-239);
              (9) Annual updates on implementation plan for whole-
            of-government vision prescribed in the national
            security strategy required by Section 1072 of the
            National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
            (Public Law 112-81);
              (10) Reports on Defense Research and Development
            Rapid Innovation Program required by Section 1073 of
            the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
            Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383);
              (11) Reports on Task Force for Business and Stability
            Operations in Afghanistan required by Section 1535(a)
            of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
            for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383);
              (12) Annual report on the electronic warfare strategy
            of the Department of Defense required by Section 1053
            of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
            Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84);
              (13) Reports on Mitigation of power outage risks for
            Department of Defense facilities and activities
            required by Section 335 of the Duncan Hunter National
            Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
            Law 110-417);
              (14) Updates of increases in number of units of
            Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) required
            by Section 548 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
            417);
              (15) Annual reports on Center of Excellence on
            traumatic extremity injuries and amputations required
            by Section 723 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
            417);
              (16) Semi-annual reports on status of Navy Next
            Generation Enterprise Networks Program required by
            Section 1034 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
            417);
              (17) Biennial requirement to update Strategic
            Management Plan required by Section 904(d) of the
            National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
            (Public Law 110-181);
              (18) Reports on access of recovering servicemembers
            to adequate outpatient residential facilities required
            by Section 1662 of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI
            of Public Law 110-181);
              (19) Reports on hypersonics development required by
            Section 218 of the John Warner National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
            364);
              (20) Updates of assistance to local educational
            agencies experiencing growth in enrollment due to force
            structure change and other circumstance required by
            Section 574 of the John Warner National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
            364);
              (21) Annual reports on overhaul, repair, and
            maintenance of vessels under acquisition policy on
            obtaining carriage by vessel required by Section 1017
            of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
            for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364);
              (22) Reports on annual review of roles and missions
            of the reserve components required by Section 513(h) of
            the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
            for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375);
              (23) Annual requirement to submit information
            regarding information technology capital assets
            required by Section 351 of the Bob Stump National
            Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public
            Law 107-314);
              (24) Reports on Experimental Personnel Management
            Program for scientific and technical personnel required
            by Section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
            261).

    Termination of requirement for submittal to Congress of reports
            required of the Department of Defense by statute (sec. 1062)

        The committee recommends a provision that would, 2 years
    after the date of enactment of the Act, repeal requirements for
    recurring reports due to Congress. This would include only
    report requirements in effect on April 1, 2015.
        The committee notes the repeated statements by Department
    of Defense (DOD) officials on the high number and low utility
    of some of the recurring reports due to Congress and how the
    information contained in the reports are often included in
    other DOD publications.

    Annual submittal to Congress of munitions assessments (sec. 1063)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to provide to the Committees on Armed
    Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, not later
    than March 1, 2016, and each year thereafter, the most current
    Department of Defense Munitions and Munitions Sufficiency
    Assessments, as defined in Department of Defense Instruction
    3000.04. The provision would also require the Department of
    Defense to provide the committees the most recently approved
    Joint Requirements Oversight Council memo resulting from the
    annual Munitions Requirements Process.
        The committee is concerned by the current lack of insight
    into the requirements driving munitions budgetary decisions and
    intends to conduct rigorous oversight to ensure actions taken
    by the Department of Defense adequately address the munitions
    needs of the Armed Forces. Additionally, the committee intends
    to focus on the status and planning for munitions stateside
    infrastructure, transport capability, in-theater storage
    capacity, and their influence on requirements and combat
    capability.

    Potential role for United States ground forces in the Pacific theater
            (sec. 1064)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff to conduct a comprehensive operational assessment of a
    potential future role for U.S. ground forces in the island
    chains of the western Pacific in creating anti-access/area
    denial (A2/AD) capabilities in cooperation with host nations to
    deter and defeat aggression in the region.
        The provision would require the assessment of the
    effectiveness of ground-force deployment of a series of systems
    and capabilities, including anti-ship mines and missiles,
    mobile air defense systems, electronic warfare capabilities,
    communications networks, and maneuver forces to deny access to
    adversaries, enhance host-nation defenses, and protect U.S. air
    and naval forces.
        The provision would also require an assessment of the
    geopolitical impact of a long-term U.S. engagement with the
    island nations of the region to implement a ground forces-based
    A2/AD strategy. The provision stipulates that the assessment
    utilize (1) rigorous operations research techniques, war games,
    and historical analyses of World War II operations; and (2) the
    resources of Joint Requirements and Analysis Division and the
    Warfighting Analysis Division of the Force Structure,
    Resources, and Assessment Directorate of the Joint Staff, the
    war colleges of the military services, the Office of Net
    Assessment, United States Pacific Command, and appropriate
    Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.
        Finally, the provision would require the Secretary and the
    Chairman to complete the assessment within 1 year of the date
    of enactment, and to brief the results to the appropriate
    committees of Congress.
        The committee is aware that the Office of Net Assessment,
    the RAND Arroyo center, and the Center for Naval Analyses have
    already sponsored and conducted multiple studies of potential
    roles for ground forces in the Pacific theater. These studies
    suggest the possibility that ground forces could become a
    pivotal factor in building a viable security posture in the
    region. The committee also notes that former Secretary of
    Defense Hagel discussed elements of this concept in a speech to
    the Association of the United States Army in late 2014. The
    committee believes that these initial studies justify a
    significantly more serious examination of the merits of this
    proposal.

                           Subtitle G--Other Matters

    Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1081)

        The committee recommends a provision that would make
    technical and clerical corrections to title 10, United States
    Code, and various National Defense Authorization Acts.

    Authority to provide training and support to personnel of foreign
            ministries of defense (sec. 1082)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to provide training to personnel of
    foreign ministries of defense (or ministries with security
    force oversight), or regional organizations with security
    missions for the purpose of: (1) enhancing civilian oversight
    of foreign security forces; (2) establishing responsible
    defense governance and internal controls in order to help build
    effective, transparent, and accountable defense institutions;
    (3) assessing organizational weaknesses and establishing a
    roadmap for addressing shortfalls; and (4) enhancing
    ministerial, general or joint staff, service level core
    competencies such as personnel and readiness, acquisition and
    logistics, strategy and policy, and financial management.

    Expansion of outreach for veterans transitioning from serving on Active
            Duty (sec. 1083)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    subsection (c)(2) of section 5 of the Clay Hunt Suicide
    Prevention for American Veterans Act (Public Law 114-2) to
    expand outreach for veterans transitioning from Active Duty to
    inform those individuals of community oriented veteran peer
    support networks and other support programs available to them.

    Modification of certain requirements applicable to major medical
            facility lease for a Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient
            clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma (sec. 1084)

        The committee recommends a provision that would make
    modifications to the requirements associated with the amount of
    usable space, and the length of the lease, for a major
    veteran's medical facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma before entering
    into such a lease.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Air and Missile Defense Radar backfit

        The Navy designed the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)
    to be fully scalable and modular to support a variety of
    shipboard radar applications on a variety of platforms. The
    first AMDR will be on the second DDG-51 destroyer in the fiscal
    year 2016 shipbuilding program. As can be seen with the Aegis
    Ashore program, ship-based radars such as AMDR also provide the
    foundation for land-based applications.
        The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
    for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ASN (RDA)) to
    provide a report to congressional defense committees on the
    Navy's plan to employ AMDR technology in existing and future
    platforms across the fleet. Additionally, the committee directs
    the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
    Logistics to report to the congressional defense committees on
    whether and to what extent the Department of Defense could
    exploit the AMDR scalability across radar acquisitions by the
    Army, Air Force, and Missile Defense Agency to realize greater
    affordability through economies of scale. These reports shall
    be provided with the fiscal year 2017 budget submission.

    Analysis of domestic Department of Defense installations' gas and oil
            reserves

        The committee notes that several domestic military
    installations are located on proven reserves of natural gas and
    oil. In some cases, such installations may benefit from energy
    developmental projects that provide energy resiliency while
    also reducing energy costs. Recognizing that tapping into an
    installation's gas and oil reserves for military purposes has
    only recently become economically feasible, the Committee needs
    to understand the possible costs and benefits, as well as the
    statutory and regulatory issues associated with such a
    development effort.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, not later
    than March 1, 2016, to provide an analysis of major Department
    of Defense installations with likely gas and oil reserves, the
    expected quality of the gas and oil reserves, the estimated
    costs and savings of producing gas and oil at such
    installations, the statutory and regulatory challenges to
    implementing such energy development projects, potential
    mission and environmental impacts from such energy development
    projects, and recommendations for which installations, if any,
    may benefit from such development.

    Comptroller General of the United States study on options for the
            Department of Defense close air support mission

        The committee is concerned that the Air Force does not
    appear to be devoting appropriate attention to the close air
    support (CAS) mission and capabilities for which it is largely
    responsible. As such, the committee directs the Comptroller
    General of the United States to conduct a review of the close
    air support mission with emphasis on:
              (1) Review of historical proposals for distributing
            close air support responsibilities and force structure
            among the services;
              (2) The extent to which the Department of Defense has
            defined CAS requirements and allocated responsibilities
            and force structure among the services to meet those
            requirements; and
              (3) The extent to which the Department has evaluated
            options for distributing CAS responsibilities and
            capabilities across the services and whether those need
            to be redistributed, including whether the Air Force's
            A-10 aircraft fleet and supporting infrastructure could
            feasibly be transferred to the Army and/or the Marine
            Corps.
        The committee is aware the Comptroller General is
    conducting a study directed by section 133 of the Carl Levin
    and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 11309291) to specifically
    assess platforms used to conduct the close air support mission
    in light of the recommendation by the Air Force to retire the
    A-10 fleet. While related, the committee recommends the study
    in this provision take a broader perspective across the
    Department with regard to the close air support mission.
        The Comptroller General shall brief the committee on his
    preliminary results by September 30, 2015, with a formal report
    to be provided, as appropriate, at a later date as agreed to
    with the committee.

    Congressional Defense Review to Prepare for Future Strategic Challenges

        For the past 14 years, the United States has been engaged
    in a long war against terrorist and violent extremist groups.
    The committee believes that this conflict will persist, at one
    level or another, across multiple theaters of operation, for
    some time to come, and that winning this war must be a top
    priority of the U.S. military and the Department of Defense
    (DOD).
        At the same time, the committee is deeply concerned by the
    growth of more traditional security threats posed by powerful
    states, such as China and Russia, and rogue regimes such as
    Iran and North Korea. States such as these are modernizing
    their military capabilities, developing advanced technologies
    that could undermine U.S. military advantages--from precision-
    guided munitions and advanced sensors, to undersea-warfare and
    unmanned systems, to offensive cyber and space capabilities--
    and pursuing strategies that seek to deter the United States
    from achieving its national security interests and meeting its
    commitments to allies and partners.
        Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter captured this new
    military challenge well when he said ``for decades, U.S. global
    power projection has relied on the ships, planes, bases,
    aircraft carriers, satellite networks, and other advanced
    capabilities that comprise our military's unrivaled
    technological edge. But today that superiority is being
    challenged in unprecedented ways.'' In short, for the first
    time in three decades, the United States faces a potential
    turning point where our nation's long-standing military
    advantages threaten to be eroded by new shifts in the balance
    of military power.
        Accordingly, over the coming 18 months, the committee plans
    to conduct a comprehensive review of the roles, capabilities/
    size of the U.S. Armed Forces and DOD in meeting, and
    succeeding against, these new security challenges, especially
    those posed by the growing anti-access/area denial capabilities
    of U.S. adversaries. This review will utilize open hearings,
    classified briefings, the Government Accountability Office, the
    Congressional Research Service, Federally Funded Research and
    Development Centers, and consultation with former senior
    defense and military leaders and other national security
    experts. Building on the series of strategy-focused hearings
    that the committee has already conducted, the committee will
    deepen its oversight of military strategy while also delving
    deeper into intelligence and threat assessments, contingency
    planning, force structure and posture, joint concept
    development, domestic and overseas basing and infrastructure,
    theater and strategic lift requirements, munition quality and
    quantity, and institutional and personnel reforms. The
    committee will also review civilian personnel policy, DOD
    infrastructure, and acquisition policies and practices to bring
    them more into line with the needs of the future.
        Ultimately, the committee intends to review each of the
    major defense acquisition programs and its related industrial
    base to determine whether they are sufficient and appropriate
    to meet developing national security challenges. This review
    will take nothing for granted and will evaluate each program,
    both qualitatively and quantitatively, in the broader context
    of the roles, missions, requirements, and other capabilities of
    the armed services, as well as emerging technologies that could
    significantly alter previous assumptions underpinning the
    current programs of record. The committee's future budgetary
    decisions will be based on the outcome of this strategic
    review.
        The committee acknowledges that for this review to be
    successful it will require a sustained commitment of many years
    and potentially multiple chairmen. The much-heralded ``offset
    strategy'' of the 1970s required a tremendous amount of
    intellectual capital and research and development dollars
    invested over the course of a decade before capabilities like
    stealth, precision-guided-munitions, and advanced sensors could
    be effectively deployed. Nevertheless, it is possible to embark
    upon a new period of sustained military innovation today if
    DOD, the military services, and industry can be aligned towards
    this goal. The committee intends to use all of the resources at
    its disposal to this end.

    Cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization

        The committee is concerned by the partial funding of the
    Navy cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization plan.
    Section 1026 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291) and section 8110 of the Consolidated and Further
    Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-235)
    expressed the intent of the congressional defense committees.
    While the Navy is inducting two guided missile cruisers per
    year into phased modernization status in fiscal years 2015 and
    2016 consistent with that plan, the committee understands the
    manpower and operations funding for the remaining seven
    cruisers in the Navy's fiscal year 2015 phased modernization
    plan are not funded in the future years defense program (FYDP)
    beyond fiscal year 2016. The committee also understands the
    Navy is employing a similar partial funding scheme with the
    three dock landing ships identified for phased modernization.
        The committee is concerned by the Navy's failure to program
    the funds required to continue the phased modernization program
    approved in section 1026. The committee recommends that the
    Navy continue to use resources from the Ship Modernization,
    Operations and Sustainment Fund until they are exhausted.
    However, beginning with the budget request for fiscal year
    2017, the committee directs the Navy to request full funding in
    fiscal year 2017 and throughout the FYDP for the phased
    modernization program for cruisers and dock landing ships in
    the regular appropriations accounts. The committee expects the
    Navy to fully program across the FYDP for all manpower,
    readiness, and modernization associated with its phased
    modernization plan.

    Human industrial operations augmentation technology

        The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's
    interest in human industrial operations augmentation technology
    that improves the health and safety of the workforce and
    reduces the high total ownership cost (TOC) of assets,
    including U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, surface ships, and
    submarines. Technological advances are needed to help reduce
    the labor component of TOC by increasing productivity,
    improving quality, and reducing costs associated with workplace
    injuries, including injuries related to repetitive motions.
    Exoskeleton-based human augmentation has the potential to
    remove much of the physical strain from workers who use hand-
    held tools during the construction, maintenance, repair, and
    disposal of Navy assets. The application of exoskeleton-based
    human augmentation technology has the potential to increase
    productivity and quality while decreasing injury rates, thus
    significantly improving workforce welfare and reducing TOC.
        The committee encourages the Navy to continue to identify
    commercially-available human industrial operations augmentation
    technologies that could improve the health and safety of the
    workforce and reduce the TOC of assets.

    National Guard Counterdrug Program

        The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
    requests funding annually to support the National Guard
    Counterdrug Program (CDP). The committees believes that the CDP
    plays an important role in providing military-specific
    capabilities and expertise resident within the National Guard
    to support the counterdrug activities of federal, state, and
    local authorities. The committee notes that budgetary pressures
    have led DOD to decrease the annual budget request for the CDP
    in recent years, which the committee understands may have
    caused some disruption or curtailment of CDP operations and
    activities. The committee encourages DOD to continue its
    support, to the extent practicable, for the CDP and to provide
    sufficient funding to ensure the effectiveness and
    sustainability of the program. The committee understands that
    the National Guard Bureau has expressed concerns about its
    ability to execute funding for the CDP in a timely manner. The
    committee encourages DOD to work with the National Guard Bureau
    to improve fiscal management and execution rates for the CDP
    and expects to receive periodic updates on the CDP, to include
    ongoing and planned CDP programs, budget execution rates, and
    lessons learned.

    Shipbuilding industrial base and workload allocation

        The committee understands the Navy is reviewing a 2002
    agreement, commonly referred to as the DDG/LPD SWAP 1
    agreement, and the subsequent SWAP 2 agreement. Prior to award
    of the LPD-28 detail design and construction contract and any
    final decision relating to the SWAP agreements, the Secretary
    of the Navy is directed to provide the congressional defense
    committees with a report of the options considered and the
    rationale used to arrive at the determination.

    Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) Program

        The committee believes that survivable, air-refuelable,
    unmanned combat aircraft are critical for countering emerging
    anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) challenges to U.S. power
    projection. In this context, the committee views sea-based
    unmanned combat aircraft as particularly important for giving
    aircraft carrier air wings an enduring role in the joint family
    of airborne, long-range, surveillance-strike systems--and thus,
    maintaining the operational effectiveness and strategic utility
    of the U.S. carrier fleet. Based on the progress to date in the
    ongoing Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration program, the
    committee is confident that, while additional risk-reduction
    and experimentation appears necessary, low- to medium-risk
    acquisition of advanced carrier-based, unmanned combat aircraft
    could be feasible in the 2020-2025 timeframe.
        The committee remains concerned, however, that the Navy's
    current requirements for the UCLASS program place
    disproportionate emphasis on unrefueled endurance to support
    organic ISR support to the carrier strike group.
        The committee sees great promise in the integration of
    unmanned combat aircraft into future carrier air wings. The
    committee notes with concern that absent a restructuring of the
    planned carrier air wing that incorporates unmanned combat
    aircraft in operationally significant numbers, the relevance of
    the aircraft carrier--the centerpiece of American global power
    projection capability--may increasingly be called into question
    by friends and prospective adversaries alike.
                      TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

                             Legislative Provisions

    Required probationary period for new employees of the Department of
            Defense (sec. 1101)
        The committee recommends a provision that would set the
    required probationary period for new employees of the
    Department of Defense at 2 years. The provision would also give
    discretionary authority to the service secretary concerned to
    extend a probationary period of a new employee of the
    Department of Defense.
    Delay of periodic step increase for civilian employees of the
            Department of Defense based upon unacceptable performance (sec.
            1102)
        The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
    Secretary of Defense with the authority to encourage employee
    performance by requiring satisfactory performance for purposes
    of completion of service required for periodic step increases.
        The committee notes that this provision is based on a
    recommendation of the New Beginnings Design Team, which was
    composed of management-labor personnel who came from across the
    country and represented all ranks and a wide range of
    professional backgrounds to examine the Department of Defense
    performance management system and to review the statutes and
    regulations that govern federal hiring.
    Procedures for reduction in force of Department of Defense civilian
            personnel (sec. 1103)
        The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
    Secretary of Defense with the authority to establish procedures
    to provide that, in implementing any reduction in force for
    civilian positions in the Department of Defense in the
    competitive service or the excepted service, the determination
    of which employees shall be separated from employment in the
    Department of Defense shall be made primarily on the basis of
    performance.
    United States Cyber Command workforce (sec. 1104)
        The committee recommends a provision that would provide
    enhanced hiring and retention authorities to the Secretary of
    Defense for civilians on the staff of the United States Cyber
    Command (CYBERCOM) and the elements of the CYBERCOM components
    of the armed services. These enhanced authorities are modeled
    after the personnel authorities in title 10 provided for the
    staff of the intelligence components of the Department of
    Defense. These authorities are also similar to those that
    Congress provided in 2014 for the cyber workforce at the
    Department of Homeland Security. The committee believes that
    these authorities are a very important factor in attracting and
    retaining the high caliber of personnel that are critical to
    the execution of the cyber warfare mission of the Department.
        The provision also would require the Secretary of Defense
    to provide a plan to Congress on implementation of these
    authorities, and an annual report from the Director of the
    Office of Personnel Management on how the authorities are being
    used.
    One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium
            pay and aggregate limitation on pay for federal civilian
            employees working overseas (sec. 1105)
        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 1101 of the Carl Levin and
    Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), to extend through
    2016 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.
    Five-year extension of expedited hiring authority for designated
            defense acquisition workforce positions (sec. 1106)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    expedited hiring authority for designated defense acquisition
    workforce positions for 5 years.
    One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant allowances,
            benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty
            in a combat zone (sec. 1107)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1603(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
    Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
    Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234; 122 Stat. 443), to extend
    for 1 year the discretionary authority of the head of a federal
    agency to provide allowances, benefits and gratuities
    comparable to those provided by the Secretary of State to
    members of the Foreign Service under section 413 and chapter 9
    of title I of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-
    465), if such individual is on official duty in Pakistan or a
    combat zone as defined by section 112(c) of the Internal
    Revenue Code of 1986.
    Extension of rate of overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees
            performing work aboard or dockside in support of the nuclear
            aircraft carrier forward deployed in Japan (sec. 1108)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 5542(a)(6)(B) of title 5, United States Code, to extend
    for 1 year the authority for a civilian employee of the
    Department of the Navy who is assigned to temporary duty to
    perform work aboard, or dockside in direct support of, the
    nuclear aircraft carrier that is forward deployed in Japan to
    receive overtime pay.
    Expansion of temporary authority to make direct appointments of
            candidates possessing bachelor's degrees to scientific and
            engineering positions at science and technology reinvention
            laboratories (sec. 1109)
        The committee notes that the rapid hiring authorities,
    originally authorized by section 1107(c)(1) of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
    66), have enabled Defense laboratories to better compete with
    the private sector for the best technical talent emerging from
    our Nation's science and engineering universities. However, the
    committee also notes these authorities are still limiting the
    number of talented individuals that can be brought on board.
        Consequently, the committee recommends enhancing the
    ability of Defense laboratories to rapidly hire world-class
    technical talent by increasing the limit on the number of
    bachelor's degree holders hired under these streamlined
    procedures from 3 percent to 5 percent of total scientific
    personnel. This provision would bring the limit on bachelor's
    degree candidates in line with current limits on master's and
    doctoral level candidates.
    Extension of authority for the civilian acquisition workforce personnel
            demonstration project (sec. 1110)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1762, title 10, United States Code, to extend the
    Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project
    under that section through December 31, 2020.
    Pilot program on dynamic shaping of the workforce to improve the
            technical skills and expertise at certain Department of Defense
            laboratories (sec. 1111)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories to more dynamically
    shape their technical workforces to maintain consistency with
    the accelerating pace of technological change and to meet DOD
    science and technology mission needs as effectively and
    efficiently as possible. The committee notes that the
    workforces of the defense laboratories provide technical
    support to deployed operational forces, support acquisition
    programs with technical and engineering expertise to control
    costs and improve performance, manage complex research and
    development programs on behalf of taxpayers, and perform world-
    class, cutting edge research. As technology evolves and
    accelerates, the laboratories need to build and shape
    continuously the technical skills in their workforces and
    effectively move into new technical mission areas, including
    laser weapons, cyber security, cognitive science,
    biotechnology, and other cutting-edge fields of research.
        The committee notes that current personnel policies and
    practices present barriers to the ability of the laboratories
    to reshape their workforces and to meet technical needs. As a
    result, the provision would authorize a pilot program that
    would enable laboratory directors to hire technical experts
    into flexible length and renewable term appointments. A recent
    Institute for Defense Analyses study, ``Federal Term
    Appointment Hiring Authorities for Science, Technology,
    Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Personnel,'' indicated that
    the use of these term appointments for science and technology
    missions had a number of benefits, including increased agency
    control in shaping its STEM workforce to meet current and
    anticipated needs, improved management of research portfolios
    through use of expertise from industry and academia, and
    enhanced ability to recruit high-quality term applicants to
    work and manage high priority research efforts. The committee
    believes that these types of appointments are also more
    consistent with the career ambitions of younger scientists and
    engineers, who are in general less attracted by the
    ``employment-for-life'' model historically favored by federal
    research institutions.
        The provision would also authorize flexibility in applying
    existing authorities for accessing the expertise of recently
    retired technical personnel and in offering voluntary early
    retirement and voluntary separation incentives. The provision
    would make these workforce shaping tools more readily available
    to laboratory directors, enabling them to better shape the
    technical skill mix of the laboratories.
    Pilot program on temporary exchange of financial management and
            acquisition personnel (sec. 1112)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
    pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of the
    temporary assignment of financial management and acquisition
    personnel to nontraditional defense contractors as defined by
    section 2303(9) of title 10, United States Code, and of covered
    employees of such contractors to the Department of Defense.
    Nontraditional defense contractors are commercial companies who
    either do not do business with the Department of Defense or do
    so exclusively through commercial terms and conditions. The
    committee believes that any exchange of government personnel
    with industry designed to improve skills and knowledge of
    finance and acquisition should be with those types of firms
    that do not traditionally do business with the Department of
    Defense and as such may offer different business management
    approaches to address similar problems. These firms also do not
    pose the same potential conflict of interest concerns that any
    exchange with a traditional defense contractor would pose. This
    authority would expire on September 30, 2019.
    Pilot program on enhanced pay authorities for certain acquisition and
            technology positions in the Department of Defense (sec. 1113)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
    pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of
    using a higher level pay authority to attract and retain high
    quality acquisition and technology experts in positions
    responsible for management and developing complex, high cost,
    technological acquisition efforts of the Department of Defense.
    The committee is concerned that in some cases the Department of
    Defense cannot competitively compensate the senior level
    government program managers and engineers required for the
    government to oversee major defense acquisition programs. This
    provision would allow in select cases for the Department of
    Defense to pay a higher rate of compensation to recruit and
    retain senior acquisition officials who are exceptionally well
    qualified. These officials would be limited to a 5 year term
    that should correspond to a major weapons systems program
    development or execution period as defined elsewhere in this
    Act. This authority would expire on October 1, 2020.
    Pilot program on direct hire authority for veteran technical experts
            into the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 1114)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
    5-year pilot program for the service acquisition executives of
    each military department to directly appoint qualified veteran
    candidates for scientific, technical, engineering, and
    mathematics positions in the defense acquisition activities.
    This direct hire authority would be limited to no more than 1
    percent of the total number of positions in the acquisition
    workforce in each military department that are filled as of the
    close of the previous fiscal year.
    Direct hire authority for technical experts into the defense
            acquisition workforce (sec. 1115)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the service secretaries of each military department to directly
    appoint qualified candidates possessing a scientific or
    engineering degree to positions in the defense acquisition
    activities. This direct hire authority would be limited to no
    more than 5 percent of the total number of scientific and
    engineering positions in the acquisition workforce in each
    military department that are filled as of the close of the
    previous fiscal year. This authority would expire December 31,
    2020.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Report on comparison of cost performance of functions by Department of
            Defense civilian personnel with cost of performance of
            functions by Department contractors
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
    the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
    Representatives, and to the Comptroller General of the United
    States, a report setting forth the results of a study,
    conducted by the Secretary for the purposes of the report, of a
    comparison of the fully-burdened cost of performance of
    functions by Department of Defense (DOD) civilian personnel
    with the fully-burdened cost of the performance of functions by
    DOD contractors by no later than February 1, 2016. The study
    shall include:
              (1) an assessment of performance of such functions at
            six DOD installations selected by the Secretary for
            purposes of the study from among DOD installations at
            which functions are performed by an appropriate mix of
            civilian personnel and contractors, with four such
            installations to be located in the continental United
            States and two such installations to be located outside
            the continental United States;
              (2) an accounting of the fully-burdened cost of DOD
            civilian personnel and contractors performing functions
            for DOD (including costs associated with training,
            benefits, reimbursable costs under chapter 43 of title
            41, United States Code, and facility overhead) in order
            to permit a direct comparison between the cost of
            performance of functions by DOD civilian personnel and
            the cost of the performance of functions by
            contractors;
              (3) a comparison of the cost of performance of the
            full range of functions, required expertise, and
            managerial qualities required to adequately perform the
            function to be compared, including:
                      (a) secretarial, clerical, or administrative
                    duties, including data entry;
                      (b) mid-level managers and other personnel
                    possessing special expertise or professional
                    qualifications;
                      (c) managers and other leadership; and
                      (d) personnel responsible for producing
                    congressionally-directed reports.
        The committee recommends that, in conducting the study, the
    Secretary should take into account the policy that inherently
    governmental functions vital to the national security of the
    United States may not be performed by contractor personnel. The
    report required shall include an assessment of the flexible
    employment authorities available to the Secretary for the
    employment and retention of civilian employees of the DOD,
    including an identification of such additional flexible
    employment authorities as the Secretary considers appropriate
    to shape the civilian personnel workforce of the DOD. Not later
    than 120 days after receipt of such report, the Comptroller
    General shall submit to Congress a report that includes an
    assessment of the adequacy and sufficiency of the report
    submitted by the Secretary, including any recommendations for
    policy or statutory change as the Comptroller deems
    appropriate.

    Report on Department of Defense application of the Federal Employees'
            Compensation Act

        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
    for the purposes of the report, due no later than February 1,
    2015, to examine the military services' application of the
    Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) to determine: (1)
    whether the FECA program creates disincentives to return to
    work; (2) whether the Services have appropriate access to the
    FECA database in order to validate and examine employee injury
    records to manage return-to-work outcomes; (3)whether FECA
    benefits may be converted to retirement benefits at retirement
    age; and (4) how many non-working employees remain on the
    Services' payrolls despite being over social security
    retirement age.
                 TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

                      Subtitle A--Training and Assistance

    One-year extension of funding limitations for authority to build the
            capacity of foreign security forces (sec. 1201)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
    1 year the funding limitations for the Department of Defense to
    build the capacity of foreign security forces under section
    2282, title 10, United States Code.
    Extension, expansion, and modification of authority for reimbursement
            to the Government of Jordan for border security operations
            (sec. 1202)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    assistance to the Governments of Jordan and Lebanon in any
    fiscal year through fiscal year 2020 for the purposes of
    supporting and enhancing efforts of those governments to
    support and sustain security along their borders with Syria
    and/or Iraq. Regarding assistance to the Government of Lebanon,
    the provision would prohibit reimbursement of Hezbollah or any
    forces other than the armed forces of Lebanon.
        The actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and
    other terrorist groups present a serious threat to Jordan and
    Lebanon. As such, it is in the United States' national security
    interest to respond to this increased threat to Jordan and
    Lebanon by providing the necessary assistance.
    Extension of authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability
            of foreign countries to respond to incidents involving weapons
            of mass destruction (sec. 1203)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authority for the Secretary of Defense to provide Weapons of
    Mass Destruction incident response training and basic equipment
    to foreign first responders until September 30, 2018.
    Redesignation, modification, and permanent extension of National Guard
            State Partnership Program (sec. 1204)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    fiscal year 2014 (Public Law 114-66) to provide for the
    extension of the Department of Defense State Partnership
    Program and direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
    and Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) to conduct a
    advisability and feasibility study as to whether a central fund
    should be created to support the activities associated with the
    State Partnership Program.
    Authority to provide support to national military forces of allied
            countries for counterterrorism operations in Africa (sec. 1205)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    through September 30, 2018 the Secretary of Defense, in
    coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide, on a non-
    reimbursable basis, logistic support, supplies, and services to
    the national military forces of an allied country conducting
    counterterrorism operations in Africa if the Secretary of
    Defense determines that the provision of such support is (1) in
    the national security interests of the United States; and (2)
    critical to the timely and effective participation of such
    national military forces in such operations.
        The committee's intent is for this authority to address
    situations similar to ongoing U.S. support to Operation
    Barkhane, a French-led counterterrorism operation in the Sahel
    region of Africa that, to date, has been funded under an
    emergency declaration by the president under section 506(a)(1)
    of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195), as
    amended, 22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1).

    Authority to build the capacity of foreign military intelligence forces
            (sec. 1206)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Director
    of National Intelligence and Secretary of State, to provide
    intelligence training to foreign military intelligence units to
    increase partner capacity.

    Prohibition on assistance to entities in Yemen controlled by the Houthi
            movement (sec. 1207)

        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    assistance to an entity in Yemen controlled by members of the
    Houthi movement unless the Secretary of Defense determines the
    provision of such assistance is important to the national
    security interests of the United States.

    Report on potential support for the vetted Syrian opposition (sec.
            1208)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the military support
    the Secretary considers necessary to provide to recipients of
    assistance under section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
    ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) upon their return to Syria.

        Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq

    Drawdown of United States forces in Afghanistan (sec. 1221)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate that:
              (1) the drawdown of United States forces in
            Afghanistan should be based on security conditions in
            Afghanistan and U.S. security interests in the region;
            and
              (2) as the Afghan National Defense Security Forces
            continue to develop security capability and capacity,
            an appropriate U.S. and international presence should
            continue, upon invitation by the Government of
            Afghanistan, to provide adequate capability and
            capacity to retain gains made to date and continue
            counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan against
            terrorist organizations that can threaten United States
            interests or the U.S. homeland.
        The provision would also require a certification by the
    President to the congressional defense committees that the
    reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan will result in an
    acceptable level of risk to U.S. national security objectives
    taking into consideration the security conditions on the
    ground. The provision would provide for a waiver of such
    certification with an associated notification.

    Extension and modification of Commanders' Emergency Response Program
            (sec.1222)

        The committee recommends a provision that would make up to
    $10.0 million available during fiscal year 2016 for 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 authorize certain payments to redress
    injury and loss in Iraq in accordance with the authorities and
    limitations in section 8121 of the Department of Defense
    Appropriations Act, 2015 (division C of Public Law 113-235),
    other than subsection (h) of such section.

    Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense
            services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan
            (sec. 1223)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend
    through December 31, 2016, 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 2016 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).

    Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain
            coalition nations for support provided to United States
            military operations (sec. 1224)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
    fiscal year 2016 the authority to make Coalition Support Funds
    (CSF) payments under section 1233 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as
    amended. Under this section the Secretary of Defense may use
    CSF to reimburse certain or designated nations for support
    provided to or in connection with U.S. military operations in
    Afghanistan or to use such funds to provide specialized
    training or loan specialized equipment to key nations
    participating in coalition operations in Afghanistan. The
    provision would limit the total amount of CSF that could be
    provided in fiscal year 2016 to $1.2 billion. Of this amount,
    the amount of CSF that could be provided to Pakistan would be
    limited to $900.0 million. The provision would also extend for
    1 year certain notifications and certification requirements
    relating to CSF payments to Pakistan. The provision would
    extend for 1 year the restriction on the Secretary of Defense
    from waiving the certification requirements relating to $300.0
    million of the $900.0 million and add the requirement for the
    Secretary to certify that the Government of Pakistan has taken
    actions to promote stability in Afghanistan.
        The provision also includes a pilot program that authorizes
    the use of up to $100.0 million of the $900.0 million
    authorized for Pakistan for stability activities in the
    Federally Administered Tribal Areas, including for such
    activities undertaken by the Pakistan military and the Pakistan
    Frontier Corps Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The provision would require
    a report on the use of CSF funds for such activities.

    Prohibition on transfer to violent extremist organizations of equipment
            or supplies provided by the United States to the Government of
            Iraq (sec. 1225)

        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    provision of assistance authorized by section 1236 of the Carl
    Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to
    an organization determined to be a violent extremist
    organization. The provision prohibits providing assistance
    under this authority unless appropriate steps have been taken
    by the Government of Iraq to safeguard against transferring or
    otherwise providing such assistance to violent extremist
    organizations.
        The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense
    to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
    later than 30 days after a determination by the Secretary that
    equipment provided pursuant to such authorization has been
    subsequently transferred to or acquired by a violent extremist
    organization. The committee is concerned that such equipment,
    intended to be provided for the purpose of assisting the
    Government of Iraq, may end up in the possession of violent
    extremist organizations.
        The provision would also require a description of the
    criteria used to determine which organizations are violent
    extremist organizations and therefore unsuitable to receive or
    possess equipment or supplies provided by the United States to
    the Government of Iraq as well as the end-use monitoring or
    other policies and procedures put in place to promote
    accountability. The intent of such policies and procedures is
    to help prevent transfer to or acquisition by violent extremist
    organizations that could include certain Shia militias, Sunni
    extremists, or other groups assessed to have hostile intent
    towards the United States or United States Armed Forces.

    Report on lines of communication of Islamic State of Iraq and the
            Levant and other foreign terrorist organizations (sec. 1226)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the lines of
    communication that enable the Islamic State of Iraq and the
    Levant, Jabhat al-Nusra, and other foreign terrorist
    organizations that facilitate assistance through countries
    bordering on Syria.

    Modification of protection for Afghan allies (sec. 1227)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program.

    Extension of authority to support operations and activities of the
            Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1228)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend
    through fiscal year 2016 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 $80.0 million in fiscal year 2016 to support OSC-I
    operations and activities.
        The provision would also update reporting requirements to
    reflect the need for OSC-I to coordinate efforts with
    assistance provided pursuant to section 1236 of the Carl Levin
    and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) and the
    committee's concern for maintaining accountability of equipment
    provided to the Government of Iraq.

    Sense of Senate on support for the Kurdistan Regional Government (sec.
            1229)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate urging the United States, in coordination
    with coalition partners, to provide, in an expeditious and
    responsive manner and without undue delay, security assistance
    to the security forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government.
    The committee emphasizes that the defeat of the Islamic State
    of Iraq and the Levant is critical to maintaining a unified and
    integrated Iraq.

                      Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iran

    Modification and extension of the annual report on the military power
            of Iran (sec. 1241)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    annual report on the military power of Iran as required by
    section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) through 2021, as well as
    make other modifications.

             Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation

    Ukraine security assistance initiative (sec. 1251)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    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 for the purposes of: (1) enhancing the defensive combat
    capabilities of the military and other security forces of the
    Government of Ukraine to defend Ukraine against further
    aggression; (2) assisting Ukraine in developing combat
    capability to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity
    of Ukraine; and (3) supporting Ukraine in defending itself
    against actions by Russia and Russian-backed separatists in
    violation of the ceasefire agreements of September 5, 2014, and
    February 11, 2015.
        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 is deeply concerned about the continuing
    aggression by Russia and Russian-backed separatists in
    violation of the ceasefire and 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 commencement of training 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.

    Eastern European Training Initiative (sec. 1252)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
    of State, to conduct the Eastern European Training Initiative
    (EETI) 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 that became a
    NATO member after January 1, 1999. 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.
        The committee believes that training under the EETI should
    be provided only to the newer NATO members and appropriate non-
    NATO countries participating in the NATO Partnership for Peace
    program, in particular those countries that are at risk or may
    become at risk of intimidation from external threats to their
    sovereignty or territorial integrity from neighboring
    countries.

    Increased presence of United States ground forces in Eastern Europe to
            deter aggression on the border of the North Atlantic Treaty
            Organization (sec. 1253)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require a
    report to the congressional defense committees, not later than
    120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, by the
    Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
    State, assessing options for expanding the presence of U.S.
    ground forces of the size of a brigade combat team in Eastern
    Europe to respond, along with European allies and partners, to
    the security challenges posed by Russia and to increase the
    combat capability of allied forces to respond to unconventional
    or hybrid warfare tactics like those used by Russia in Crimea
    and eastern Ukraine. The committee believes that any increases
    in the presence of U.S. ground forces in Eastern Europe should
    be matched by similar increases in the commitment of ground
    forces by European allies and partners for these purposes.

    Sense of Congress on European Defense and North Atlantic Treaty
            Organization spending (sec. 1254)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of Congress urging the United States to encourage North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization allies to meet defense budget
    commitments made at the Wales Summit in September 2014 and to
    continue to coordinate defense investments to improve
    deterrence against Russian aggression and terrorist
    organizations and more appropriately balance defense spending
    across the alliance.

    Additional matters in annual report on military and security
            developments involving the Russian Federation (sec. 1255)

        The committee recommends a provision that would add a
    reporting requirement to section 1245 of the Carl Levin and
    Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) requiring an
    assessment of the force structure and capabilities of Russian
    military forces stationed in the Arctic region, Kaliningrad,
    and Crimea, as well as an assessment of the Russian military
    strategy in the Arctic region.
        The committee is concerned about increased Russian military
    activity in the Arctic region and notes that Russian activities
    and apparent ambitions could present challenges to
    international law, norms, and agreements relating to the Arctic
    region.

    Report on alternative capabilities to procure and sustain nonstandard
            rotary wing aircraft historically procured through
            Rosoboronexport (sec. 1256)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require an
    independent assessment directed by the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics in
    consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
    report on the feasibility and advisability of using alternative
    industrial base capabilities to procure and sustain nonstandard
    rotary wing aircraft historically acquired through the Russian
    state corporation Rosoboronexport. The assessment would include
    an analysis of the economic impact as well as alterations that
    would be required for waivers of foreign military sales
    requirements and procedures for approval of airworthiness
    certificates.
        The committee notes that the use of alternative industrial
    base capability to divest reliance on Rosoboronexport could
    benefit United States national security interests, deny
    financial support to the Russian Federation, and could
    potentially benefit U.S. and Ukrainian commercial interests.

            Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region

    South China Sea Initiative (Sec. 1261)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
    of State, to provide equipment, supplies, and training to
    national military or other security forces of foreign countries
    to respond to threats to maritime security. The provision would
    authorize $50.0 million with increase in future years, in
    Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Global
    Train and Equip Program to provide assistance to the recipient
    countries, which include Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,
    Thailand, and Vietnam. The provision would require that the
    Secretary of Defense provide prior notification to the
    congressional defense committees not later than 15 days before
    exercising this authority.

    Sense of Congress reaffirming the importance of implementing the
            rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region (Sec. 1262)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate that the United States continue to
    implement the rebalance of U.S. forces to the Asia-Pacific
    region. The committee believes that the withdrawal of U.S.
    forces from the Pacific theater of operations would undermine
    the rebalance and that forces should be increased consistent
    with commitments already make by the Department of Defense and
    aligned with the requirement to maintain a balance of military
    power that favors the United States and its allies in the
    region.

    Sense of the Senate on Taiwan Asymmetric Military Capabilities and
            Bilateral Training Activities (Sec. 1263)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate that the United States continue to make
    available to Taiwan such defense articles and services as may
    be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
    defense, including support for Taiwan's innovative and
    asymmetric measures to balance the growing capabilities of the
    People's Republic of China. The committee also believes that
    military forces of Taiwan should be encouraged to participate
    in bilateral training activities hosted by the United States
    that support the credible deterrent capabilities of Taiwan,
    including the Red Flag exercise conducted at Eielson Air Force
    Base, Alaska, and Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.

                    Subtitle F--Reports and Related Matters

    Item in quarterly reports on assistance to counter the Islamic State in
            Iraq and the Levant on forces ineligible to receive assistance
            due to a gross violation of human rights (sec. 1271)

        The committee recommends a provision that would add an
    additional element to the quarterly progress report required
    under section 1236 (the ``Iraq Train and Equip authority'') of
    the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
    The additional element to be included in the report would be a
    list of units restricted from receiving assistance under the
    Iraq Train and Equip authority as a result of vetting required
    by the authority or by section 2249e, title 10, United States
    Code, including, as applicable, a description of information
    relating to gross violations of human rights and association
    with or assistance from the Government of Iran, unless such
    vetting has been waived under subsection (j) of the Iraq Train
    and Equip authority.

    Report on bilateral agreement with Israel on joint activities to
            establish an anti-tunneling defense system (sec. 1272)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
    State, to conduct a feasibility and advisability study of the
    entry of the United States and Israel into a bilateral
    agreement through which the two governments could conduct
    cooperative anti-tunneling research, development, and testing,
    and submit their findings to the appropriate congressional
    committees.
        The committee notes that both Israel and the United States
    confront threats on their borders from tunnels used by foreign
    terrorist organizations and transnational criminal
    organizations. Given these common threats and our ongoing
    cooperation with Israel on issues of mutual concern, the
    committee notes there may be opportunities for additional
    collaboration on this issue and awaits the Secretary's report.

    Sense of Senate and report on Qatar fighter aircraft capability
            contribution to regional security (sec. 1273)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of the Senate that the United States should promptly
    consider the sale of fighter aircraft to the Government of
    Qatar. The provision would also require a report describing the
    risks and benefits as they relate to the sale of fighter
    aircraft to the Government of Qatar.

                           Subtitle G--Other Matters

    NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for
    3 years, the authority under section 1244(a) of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 (Public Law 111-
    84; 123 Stat. 2541), as most recently amended by section
    1272(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 2023).

    Two-year extension and modification of authorization for non-
            conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1282)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authority of the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish,
    develop, and maintain non-conventional assisted recovery (NAR)
    capabilities for 2 additional years. The provision would also
    designate the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
    Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) as the
    primary civilian within DOD with programmatic and policy
    oversight responsibilities for such activities. Given the
    sensitive nature of NAR activities, including the authorized
    use of irregular forces, groups, and individuals, the committee
    believes that ASD SOLIC is the most appropriate civilian office
    within the Department to exercise oversight of such activities
    and associated policies. Furthermore, the committee directs the
    Department to provide ASD SOLIC resourcing commensurate with
    these responsibilities, with assistance and support from the
    Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency as appropriate.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Additional Analysis of People's Liberation Army Cyber Capabilities

        The committee is concerned about the growing offensive
    cyber capabilities of the People's Republic of China. The
    Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments
    Involving the People's Republic of China 2015 concluded that
    ``Chinese offensive cyberspace operations could support A2/AD
    by targeting critical nodes to disrupt adversary networks
    throughout the region.'' The report also noted that, ``In 2014,
    numerous computer systems around the world, including those
    owned by the U.S. Government, continued to be targeted for
    intrusions, some of which can be attributed directly to the
    Chinese Government and military.''
        The committee believes that China's growing cyber
    capabilities warrant additional review and analysis in both
    classified and unclassified form. Therefore, the committee
    recommends the Department of Defense provide a more holistic
    assessment of offensive and defense cyber capabilities within
    the People's Liberation Army, the Chinese Ministry of State
    Security, and non-state actors seeking to further Chinese
    political and strategic goals as a part of the 2016 Annual
    Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments
    Involving the People's Republic of China. In particular, the
    committee is interested in an assessment of Chinese
    capabilities for integrating cyber activity into conventional
    and unconventional operations, China's ability to avoid
    attribution while executing or facilitating offensive cyber
    operations, and China's assistance to other countries to assist
    in building cyber capabilities.

    Annual report on the military power of Iran

        The committee remains concerned about the threat posed by
    Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile development programs. The
    committee notes that last year, the Director of National
    Intelligence, James Clapper, testified that, ``We judge that
    Iran would choose a ballistic missile as its preferred method
    of delivering nuclear weapons. . .'' In February, Iran
    successfully launched the Safir long-range missile system. In
    2013, the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC)
    made the following statement about this system:
        Iran could develop and test an ICBM capable of reaching the
    United States by 2015. Since 2008, Iran has conducted multiple
    successful launches of the two-stage Safir space launch vehicle
    (SLV) and has also revealed the larger two stage Simorgh SLV,
    which could serve as a test bed for developing ICBM
    technologies.
        The committee remains interested in an update from the
    Secretary of Defense on Iran's ballistic missile development
    programs. The committee notes that section 1245 0f the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as amended
    (Public Law 111-84) requires the Secretary of Defense to
    submit, on an annual basis, a report on the military power of
    Iran. The committee notes that previous versions of this report
    have provided useful information on Iran's military power,
    including its ballistic missile capabilities and developments.
    The report is due January 30 of each year. However, the
    committee notes that, as of May 2015, the report has not been
    provided to Congress. Given the longstanding nature of this
    reporting requirement, the committee expects the prompt
    delivery of this report each year. Given this delay, upon the
    delivery of the report covering 2014, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to provide to Congress a briefing on the
    report which--in addition to covering information from 2014--
    should also provide an update from the report' s information
    cut-off date to the present on any developments within Iran's
    ballistic missile program that would, at a minimum, contain the
    information required in section 1245(b)(4).

    Briefing on United States Unmanned Aerial System Export Requests

        The committee notes that in the context of the threat
    presented by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in
    the Middle East and elsewhere, coalition countries have
    requested specific U.S. military assets and assistance to
    support their efforts. The committee values the contributions
    of these countries and urges continued consideration of their
    requests.
        The committee recognizes that some of these coalition
    countries, including the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the
    United Arab Emirates, have requested Unmanned Aerial System
    (UAS) capability.
        The committee notes that appropriate transfers of UAS
    technology can help build the capacity of partner nation
    military forces, foster interoperability with the United
    States, support critical counterterrorism objectives, and
    sustain the defense industrial base. The Committee also
    supports expeditious interagency review of all letters of
    request or license applications for the export of such systems
    to these partners and allies in the Middle East whose military
    requirements demand assets that provide persistent
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
    coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a
    briefing, not later than September 15, 2015, to congressional
    defense and foreign relations committees on any UAS requests
    from Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries that are
    contributing to Operation Inherent Resolve. The briefing should
    include the dates that requests were received, specific issues
    under consideration, waiver recommendations, and expectations
    for completing the review for each request.

    Countering Russian propaganda

        The committee has watched with increasing concern the
    proliferation and expansion of Russian propaganda not only in
    Eastern Europe, but also throughout Central and Western Europe
    to levels not seen since the end of the Cold War. Russian-
    speaking populations in Eastern Europe in former Soviet Union
    nations, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
    allies, are especially vulnerable to propaganda that could be
    used to create more favorable conditions for future Russian
    aggression. Moreover, the sophistication and pervasiveness of
    outlets such as the Russia Today (RT) television network that
    broadcast in multiple languages in Western European democracies
    is cause for concern.
        The committee notes that Russian propaganda has promoted a
    false narrative on the nature, scope, and cause of the conflict
    in Crimea and eastern Ukraine and has unfortunately achieved
    some success with targeted audiences in obscuring attribution
    for Russian-driven aggression and disregard for sovereignty,
    territorial integrity, and international law.
        The committee recognizes that propaganda is a critical
    element of Russia's ``hybrid warfare'' concept. The speed and
    reach of Russian propaganda and the ambiguity it creates pose a
    challenge to NATO collective defense and the political
    consensus upon which it relies.
        Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
    Defense to consult with the Secretary of State with the
    objective of developing a strategy, including supporting
    resources, to counter Russian propaganda in Europe.

    Designation of lead Inspector General for Overseas Contingency
            Operations in Afghanistan

        The committee supports the designation by the Chair of the
    Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency of a
    lead inspector general for overseas contingency operations for
    Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Afghanistan on April 1, 2015,
    in compliance with section 8L of the Inspector General Act of
    1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), as amended by section 848 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
    239; 126 Stat. 1851).
        The committee recognizes the importance of a lead inspector
    to coordinate and optimize the collection and reporting of
    information across agencies and inspectors general and the need
    to establish clear oversight by the appointment of such a lead
    inspector general as intended and required by section 848. The
    committee expects the lead inspector general to assist in the
    refinement of the size, functions and purpose of the inspector
    general mission taking into consideration the reduction of
    United States forces in Afghanistan.

    Organizational management of Department of Defense security assistance
            programs

        At present, the Department of Defense's (DOD) security
    assistance and security cooperation programs are overseen and
    implemented by a multiple offices, including the Undersecretary
    of Defense for Policy (USD-P), the geographic combatant
    commands, the military services, the Joint Staff, and
    Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
    Logistics (USD-AT&L). The divergent lines of responsibility and
    reporting exacerbate DOD's challenges in aligning security
    cooperation programs coherently in support of strategic defense
    objectives. No office or management official within OSD,
    underneath the level of the Secretary of Defense, has the
    authority to look across the security assistance and
    cooperation enterprise and make binding strategic decisions to
    align DOD's policies and resources in a manner that is
    consistent with its strategic priorities and to curtail
    redundancy.
        The committee believes that efforts to date by the Office
    of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to rationalize oversight and
    management of DOD security assistance and security cooperation
    programs across the Department have not gone far enough. DOD
    should reevaluate the organizational structure and
    responsibilities within OSD to streamline oversight and
    implementation responsibilities for DOD security assistance and
    cooperation activities.
        As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
    conduct an organizational review of security assistance and
    security cooperation program oversight and management
    responsibilities across DOD and, in particular, an examination
    of the distribution of resources and policy oversight
    responsibilities within OSD-P, and to submit to the Committee
    on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
    Senate a detailed summary of its findings no later than March
    31, 2016.
        This review, at a minimum, should: (1) identify all
    security assistance and security cooperation programs available
    to the Department and the offices in DOD that are responsible
    for policy oversight, program management, and implementation of
    such programs; (2) review the roles and responsibilities for
    policy oversight, program management, and execution of security
    cooperation programs of relevant offices and components; (3)
    make recommendations to improve policy oversight and program
    management for DOD security assistance and security cooperation
    activities, which may include consolidation of oversight and
    management responsibilities into one functional office; (4)
    describe the processes for articulating security cooperation
    priorities, and aligning resources and activities with those
    priorities, across DOD and identify opportunities for
    improvement, where appropriate; (5) describe evaluation and
    monitoring mechanisms to assess security assistance and
    cooperation programs and ensure lessons learned and best
    practices are incorporated into program formulation and
    implementation; and (6) any other matters the Secretary
    determines to be appropriate to inform the committee of its
    findings and recommendations.

    Report on capability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to
            respond to unconventional or hybrid warfare tactics such as
            used by the Russian Federation in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine

        The committee is concerned about the capability of the
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to respond to
    unconventional or hybrid warfare tactics such as those used by
    the Russian Federation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine due to the
    ambiguous nature of those tactics and the resultant challenges
    of attribution. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of
    Defense to submit a report not later than September 1, 2016 to
    the congressional defense committees on recommendations for
    improving the alliance's response options, decision-making
    processes and implementation timelines for addressing the use
    of unconventional or hybrid warfare tactics such as those used
    by the Russian Federation. The report should include:
              (1) An identification of the unconventional or hybrid
            tactics the Russian Federation may employ against NATO
            nations;
              (2) A consolidation of tactics identified pursuant to
            paragraph (1) into a set of possible scenarios to be
            used to analyze potential response options by NATO;
              (3) An assessment of the response options NATO could
            potentially pursue for each of the scenarios identified
            pursuant to paragraph (2);
              (4) Recommendations to improve response options,
            decision-making processes, and implementation timelines
            for the scenarios identified pursuant to paragraph (2);
              (5) An assessment of implementation by NATO of
            commitments made at the Wales Summit regarding the
            Readiness Action Plan;
              (6) Recommendations, if any, for exercises or
            mechanisms to improve the ability of NATO to consult
            and reach consensus in scenarios relating to the
            employment of unconventional or hybrid tactics; and
              (7) Such other matters as the Secretary considers
            appropriate.

    Support of foreign forces participating in operations against the
            Lord's Resistance Army

        The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has perpetrated atrocities
    throughout central Africa for more than two decades, which have
    included murder, rape, and the abduction of children to serve
    as child soldiers. The committee notes the important progress
    the African Union Regional Task Force (AU-RTF) and other
    regional partners have made in combatting the threat posed by
    the LRA. These operations have resulted in the removal of
    several key LRA leaders and contributed to an increase in
    defections. The committee notes that support provided by the
    Department of Defense (DOD) under Operation Observant Compass
    (OOC) has played a key role in enabling counter-LRA operations.
    The committee further notes that section 1208 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
    66) authorizes the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence
    of the Secretary of State, to provide logistic support,
    supplies, and services, and intelligence support to foreign
    forces participating in operations to mitigate and eliminate
    the threat posed by the LRA. The committee believes that
    continued DOD support, specifically additional enablers and
    actionable intelligence, is required to increase the
    effectiveness of partner operations to eliminate the threat
    posed by Joseph Kony and the LRA and encourages DOD to continue
    such assistance.

    United States-Indonesia military cooperation

        The committee notes Indonesia's remarkable achievements as
    it has developed its economy, consolidated its democratic
    institutions, and improved its self-defense capabilities since
    the fall of the Suharto government in 1998. Furthermore, the
    committee acknowledges the progress the Indonesian government
    has made on human rights issues, including progress on civilian
    control over the military. The committee looks for Indonesia to
    continue improving its human rights record and building a more
    inclusive democratic process. As the largest country in
    Southeast Asia and the most populous Muslim-majority nation in
    the world, the committee believes Indonesia represents a
    critical partner for the United States in the Asia-Pacific
    region.
        The committee strongly supports President Jokowi's declared
    vision of building Indonesia into a ``global maritime axis.''
    The committee welcomes an Indonesia with the infrastructure,
    industrial base, training, and capabilities that will allow it
    to benefit from and contribute to regional maritime commerce
    and security.
        In the security domain, the committee notes that Indonesia
    has committed to a military modernization effort known as the
    Minimum Essential Force (MEF) through 2024. The MEF is focused
    on enhancing the naval and air force capabilities of the
    archipelagic state's military (known as the Tentara Nasional
    Indonesia, or TNI) to address both traditional and
    nontraditional security concerns. Nevertheless, the committee
    understands Indonesia's military modernization has suffered
    from a lack of resources, ill-equipped infrastructure, and
    aging defense research facilities.
        The committee recognizes that the United States-Indonesia
    Comprehensive Partnership, signed in 2010, provides the
    relationship with a mechanism to help enhance Indonesia's
    defense capabilities. The committee believes the Department of
    Defense (DOD) should consider all available opportunities to
    continue to expand the depth and breadth of the defense
    relationship. Specifically, the committee believes the United
    States should look to the following priorities:
              (1) Continue to deepen the military-military
            relationship in ways that effectively grow the
            organizations that enable the development, sustainment,
            and use of military power. Building such ties will
            require engagement both by senior leaders and at the
            working level. More specifically, the United States
            should focus on providing training to civilian and
            military officials to improve the management of full
            life-cycle costs of defense programs. In this regard,
            the committee is encouraged by the recent memorandum of
            understanding between the Indonesian Defense Minister
            and the Defense Institution Reform Initiative (DIRI);
              (2) Continue to utilize bilateral and multilateral
            exercises that enhance the TNI's command, control,
            communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance
            and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities. In this
            regard, the committee sees value in expanding
            Indonesia's participation in Cooperation Afloat
            Readiness and Training, Rim of the Pacific, and Red
            Flag exercises. Over the longer-term, exercises should
            work towards encouraging more joint operations between
            the various TNI services;
              (3) Emphasize Foreign Military Sales that will
            contribute to Indonesia's naval, air, and C4ISR
            capabilities; and
              (4) Move to normalize relations between the United
            States military and the Indonesian Special Forces
            Command, Komando Pasukan Khusus (Kopassus), as it
            continues to improve its record on human rights.
        Therefore, the Secretary of Defense is directed to provide
    a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate no
    later than December 30, 2015 on the DOD's current and planned
    defense cooperation with Indonesia.
                    TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

                        Subtitle A--Funding Allocations

    Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301)
        The committee recommends a provision that would define the
    Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds
    as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill,
    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
    $358.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the
    Cooperative Threat Reduction 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.
    National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at
    levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1403)
        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 Counterdrug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1404)
        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. 1405)
        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. 1406)
        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.

                           Subtitle B--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. 1411)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to transfer $120.4 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.
            1412)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $64.3 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for the
    operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
    Inspections of the Armed Forces Retirement Home by the Inspector
            General of the Department of Defense (sec. 1413)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1518 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
    (24 U.S.C. 418) to require the Inspector General of the
    Department of Defense to conduct an inspection of the Armed
    Forces Retirement Home not less than once every 3 years and to
    authorize the Inspector General to determine the scope of the
    inspection through a risk-based analysis of the operations of
    the home. The provision would also remove the requirement for
    the Inspector General to provide the report not later than 90
    days after the inspection.

                                  Budget Items

    United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase
        The budget request included $739.0 million in drug
    interdiction and counterdrug activities, of which $23.1 million
    is for U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Central American and
    Caribbean CN Operation Support [Project Code (PC) 9493], and
    $13.7 million is for SOUTHCOM Section 1033 Support [PC9494].
    SOUTHCOM has identified specific resource mission shortfalls
    that impact its detection and monitoring support to maritime
    interdiction operations in Central America. In written
    testimony submitted to the committee on March 12, 2015, General
    John Kelly, Commander of SOUTHCOM, stated that ``homeland
    defense does not begin at the `one yard line' of our Southwest
    border, but instead extends forward, throughout the hemisphere,
    to keep threats far from our nation's shores.'' Further, the
    committee believes that increased support to detection,
    monitoring, and interdiction efforts in the region is required
    to combat the growth in trafficking of illicit drugs, such as
    heroin and methamphetamine, that is having a devastating impact
    on many U.S. communities.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.7
    million PC 9493 and $25.3 million for PC 9494 in drug
    interdiction and counterdrug activities for SOUTHCOM detection
    and monitoring and maritime interdiction support operations in
    Central America.
    Drug Demand Reduction Program
        The budget request included $739.0 million for the
    Department of Defense's (DOD) Drug Interdiction and Counter-
    drug Activities, Defense-wide, and $111.6 million for the DOD's
    Drug Demand Reduction Program. The committee recommends a
    decrease of $8.0 million in Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug
    Activities, Defense-wide, and increase of $8.0 million in Drug
    Demand Reduction Program.
        The committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to expand the
    existing Drug Demand Reduction Program testing program to
    include prescription and synthetic drugs. Further, the
    committee directs the Secretary of Defense to program funding
    for these activities in future years.

    Department of Defense Inspector General Research, Development, Test &
            Evaluation reduction

        The budget request included $5.1 billion in Research,
    Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide of which
    $4.7 million was for the SAG 4GTV Office of the Inspector
    General (OIG).
        After discussions with the OIG, the committee understands
    that portions of this funding are no longer needed due to
    delays in program development.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.6
    million in RDT&E for the SAG 4GTV DIG. Additionally, the
    committee strongly encourages the DODIG to take steps to
    improve the planning, programming, budgeting and execution
    associated with development of information technology systems
    and capabilities to support its mission, ensuring that these
    activities conform to best practices and can serve as a model
    for the Department of Defense.

    Department of Defense Inspector General procurement reduction

        The budget request included $5.1 billion in Procurement,
    Defense-wide of which $1.0 million was for SAG 4GTV Office of
    the Inspector General (OIG).
        After discussions with the OIG, the committee understands
    that the OIG has withdrawn its request for procurement funding
    for fiscal year 2016 based on the lack of identified need.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0
    million for the SAG 4GTV OIG.

    Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)

        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 combating antibiotic resistant bacteria.             -16.5
        Total.............................................             -16.5

        The committee recommends a reduction in the Defense Health
    Program of $16.5 million for combating antibiotic resistant
    bacteria to support the President's global health security
    agenda initiative, which the committee did not adopt.

    Foreign currency fluctuation deduction

        The budget request included $32.2 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 2015, the Department
    has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to
    replenish the account for fiscal year 2015 from a beginning
    balance of $970.0 million. GAO analysis projects that the
    Department will experience a net gain of $739.8 million in
    fiscal year 2015 due to favorable foreign exchange rates, of
    which $456.1 million is attributed to Operation and Maintenance
    (O&M). Additionally, GAO analysis projects the Department will
    experience a net gain of $891.4 million in fiscal year 2016 in
    FCF, of which $587.4 million is attributed to O&M.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $36.4
    million from Defense Health Program for FCF.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Clarification of funding available for additional support for counter-
            drug activities and activities to counter transnational
            organized crime

        The committee is concerned by the threat posed by
    transnational organized crime (TOC) to United States national
    security. Testimony before the committee by the Commander of
    U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and the Commander of U.S.
    Northern Command (NORTHCOM) emphasized the increasingly complex
    and global nature of these illicit networks and highlighted
    that a whole-of-government approach is required to effectively
    counter the threat posed by TOC. The committee notes that the
    Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, released by
    the President on July 19, 2011, sought to establish a framework
    for the United States to ``combat TOC networks that pose a
    strategic threat to Americans and to U.S. interests in key
    regions.''
        In recognition of this emerging security reality, section
    1012 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
    Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 (Public Law 113-
    291) amended the Department's longstanding authority to provide
    support for counter-drug activities to other governmental
    agencies, commonly referred to as ``section 1004,'' to also
    include the authority to provide support to counter-TOC
    activities. It was the committee's intent that funds under the
    drug interdiction and counter drug activities account, which
    have historically been available to support counterdrug
    activities under this authority, shall also be available to
    support counter-TOC activities authorized under the
    aforementioned section 1012 of Public Law 113-291.

    Comptroller General review of electronic waste recycling

        The committee notes that modern electronics used by the
    Department of Defense (DOD) may contain valuable, recyclable
    materials, including strategic and critical materials of rare
    earth elements. The committee also notes that through the
    proper disposal of end-of-life electronics, recyclable
    materials may be able to be reclaimed for use in DOD advanced
    technology programs and the National Defense Stockpile. The
    committee is interested in understanding more about how DOD
    plans for and executes the disposal and recycling of
    electronics.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
    of the United States to conduct an assessment of: (1)
    information on the disposition of used DOD electronics,
    including the volume of electronics that are recycled, reused,
    refurbished, and de-manufactured; (2) information on the value
    of all strategic and critical materials, including rare earth
    elements, recovered from recycled electronics used by DOD since
    fiscal year 2010; (3) information on the models used by DOD for
    the collection and capture of strategic and critical materials
    from used electronics, including any benefits and challenges
    associated with the models; and (4) an identification and
    assessment of potential opportunities for improving the
    efficiency and effectiveness of DOD efforts to recover
    strategic and critical materials from used DOD electronics.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
    report to the committee no later than March 1, 2016.
       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 authorize
    additional appropriations for 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.

    Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1511)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the additional appropriations for the Counterterrorism
    Partnerships Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of
    division D of this Act. Amounts authorized in this fund will be
    available for obligation for 2 fiscal years.

                         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 $4.0 billion of overseas
    contingency operation funding authorized for fiscal year 2016
    in this title. 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

    Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require
    that amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces
    Fund (ASFF) for fiscal year 2016 continue to be subject to the
    conditions specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section
    1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended. The provision would also
    extend the authority under subsection 1532(b) of the Carl Levin
    and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 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.

    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532)

        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.
        The committee notes that JIEDDO has continued to reduce its
    size from a peak of more than 4,200 personnel and a $4.5
    billion annual budget to 1,100 personnel and $450.0 million,
    with plans to reduce further. The committee awaits the plan to
    consolidate and align all of the rapid acquisition or quick
    reaction capability organizations, including JIEDDO, and
    certain other organizations as directed in section 1533 of the
    Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291),
    and where appropriate to eliminate such organizations.
        The committee expects that the decision on JIEDDO's
    disposition (consolidation with another defense agency,
    military service entity, or stand-alone organization) will be
    made as part of the Secretary's review to streamline the
    Department of Defense management and operational headquarters.
    The streamlining of Department of Defense management and
    operational headquarters is described in another provision in
    title III of this Act.

    Availability of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund funds for
            training of foreign security forces to defeat improvised
            explosive devices (sec. 1533)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to use up to $30.0 million of the
    amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for
    the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to fund
    training activities for foreign security forces to increase the
    effectiveness of such forces in defeating improvised explosive
    devices. The provision would require such training be provided
    only pursuant to other provisions of law and also requires the
    Secretary of Defense to coordinate the provision of training to
    the extent practicable with requests received from the
    geographic combatant commander.
        The committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring that a
    flexible and responsive approval process is established to
    support the provision of this training.

                                  Budget Items

    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

        The budget request includes $493.3 million for the Joint
    Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Fund, of which the
    request included $188.3 million Joint IED Defeat Organization's
    (JIEDDO) staff and infrastructure account and $219.6 million
    for its network attack account. The committee recommends
    sustaining JIEDDO's funding at fiscal year 2015 levels and
    therefore recommends a reduction of $43.8 million to JIEDDO's
    staff and infrastructure account and $4.5 million to the
    network attack account.

    Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq

        The budget request included $9.1 billion for Operation and
    Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for overseas contingency
    operations, of which $204.7 million was for SAG 042G Other
    Servicewide Activities.
        The committee understands that this request included $143.0
    million to support operations and activities of the Office of
    Security Cooperation in Iraq.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $63.0
    million for SAG 042G Other Service Activities due to a lack of
    justification in the budget request.

    Reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to
            United States military operations

        The budget request included $1.7 billion in Operation and
    Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security
    Cooperation Agency for Overseas Contingency Operations, of
    which $1.3 billion was for the reimbursement of key nations for
    support provided to or in connection with U.S. military
    operations in Afghanistan. The committee recommends a decrease
    of $100.0 million in OMDW as the number of U.S. forces and the
    scope of associated military operations in Afghanistan draws
    down. A provision related to the authorization for the use of
    such funds is included in title XII of this Act.

    Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund

        The budget request included $2.1 billion in overseas
    contingency operations funding for the Counterterrorism
    Partnerships Fund (CTPF). The committee is concerned that the
    budget justification materials did not provide sufficient
    levels of detail to support the budget request. Therefore, the
    committee recommends a reduction of $1.1 billion for CTPF.
        The committee continues to support the CTPF and the
    Department's proposed regional approach for counterterrorism
    operations and building partnership capacity (BPC) activities
    described in the budget justification materials. The committee
    is concerned that the increase in requested funding for BPC
    efforts could outpace the ability of foreign partners to absorb
    and sustain the assistance beyond the logistic support provided
    under such BPC programs. As such, the committee encourages the
    Department to incorporate training of partner nation
    maintenance and logistic personnel to enhance the
    sustainability of capabilities provided through this program.
    Additionally, the committee directs that any proposal to
    undertake BPC activities using CTPF funding shall include a
    detailed sustainment plan for the capabilities to be provided,
    which should be broadly-vetted across the interagency. The plan
    should also include a description of the planned transition of
    sustainment responsibilities from CTPF-funded programs.
        Further, the committee notes with concern the growing
    malign influence of Iranian supported proxy militant groups
    throughout the Middle East and Africa, commonly referred to as
    the Iran Threat Network (ITN). These activities contribute to
    regional instability, undermine U.S. national security
    interests, and directly threaten U.S. partners in the affected
    regions. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
    Defense to present a plan to counter the ITN to the committee
    by December 31, 2015. Further, the committee directs that up to
    $50.0 million of the funds authorized to be appropriated for
    the CTPF be made available to support counter-ITN efforts.
        In preparation for the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the
    committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
    and Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) to conduct a review of
    the feasibility and advisability of consolidating additional
    building partnership capacity funding, including non-
    counterterrorism related funding, into a building partner
    capacity fund and to provide a briefing to the congressional
    defense committees on their findings no later than November 30,
    2015.

    Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative

        The budget request included no funding for a Ukraine
    Security Assistance Initiative. The committee recommends an
    increase of $300.0 million for this initiative. A provision
    related to the authorization for the use of such funds is
    included in title XII of this act.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool

        The committee notes that the Army has decided not to field
    Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool (JIST) software
    after spending more than $10.0 million developing it in
    conjunction with the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
    Organization (JIEDDO). While the committee understands that the
    Army intends to use an existing software program resident in
    the Distributed Common Ground Station-Army (DCGS-A) program to
    meet the requirement for counter-improvised explosive devices
    (IED) forensic analysis, the critical nature of the IED threat
    may demand a dedicated software analysis tool to meet certain
    intelligence analysis requirements. Therefore, the committee
    urges the Army to consider including IED forensic analysis
    tools as part of any planned DCGS-A Increment 2 competition.
    The committee requests that the Army keep the committee
    informed of its plan in this regard.
         TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS

                          Subtitle A--Space Activities

    Integrated policy to deter adversaries in space (sec. 1601)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    President to establish an interagency process to develop a
    policy to deter adversaries in space. This integrated
    deterrence policy would be developed with the objectives of (1)
    reducing risks to the United States and its allies in space;
    and (2) protecting and preserving the rights, access,
    capabilities, use, and freedom of action of the United States
    in space and the right of the United States to respond to an
    attack in space and, if necessary, deny adversaries the use of
    space capabilities hostile to the national interests of the
    United States. The provision would require the President to
    provide a report setting forth the deterrence policy and the
    answers to Enclosure 1, regarding offensive space control
    policy, of the classified annex to this Act, to the Committee
    on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
    Services of the House of Representatives within 180 days of the
    date of enactment. If the report required and the answers to
    Enclosure 1 are not provided within 180 days of the date of
    enactment, the provision would prohibit, until provided, the
    obligation or expenditure of $10.0 million of the amounts
    authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to
    the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016 to provide
    support services to the Executive Office of the President.
        The committee is concerned that China and Russia have
    weaponized space and seek to gain an asymmetric advantage
    against the United States by holding United States space
    capabilities at risk. To counter growing Chinese and Russian
    aggression in space, the committee believes a multifaceted
    strategy will be necessary and that the deterrence policy that
    would be required by this provision is a critical element of
    that strategy. Elsewhere in the classified annex of this act,
    the committee discusses additional elements of that strategy.
        Elsewhere in this act, the committee recommends a provision
    prohibiting the obligation or expenditure of $10.0 million of
    the unobligated balance of the amounts appropriated or
    otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to
    provide support services to the Executive Office of the
    President, until the President submits to the congressional
    defense committees the integrated cyber deterrence policy
    required by section 941 of the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-61). The committee
    hopes including the funding limitation in this provision will
    incentivize the President to meet the deadline this provision
    would establish.

    Principal advisor on space control (sec. 1602)

        The committee recommends a provision requiring the
    Secretary of Defense to designate an individual who is already
    a full time equivalent of the Department of Defense to serve as
    the Principal Space Control Advisor, who shall act as the
    principal advisor to the Secretary on space control activities.
        The committee believes that the space control mission will
    see significant growth in the coming years. The committee
    believes that because of the growing importance of space
    control capabilities, the establishment of a Principal Space
    Control Advisor would be necessary to coordinate and lead
    department-wide efforts, streamline decision making, and
    enhance the level of focus across the department and
    interagency.

    Exception to the prohibition on contracting with Russian suppliers of
            rocket engines for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
            program (sec. 1603)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1608 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3626; 10 U.S.C. 2271 note) by adding a
    special rule for Phase 1A competitive opportunities. For not
    more than nine competitive Phase 1A launches, the special rule
    would allow the Secretary of Defense to award a contract
    requiring the use of a rocket engine designed or manufactured
    in the Russian Federation that is eligible for the existing
    waiver or exception requirements as specified in the existing
    statute. If a circumstance arises during the Phase 1A period
    where a launch provider is awarded a competitive contract and
    requires a rocket engine unable to meet the waiver or exception
    requirements, the provision would allow for the Secretary to
    waive the waiver or exception. In order to qualify for the new
    special rule, all engines that meet the waiver or exception of
    the existing statute must first be used.
        The committee notes that for the Phase 1A competitive
    period, this could result in as few as zero Russian rocket
    engines or up to nine, depending upon the outcome of the
    competitions. The committee believes that the continued use of
    Russian rocket engines represents a threat to our national
    security and that their use should be minimized to the greatest
    extent practicable.
        National Security Presidential Directive 40 states that
    Assured Access to Space is ``a requirement for critical
    national security, homeland security, and civil missions and is
    defined as a sufficiently robust, responsive, and resilient
    capability to allow continued space operations, consistent with
    risk management and affordability. The Secretary of Defense and
    the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration, as appropriate, are responsible for assuring
    access to space.'' The committee notes that under section 1608,
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is not
    prohibited from procuring launches that utilize rocket engines
    manufactured or designed in the Russian Federation. The
    committee also notes that NASA has contracts for numerous
    launches that rely on Russian rocket engines for the
    foreseeable future. While the committee does not condone the
    use of Russian rocket engines for NASA purposes, the committee
    recognizes that assured access to space can still be met if a
    national emergency required the use of a NASA procured launch
    for Department of Defense purposes.

    Elimination of launch capabilities contracts under Evolved Expendable
            Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1604)

        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    the Secretary of Defense from awarding a contract, renewing a
    contract, or maintaining a separate contract line item for the
    procurement of property or services for space launch
    capabilities under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
    program. The provision would define space launch capabilities
    as work associated with supporting launch infrastructure
    maintenance and sustainment, program management, systems
    engineering launch site operations, launch site depreciation,
    and maintenance commodities. The provision would allow for the
    Secretary to waive the requirement and award a separate
    contract or maintain a separate contract line item for launch
    capabilities only if the Secretary determines and reports to
    the congressional defense committees 30 days prior to executing
    a waiver that: (1) awarding or renewing, or maintaining a
    separate contract line item for launch capabilities is
    necessary for the national security interests of the United
    States and the contract or contract line item does not support
    space launch activities using rocket engines designed or
    manufactured in the Russian Federation; and (2) failing to
    award or renew such a contract or maintain such a contract line
    item would have significant consequences to national security
    and result in the significant loss of life or property or
    economic harm. The provision would not apply to the placement
    of orders or the exercise of options under the contract
    numbered FA8811-13-C-003 and awarded on December 18, 2013. That
    exception would expire on September 30, 2019.
        The EELV Launch Capability (ELC) was created in 2005 by the
    Air Force to augment a fragile domestic industrial base and
    maintain a national capability to launch national security
    payloads as set forth in National Security Presidential
    Directive-40 (NSPD-40). Since 2005, the Air Force has spent
    billions of dollars supplementing the infrastructure and
    capacity of the incumbent launch provider. Also since 2005, new
    launch providers have entered the market and created
    competition. The committee believes that with the introduction
    of space launch competition, launch capability subsidies
    inappropriately inhibit fair competition and are no longer
    necessary. The Commander of Air Force Space Command testified
    to this point before Congress on March 25, 2015 when he stated
    ``I don't think you can have fair competition with that
    contract in place.'' To ensure a fair competitive environment
    in the future, the committee believes that all future
    competitive launch opportunities should require a bid price
    that provides a fully burdened launch service cost.
        The committee recognizes that a limited need for launch
    capability funding could arise in order to meet certain heavy
    launch requirements that are at significant near-term risk,
    since the incumbent launch provider announced its intention to
    no longer produce the Delta IV line of launch vehicles. The
    Delta IV rocket, which uses a rocket engine designed and
    manufactured in the United States, is being discontinued prior
    to its replacement with a new domestically sourced capability.
    This will leave the incumbent launch provider with only the
    Atlas V rocket, which uses a rocket engine designed and
    manufactured in the Russian Federation. The committee is
    troubled by the incumbent launch provider's decision, given the
    billions of dollars the taxpayer has provided to the incumbent
    provider to maintain the capability. The committee also
    believes that this decision, which may be a result of the
    prospect of increasing space launch competition, should not
    create an impression of a lack of competition.
        Because of the unique role of the Delta IV in meeting our
    national security space requirements, the provision includes a
    limited national security waiver as long as the contract does
    not support space launch activities using rocket engines
    designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation.

    Allocation of funding for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program
            (sec. 1605)

        The committee recommends a provision realigning the cost
    share of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch
    Capabilities (ELC) between the Air Force and the National
    Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The provision would require, for
    fiscal years 2017, 2018, or 2019, that the Air Force request
    for ELC funding bear the same ratio to the total number of Air
    Force cores to be procured under the Evolved Expendable Launch
    Vehicle Launch Services (ELS).
        The committee is concerned that the existing Memorandum of
    Understanding between the Air Force and the National
    Reconnaissance Office (NRO), dated October 7, 2011 provides a
    disproportionate cost share agreement for the ELC of 75 percent
    costs to the Air Force and 25 percent of costs to the NRO. The
    committee believes that this cost share unfairly burdens the
    Air Force. For example, in fiscal year 2016 the Air Force
    request of five cores represents just 55.5 percent of the total
    number of cores requested. In fiscal year 2017, while the NRO
    projects a request of seven cores, the Air Force projects a
    request of just five cores, or only 42 percent of the total
    buy. The committee recognizes that actual launch capability
    costs in a given year may not be based on the ratio of ELS
    versus ELC, but believes basing the cost share on the actual
    number of cores procured in a given year is the most equitable
    way to share ELC requirements under the current block buy.
        Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision
    that would prohibit the award of a new contract, the renewal of
    an existing contract, or maintaining a separate contract line
    item for ELC. The committee expects that after the current
    block buy, future EELV contracts will reflect the total cost of
    a launch under fully burdened launch services contracts.

    Inclusion of plan for development and fielding of a full-up engine in
            rocket propulsion system development program (sec. 1606)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 1604 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291) to include a plan for the development and fielding
    of a full-up engine. The committee emphasizes the importance of
    expediting the developing of a rocket propulsion system by
    2019, consistent with the requirements of section 1604.

    Limitations on availability of funds for the Defense Meteorological
            Satellite Program (sec. 1607)

        The committee recommends a provision prohibiting the use of
    funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2016 and any
    unobligated funds made available for appropriation in fiscal
    year 2015 for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
    (DMSP) or the launch of Defense Meteorological Satellite
    Program satellite #20 (DMSP-20) until the Secretary of Defense
    and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify
    to the congressional defense committees that: (1) relying on
    civil and international contributions to meet space-based
    environmental monitoring requirements is insufficient or is a
    risk to national security and launching DMSP-20 will meet those
    requirements; (2) launching DMSP-20 is the most affordable
    solution to meeting requirements validated by the Joint
    Requirements Oversight Council; and (3) nonmaterial solutions
    within the Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), or National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA) are incapable of providing a
    solution for cloud characterization and theater weather
    requirements as validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight
    Council.
        The committee understands that the Space Based
    Environmental Monitoring Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) assumed
    continued international support from a Geostationary European
    Weather Satellite over the Indian Ocean. With that assumption,
    the AOA concluded that DMSP-20 was not needed. The committee
    now understands that since the completion of that AOA, a
    decision was made by an international partner to no longer
    provide coverage over the Indian Ocean, leading to possibility
    of a weather gap as early as 2017. While the committee believes
    a solution should be identified to address that gap, the
    committee is not convinced that launching DMSP-20 is the most
    cost effective solution. According to the Air Force, a
    satellite in geostationary orbit is ideal for meeting cloud
    characterization and theater weather requirements by providing
    updates to users every 30 minutes. Attempting to conduct the
    same cloud characterization and theater weather observations
    using DMSP-20 in Low-Earth Orbit requires multiple satellites
    and delivers updates to users once every 4 hours, an almost 90
    percent reduction in capability.
        The committee believes that better alternatives to meeting
    the potential space weather gap exist and should be explored
    prior to spending between $400.0 million and $500.0 million to
    launch DMSP-20 later this decade. For example, the committee
    understands that the potential gap could be mitigated by simply
    relocating an existing on-orbit NOAA asset with excess capacity
    or by hosting appropriate electro-optical infrared sensors on
    future Department of Defense or commercial satellites.
        To evaluate these lower cost, higher value options, the
    committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
    (GAO) to assess whether alternatives for addressing the
    potential Indian Ocean weather gap exist, and if so, whether
    those options would be less costly than launching DMSP-20. The
    committee directs GAO to report their findings in a briefing to
    the committee by no later than October 1, 2015. In their
    analysis, GAO should review any current or planned space
    systems of the Department of Defense (to include the National
    Reconnaissance Office), NASA, and NOAA. The committee directs
    the GAO to assess specifically whether the relocation of NOAA
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES), or
    the hosting of an appropriate electro-optical infrared sensor
    on an alternative Department of Defense or commercial
    satellite, could address any future gaps at a lower cost.

    Quarterly reports on Global Positioning System III space segment,
            Global Positioning System operational control segment, and
            Military Global Positioning System User Equipment acquisitions
            programs (sec. 1608)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of the Air Force to provide quarterly reports to the
    Comptroller General of the United States on the Global
    Positioning System III (GPS III) space segment, the Global
    Positioning System Operational Control Segment (GPS OCX), and
    the Military Global Positioning System User Equipment (MGUE)
    acquisition programs. The provision would require that each
    report include: (1) the status on cost, schedule, and
    performance; (2) a detailed description of any technical risk
    impacting cost, schedule, and performance; (3) any changes to
    program requirements; (4) an assessment of how risks are to be
    addressed and their associated costs; and (5) an assessment of
    the extent the segments are synchronized. The provision would
    require the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the
    congressional defense committees within 30 days of receiving
    the first report and as necessary after subsequent reports. The
    reporting requirement would sunset on the date at which GPS
    III, GPS OCX, and MGUE reach their full operational
    capabilities.
        The committee is concerned the GPS III and GPS OCX programs
    are facing a number of development issues that have resulted in
    significant cost increases and schedule delays. According to
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates, GPS III is
    currently $471.0 million (11 percent) over its initial total
    program cost estimate and the first GPS III satellite is not
    scheduled to launch until January 2016, a 21 month delay.
    Similarly, GPS OCX is failing to meet many of its cost and
    schedule requirements. According to GAO, the GPS OCX Block 0
    delivery has been delayed until April 2016, and the program is
    not expected to meet its initial operational capability until
    January 2020, a 53 month delay. According to a recent GAO
    assessment, MGUE is accelerating risk reduction efforts in
    software and security certification. However, there is concern
    given a November 2014, Office of Test and Evaluation assessment
    that found that MGUE's development maturity was overstated and
    that the program has asserted technical maturity not yet
    demonstrated.

    Plan for consolidation of acquisition of commercial satellite
            communications services (sec. 1609)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space to submit by
    January 31, 2016 a plan to the congressional defense committees
    for consolidating the acquisition of commercial satellite
    communications (COMSATCOM) services from across the Department
    of Defense into a program office in the Air Force Space and
    Missile Systems Center. The plan would require consolidation to
    take place within a 3-year period. It would also require an
    assessment of the current management and overhead costs, a
    projection of the consolidated management and overhead costs,
    and an estimate of the cost of consolidation. The provision
    would require the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
    Evaluation to review and validate each of the estimates.
        In the Senate report to accompany S. 1197 (S. Rpt. 113-44)
    of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
    (Public Law 113-66), the committee required the Secretary of
    Defense to provide a report detailing a 5-, 10-, and 25-year
    strategy for using an appropriate mix of Department of Defense
    and COMSATCOM bandwidth. That plan was provided to the
    committee in August 2014. In the plan's discussion on demand
    predictions, it described the choices the Department must weigh
    in determining the appropriate mix between military satellite
    communications (MILSATCOM) satellites and the purchase of
    affordable COMSATCOM services. For years, the purchase of
    COMSATCOM services has been highly inefficient, and the
    committee believes that there are a number of approaches being
    considered to enhance efficiency, such as the establishment of
    a COMSATCOM working capital fund. The committee believes that
    if efficiencies can also be gained by consolidating the
    acquisition of all COMSATCOM services into a program office co-
    located with the MILSATCOM program office at the Air Force
    Space and Missile Systems Center, then such moves should be
    considered.

    Council on oversight of the Department of Defense Positioning,
            Navigation, and Timing Enterprise (sec. 1610)

        The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
    council to review and be responsible for the Department of
    Defense positioning, navigation, and timing enterprise,
    including positioning, navigation, and timing services provided
    to civil, commercial, scientific and international users. This
    council would terminate 10 years after the date of enactment.

    Analysis of Alternative for Wide-band Communications (sec. 1611)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require an
    analysis of alternatives for the replacement of the Wideband
    Global Satellite System with a report due to the congressional
    defense committees by March 31, 2017. The analysis shall take
    into account future bandwidth of space, air, and ground
    communications systems.

    Expansion of goals for pilot program for acquisition of commercial
            satellite services (sec. 1612)

        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 include improvements in communications
    capability as a goal of pilot programs for commercial satellite
    communications.
        The committee notes the effort the Department has made
    towards pathfinder pilot projects for satellite communications
    capability. However, the committee is concerned that the
    Department is focused solely on savings for legacy satellite
    communication capability and not also seeking to achieve
    potential order-of-magnitude improvements in satellite
    capability at current or lower costs. For example, the
    Department should consider pilot projects that address the
    growing demand for full-motion video in support of
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms
    used by combatant commanders.
        The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
    prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than
    June 30, 2016 on the status and plans for this pilot program.

    Streamline commercial space launch activities (sec. 1613)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary
    of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration, the commercial space sector, and the
    heads of other executive agencies as appropriate to report
    annually on actions taken to remove duplication and minimize
    inconsistencies across the federal government for commercial
    space launch requirements and approval. The report shall be
    submitted to the congressional defense committees, the Senate
    Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House
    Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

         Subtitle B--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related Matters

    Authorization of Military Cyber Operations (sec. 1621)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to develop, prepare, coordinate, and
    (when authorized by the President to do so) to conduct a
    military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber
    activity carried out against the United States or a United
    States person by a foreign power (as defined in section 101 of
    the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
    1801)).
        The committee is concerned by the growing number and
    severity of malicious cyber activities being carried out
    against the United States and its interests. The committee is
    also concerned that failing to impose meaningful consequences
    on those seeking to harm the United States through the cyber
    domain will embolden our adversaries and lead to more severe
    attacks in the future. The committee believes that the fielding
    of a well-trained and highly-capable cyber force is fundamental
    to the national security of the United States and the
    deterrence of future cyber conflict.

    Designation of Department of Defense entity responsible for acquisition
            of critical cyber capabilities (sec. 1622)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Secretary of Defense to designate within 90 days of the date of
    enactment an entity of the Department of Defense (DOD) to be
    responsible for the acquisition of critical cyber capabilities
    to include: (1) the unified platform, (2) a persistent cyber
    training environment, and (3) a cyber situational awareness and
    battle management system.
        The committee believes these cyber acquisitions are
    foundational capabilities that are essential to the equipping
    of the Cyber Mission Force. The committee is disappointed that
    the DOD has not made sufficient progress in recognizing the
    need for these capabilities, developing requirements for them,
    designating responsibilities for acquiring them, and requesting
    funding for them in the fiscal year 2016 budget request. The
    committee urges the Secretary to quickly designate an entity of
    the DOD to execute these acquisitions as programs of record,
    and to ensure that they are properly resourced and prepared to
    proceed as expeditiously as possible. The committee also
    expects that if United States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) is not
    designated as the responsible entity, CYBERCOM will be an
    active participant in all significant programmatic decisions
    with the designated DOD entity regarding acquisition programs
    for which the Command is a customer.
        The committee is concerned there are urgent needs for cyber
    capabilities that are not being fulfilled by DOD's acquisition
    process or by the military services. The committee has long
    been concerned that traditional acquisition practices and
    existing acquisition statutes and regulations lack the
    flexibility, agility, and speed necessary to deliver cyber
    capabilities responsively enough to stay ahead of the rapidly
    evolving threat. The committee has enacted legislation that
    invited the Department to construct a tailored cyber
    acquisition process to match this threat, with meager results
    thus far. The committee encourages the Secretary to consider
    whether traditional service-led acquisition strategies are
    appropriate for the development of these foundational
    capabilities.
        Elsewhere, in Title VIII of this act, the committee
    recommends a provision that would grant the Commander of
    CYBERCOM the authority to conduct acquisition activities. The
    committee believes that there is a class of cyber tools,
    applications, and other tailored capabilities, beyond the large
    scale efforts identified in this provision, that traditional
    service-led acquisition processes cannot support in
    operationally responsive timeframes. For such cyber operations-
    peculiar equipment and capabilities, the committee believes the
    Commander of CYBERCOM is uniquely positioned to identify,
    acquire, and field those tools and applications that require
    significant tailoring and customization.
        The committee notes that the ability of CYBERCOM, or the
    services and defense agencies, to quickly acquire and integrate
    new tools, applications, and weapons depends on the quality of
    the design and engineering of the foundational capabilities
    addressed in this provision.

    Incentive for submittal to Congress by President of integrated policy
            to deter adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 1623)

        Section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2014 (127 Stat. 837; Public Law 113-66), required
    the President to establish an interagency process to provide
    for the development of an integrated policy to deter
    adversaries in cyberspace. The provision required the
    President, not later than 270 days after the date of enactment,
    which occurred on December 26, 2013, to submit to the
    congressional defense committees a report setting forth that
    integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace.
        The report required has not been provided.
        The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
    the obligation or expenditure of $10.0 million of the
    unobligated balance of the amounts appropriated or otherwise
    made available to the Department of Defense to provide support
    services to the Executive Office of the President, until the
    President submits to the congressional defense committees the
    report required by section 941 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

    Authorization for procurement of relocatable Sensitive Compartmented
            Information Facility (sec. 1624)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $10.6 million of the unobligated amounts made available in
    fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for the Army for the procurement of
    a relocatable Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
    (SCIF) for the Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon,
    Georgia.
        The Department of Defense requested $10.6 million, on
    behalf of the Army, on February 6, 2015, for a new start
    approval to transfer funding to procure six SCIF-level
    classrooms. According to the reprogramining documentation (DoD
    Serial Number FY 15-06PA) provided to the committee, the Army
    has a new requirement for the Cyber Center of Excellence at
    Fort Gordon, Georgia to establish a cyber-school in fiscal year
    2015 for which six SCIF-level classrooms will be necessary to
    support the anticipated training throughput.
        The committee strongly supports the rapid development and
    deployment of a well-trained and highly capable Cyber Mission
    Force. However, the committee believes requests for new-start
    authorizations through the reprograming process should be
    limited only to the most urgent circumstances and should be
    directly linked to an urgent warfighting 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 Act.

    Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of major weapon systems of the
            Department of Defense (sec. 1625)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require 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 require the Secretary of Defense to
    develop a plan, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act,
    identifying the weapons systems 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 system
    evaluations based on the criticality of each major weapon
    system, the employment of forces, and threats. The provision
    would require that the assessments build upon and not be
    duplicative of ongoing efforts such as the Navy's ``Task Force
    Cyber Awakening'' and the Air Force's ``Task Force Cyber
    Secure.'' 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. The
    provision would require the Secretary to develop strategies for
    mitigating the risks of cyber vulnerabilities to major weapons
    systems. The provision would also authorize $200.0 million to
    begin the cyber vulnerabilities assessments in fiscal year
    2016.
        The committee believes that this evaluation should cover
    all major weapons systems and that exceptions should be
    limited. Any decision to exempt a particular weapons system
    from being evaluated requires a certification to the
    congressional defense committees that an assessment is not
    necessary because a cyber vulnerability would have minimal
    operational impact.

    Assessment of capabilities of United States Cyber Command to defend the
            United States from cyber attack (sec. 1626)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA) to sponsor an independent panel
    to assess the ability of the National Mission Forces of the
    U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) to reliably prevent or block
    large-scale attacks on the United States by foreign powers with
    capabilities comparable to those of countries like China, Iran,
    North Korea and Russia in the 2020 and 2025 timeframes.
        In addition, the provision would require the Chairman of
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the PCA, to
    conduct a series of war games through the Warfighting Analysis
    Division of the Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment
    Directorate of the Joint Staff to assess the strategy,
    assumptions, and capabilities of CYBERCOM to prevent large-
    scale cyber attacks by foreign powers with the capabilities
    described above.
        The provision requires that the results of these
    assessments be conveyed to Congress not later than 1 year after
    the date of enactment of this Act.
        The Department of Defense (DOD) published a new Cyber
    Strategy document in April, 2015. The document states that ``If
    directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense, the U.S.
    military may conduct cyber operations to counter an imminent or
    on-going attack against the U.S. homeland or U.S. interests in
    cyberspace. The purpose of such a defensive measure is to blunt
    an attack and prevent the destruction of property or the loss
    of life.'' The document acknowledges that ``the Defense
    Department's capabilities cannot necessarily guarantee that
    every cyberattack will be denied successfully,'' and emphasizes
    the necessity for DOD to improve its intelligence capabilities
    to anticipate threats, and gain knowledge of ``key adversary
    human and technical networks.'' The document also states that
    DOD will conduct an ``annual comprehensive review of DOD's
    defend the nation capabilities.''
        The committee concurs that it is critical for the
    leadership of the executive branch and Congress to gain an
    understanding of the prospects for blunting and preventing
    destructive cyber attacks. Independent assessments need to be
    part of this process.

    Biennial exercises on responding to cyber attacks against critical
            infrastructure (sec. 1627)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to conduct national-level cyber exercises
    not less frequently than once every 2 years for a period of 6
    years. In preparing and executing these exercises, the
    Secretary would be required to coordinate with the Secretary of
    Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, the
    Director of the FBI, and the heads of the critical
    infrastructure sector-specific agencies designated under
    Presidential Policy Directive 21. The Secretary also would be
    required to consult with governors of the States and the owners
    and operators of critical infrastructure. The exercises would
    be based on scenarios in which critical infrastructure is
    attacked through cyberspace and the President directs the
    Secretary to defend the Nation and to provide support to civil
    authorities in responding and recovering from the attacks.
        The provision specifies that the purposes of the exercises
    are to (1) improve cooperation and coordination across the
    government and industry; (2) develop and practice command and
    control, communications and information sharing processes and
    capabilities; (3) identify gaps and problems requiring new or
    enhanced training, capabilities, procedures, or authorities;
    and (4) identify interdependencies, strengths, and weaknesses.
        The provision also would require the Secretary to vary,
    from exercise-to-exercise, the assumptions and conditions for
    the exercise, including (1) the size, scope, duration, and
    sophistication of the simulated cyber attacks; (2) the degree
    of warning and knowledge about the attack and the means used,
    as well as the degree of delegation of authority from the
    President to react, including with pre-planned responses; (3)
    the effectiveness of United States Cyber Command's National
    Mission Forces in preempting, blunting, and defeating attacks,
    including through the use of offensive capabilities; (4) the
    effectiveness of attacks on critical infrastructure; and (5)
    the effectiveness of resilience and recovery mechanisms.
        Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of
    Defense to coordinate with interagency partners to develop
    equitable cost-sharing agreements for the exercises.
        The committee believes that the complexity of cross-
    jurisdictional coordination required to react to serious cyber
    attacks on the Nation demands the types of exercises mandated
    by this provision. It is imperative that federal agencies,
    States, and the private sector not only understand their own
    roles and missions, but become more capable through the
    practice of effective joint operations. It is imperative, too,
    for all elements of this integrated team to understand the
    challenges and limitations facing the Nation in preventing
    attacks from reaching critical infrastructure.

                           Subtitle C--Nuclear Forces

    Designation of Air Force officials to be responsible for policy on and
            procurement of Nuclear Command and Control Communications
            Systems (sec. 1631)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of the Air Force to designate a senior acquisition
    official responsible for ensuring the procurement and
    integration of Air Force Nuclear, Command and Control (NC3)
    Systems. The Air Force is responsible for over 70 percent of
    the Department's NC3 systems, which communicate with high
    reliability across space, air and ground environments. However,
    as the NC3 system begins modernization there have been examples
    where integration has failed. The Advanced Extremely High
    Frequency Satellite System was developed independently of its
    terminal--the Family of Beyond Line of Sight Terminal (FAB-T),
    which is to be placed on ground and aircraft command posts as
    well as long range bombers. The result is that the satellite
    system is now deploying with its terminal system for command
    posts well behind in acquisition and even further behind for
    the bomber aircraft. The individual appointed by the Secretary
    of the Air Force shall be responsible long range system
    planning and procurement of this highly redundant and
    interconnected communications system to avoid future FAB-T
    failures.

    Comptroller General of the United States review of recommendations
            relating to the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 1632)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Comptroller General of the United States to review the
    Department of Defense's approach for addressing the
    recommendations included in reports stated below, as well as
    subsequent recommendations of the Office of Cost Analysis and
    Performance Evaluation (CAPE), which is charged with monitoring
    these and subsequent recommendations resulting from the
    meetings of the Nuclear Deterrence Enterprise Group (NDERG).
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide an
    initial assessment in the form of a briefing, to be followed by
    a written report, to the congressional defense committees no
    later than February 12, 2016 that addresses the following:
              (1) To what extent has the Department of Defense
            (DOD) established a process to implement the
            recommendations in the reports and subsequent
            recommendations of the NDERG;
              (2) To what extent has DOD established a process to
            track the Department's progress in implementing these
            recommendations as well as provide an annual updated
            list of such recommendations;
              (3) To what extent has the CAPE Office determined
            whether each recommendation has been effective; and
              (4) Any related matters the Comptroller General deems
            appropriate in consultation with the congressional
            defense committees.
        The committee notes that the Independent Review of the
    Department of Defense Nuclear Enterprise Report (June 2014) and
    the Internal Assessment of the Department of Defense Nuclear
    Enterprise examined the nuclear deterrent mission in the
    Department of Defense and identified leadership, organization,
    investment, morale, policy, procedural, and other shortcomings
    that are adversely impacting the mission. The report included
    recommendations to address the Department's management of
    nuclear personnel, security requirements for nuclear weapons,
    and the availability of key equipment and support parts, among
    other issues. The Department has stated that the budget request
    includes additional investments to address these
    recommendations, identifying over $1.0 billion for fiscal year
    2016 and nearly $8.5 billion from fiscal years 2016-2020. DOD
    has also established the NDERG to monitor implementation of the
    recommendations included in the nuclear enterprise review
    report.

    Assessment of global nuclear environment (sec. 1633)

        The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
    Department of Defense Director of Net Assessment, in
    coordination with the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, to
    conduct an assessment of the global security environment with
    respect to nuclear weapons and the role of United States
    nuclear forces, policy, and strategy in that environment. Not
    later than November 15, 2016, the Director of Net Assessment
    shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
    on its findings. The assessment should include experts outside
    the Department of Defense with particular emphasis on those
    individuals and independent institutions with demonstrated
    expertise in strategy and net assessment methodology.
        The committee notes that the nuclear competition has become
    both different and in some ways more complex than was the case
    during the Cold War, which was essentially a bipolar nuclear
    competition between the United States and Soviet Union.
        There is significant risks to the security and safety of
    the U.S. homeland and U.S. military assets should nuclear
    deterrence fail in this changing nuclear competition
    environment. Over the past quarter century new nuclear powers
    have emerged. North Korea is now a nuclear-armed state, and
    Iran has consistently sought to acquire a nuclear capability. A
    regional nuclear competition has emerged in South Asia between
    India and Pakistan. Another may soon emerge in the Middle East,
    potentially a multilateral competition. There are concerns that
    a nuclear-armed Iran may trigger a nuclear proliferation
    cascade across the Middle East, involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
    and perhaps other states as well. As the United States and
    Russia have reduced their arsenals to levels far below those of
    the Cold War, the barrier to entry to great power nuclear
    status has been lowered to levels that could tempt other
    nuclear powers to increase their arsenals to these lesser
    ``superpower'' levels. Such a multipolar nuclear competition
    would likely be characterized by an intense ``n-player'' or
    multipolar competition to gain advantage, increasing
    uncertainty over the nuclear military balance, and crisis
    instability. The proliferation of nuclear weapons to states
    whose strategic decision making and crisis response systems are
    quite different from our own raises concerns regarding how
    leaders in these states would calculate cost, benefit, and risk
    when it comes to decisions about use of nuclear weapons.
        The character of the nuclear competition is undergoing a
    fundamental and potentially dangerous shift with respect to the
    security of the United States, its allies, and partners.
    Therefore, there is a need for a thorough net assessment of the
    new nuclear environment, which objective should be to minimize
    the risk to key U.S. security interests. Such an assessment
    should involve the following:
              (1) A statement of U.S. vital security interests,
            both near term and long term, that could be
            significantly affected by the competition among current
            and potential future nuclear powers;
              (2) An examination of how the other current and
            prospective nuclear powers view nuclear weapons, to
            include their rationale for maintaining a nuclear
            arsenal, the role nuclear weapons play in advancing
            their geopolitical objectives, their nuclear doctrine,
            the circumstances under which they would employ nuclear
            weapons, and how;
              (3) An evaluation of key trends in nuclear force
            developments, to include weapons and delivery systems,
            among existing and prospective nuclear powers;
              (4) An identification and analysis of other key
            military capabilities that exert significant influence
            on the nuclear competition, to include early warning
            and command and control systems; conventional precision
            strike (with emphasis on prompt global strike);
            advanced air and missile defenses; cyber weapons and
            cyber defenses; and emerging capabilities that could
            significantly influence the competition, such as
            directed-energy systems;
              (5) An examination of the geographic factors
            affecting the competition, particularly those that
            affect early/attack warning and those that could find
            nuclear strikes transiting the sovereign territory of
            third-party states, to include space over flight; and
              (6) An analysis of the dynamics of multipolar or ``n-
            player'' nuclear competitions involving three or more
            nuclear powers.
              (7) The risk and probability of nuclear deterrence
            failing measured in percent per year of annualized risk
            through different failure modes (a nuclear terrorist
            event, a tactical nuclear attack, a strategic nuclear
            attack), an event tree analysis of deterrence failure
            modes, and the uncertainty in those probabilities and
            ways to reduce that uncertainty.
        In the course of addressing these factors, such an
    assessment should develop and analyze a range of contingencies/
    scenarios ranging from crises that examine short-term factors,
    to the characteristics of a long-term competition. These
    contingencies and/or scenarios should include crises emerging
    from the ongoing competition in the near-to-mid term future,
    out to 10 years, involving:
              (1) The United States and individual nuclear powers;
              (2) The United States and multiple nuclear powers;
              (3) Two other nuclear powers;
              (4) Three or more other nuclear powers; and
              (5) Regional and cross-regional geography, to include
            contingencies/scenarios in Europe, the Middle East,
            South Asia, and East Asia, and contingencies/scenarios
            that transcend regions (e.g., South and East Asia).
            While conducting the assessment, the committee expects
            the Director of Net Assessment to assume that the size
            and characteristics of U.S. nuclear forces remains
            largely unchanged from its current form. However, the
            Director may consider alternative configurations of
            U.S. nuclear forces, insofar as doing so is relevant
            and beneficial to the required analysis.

    Deadline for Milestone A decision on Long-Range Standoff Weapon (sec.
            1634)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to make a Milestone A decision on the
    Long-Range Standoff Weapon no later than May 31, 2016.

    Availability of Air Force procurement funds for certain commercial off-
            the-shelf parts for intercontinental ballistic missiles fuzes
            (sec. 1635)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $13.7 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force, for the
    procurement of covered parts pursuant to contracts entered into
    under section 1645 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
    McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
    (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat.)

    Sense of Congress on policy on the nuclear triad (sec. 1636)

        The committee recommends a provision which states the sense
    of the Congress that retaining all three legs of the nuclear
    triad is the highest priority mission of the Department of
    Defense and will best maintain strategic stability at a
    reasonable cost, while hedging against potential technical
    problems and vulnerabilities. The provision would state that it
    is the policy of the United States to sustain and modernize or
    replace the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems,
    including heavy bombers equipped with nuclear gravity bombs and
    air-launched nuclear cruise missiles; land-based
    intercontinental ballistic missiles; and ballistic missile
    submarines equipped with submarine launched ballistic missiles.
    The provision would also state that it is the policy of the
    United States to operate, sustain, and modernize or replace a
    capability to forward-deploy nuclear weapons and dual capable
    fighter-bomber aircraft. The committee believes these
    capabilities serve to deter potential adversaries and assure
    allies and partners of the United States through a strong and
    long-term commitment to the nuclear deterrent of the United
    States to achieve a modern and responsive nuclear
    infrastructure to support the full spectrum of deterrence
    requirements.

                      Subtitle D--Missile Defense Programs

    Plan for expediting deployment time of continental United States
            interceptor site (sec. 1641)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for expediting the
    deployment time for a potential future continental United
    States interceptor site by at least 2 years, and submit to the
    congressional defense committees a report on such plan not
    later than 30 days after the transmittal of the environmental
    impact assessment required by the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
        The committee notes that the environmental impact study for
    the four sites being examined for a potential continental
    United States interceptor site is scheduled to be completed in
    2016. According to the Missile Defense Agency, should the
    decision be made to move forward with an additional interceptor
    site, the overall timeline to achieve Initial Operational
    Capability is approximately 5 years. The committee is concerned
    that this timeline may be too lengthy if necessary to react to
    the deployment of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles in
    Iran. In such a circumstance, it would be advantageous to
    understand if, and how, an additional interceptor site in the
    United States could be made operational in 3 years or less.
    Such an assessment may include a description of legislative and
    administrative actions that may be necessary to shorten the
    deployment time and any acquisition risks associated with a
    shorter deployment time.
        The provision would also require the Comptroller General to
    assess the Department's report on the deployment plan and
    submit a report to the congressional defense committees with
    findings and recommendations.

    Additional missile defense sensor coverage for the protection of the
            United States homeland (sec. 1642)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in cooperation with the
    relevant combatant command, to deploy by not later than
    December 31, 2020, a long-range discrimination radar or other
    appropriate tracking and discrimination sensor capabilities in
    a location optimized to support the defense of the homeland of
    the United States against emerging long-range ballistic missile
    threats from Iran.
        The committee notes that the currently deployed ground-
    based midcourse missile defense system protects the entire
    United States homeland, including the East Coast, against the
    threat of limited ballistic missile attack from North Korea and
    Iran. In testimony to the committee on March 25, 2015, the
    Director of the Missile Defense Agency stated, ``the
    discrimination capability of the system'' is one of the ``two
    fundamental means for improving homeland missile defense
    capability and capacity.'' Furthermore, according to the
    Director of the Missile Defense Agency, long-range
    discrimination radar will provide larger hit assessment
    coverage, thereby enabling improved warfighting capabilities to
    manage ground-based interceptor inventory and improve the
    capacity of the ballistic missile defense system. The
    Department of Defense will deploy by 2020 a new midcourse
    tracking radar to provide persistent coverage and improve
    discrimination capabilities against threats to the United
    States homeland from the Pacific, an action this committee
    endorses.
        According to testimony before the committee by the
    Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Iran
    has the ``means and motivation to develop longer-range
    missiles, including an ICBM. Iran publically stated that it
    intends to launch a space-launch vehicle as early as this year
    capable of intercontinental ranges, if configured as such.''
    Accordingly, this committee believes that additional missile
    defense sensor discrimination capabilities are needed to
    enhance the protection of the United States homeland against
    long-range ballistic missiles from Iran.

    Air defense capability at North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile
            defense sites (sec. 1643)

        The committee recommends a provision that would express the
    sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, in
    consultation with the relevant combatant command, should ensure
    that arrangements are in place, including support from North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, to provide anti-air
    defense capability at all NATO missile defense sites in support
    of phases 2 and 3 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach. Not
    later than 30 days after a site achieves full operating
    capability, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
    congressional defense committees a report describing the plan
    of the Secretary to provide anti-air defense capability at the
    site.

    Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system
            (sec. 1644)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $41.4 million for the Department of Defense to provide to the
    Government of Israel to procure the Iron Dome short-range
    rocket defense system, including for co-production of Iron Dome
    parts and components in the United States by United States
    industry. The provision would also provide that these funds
    shall be available subject to the terms and conditions in the
    ``Agreement Between the Department of Defense and the Ministry
    of Defense of the State of Israel Concerning Iron Dome Defense
    System Procurement,'' signed on March 5, 2014, subject to an
    amended agreement to be negotiated for co-production of Iron
    Dome radar components.
        The provision would also require that not later than 30
    days prior to the initial obligation of funds, the Director of
    the Missile Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense
    for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall jointly submit
    to the congressional defense committees a certification that
    the agreement specified above is being implemented and an
    assessment detailing any risks relating to the implementation
    of the agreement.

    Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and potential
            coproduction (sec. 1645)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $150.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency to provide to the
    Government of Israel to procure the David's Sling Weapon System
    and $15.0 million for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor
    program, including for co-production of parts and components in
    the United States by United States industry.
        The funds may be disbursed after certain conditions, which
    include a certification by the Director of the Missile Defense
    Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics, that the United States has entered
    into a bilateral agreement with the Government of Israel that
    accomplishes the following: (1) Establishes the terms of co-
    production of parts and components; (2) establishes complete
    transparency on the Israeli requirement for the number of
    interceptors and batteries; (3) allows the Director of the
    Missile Defense Agency and Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish technical
    milestones for co-production and procurement and establish
    joint approval processes for third party sales; and (4) in the
    case of co-production for the David's Sling Weapon System, not
    less than half of such co-production is carried out by the
    United States.

    Development and deployment of multiple-object kill vehicle for missile
            defense of the United States homeland (sec. 1646)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Director of the Missile Defense Agency to conduct rigorous
    flight testing of the multi-object kill vehicle by not later
    than 2020 and field such vehicle as soon as technically
    practicable. The provision would also direct that the
    management of the multi-object kill vehicle program shall
    report directly to the Deputy Director of the Missile Defense
    Agency.
        The Director of the Missile Defense Agency testified before
    this committee that ``these multi-object kill vehicles will
    revolutionize our missile defense architecture, substantially
    reducing the interceptor inventory required to defeat an
    evolving and more capable threat to the homeland.'' The
    committee also observes that the Commander, U.S. Northern
    Command, testified before the committee that the multiple-
    object kill vehicle concept is one of his top missile defense
    priorities.
        The Missile Defense Agency will begin concept definition of
    a multiple-object kill vehicle leading to a Milestone A
    technology maturation and risk reduction decision in fiscal
    year 2017. According to briefings provided to committee staff
    on February 20, 2015, by the Missile Defense Agency, a
    prototype could be available in the fiscal year 2020 to 2022
    timeframe, with fielding sometime in the post-2025 period. The
    committee believes that the multiple-object kill vehicle could
    contribute critical capabilities to the future of the ballistic
    missile defense of the United States homeland, particularly
    against the evolving threats from North Korea and Iran.

    Requirement to replace capability enhancement I exoatmospheric kill
            vehicles (sec. 1647)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Director of the Missile Defense Agency to ensure, to the
    maximum extent practicable, that all remaining ground-based
    interceptors (GBIs) of the ground-based midcourse defense
    system that are armed with the capability enhancement I
    exoatmposheric kill vehicle are replaced with the redesigned
    exoatmospheric kill vehicle (RKV) before September 30, 2022.
        The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency's plan to
    develop an RKV that increases reliability, performance,
    producibility, and affordability. As required by section 1663
    of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
    291), the committee agrees on the need for a rigorous
    acquisition process, including prototype testing, to ensure
    that the RKV works in an operationally effective and cost-
    effective manner.
        The committee notes that according to written testimony by
    the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, ``upgrading the
    kill vehicle on the GBI and enhancing the homeland defense
    sensor network are higher priorities and prerequisites for
    improving protection against limited ICBM attack,'' and that
    initial deployment of the RKV is anticipated in 2020. Given the
    planned availability of the RKV in 2020, the committee believes
    it could be feasible to replace the remaining 17 capability
    enhancement I exoatmospheric kill vehicles within 2 years, or
    by 2022. The committee notes that emplacement of the capability
    enhancement II exoatmospheric kill vehicles will take place at
    the rate of 8 to 10 per year in 2015, 2016 and 2017,
    demonstrating that it could be possible to increase the rate of
    production for the RKV to stay ahead of the North Korean and
    potential Iranian ICBM threat.

    Airborne boost phase defense system (sec. 1648)

        The committee notes that in his speech of March 17, 2015,
    Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work highlighted the
    challenge of developing a low-cost way to defeat inbound
    missile raids. According to Deputy Secretary of Defense Work,
    ``this doesn't have to entail a kinetic solution--in fact,
    shooting down incoming missiles with our own missiles can put
    us on the wrong side of the cost imposition equation. We need
    to come up with other ideas to defeat this threat.'' Likewise,
    the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, said on April 7, 2015,
    ``if I had one more dollar to do ballistic missile defense . .
    . I would put it against those technologies that allow us to
    get to the correct side of the cost curve,'' and ``we need to
    be able to start knocking them down in the boost phase . . .
    and not rely on the midcourse phase where we are today.''
        To address the growing threat posed by increasingly
    accurate and longer-range ballistic and cruise missiles, the
    Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in collaboration with the Defense
    Advanced Research Projects Agency and the military departments,
    is pursuing a suite of laser technologies that could serve as a
    cost-effective solution for destroying cruise missiles and
    ballistic missiles in the boost phase. A successful airborne
    laser system could transform U.S. missile defense capabilities
    against a broad range of missile threats, and place defense on
    the winning side of the offense-defense cost curve.
        The committee supports MDA's efforts to develop and
    demonstrate compact, efficient laser technology for missile
    defense applications and, in parallel, to explore the potential
    for developing and integrating a laser into a high-altitude,
    long-endurance aero-vehicle. Under current plans, the goal of
    MDA is to demonstrate a 100 kilowatt high energy laser by
    fiscal year 2020, which could serve as the basis for a boost
    phase missile defense weapon system.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that
    would prioritize technology investments in the Department of
    Defense to support efforts by MDA to develop and deploy a boost
    phase airborne laser weapon system by fiscal year 2025. The
    provision encourages collaboration and cooperation between MDA
    and other Department of Defense components, and directs the
    Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense
    committees with a report, within 120 days of enactment of this
    Act, of Department of Defense efforts to develop and deploy a
    boost phase airborne laser weapon system for missile defense.

    Extension of limitation on providing certain sensitive missile defense
            information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1649)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    Section 1246(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 127 Stat. 923) to
    extend the limitation on providing certain sensitive missile
    defense information to the Russian Federation for fiscal years
    2014 through 2017.

    Extension of requirement for Comptroller General of the United States
            review and assessment of missile defense acquisition programs
            (sec. 1650)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 1120981) to continue to require
    the Comptroller General to review, for fiscal years 2016
    through 2020, the annual reports of the Missile Defense Agency
    (MDA) on acquisition baselines and variances and assess the
    extent to which MDA has achieved its acquisition goals and
    objectives. The provision would also extend the reports
    required on activities of the Missile Defense Executive Board.
        The committee notes that the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) has played an instrumental role over many years in
    the oversight of missile defense acquisition programs, and in
    helping improve the oversight and accountability of such
    programs. The existing legislative mandate for GAO's review of
    missile defense acquisition programs would otherwise expire,
    and the committee believes it is important for GAO to continue
    its review.

                           Subtitle E--Other Matters

    Measures in response to violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
            Forces Treaty by the Russian Federation (sec. 1661)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    President to notify the appropriate congressional committees
    with respect to whether the Russian Federation has flight-
    tested, deployed, or possesses a military system that has
    achieved an initial operating capability that is in violation
    of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty or has
    begun taking measures to return to full compliance with the INF
    Treaty. The provision would also require the Secretary of
    Defense to submit a report to the appropriate congressional
    committees on the status of updates provided to the North
    Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allies of the
    United States on the Russian Federation's flight testing,
    operational capability, and deployment of ground-launched
    ballistic missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. The
    provision would state that it is the sense of the Congress that
    the deployment of a nuclear ground-launched cruise missile by
    the Russian Federation would pose a dangerous threat to the
    United States and its allies; the Russian Federation has
    established an increasing role for nuclear weapons in its
    military strategy; efforts to compel the Russian Federation to
    return to compliance are in the best interests of the United
    States, but cannot be open-ended; and efforts by the United
    States to develop military and non-military options for
    responding to violations of the INF Treaty could encourage the
    Russian Federation to return to compliance with the INF Treaty.
        If, on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Russian
    Federation has not begun taking measures to return to full
    compliance with the INF Treaty, the provision would require the
    Secretary of Defense to, within 120 days, submit to Congress a
    plan with respect to developing the following military
    capabilities: (a) Counterforce capabilities to prevent INF
    Treaty-range ground-launched ballistic missile and cruise
    missile attacks; (b) countervailing strike capabilities to
    enhance the forces of the United States or allies of the United
    States; and (c) active defenses to defend against intermediate-
    range ground launched cruise missile attacks. The provision
    directs the President to include in the plan such other options
    as the President considers useful to encourage the Russian
    Federation to return to full compliance with the INF Treaty.
         The committee believes the development and deployment of a
    nuclear ground-launched cruise missile by the Russian
    Federation in violation of the INF Treaty would pose a
    dangerous threat to the United States and its allies, and that
    efforts taken by the President to compel the Russian Federation
    to return to compliance with the INF Treaty must be persistent
    and are in the best interests of the United States, but cannot
    be open-ended.

    Modification of notification and assessment of proposal to modify or
            introduce new aircraft or sensors for flight by the Russian
            Federation under the Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1662)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify
    Section 1242(b) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
    Law 113-291) by adding a requirement to include an assessment
    by the commander of each combatant command potentially affected
    by a proposal of the Russian Federation to modify or introduce
    a new aircraft or sensor for flight under the Open Skies
    Treaty, including an assessment of the potential effects of the
    proposal on operations and any potential vulnerabilities. The
    provision would also require that not later than 30 days after
    the date of any meeting of the Open Skies Consultative
    Commission, the Secretary of Defense submit to the defense
    committees of Congress a report on such meeting, including a
    description of any agreements entered into during such meeting,
    and whether any such agreement will result in a modification to
    the aircraft or sensors that will be subject to the Open Skies
    Treaty.

    Milestone A decision for the conventional prompt global strike weapons
            system (sec. 1663)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to make a Milestone A decision for the
    conventional prompt global strike program no later than
    September 30, 2020, or 8 months after the successful completion
    of the Intermediate Range Flight 2 test.

                                  Budget Items

    Conventional prompt global strike

        The budget request included $79.0 million for Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 64165D8Z,
    for conventional prompt global strike development.
        The committee is aware that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review
    (NPR) identified development of conventional prompt global
    strike capabilities as a key initiative for the defeat of time-
    urgent regional threats. The Department of Defense is examining
    sea-based and ground-based concepts and technology in advance
    of a future program of record. The Flight Experiment-I flight
    test scheduled for March 2017 will, if successful, mature and
    demonstrate key technologies needed by both land- and sea-based
    prompt global strike systems. In support of these efforts, the
    committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
    64165D8Z for conventional prompt global strike development.
        Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a
    provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to make a
    Milestone A decision for the conventional prompt global strike
    weapons system not later than September 30, 2020, or 8 months
    after the successful completion of Intermediate Range Flight 2,
    whichever is earlier.

    Divert attitude control system in support of multi-object kill vehicle

        The budget request included $43.3 million in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63178C, for
    Weapons Technology in support of the Missile Defense Agency,
    including $13.0 million for interceptor technology.
        The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency is
    pursuing research and development on the next generation divert
    attitude control system (DACS), which is critical for a
    successful multi-object kill vehicle program. According to the
    Director of the Missile Defense Agency, a multi-object kill
    capability would ``revolutionize'' the missile defense
    architecture, permitting the destruction of several threat
    objects with a single ground-based interceptor missile. The
    committee believes the multi-object kill vehicle program should
    be a high priority of the Missile Defense Agency. Accordingly,
    the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
    63178C to reduce development risk for the next generation
    divert attitude control system.

    Fiber combining laser prototype

        The budget request included $43.3 million in Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63178C, for
    Weapons Technology in support of the Missile Defense Agency,
    including $30.3 million for directed energy research.
        The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency, in
    collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency, is pursuing a suite of laser technologies that, when
    combined with high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial
    vehicles, could serve as a cost-effective solution for
    destroying cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. The
    committee notes that the Director of the Missile Defense Agency
    and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command believe this
    technology holds great promise. Therefore, the committee
    recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 63178C for the
    Missile Defense Agency to develop a prototype fiber combining
    laser suitable for flight testing on an unmanned aerial vehicle
    as soon as possible.

    Funding for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs

        The budget request included $102.8 million for Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63913C, for
    U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, including
    $11.0 million to improve the existing Arrow Weapon System;
    $55.1 million for continued development of the Arrow-3 upper
    tier interceptor missiles; and $36.7 million for the David's
    Sling short range ballistic missile defense system. These
    systems are part of Israel's layered missile defenses against
    missiles and rockets of varying ranges. The United States is
    jointly developing and co-managing these systems to ensure they
    are compatible and interoperable with U.S. missile defense
    systems. The Government of Israel has requested an additional
    $166.0 million for the Arrow program and the David's Sling
    program to address the growing short-range and long-range
    ballistic missile threat.
        The committee recommends an increase of $166.0 million in
    PE 63913C for continued development of the Arrow-3 upper tier
    interceptor missile and the David's Sling short range ballistic
    missile defense system.

    Multiple Object Kill Vehicle

        The budget request included $46.7 million for Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63294C, for
    Common Kill Vehicle Technology, which includes development of
    the Multiple Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV). According to the
    Director of the Missile Defense Agency, a multi-object kill
    capability would ``revolutionize'' the missile defense
    architecture, permitting the destruction of several threat
    objects with a single ground-based interceptor missile. The
    committee believes the MOKV program should be a high priority
    of the Missile Defense Agency. Accordingly, the committee
    recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 63294C for the
    MOKV development program.

    Operationally Responsive Space program

        The budget request included $6.5 million for the
    Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program, Air Force exhibit
    R-1, line 44, Program Element 64857F. The committee recommends
    an increase of $13.5 million to continue the development of a
    Space Based Surveillance System prototype satellite as well as
    a follow-on simplified weather satellite. In addition the
    committee encourages the program and the department to continue
    its efforts in the low-cost launch of small payloads. The
    committee recognizes that as space threats increase, the
    importance of rapid reconstitution grows dramatically. The
    committee commends the Department's decision to use the
    program's streamlined acquisition authorities within the Air
    Force's Space and Missile Systems Center to prototype systems
    that if successful will transition into traditional space
    acquisition programs.

    Redesigned Kill Vehicle

        The budget request included $266.7 million for Research,
    Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64874C, for
    improved homeland defense interceptors. This program will
    develop a new kill vehicle, known as the Redesigned Kill
    Vehicle (RKV), for the ground-based interceptor that supports
    defense of the United States homeland against long-range
    ballistic missile attack. The RKV will improve the reliability,
    producibility, affordability, and performance of the current
    capability enhancement I and II exoatmospheric kill vehicles
    for the ground based interceptor.
        The committee notes that improving the reliability of the
    ground-based interceptor is a top priority for the Director of
    the Missile Defense Agency and the Commander of U.S. Northern
    Command. The committee strongly concurs with this priority.
    According to the Missile Defense Agency, the first flight test
    of the RKV is scheduled for fiscal year 2018, followed by an
    intercept flight test in the third quarter of fiscal year 2019.
    Limited initial production of the RKV could begin in fiscal
    year 2020, with four production article RKVs available by the
    end of fiscal year 2021. The committee is concerned that this
    schedule may not stay ahead of the evolving threat from North
    Korea and Iran. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase
    of $20.0 million in PE 64874C for risk reduction activities
    associated with the development of the RKV.

    Sharkseer zero day defense for enterprise email

        The National Security Agency (NSA), at the direction of the
    Chief Information Officer, established a program called
    Sharkseer to provide non-signature-based defenses against
    previously unknown and morphing malware at the Department of
    Defense (DOD) enterprise perimeter. Sharkseer seeks to identify
    and integrate best-of-breed advanced commercial products.
    Congress added $28.0 million in fiscal year 2015 funding to
    start the program and to deploy capabilities to all of the DOD
    Internet Access Points (IAPs).
        The budget request for fiscal year 2016 included $42.0
    million in NSA funding to fully field and sustain Sharkseer to
    all IAPs. However, this funding only addressed capabilities to
    inspect and block web traffic. Separately, the Defense
    Information Systems Agency (DISA) sought funding for DOD
    Enterprise Email services, which included a request for
    protecting that email traffic with Sharkseer. That overall
    initiative was not approved prior to the transmittal of the
    fiscal year 2016 budget. As a result, the funding request does
    not provide the funding necessary to address the protection of
    email traffic.
        Email that enters the DOD is a primary avenue that malign
    actors use to compromise DOD networks and computer systems.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends increased funding for
    DISA to field Sharkseer capabilities to protect against
    compromises through email traffic. The committee recommends an
    increase of $10.0 million to Program Element 33140G, line 7,
    defense-wide procurement, and an increase of $10.0 million for
    defense-wide operations and maintenance for this purpose.
        The committee directs that the Sharkseer systems for web
    and email traffic be integrated, and that DOD ensure that
    malware identified by Sharkseer be rapidly and automatically
    used to tip other defensive systems across the Department,
    including the Cyber Protection Teams.

    Standard Missile-3 block IB

        The budget request included $147.8 million in Procurement,
    Defense-wide, line 25, for the Missile Defense Agency for
    advanced procurement of the Standard Missile-3 IB (SM-3 IB)
    missile. The committee is concerned that this funding, in
    support of multi-year procurement, is early to need. The
    committee recommends a decrease of $147.8 million in
    Procurement, Defense-wide, line 25, for the Standard Missile-3
    IB missile program. The committee recommends an increase of
    $147.8 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, line 24, for the
    Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program distributed as follows:
    $117.9 million to increase SM-3 IB quantities from 40 to 49
    missiles; $2.6 million to increase SM-3 IB canisters from 41 to
    50; and $27.3 million for missile test participation costs.

    U.S. Cyber Command Technology Development

        The budget request included $19.1 million for the U.S.
    Cyber Command Technology Development program's Combatant
    Command Support project, Air Force exhibit R-2A, Program
    Element 36250F, project number 646008. The Combatant Command
    Support project supports the development and testing of various
    tools critical to achieving combatant command military
    objectives. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0
    million because the committee is concerned that the capacity to
    meet the cyber effects requirements of the combatant commands
    is too limited and that additional funding is necessary to meet
    both current and future cyber requirements.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Assessment of the information security threats of wireless-enabled
            capabilities at Department of Defense facilities

        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
    to the congressional defense and intelligence committees an
    assessment of the information security threats to and
    vulnerabilities posed by Wi-Fi, Distributed Antenna Systems,
    and wireless-enabled endpoints installed in Department of
    Defense (DOD) facilities, including DOD combat support
    agencies. The report shall identify any entities currently
    allowing wireless connections to classified and unclassified
    networks and a detailed description comparing information
    assurance protections in place on wireless versus wired
    networks to prevent unauthorized access and cyber intrusions to
    networks. This report shall identify if any single lines of
    defense exist that could result in the compromise of DOD or
    Intelligence Community networks. The report shall be due no
    later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act.

    Comptroller General review of space system acquisition and acquisition
            oversight

        The committee has grown increasingly concerned by the
    disjointed nature of Department of Defense space system
    acquisition and acquisition oversight. Over the past two
    decades, various commissions and reviews have found governance
    over Department of Defense space system acquisitions and
    operations to be fragmented and overlapping, leading to
    significant cost increases, delays in delivering capabilities,
    program cancellations, and inefficient operations. Over the
    past 10 years, the Department of Defense has made a number of
    changes to its space leadership including: creation of the
    Defense Space Council; alignment of Air Force space system
    acquisition leadership under a single headquarters
    organization; creation of the Space and Intelligence Office
    within the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; and disestablishing the
    National Security Space Office and Office of the Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration;
    among other changes.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
    States to brief the congressional defense committees by March
    1, 2016 on the effectiveness of the Department of Defense's
    space acquisition and acquisition oversight model. The
    committee is interested in better understanding how the
    existing framework has influenced decision making and
    accountability and whether efforts intended to reduce
    fragmentation and overlap have been effective. The committee
    also directs the Comptroller General of the United States to
    evaluate what additional changes, if any, could be considered
    to improve governance of space system acquisitions and
    operations.

    Continuation of nuclear command, control and communications assessments
            by the Government Accountability Office

        The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) to update recent prior assessments of nuclear command,
    control, and communications (NC3) acquisition programs with an
    interim briefing the congressional defense committees no later
    than September 30, 2015, and a briefing no later than January
    31, 2016.
        The committee values the ongoing work of the GAO in
    reviewing the NC3 acquisition programs. Similar to space
    acquisition programs, NC3 acquisition is a systems of systems
    process, which takes years to oversee on a continuous basis to
    determine if the programs are achieving the desired cost,
    scope, and schedule.

    Missile Defense Agency assessment of capabilities to defend against
            current and projected missile threats

        The committee recognizes that the current Ballistic Missile
    Defense System 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,
    including a submarine-launched ballistic missile. By expanding
    persistent sensor discrimination capabilities, the Ballistic
    Missile Defense System would be better enabled to respond to
    emerging ballistic missile threats involving countermeasures
    and decoys. The committee is aware that, in response to a
    request from the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, the
    Missile Defense Agency is exploring potential solutions for
    additional sensor coverage of Hawaii. Additionally, the
    Department of Defense is currently conducting an analysis of
    alternatives related to homeland ballistic missile defense
    sensor and discrimination capabilities, as directed by the Carl
    Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
    The committee supports these efforts and encourages the
    Department to prepare recommendations from these analyses in
    advance of the fiscal year 2017 budget submission.
        To ensure that Hawaii continues to be protected under the
    Ballistic Missile Defense System in the face of evolving
    ballistic missile threats and capabilities, the committee
    requires the Missile Defense Agency to conduct an assessment
    and provide a report no later than 90 days after the enactment
    of this act to the congressional defense committees.
        The report shall include an assessment of the current
    Ballistic Missile Defense System's ability to protect Hawaii
    against current missile threats and the projected threats we
    could face in 2 and 5 years, and options for modifying or
    augmenting systems to ensure that Hawaii remains protected from
    possible rogue nation missile attacks. The report shall be
    submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
    annex.

    Organization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear
            Deterrence Mission

        The Nuclear Enterprise Review (NER) conducted by the
    Department of Defense in 2014 made a variety of recommendations
    regarding changes to the organization of the Department of
    Defense to enable focused coordination of the nation's nuclear
    deterrence mission. The independent review led by two former
    senior military officers recommended that the Secretary of
    Defense, ``direct that the loosely federated nuclear activities
    within [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] and the Air
    Force be brought together into a coherent and synchronized
    structure that focuses on direction and support for the nuclear
    forces.'' The internal review conducted by the Department
    echoed these findings and made similar recommendations.
        The committee is concerned that recent structural changes
    within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) may lead to
    the opposite result in the long term. The elimination last year
    of the position of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
    Global Strategic Affairs may bring decreased policy focus on
    nuclear deterrence issues. Furthermore, division of
    responsibilities for various components of the nuclear mission
    (e.g., nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and command and
    control) within the Office of the Under Secretary for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics could lead to similar
    end results. While the committee supports management
    specialization and seeking efficiencies within OSD, such
    efforts must not come at the expense of the recently renewed
    focus on nuclear deterrence.

    Report on Advanced Extremely High Frequency Terminals for bomber
            aircraft

        The Secretary of the Air Force shall report to the
    congressional defense committees no later than February 28,
    2016, on alternatives to the current program of record for the
    Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) terminals to be used
    in long range strike bomber aircraft, specifically the B-52, B-
    2, and Long Range Strike Bomber.

    Report on Follow-On Commander's Evaluation Tests and Demonstration and
            Shake Out tests

        The Secretary of the Navy shall report to the congressional
    defense committees on Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests
    (FCET) and Demonstration and Shake Out (DASO) tests for fiscal
    year 2016. In addition, the Secretary of the Navy shall report
    to the congressional defense committees on a plan for future
    reporting of FCET and DASO tests to the congressional defense
    committees no later than February 28, 2016.

    Report on space-based missile defense interceptor

        The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA)
    efforts to consider additional capabilities to prevent
    ballistic missile attack on the United States, including
    solutions that would reduce cost-per-kill. Additionally, the
    committee is aware of technology development that focuses on
    interception in the boost phase of a ballistic missile. The
    committee believes that such capabilities that are both cost-
    effective and operationally reliable should be explored.
        The Senate-passed version of the Duncan Hunter National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 required the
    Department of Defense to conduct an independent assessment of
    the feasibility and advisability of developing a space-based
    interceptor (SBI) element to the ballistic missile defense
    system. This study was completed in April 2011 and submitted to
    Congress. Among its findings, the study determined that ``the
    creation, deployment, and operation of an SBI system would
    provide a number of strategic benefits but would also face
    certain challenges.''
        In order to understand the current status of technologies
    under development and those that are potentially capable of
    providing a space-based element to the ballistic missile
    defense system, the committee directs MDA to submit a report to
    the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days
    after the date of enactment of this act that includes the
    following elements: (1) an assessment of the need for a space-
    based interceptor element to the ballistic missile defense
    system, including an assessment of the extent to which there is
    a ballistic missile threat that such an interceptor would
    address; (2) whether other elements of the ballistic missile
    defense system could be modified to meet that threat; (3) an
    assessment of the components and capabilities and the maturity
    of critical technologies necessary to make such a space-based
    interceptor element operational; (4) an estimate of the total
    cost for the life cycle of such a space-based interceptor
    element, including the costs of research, development,
    demonstration, procurement, deployment, and launching of the
    element; (5) an assessment of the effectiveness of such a
    space-based interceptor element in intercepting ballistic
    missiles and the survivability of the element in case of
    attack; (6) an assessment of possible debris generated from the
    use or testing of such a space-based interceptor element; and
    (7) an assessment of any command, control, or battle management
    considerations of using such a space-based interceptor element,
    including estimated timelines for the detection of ballistic
    missiles, decision-making with respect to the use of the
    element, and interception of the missile by the element. The
    report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include
    a classified annex.

    Reserve component Cyber Protection Teams

        The committee has a strong interest in Department of
    Defense (DOD) plans for establishing Cyber Protection Teams
    (CPTs) in the reserve components to meet the needs of United
    States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), and the states, in defending
    DOD networks and assisting the states in the event of serious
    cyber attacks.
        The committee notes that the Army and the Army reserve
    components intend to field 21 CPTs in fiscal years 2016-2018,
    one in active status, and 10 each in the Guard and Reserve.
    These CPTs are not currently planned to be included in the
    forces assigned to CYBERCOM. The Air Force intends to establish
    12 CPTs in the Air National Guard, which will be manned to
    achieve the equivalent of 2 active CPTs dedicated to the Cyber
    Mission Forces (CMF) on behalf of the Air Force.
        The committee commends the Department and the reserve
    components for planning for a robust number of CPTs, but has
    concerns about implementation. Specifically, training costs
    have not been budgeted yet, and the Department does not yet
    have a plan for sustaining the current training infrastructure
    after fiscal year 2016, when funding provided by the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense for the standup of the CMF ends.
        The Army Reserve included $10.6 million in the budget
    request for training the 3 CPTs it plans to establish in fiscal
    year 2016. However, the $9.0 million required to train the 3
    Army National Guard CPTs to be fielded in 2016 has not yet been
    allocated. Outyear funding to train the remaining 14 CPTs is
    not budgeted.
        The committee directs the following actions. First, the
    committee directs the Army and Army National Guard to notify
    the congressional defense committees when a decision is made to
    allocate funding in fiscal year 2016 for training the CPTs.
        Second, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army,
    the Secretary of the Air Force, the Principal Cyber Advisor
    (PCA), the Commander of CYBERCOM, and the Chief of the National
    Guard Bureau to report to the congressional defense committees
    on how the basing and intended use of the reserve component
    CPTs reflects an appropriate balance between, on the one hand,
    the core mission of the reserve component's CPTs to provide
    surge capacity for CYBERCOM, and, on the other hand, the needs
    of the states, and the defense of the reserve components'
    networks.
        Third, the committee directs the PCA, the Service
    Secretaries, and the Commander of CYBERCOM to develop a plan
    for the Services to sustain the individual training
    capabilities that have been centrally funded and maintained
    since the CMF were first created. The committee urges the
    Department to create a federated and joint training model and
    discourages having each service build separate training
    capabilities for its cyber contingent. The committee directs
    that the plan provide for a training capacity in fiscal years
    2017 and 2018 that is adequate to complete all required
    training for the reserve component CPTs and the sustainment of
    the active CMF units. The plan should be available for briefing
    to the congressional defense committees when the President
    submits the budget request for fiscal year 2017.

    Solid Rocket Motor industrial base

        The committee recognizes that the Air Force is currently
    exploring options to acquire the Ground Based Strategic
    Deterrent (GBSD), a replacement for the Minuteman III (MMIII)
    system. The Committee understands that the Air Force's
    acquisition decisions will have lasting impacts on the health
    and viability of the Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) industrial base,
    a vital element of the defense industrial base that supports
    U.S strategic forces.
        The committee believes that sustaining two healthy SRM
    sources is critical to the long term viability of the Nation's
    strategic triad, both as a hedge against a single point of
    failure and as a means of promoting competition in GBSD, which
    will involve the development, acquisition, and sustainment of
    rocket motors to replace the MMIII's three booster stages. As
    with all major acquisition programs, and consistent with
    current Department of Defense policy, the committee strongly
    believes the use of full and open competition will provide the
    best opportunity for Air Force to benefit from the innovation,
    improved contractor performance, and cost reduction during
    development, acquisition, and sustainment of the booster
    stages.

    Space control modeling and simulation range

        The Secretary of Defense shall report to the congressional
    defense committees on a plan for a modeling and simulation
    range for offensive and defensive space control activities no
    later than February 28, 2016.

    The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports

        The committee appreciates the unique importance of U.S. FAA
    licensed spacesports and recognizes and when appropriate,
    encourages the use of U.S. FAA commercially-licensed spaceports
    and launch and range complexes that provide mid- to low-
    inclination orbits or polar high-inclination orbits in support
    of national security space capabilities. The committee
    recognizes that these federally-licensed, non-federally owned
    launch facilities, are available to meet the requirements for
    the national security space program from the Department of
    Defense (DOD), Air Force Space Command.
        The Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska (PSCA) 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
    and PSCA, a state-of-the-industry spaceport on Kodiak Island,
    Alaska, 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 DOD. It has launched
    numerous missions for DOD with its 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 committee believes that these two facilities can be
    used, when appropriate, to support the national security space
    program.

    Upgrades to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System

        The committee notes that the architecture of the Ground-
    based Midcourse Defense System is in need of hardware and
    software upgrades to improve reliability and maintainability
    and eliminate obsolescence. The committee recognizes that
    significant improvements are being made to the interceptors to
    correct the problems with the existing kill vehicles discovered
    in flight tests, to increase survivability of the boosters, and
    to ensure reliability throughout the service life of the fleet.
    The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA)
    efforts to accomplish these improvements, along with the
    refurbishment of Missile Field 1 and deployment of an
    additional 14 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska.
    The budget request for MDA prioritizes investments in these
    areas and this committee will continue to monitor progress
    toward these goals.
        Additionally, the committee notes that section 1665 of the
    Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291)
    requires the Director of the MDA, in coordination with the
    Commander of the United States Northern Command, to submit a
    report to the congressional defense committees setting forth
    the status of current and planned efforts to improve the
    homeland ballistic missile defense capability of the United
    States. Elements of this report include the status of such
    efforts as fielding the additional 14 ground-based interceptors
    and refurbishing Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely; improving the
    capabilities of the ground-based interceptors deployed with
    upgraded capability enhancement-I and capability enhancement-II
    exo-atmospheric kill vehicles; developing, testing, and
    fielding the next generation exo-atmospheric kill vehicle; and
    improving sensor and discrimination capabilities, including the
    deployment of a long-range discrimination radar. The committee
    strongly encourages MDA to submit this report promptly.
        The committee further directs MDA to submit a report to the
    congressional defense committees within 90 days of completion
    of the above-mentioned report that addresses the status of
    efforts to enhance the ground-based interceptor stockpile
    reliability program; to implement upgrades to the ground-based
    midcourse defense ground system (to include fire control nodes,
    fire control software, command launch equipment, and data
    terminals) to improve reliability and eliminate obsolescence;
    and to upgrade the Early Warning Radars in Clear, Alaska,
    Shemya, Alaska and Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
                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 2016 budget requested $8.3 billion for
    military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
    $6.6 billion was requested for military construction, $1.4
    billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
    and $251.3 million for base closure activities.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
    for military construction, housing programs, and base closure
    activities totaling $8.3 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 2016.''
    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, 2018,
    or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for
    military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later.
                     TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

    Summary
        The budget request included authorization of appropriations
    of $743.3 million for military construction and $493.2 million
    for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2016.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
    $721.7 million for military construction and $493.2 million for
    family housing for fiscal year 2016.
        The budget request included $37.0 million for an
    instruction facility for the U.S. Army Band at Joint Base Myer-
    Henderson Hall, Virginia. The committee recommends no funding
    for this project and applies the savings to higher priority
    unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 2016.
    The committee believes that many of the challenges associated
    with the current facility may be addressed through a
    combination of facilities additions, minor military
    construction, and/or renovation.
        The budget request included $43.0 million for a Homeland
    Defense Operations Center at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas. The
    committee defers consideration of the authorization for this
    facility until after the completion of the plan for reducing
    administrative and headquarters activities required elsewhere
    in this bill.
        Additionally, the committee recommends a reduction of $52.0
    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 2016.
        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 two access
    control points at Fort Meade, Maryland and an unaccompanied
    personnel barracks at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The committee notes
    that these projects were identified as the top priorities of
    the Chief of Staff of the Army and Commander of U.S. Southern
    Command, respectively. Funding for these projects 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 Duty component of
    the Army for fiscal year 2016. 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 2016. 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. 2103)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of the Army to improve existing family housing
    units of the Department of the Army in an amount not to exceed
    $3.5 million.
    Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)
        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 2016. This provision would also
    provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
    construction and family housing projects for the Active-Duty
    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 2013 project
            (sec. 2105)
        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military
    Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
    of Public Law 112-239) for construction of a cadet barracks
    building at the United States Military Academy, New York, to
    include mechanical equipment and associated distribution lines.

    Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 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 2012 (division B
    of Public Law 112-81) for three projects until October 1, 2016,
    or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for
    military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.

    Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec.
            2107)

        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 seven projects until October 1,
    2016, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds
    for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is
    later.

    Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016 project
            (sec. 2108)

        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of the Army to carry out a $12.4 million project
    to construct a vehicle bridge and traffic circle to facilitate
    traffic flow to and from the medical center at Rhine Ordnance
    Barracks, Germany, using host-nation payment-in-kind funding.

    Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
            (sec. 2109)

        The committee recommends a provision that would limit
    funding authorized by the bill for new facilities at Guantanamo
    Bay, Cuba, until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the
    congressional defense committees that any new construction of
    facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have enduring military
    value independent of a high-value detention mission.
                     TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

    Summary
        The budget request included authorization of appropriations
    of $1.6 billion for military construction and $369.6 million
    for family housing for the Navy for fiscal year 2016.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
    $1.7 billion for military construction and $369.6 million for
    family housing for fiscal year 2016.
        The budget request included $44.5 million for a raw water
    pipeline from Camp Pendleton to the City of Fallbrook in order
    to allow the city to access water from the Santa Margarita
    watershed. The project would also provide upgrades to the
    existing Camp Pendleton water system. The committee notes that
    the requested project is intended to represent a physical
    solution to ongoing litigation over water rights between the
    Fallbrook Public Utilities District (FPUD) and the Navy.
    However, given that negotiations between the Navy and the FPUD
    to resolve this litigation are ongoing, the committee believes
    that this project is early to need. Therefore, the committee
    recommends no funds for this project and directs the Secretary
    of the Navy to submit a rescoped project that would provide the
    funds needed for the upgrade of the Camp Pendleton water
    system. The Secretary may, to the extent funds are provided
    from the State of California, the City of Fallbrook, or another
    source outside the Department of Defense, enter into an
    agreement to construct both the military and civilian elements
    of the projects as outlined by the Omnibus Public Land
    Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11). Prior to entering
    into such an agreement, the Secretary is directed to notify the
    congressional defense committees of the proposed terms
    including the cost allocation between the Department of Defense
    and civilian authorities.
        The budget request also included $48.3 million for the
    Townsend Range Expansion, including $5.0 million for two
    civilian fire stations in Long and McIntosh Counties, Georgia.
    The committee authorizes $43.3 million for the Townsend Range
    expansion without the two civilian fire stations. The committee
    does not believe the Navy has the authority to construct fire
    stations for which it will not have operational control.
        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 in support of the
    Marine Corps, including air field security improvements at
    Cherry Point, North Carolina; a KC-130J enlisted air crew
    trainer at Miramar, California; an LHD pad conversion and new
    MV-22 landing pads at Marine Corps base, Hawaii; range safety
    improvements at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; installation
    operations facilities at Camp Pendleton, California; and a
    replacement fire station for the Basic School at Quantico,
    Virginia. The committee notes that these projects were
    identified as the top priorities of the Commandant of the
    Marine Corps. Funding for these projects has been added 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 2016. 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 2016. 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
    $11.5 million.
    Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    appropriations for the Active Duty component military
    construction and family housing projects of the Department of
    the Navy authorized for construction for fiscal year 2016. This
    provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount
    authorized for military construction and family housing
    projects for the Active-Duty 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.
    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
            2205)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military
    Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
    of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1666), for three projects until
    October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act
    authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
    2017, whichever is later.
    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec.
            2206)
        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military
    Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
    of Public Law 112-239), for seven projects until October 1,
    2016, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds
    for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is
    later.
                  TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

    Summary
        The budget request included authorization of appropriations
    of $1.4 billion for military construction and $491.7 million
    for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2016.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
    $1.4 billion for military construction and $491.7 million for
    family housing for fiscal year 2016.
        Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0
    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 2016.
        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: a new communications facility at Luke Air Force
    Base, Arizona; a fixed ground control station facility at
    Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico; an air traffic control
    tower at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas; an expansion of the
    Air Support Operations Center at Fort Drum, New York; and a
    consolidated communications facility at Barksdale Air Force
    Base, Louisiana. 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 2016.
    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 2016. 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 2016. This provision would also
    provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
    construction and family housing projects for the active-duty
    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 2010 project
            (sec. 2305)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
    84) for a ground control tower at Hickam Air Force Base,
    Hawaii, to include the installation of communications cabling.

    Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project
            (sec. 2306)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    authorization contained in section 2301 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) for
    the construction of an operations facility at Royal Air Force
    Station Lakenheath, United Kingdom, to allow for construction
    at an unspecified worldwide location.

    Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project
            (sec. 2307)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    authorization contained in section 2301 of the Carl Levin and
    Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) for the construction
    of a KC-46A Alter Composite maintenance shop at McConnell Air
    Force Base, Kansas, to allow for a 7,500 square foot facility
    consistent with Air Force guidelines for such facilities.

    Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 project (sec.
            2308)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military
    Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
    of Public Law 112-81) for one project until October 1, 2016, or
    the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
    military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.

    Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec.
            2309)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military
    Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law
    112-239) for one project until October 1, 2016, or the date of
    the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
    construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
               TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

    Summary
        The budget request included authorization of appropriations
    of $2.3 billion for military construction for the defense
    agencies and $58.7 million for family housing for the defense
    agencies for fiscal year 2016.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
    $2.1 billion for military construction and $58.7 million for
    family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2016.
        The budget request included $49.7 million for the Defense
    Logistics Agency Headquarters Facility Replacement at
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The committee defers consideration
    of the authorization for this facility until after the
    completion of the plan for reducing administrative and
    headquarters activities required elsewhere in this bill.
        Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $120.0
    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 2016.
    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 2016. 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 2016. 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 2012 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 2012 (division B
    of Public Law 112-81) for the High Performance Computing Center
    at Fort Meade, Maryland, to include a generator plant capable
    of providing 60 megawatts of backup electrical power.
    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 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 2012 (division B
    of Public Law 112-81) for three projects until October 1, 2016,
    or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
    military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 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 2013 (division B
    of Public Law 112-239) for eight projects until October 1,
    2016, of the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for
    the military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is
    later.
    Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal
            year 2014 project (sec. 2407)
        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military
    Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
    of Public Law 113-66) for an ambulatory health center at Fort
    Knox, Kentucky, which was subsequently cancelled by the
    Department of Defense, by substituting authorization for a
    102,000 square foot medical clinic at the same location and
    extending the authority until October 1, 2018, or the date of
    the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
    construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. With the
    drawdown in military personnel at Fort Knox, the required level
    of medical support has been similarly reduced.
       TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
                                    PROGRAM

    Summary

        The Department of Defense requested authorization of
    appropriations of $120.0 million for military construction in
    fiscal year 2016 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    (NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends
    the requested amount.

    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 $120.0 million for the U.S. contribution to
    the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
    Program for fiscal year 2016.
                TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

    Summary
        The Department of Defense requested authorization of
    appropriations of $517.3 million for military construction in
    fiscal year 2016 for facilities for the National Guard and
    reserve components.
        The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
    $636.8 million for military construction in fiscal year 2016
    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 a tactical aerial unmanned
    systems hangar at Fort Stewart, Georgia; an equipment
    concentration point at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia; an access
    control point at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; an aviation
    classification and repair depot at Gulfport, Mississippi; a
    fire station/security complex at Dobbins, Georgia; a space
    control facility at Cape Canaveral, Florida; an F-22 composite
    repair facility at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii; a
    building modification for the KC-46 fuselage trainer at Pease,
    New Hampshire; operations and deployment facilities at Bradley
    Air National Guard Base, Connecticut; and a vehicle maintenance
    shop at Camp Foley, Alabama. The committee notes that these
    projects were identified as the top unfunded priorities of
    their respective service chiefs or the Chief of the National
    Guard Bureau. 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 2016. 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 2016. 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 2016. 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 2016. 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 2016. 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 2016 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 and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal
            year 2013 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 2013 (division B
    of Public Law 112-81) for construction of an Army Reserve
    Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to allow its
    construction in the vicinity at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The
    provision would also extend the authorization for this project
    until October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act
    authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
    2017, whichever is later.
    Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015
            projects (sec. 2612)
        The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
    authorizations contained in section 2604 and 2605 of the
    Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
    (division B of Public Law 113-291), for construction of a
    Guardian Angel Operations facility at Davis-Monthan Air Force
    Base, Arizona, and construction of a consolidated Secure
    Compartmented Information Facility at Fort Smith Municipal
    Airport, Arkansas to provide for increased costs associated
    with these projects.
    Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
            2613)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military
    Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
    of Public Law 112-81) for two projects until October 1, 2016,
    or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
    military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
    Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec.
            2614)
        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    authorization contained in sections 2601, 2602, and 2603 of the
    Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
    (division B of Public Law 112-239) for five projects until
    October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act
    authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
    2017, whichever is later.
              TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

    Summary and explanation of tables
        The budget request included $251.3 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 2016 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 bill, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.5 million
    for BRAC planning activities.
             TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

     Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
                                    Changes

    Authority for acceptance and use of contributions for certain mutually
            beneficial projects (sec. 2801)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    Subchapter II of Chapter 138 of title 10, United States Code,
    to authorize the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
    Secretary of State, to accept cash contributions from partner
    countries for the purpose of the payment of costs in connection
    with mutually beneficial construction, maintenance, and repair
    projects. Such projects would be required to support bilateral
    defense cooperation agreement, or otherwise benefit the United
    States, as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
    Change in authorities relating to scope of work variations for military
            construction projects (sec. 2802)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
    military service to increase the scope of a military
    construction project by up to 10 percent once the service
    secretary involved approves the increase and notifies the
    congressional defense committees of the increase and the
    reasons for it.
        The committee recognizes that there are valid reasons why
    the square footage of a facility might be appropriately
    increased as new electronic systems are incorporated, new
    security requirements are identified, or other needs emerge
    after authorization. Rather than requiring a delay in the
    project as new authority is sought, or sub-optimizing the
    project in order to avoid delays, the committee believes that
    the ability of a service to increase the scope by up to 10
    percent, subject to congressional notification and a waiting
    period of 14 days, is warranted.
    Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and
            maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas
            outside the United States (sec. 2803)
        The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize
    contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the
    United States for an additional year.
    Modification of reporting requirement on in-kind construction and
            renovation payments (sec. 2804)
        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report to the
    congressional defense committees on the in-kind construction
    and renovation payments received by the Department of Defense
    during the preceding fiscal year.
        The provision would also repeal the existing requirement
    for the Comptroller General to provide such a report.
    Lab modernization pilot program (sec. 2805)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated to the
    Department of Defense for research, development, test, and
    evaluation (RDT&E) for the construction of laboratory
    facilities at Department of Defense RDT&E installations. Such
    projects would be required to comply with section 2802 of title
    10, United States Code, be included in the President's budget
    submission, and be specifically appropriated for such purposes.
    Authorized facilities would also be required to support the
    science and technology requirements of more than one military
    department or agency, or a technology development program
    consistent with the technology offset program authorized
    elsewhere in this Act.
    Conveyance to Indian tribes of certain housing units (sec. 2806)
        The committee recommends a provision that would permit
    service secretaries to convey excess relocatable military
    housing units to certain Indian tribes, at no cost, and without
    consideration. The provision also provides a mechanism that
    would allow tribes to make requests to the military services.
    The recommended provision would expand the existing Air Force
    program for conveyance of relocatable military housing units
    enacted by section 2308 of the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and allows for
    conveyance of excess relocatable military housing units by
    other military services.

            Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

    Utility systems conveyance authority (sec. 2811)
        The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
    section 2688(j) of title 10, United States Code, to allow for
    conveyance of additional utility systems to an entity already
    operating other utility systems on a joint base if doing so
    would be in the best interest of the government and is
    supported by an independent cost estimate.
        The committee notes that there has been confusion about
    whether the definition of a utility system for the treatment of
    wastewater includes the treatment of stormwater. The committee
    believes, consistent with the Department of Defense's
    interpretation, that wastewater includes stormwater.
    Leasing of non-excess property of military departments and defense
            agencies; treatment of value provided by local education
            agencies and elementary and secondary schools (sec. 2812)
        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, by authorizing
    the Secretary concerned to lease non-excess property for
    consideration in an amount below fair market value if the lease
    is to a local education agency or an elementary or secondary
    school. This provision is intended to help local education
    agencies and schools that are providing support for military
    families.
    Modification of facility repair notification requirement (sec. 2813)
        The committee recommends a provision that would modify
    section 2811 of title 10, United States Code, by adding new
    congressional notifications for facility repair projects that
    are expected to cost more than 75 percent of the estimated cost
    of a military construction project to replace the facility or
    the facility is located at an overseas location that has not
    been designated a main operating base or forward operating
    site. These new reporting requirements would only apply to
    facility repair projects that are expected to cost more than
    $1.0 million.

    Increase of threshold of notice and wait requirement for certain
            facilities for reserve components and parity with authority for
            unspecified minor military construction and repair projects
            (sec. 2814)

        The committee recommends a provision that would modify
    section 18233a of title 10, United States Code, relating to
    unspecified minor military construction and repair of
    facilities for the reserve components to conform to sections
    2805 and 2811 of title 10, United States Code.

                          Subtitle C--Land Conveyances

    Release of reversionary interest retained as part of the conveyance to
            the economic development alliance of Jefferson County, Arkansas
            (sec. 2821)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
    terms of conveyance contained in section 2827 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 104-
    201) to allow the conveyance for other than the conditions
    contained in the section 2827, if the Economic Development
    Alliance pays fair market value for the property and the costs
    associated with conveyance are born by the Economic Development
    Alliance.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Kwajalein Atoll infrastructure

        The committee recognizes the unique and important nature of
    test facilities on the Kwajalein Atoll and appreciates the U.S.
    Army Installation Management Command's (IMCOM) Long-Term
    Management Plan for the Kwajalein Atoll, submitted to the
    committee on February 9, 2015. However, given the remote
    location and the difficult environmental conditions present on
    the atoll, the committee believes that continued vigilance and
    additional facilities investments will be necessary in future
    years to maintain required capabilities. Therefore, the
    committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the
    congressional defense committees an updated report on the
    IMCOM's infrastructure goals and an updated 5-year profile of
    planned facilities recapitalization for the Kwajalein Atoll
    with the fiscal year 2017 budget request and subsequent budget
    requests through fiscal year 2021. Furthermore, the committee
    notes that elsewhere in this Act, an additional $34.0 million
    has been provided to correct facilities sustainment,
    recapitalization, and maintenance deficiencies identified as an
    unfunded requirement by the Chief of Staff of the Army.

    Military construction delay report

        The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
    Law 111-117) included $10.7 million for the construction of a
    control tower at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Multiple
    contract problems have caused an unacceptable delay in the
    construction of the tower and although it was projected to be
    completed by fiscal year 2012, it is still not finished.
        The committee is concerned about mission and cost impacts
    caused by the delays associated with this project. Therefore,
    the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide
    a report to the congressional defense committees, not later
    than August 1, 2015, detailing the timeline from passage of the
    Fiscal Year 2010 Authorization and Appropriations Acts to the
    completion of the tower and an explanation of delays and cost
    increases associated with this project. The report should also
    include any remedial, legal, or disciplinary actions taken
    against contractors or others involved in the delays and cost
    issues and any lessons learned that could be applied to future
    projects.

    Military construction supporting major range and test facility bases

        The committee is concerned about the lack of investment and
    sustainment of Major Range and Test Facility Bases (MRTFB). The
    committee notes that in the last 5 years only seven Military
    Construction (MILCON) projects have been requested in direct
    support of test and evaluation missions at MRTFBs nationwide.
    In fact, some MRTFBs have not received a MILCON project in
    support of test and evaluation missions in over a decade. The
    committee is also aware that the Strategic Plan for Department
    of Defense Test & Evaluation (T&E) Resources from March 2013,
    noted, ``Due to age and outmoded technology, many test
    facilities are increasingly difficult to sustain and/or
    maintain. Obsolescence and deterioration contribute
    significantly to increased levels of maintenance, reductions in
    reliability, and an overall increase in operating costs.
    Services are under pressure to keep existing ground test
    facilities viable and relevant to meet immediate and forecasted
    needs. Across all services, there has been a downward trend in
    T&E MILCON appropriations to address ongoing maintenance,
    sustainment, and modernization needs of our T&E facilities.
    Further analysis is required (e.g., recapitalization rate) to
    provide a comprehensive assessment of MRTFB-only MILCON needs
    and investments.''
        The committee recognizes the difficult overall budget
    environment for MILCON, but notes that the Department of
    Defense's fiscal year 2016 budget request still only funds two
    additional MILCON projects in direct support of test and
    evaluation missions. The committee awaits the comprehensive
    assessment of MRTFB-only MILCON needs and investments, and
    urges the Department of Defense to ensure appropriate funding
    is requested to support current and projected future
    operations.

    Military training ranges for Special Operations Forces

        The committee notes that in the report submitted to
    Congress in response to section 344 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) on
    Training Range Infrastructure for Special Operations Forces,
    the Commander of United States Special Operations Command
    (SOCOM) noted that while SOCOM and the Services have worked
    together to greatly improve the access to and capabilities at
    training ranges used by Special Operations Forces (SOF),
    defense budget reductions have forced the military services to
    ``reduce or eliminate training range modernization and
    recapitalization programs and to reduce sustainment and
    operating funds.'' These budget reductions have a direct impact
    on training and overall readiness of SOF at a time of continued
    high operational tempo and evolving threats are stretching the
    ability of training ranges to support the unique training
    requirements of SOF.
        The committee receives annual updates from the Department
    of Defense (DOD) on the status of all test and training ranges
    through Sustainable Ranges Reports (SRR) to Congress, which
    summarizes the DOD's actions to ensure the long-term
    sustainability of its training ranges. The SRR responds to
    Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), which requires DOD
    to develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to
    address training constraints caused by limitations on the use
    of available military lands, marine areas, and airspace in the
    United States and overseas. While each service identifies in
    the report critical issues affecting the training of general
    purpose forces, the unique training requirements of SOF are
    rarely specifically addressed.
        The committee notes that in the December 2013 submission of
    the 2025 Air Test and Training Range Enhancement Plan, in
    response to section 343 of the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), the Air Force
    described efforts with SOCOM to transform the Melrose Military
    Range in New Mexico into a premier range supporting SOF and its
    intent to partner with SOCOM on future investments. However,
    the report does not satisfy the requirement of section 343 to
    submit a list of prioritized improvements and modernization of
    the facilities, equipment, and technology supporting the
    infrastructure in order to provide a test and training
    environment that accurately simulates and or portrays the full
    spectrum of threats and targets of likely United States
    adversaries in 2025 nor does it propose a list of prioritized
    projects, easements, acquisitions, or other actions, including
    estimated costs required to upgrade the test and training range
    infrastructure, taking into consideration the criteria set
    forth in the legislation.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
    to submit a report, not later than March 1, 2016, on a
    comprehensive range plan to include proposed investments over
    the next five years by the Air Force and SOCOM to address the
    training range requirements of Melrose Range. The report should
    describe requirements and proposed funding to maximize the
    available range training space and safety margins for air to
    ground integration training with other DOD and SOCOM
    components. The report should also describe any planned
    transition from basic bombing and gunnery to integrated air and
    ground training and any associated requirements for expansion
    of land or infrastructure at the range. The report should note
    the extent to which such requirements are addressed in the
    budget request for fiscal year 2017 and future years defense
    plan.
        The committee also strongly encourages the Secretary of
    Defense to include in future SRR reports to Congress a review
    of the general capabilities, critical issues, and future
    capabilities necessary for ranges supporting unique SOF
    training requirements.

    Redevelopment of the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant

        The committee is aware of ongoing efforts between the Army
    and the local reuse authority to finalize property conveyance
    at the inactivated Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP). This
    conveyance was authorized by the Strom Thurmond National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
    736) for the purpose of developing the site ``as an industrial
    park to replace all or part of the economic activity lost at
    the inactivated plant.'' In executing land transfers, the Army
    is obligated to fully comply with requirements of the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
    Liability Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-510) and the Resource
    Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-580). In
    return, the local reuse authority is obligated by statute to
    pay fair market value for conveyed property as determined by
    the Secretary in accordance with Federal appraisal standards
    and procedures. The committee expects both the Army and the
    local reuse authority to abide by the mutually-agreed terms of
    the Memorandum of Agreement governing the conveyance and to
    work in good faith to resolve environmental and liability
    concerns related to hazardous waste on the property. The
    committee further encourages the Army and the local reuse
    authority to expedite actions necessary to execute remaining
    conveyances in a timely fashion.

    Repair by replacement

        The committee is aware that some within the Department of
    Defense interpret section 2811 of title 10, United States Code,
    as providing authority to conduct ``repair by replacement'' or,
    in other words, replacement of an entire facility using
    operation and maintenance funds. However, the committee notes
    that section 2811 specifically prohibits the ``construction of
    new facilities or additions to existing facilities.'' Under
    this authority, replacement of a component of a complete and
    useable facility or system is allowable so long as it does not
    increase the capacity of the component or facility (unless to
    correct a life, safety, or code deficiency), but replacement of
    an entire facility is prohibited and should be accomplished via
    military construction.
        Given confusion within the Department regarding allowable
    activities under section 2811, the committee urges the
    Assistant Secretary of Defense Energy, Installations and
    Environment to review relevant written guidance memoranda and
    issue clarifications as necessary.

    Safe and suitable housing for junior enlisted servicemembers

        The committee believes that the services have a
    responsibility to provide safe and suitable housing for
    servicemembers--including junior enlisted personnel living in
    unaccompanied housing.
        The committee notes the unacceptable conditions of Building
    191 at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Building 191 violates current
    state and federal building and fire codes, does not have an
    operational fire suppression system, and features heating,
    ventilation, air conditioning, power distribution, and lighting
    systems that are at the end of their life cycle. The same
    barracks building does not have code compliant fresh air
    ventilation and there have been sewage failures, rodent
    problems, mold problems, and regular hot water failure.
        The committee believes junior enlisted sailors should not
    have to live in such conditions. The committee is concerned
    that the project to tear down Building 191--and replace it with
    a new Junior Enlisted Unaccompanied House (P-285)--was
    originally planned for fiscal year 2015 and has been postponed
    to fiscal year 2016 and then to fiscal year 2018. The committee
    believes it is difficult for the Navy to justify continued
    deferral of P-285, especially in light of some of the lower
    priority military construction projects in its FY 2016 request
    and given the unacceptable conditions found in Building 191 at
    Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
        In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the committee
    expects the Navy to request funding for P-285 or to justify why
    such a request is not a priority for the Navy.
     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
    2016, 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; (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 Pilot Plant (WIPP), and its projected initial
    operating date of March 2016, 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 Order 413.3, as well as obligations and
    expenditures of fiscal year 2015 funding. Such reporting shall
    be due within 30 days of the quarter for which it is reporting.
    The committee further requests the General Accountability
    Office 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 Government Accountability
    Office 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 agreements to be mutually agreed upon with a briefing to
    the committee due no later than February 28, 2016.

             Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

    National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
    total of $12.8 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal
    year 2015 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to
    carry out programs necessary to national security.
    Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    $5.1 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at
    the Department of Energy. The defense environmental cleanup
    activities support the 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
    $774.4 million for other defense activities for fiscal year
    2016, including funds for health, safety, and security, the
    Office of Legacy Management, and Nuclear Energy.

       Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

    Responsive capabilities program (sec. 3111)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
    (NNSA) to establish and carry out a program to exercise the
    technical capabilities of the NNSA with respect to design and
    production of nuclear weapons to ensure that NNSA is ready to
    respond to future uncertainties not addressed by existing life
    extension programs.
        The program shall be integrated across the science,
    engineering, design, and manufacturing cycle of the NNSA, and
    integrate physics, engineering, and production capabilities
    into joint test assemblies and designs. The program shall
    result in: (1) Physics models of components and systems,
    capable of being certified as safe and reliable in the absence
    of testing, and contribute to the predictive design framework;
    (2) shortened engineering design cycles that minimize the
    amount of time leading to an engineering prototype; and (3)
    rapid manufacturing capabilities to reduce the time and cost of
    production.
        In January 2015, the United States Strategic Command issued
    a report titled ``Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons
    Program.'' The report found that ``the nation requires an agile
    and capable infrastructure with requisite capacities able to
    respond to technical and geopolitical developments. Investments
    in processing and production infrastructure are needed to
    enhance the nation's ability to respond to uncertainty.
    Additionally, a full design and production capability is a
    critical component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.''
        The committee notes it is the view of the Director of the
    Sandia National Laboratory that we must ``engage in a long-term
    transformation of the approach to the design, development,
    qualification, and production of nuclear weapons. Lowering the
    cost, reducing the time to deploy, and being responsive to
    changing external threats will help assure we continue to meet
    the nation's needs into the future. The nature of the emerging
    threat itself provides another strategic reason for ensuring we
    are not surprised.'' Likewise, the Director of the Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory has told this committee that
    ``mission success depends on the laboratories' science and
    technology excellence and their ability to deliver innovative,
    cost-efficient solutions.''
        The committee authorizes $20.0 million in fiscal year 2016,
    identified elsewhere in the committee report, to commence a
    responsive capabilities program.

    Long-term plan for meeting national security requirements for
            unencumbered uranium (sec. 3112)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Energy to submit a plan, on even-numbered years,
    with the President's budget submission, for meeting the
    national security requirements for unencumbered uranium through
    2065. Unencumbered uranium is uranium for which the United
    States has no obligations to foreign governments to use uranium
    only for peaceful purposes. The committee remains concerned
    about accurately accounting for the inventory of existing
    unencumbered uranium that is allocated for national security
    purposes as well as future costs for any future production
    options being considered and policy options that could help
    offset such costs.

    Defense nuclear nonproliferation management plan (sec. 3113)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require in
    each odd numbered year that the Administrator, National Nuclear
    Security Administration (NNSA), submit a management plan of
    defense nuclear nonproliferation programs of the NNSA. Updates
    to this plan are required in each even numbered year.

    Plan for deactivation and decommissioning of nonoperational defense
            nuclear facilities (sec. 3114)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to perform a cost-benefit
    analysis of defense nuclear facilities requiring deactivation
    and decommissioning as to whether they should be kept in cold
    shutdown awaiting demolition, or accelerated to save long-term
    storage costs. The plan will be required beginning every even
    calendar year no later than March 31, 2016, and end after the
    fifth report submission on March 31, 2026. The committee is
    concerned about the large inventory of nonoperational buildings
    at active defense nuclear facilities, such as at the Y-12
    plant, some dating to the Manhattan Project, that continue to
    sit idle and must be continuously maintained in a safe
    condition by the National Nuclear Security Administration
    instead of being transferred to the Office of Environmental
    Management for demolition. The accelerated cleanup of the Rocky
    Flats plant saved the taxpayer billions of dollars. The
    committee expects the Department of Energy will take a similar
    approach with these facilities.

    Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant contract oversight
            (sec. 3115)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Energy to arrange to have an owner's agent assist
    the Secretary in carrying out oversight responsibilities
    associated with Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization
    Plant contract DE-AC27-01RV14136. Since the current contractor
    for the Waste Treatment Plant is its own design agent, the
    owner's design agent will act as an independent expert on the
    project.

    Assessment of emergency preparedness of defense nuclear facilities
            (sec. 3116)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Energy to include in each award-fee evaluation
    conducted of a management and operating contract for a
    Department of Energy defense nuclear facility in 2016, or any
    even-numbered year thereafter, an assessment of the adequacy of
    the emergency preparedness of that facility, including an
    assessment of the seniority level of employees and contractors
    of the Department of Energy that participate in emergency
    preparedness exercises at that facility.
        The committee is concerned that on September 3, 2014, the
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) issued a
    recommendation to the Department of Energy that it make
    specific improvements in its emergency management directive and
    strengthen the implementation of its emergency management
    requirements to ensure the continued protection of workers and
    the public. The DNFSB attributed observed problems to the
    absence of sound emergency preparedness and response programs
    at defense nuclear facilities. The committee notes that the
    Secretary of Energy accepted the recommendation on November 7,
    2014, and is in the process of developing an implementation
    plan to accomplish the improvements.

    Laboratory- and facility-directed research and development programs
            (sec. 3117)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 4811(c) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
    2791(c)) to strike the 6 percent upper bound for National
    Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons laboratory-
    directed research and development programs with a floor not to
    go below 5 percent and with an upper bound not to exceed 8
    percent. The committee recommends a similar provision
    recommended for NNSA weapons production facilities and the
    Nevada Site Office with an upper bound of 4 percent. These
    funds have served as the source of new innovations throughout
    the NNSA complex, keeping scientists and engineers at the
    cutting edge of technology, which translates into cost-saving
    innovations for the nation's stockpile program, with an ability
    to meet any future uncertainties that might arise. The funds
    are also used to attract young scientists and engineers to
    mentor under senior personnel to ensure there is a fresh talent
    pool coming into the NNSA complex on an enduring basis.

    Limitation on bonuses for employees of the National Nuclear Security
            Administration who engage in improper program management (sec.
            3118)

        The committee recommends a provision that would provide
    authority to the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
    Administration to withhold bonus payments to employees who
    engage in improper program management on the date such a
    determination is made.

    Modification of authorized personnel levels of the Office of the
            Administrator for Nuclear Security (sec. 3119)

        The committee recommends a provision that permits the
    Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
    (NNSA) to hire above the statutory limit of 1,690 full-time
    positions using up to 100 exempt employees hired under section
    3241 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50
    U.S.C section 2441). The committee recognizes the need of the
    NNSA to hire positions that are unique to the Administration in
    areas such as cost evaluation, program management, science and
    engineering, and encourages the Administrator to use exempt
    hiring to bring new expertise into the NNSA.

    Modification of submission of assessments of certain budget requests
            relating to the nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3120)

        The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
    Government Accountability Office's (GAO) annual reporting
    deadline for reviewing the budget of the National Nuclear
    Security Administration (NNSA) weapons program from 90 days to
    150 days in odd-numbered years when NNSA is required to submit
    a detailed Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan (SSMP).
        Each fiscal year, section 3113 of the Ike Skelton National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
    383), requires GAO to report not later than 90 days after NNSA
    submits its nuclear security budget material to Congress on an
    assessment of whether the budget materials provide sufficient
    funding for the modernization of the nuclear security
    enterprise. GAO reviews budgetary materials that include the
    SSMP, which NNSA is required to develop in consultation with
    the Department of Defense. GAO would be required to submit a
    detailed report in odd-numbered years and a summary in even-
    numbered years. However, for the odd-numbered years, NNSA's
    detailed SSMP is frequently issued 60 days after the agency
    issues its nuclear security budget materials. This delay
    significantly reduces GAO's time to review detailed SSMP
    information and still meet the 90-day statutory reporting
    deadline.

    Repeal of phase three review of certain defense environmental cleanup
            projects (sec. 3121)

        The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
    phase three of section 3134 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) as
    the Government Accountability Office has reported on all phases
    of this project.

    Modifications to cost-benefit analysis for competition of management
            and operating contracts (sec. 3122)

        The committee recommends a provision that would amend
    section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to make technical
    corrections to increase the utility of reports on competition
    for management and operating contracts at facilities of the
    National Nuclear Security Administration and change the timing
    of the Government Accountability Office's review to assess
    whether estimated cost savings and other benefits are actually
    occurring as planned.

    Review of implementation of recommendations of the Congressional
            Advisory Panel on the governance of the Nuclear Security
            Enterprise (sec. 3123)

        The committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
    to enter into agreements with the National Academy of Sciences
    and the National Academy of Pubic Administration to assess
    implementation of recommendations of the Congressional Advisory
    Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise that
    can be carried out without additional legislation. In addition
    to monitoring implementation, the agreement should specify that
    the two entities should determine whether the implementation
    was effective in addressing the problem it was intended to
    solve. The agreement shall utilize the procedures of the
    National Academies in reviewing and publishing the joint
    report.

                                  Budget Items

    Defense Environmental Cleanup, Los Alamos National Laboratory

        The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to
    the Department of Energy Defense Environmental Clean-up account
    to accelerate the cleanup of transuranic waste at the Los
    Alamos National Laboratory, and in particular to enhance the
    ability to sort, track and re-package transuranic waste drums.
    These actions are needed to avoid future preventable incidents
    associated with the Los Alamos drum that underwent an
    exothermic reaction at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

    Deferred Maintenance

        The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
    Administration (NNSA) contained $257.7 million for
    Recapitalization and $227.0 million for Maintenance.
    Respectively, these programs fund day-to-day preventative or
    corrective maintenance activities and efforts to reduce the
    large backlog of deferred maintenance across the nuclear
    security enterprise. Fiscal Year 2016 budget justification
    materials submitted by NNSA note that NNSA's deferred
    maintenance backlog is over $3.6 billion and growing.
        The committee is encouraged that the Administrator and the
    Secretary have taken steps to stop the growth in the backlog of
    deferred maintenance, but believes more must be done to
    actually decrease the total amount of the backlog. Therefore,
    the committee recommends $407.7 million for Recapitalization,
    an increase of $150.0 million to the budget request.

    Enhanced surveillance

        The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to
    the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Weapons
    Account, Engineering, Enhanced Surveillance. This program
    provides important models and tools used to predict the aging
    of nuclear weapons systems, which is of importance to combatant
    commanders and the Nuclear Weapons Council in determining
    whether a life-extension program will be required.

    Plutonium disposition program

        The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to struggle with
    its plutonium disposition program, the intent of which is for
    the United States and Russia to each dispose of 34 metric tons
    of surplus weapons-grade plutonium--an agreement between the
    two countries was signed in 2000 and updated in 2011. The
    existing strategy is based on constructing a facility to
    fabricate mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel and irradiating this
    fuel in specially-modified commercial nuclear reactors. Once
    used and removed from a reactor, the plutonium can no longer be
    readily used to make a nuclear weapon.
        In 2013, in light of the cost increases and the current
    budget environment associated with the MOX facility and the
    overall Plutonium Disposition program, DOE's fiscal year 2014
    budget request stated that the strategy for converting
    plutonium to MOX fuel may be much higher than initially
    anticipated. The budget request announced that, as a result of
    these projected cost increases, the National Nuclear Security
    Administration (NNSA) would slow down activities associated
    with the current plutonium disposition strategy and conduct an
    analysis of alternatives to complete the mission more
    efficiently.
        In April 2014, DOE released its analysis of the existing
    MOX strategy and four other alternatives including downblending
    the 34 metric tons and disposing this material at DOE's Waste
    Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), or at a new repository that would
    need to be constructed if WIPP could not be modified to dispose
    of this downblended material. The April 2014 analysis found
    that the downblending option was significantly less expensive
    than the other four alternatives examined.
        An April 2015 independent analysis conducted by the
    Aerospace Corporation of the lifecycle costs associated with
    the MOX and downblended options also concluded that the
    downblending option was significantly less expensive than the
    MOX option. Although cost is a factor in considering
    disposition strategies, it is important to note that the only
    option that meets the requirements outlined in the Plutonium
    Management and Disposition Act PMDA, signed by the United
    States and Russia, is MOX. All other alternatives would not
    only require that we renegotiate the PMDA with Russia, but will
    likely also require statutory and regulatory changes that could
    cause additional delay.
        The committee is concerned, however, that these analyses
    inadequately assessed the technical, regulatory, and political
    feasibility of the downblending option. To address these
    inadequacies, the committee directs NNSA to prepare an analysis
    of the downblending option that includes answers to the
    following questions:
              (1) What is the capital cost, operating and
            maintenance cost, other program costs, and overall
            lifecycle costs associated with the optimal
            downblending strategy?
              (2) What is the existing subscribed capacity at WIPP
            and how would DOE accommodate the volume of downblended
            material from the 34 metric tons from the plutonium
            disposition program? Since WIPP is currently not
            accepting transuranic waste as a result of the February
            2014 accident, and thus created a backlog of waste that
            is being temporarily stored at multiple sites, when
            would the first shipment of plutonium be transported to
            WIPP if this option was selected? What costs are
            associated with this delay?
              (3) Would the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act need to be
            modified to accommodate this additional volume? If yes,
            how long with this likely take to complete? What, if
            any, costs are associated with this delay?
              (4) Are there statutory changes or other regulations
            that would need to be modified to support the
            downblending option? If so, how long would it take to
            change these regulations and what are the associated
            costs?
              (5) Would a new geologic repository be needed to
            accommodate all or some of this additional volume? If
            so, what would be the potential cost and schedule of
            siting, constructing, and operating such a repository?
            By way of comparison, what was the capital cost of
            constructing WIPP?
              (6) What is the optimal blending of weapons-grade
            plutonium with inert material to maximize space in a
            repository?
              (7) How might the percentage of plutonium in
            containers of downblended material affect the security
            requirements associated with transporting the material
            to a repository, the security requirements at the
            repository, and the ability of international monitors
            to monitor the downblended material in a repository?
              (8) What are the nonproliferation and arms control
            concerns associated with disposing of weapons-grade
            plutonium in containers that lack a radioactive barrier
            in a repository?
              (9) Would the PMDA need to be renegotiated if MOX was
            no longer the preferred option for the United States to
            dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium? What are the
            concerns associated with this action?
              (10) What are the technical impediments to
            downblending weapons-grade plutonium from pit and non-
            pit sources?
              (11) What are the views of the US Environmental
            Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
            and State of New Mexico in pursuing a downblend
            strategy?
        The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $345.0 million
    in Nonproliferation Construction for the MOX Fuel Fabrication
    Facility (MFFF). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
    million for Nonproliferation Construction to support analysis
    of the downblending alternative. The committee requests that
    all cost analyses conducted as part of this analysis follow the
    best practice guidance of the Government Accountability
    Office's (GAO) Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.
        The committee requests the Department of Energy to conduct
    a two-step analysis of alternative uses for the MOX Fuel
    Fabrication Facility (MFFF) should an alternative plutonium
    disposition strategy be adopted and this facility were no
    longer needed for this purpose. To preserve the long-term
    mission for the Savannah River Site, (1) identify potential
    long-term mission needs at the Savannah River Site over the
    next 30 to 50 years, and (2) using best practices identified by
    the GAO, conduct an analysis of alternatives to identify how
    these mission needs could be met by using the MOX Fuel
    Fabrication Facility.
        The analysis for the downblending option and the
    alternatives to using the MFFF shall be due to the
    congressional defense committees no later than October 31,
    2015. The committee directs the Government Accountability
    Office to review the NNSA analysis as outlined in this section
    with a report to the congressional defense committees no later
    than 30 days after receipt of the NNSA analysis.

    Responsive capabilities program

        The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in
    fiscal year 2016 to support the establishment of a new
    responsive capabilities program within the National Nuclear
    Security Administration (NNSA). Elsewhere in this bill, the
    committee recommends a provision that would require the
    Administrator of the NNSA to establish and carry out a program
    to exercise the technical capabilities of the NNSA with respect
    to design and production of nuclear weapons to ensure that NNSA
    is ready to respond to future uncertainties not addressed by
    existing life-extension programs.
        The program shall be integrated across the science,
    engineering, design, and manufacturing cycle of the NNSA, and
    integrate physics, engineering, and production capabilities
    into joint test assemblies and designs. The program shall
    result in: (1) physics models of components and systems,
    capable of being certified as safe and reliable in the absence
    of testing, and contribute to the predictive design framework;
    (2) shortened engineering design cycles that minimize the
    amount of time leading to an engineering prototype; and (3)
    rapid manufacturing capabilities to reduce the time and cost of
    production.

    Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund

        The committee notes that a legislative assumption
    accompanies the budget request of $471.8 million for the
    uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, to
    reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002
    (Public Law 102-48, 42 U.S.C. 2297g) for matching industry
    contributions. As in fiscal year 2015, this legislation was not
    reauthorized and the committee assumes it will not be
    reauthorized again this year. Accordingly, the committee
    recommends a decrease of $471.8 million.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Ability of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to communicate
            with the Secretary of Energy

        Section 312 of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended, (42
    U.S.C. 2268a) says in part ``Mission--The mission of the Board
    shall be to provide independent analysis, advice and
    recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to inform the
    Secretary in the role of operator and regulator of defense
    nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy, in providing
    adequate protection of public health and safety at such defense
    nuclear facilities.'' Due to the recent reorganization of the
    Department to form an Office of the Undersecretary for
    Management and Performance, the Defense Nuclear Facilities
    Safety Board (DNFSB) no longer reports directly to the
    Secretary of Energy. It has been lowered within this relatively
    new organization to the Associate Under Secretary for
    Environment, Health, Safety and Security. This re-organization
    leaves the committee with the impression that the Department is
    not adhering to the statutory language (as found in section
    312), and intent of the DNFSB organization act, and that is to
    report to the Secretary of Energy on matters concerning the
    adequate protection of the public health and safety of defense
    nuclear facilities.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to report to
    the congressional defense committees no later than February 28,
    2016 on actions the Secretary will or has taken to ensure that
    the DNFSB has the ability to interact with, and report to the
    Secretary of Energy (as found in section 312 of the DNFSB
    organization act) on matters involving adequate protection of
    the public health and safety of defense nuclear facilities.

    Interoperable Warhead--1

        The committee recognizes that future life extension
    programs for U.S. nuclear weapons components and stockpile
    systems, such as the Interoperable Warhead--1 (IW-1), will face
    technical challenges. Maintaining readiness to meet these
    challenges during the 5 year delay of the IW-1 program, which
    will develop the first interoperable nuclear packages for both
    Air Force and Navy ballistic missile systems under the Nuclear
    Weapons Council's ``3+2'' strategy, is important for future
    confidence in the nation's nuclear deterrent. Technical
    capabilities essential to our nuclear readiness reside in the
    National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) national
    laboratories and production and testing organizations; they
    comprise areas of nuclear design and engineering, advanced
    simulation and experimentation, science, surveillance, and
    production.
        Technical questions concerning IW-1 need to be understood
    and addressed. Integration of the IW-1 nuclear package into
    different Air Force and Navy missiles with different space,
    weight, and operational requirements, while assuring the
    accuracy of warhead delivery in both systems, could be
    problematic. This and other concerns will also pertain to
    future life-extension programs beyond IW-1. For example, the
    goal to enhance surety of stockpile systems increases technical
    challenges. Optimizing system design to best meet requirements
    involves technical trade studies, presently incomplete for the
    IW-1, that draw on all nuclear capabilities listed above to
    ensure component and weapon system certification. Other
    difficult technical questions surround pit reuse, which may
    become a key ingredient of life extension programs in the
    future. In addition to drawing on nuclear design, simulation,
    experimental validation capabilities, trade studies concerning
    pit reuse will involve pit production capability and capacity
    issues.
        The committee feels strongly that maintaining the readiness
    of scientists, engineers and production staff by challenging
    them to address these and other crucial technical issues during
    the 5-year delay of the IW-1 program will be essential to this
    and other stockpile life extension programs.

    Lithium supply and demand

        The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
    Administration shall report to the congressional defense
    committees no later than February 28, 2016 on the supply and
    demand for lithium to be used on weapons production through
    2045.

    Microlab Technology Transfer

        The committee is aware that directors of national
    laboratories, as well as a Brookings Institution study, have
    recognized that most national laboratories are located outside
    of major metropolitan areas, and most lab research occurs
    ``behind the fence'' of main campuses, inaccessible to the
    public. The study recommends establishing off-campus microlabs
    that would serve as the ``front-door'' to national laboratories
    to give academia, local government, businesses owners, and
    communities direct access to the equipment, facilities, and
    personnel of national labs.
        The committee therefore directs the Administrator to work
    with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) lab
    directors to develop a plan for a ``microlab'' program in order
    to accelerate technology transfer from NNSA national
    laboratories, weapons production plants and facilities operated
    by the Nevada Site Office to private industry. The committee
    expects the Administrator to include an estimate of the
    associated costs, need, and benefit for establishing a microlab
    at a facility, and require cost-sharing from academia, local
    government, and private industry. The committee encourages the
    Administrator to work with the Department of Energy's Office of
    Technology Transitions and consider utilizing funds under the
    statutorily created Energy Technology Commercialization Fund
    (TCF) to help establish the federal share of establishing a
    microlab. The committee directs NNSA to brief the congressional
    defense committees on the plan no later than September 31,
    2015.

    Report on program management at the National Nuclear Security
            Administration

        The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
    States to report to the congressional defense committees no
    later than February 28th, 2016, on the program management
    capabilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration
    (NNSA).
        The NNSA is organized into program offices to manage a wide
    variety of programs and relies on federal program and project
    managers as well as contracting officers to ensure that
    resources are used effectively and that programs and projects
    achieve their missions on time and on budget. The committee
    believes that these officials should also be held accountable
    when resources are not used effectively, programs or projects
    do not achieve their missions on time or on budget, or when
    programs or projects experience other types of management
    challenges.
        A number of NNSA programs and projects have suffered
    significant delays and cost overruns or other forms of
    mismanagement that raise questions about how these managers
    interact, coordinate, and are held accountable. For example,
    the Government Accountability Office's 2015 high-risk report
    indicated that the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
    Replacement project, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility,
    and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) have all suffered
    extensive cost growth and schedule delays. In addition, the
    NNSA created a program manager position for NNSA's uranium
    program after a peer review of the UPF project found, among
    other things, that the program lacked a firm requirement in
    terms of how much uranium is needed by the program over the
    next 20 years.
        In light of these past incidents, the report shall examine:
    (1) the extent to which NNSA's programs and projects have
    program or project managers; (2) the technical qualifications
    and training required to become an NNSA program manager,
    project manager, or contracting officer and the extent to which
    those currently holding these positions meet those
    requirements; (3) the extent to which NNSA has clearly defined
    roles and responsibilities for its program managers, project
    managers, and contracting officers; and (4) the mechanisms in
    place to hold responsible officials accountable for program and
    project performance, and the extent to which NNSA has used
    these mechanisms.
              TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

    Authorization for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201)
        The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
    the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $29.2 million.

                           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.
    Clarification of applicability of undistributed reductions of certain
            operation and maintenance funding among all operation and
            maintenance funding (sec. 4002)
        The committee recommends a provision that clarifies that
    the undistributed reductions in funding for operation and
    maintenance due to bulk fuel purchases and foreign currency
    fluctuations, as shown in table 4301, can be applied to all
    operation and maintenance funding, regardless if funding is
    available in table 4301 or table 4302.
    Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701)
        The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item
    guidance for the funding authorized in this Act. The provisions
    display the line-item funding requested by the administration
    in the fiscal year 2016 budget request and show where the
    committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
        The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
    amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from
    the administration request, as set forth in budget
    justification documents of the Department of Defense, without a
    reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
        SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                             SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
                                                (In Thousands of Dollars)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          FY 2016                         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......................................      5,689,357          26,000       5,715,357
    MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY.......................................      1,419,957         190,000       1,609,957
    PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY......................................      1,887,073          70,611       1,957,684
    PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY.................................      1,233,378         -10,952       1,222,426
    OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY.........................................      5,899,028        -358,000       5,541,028
    AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................     16,126,405       2,346,700      18,473,105
    WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY.......................................      3,154,154          48,668       3,202,822
    PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC..................................        723,741                         723,741
    SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY...............................     16,597,457       1,656,000      18,253,457
    OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY.........................................      6,614,715         -13,400       6,601,315
    PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS.......................................      1,131,418         107,885       1,239,303
    AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................     15,657,769         814,944      16,472,713
    MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE..................................      2,987,045                       2,987,045
    SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE....................................      2,584,061        -288,569       2,295,492
    PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................      1,758,843          38,500       1,797,343
    OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE....................................     18,272,438          41,146      18,313,584
    PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE.......................................      5,130,853         210,651       5,341,504
    JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND.............................         99,701                          99,701
    SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT..................................    106,967,393       4,880,184     111,847,577

    TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................      6,924,959          91,668       7,016,627
    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................     17,885,916          41,292      17,927,208
    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF..........................     26,473,669        -533,490      25,940,179
    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW..........................     18,329,861       1,507,207      19,837,068
    OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE................................        170,558                         170,558
    SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION..     69,784,963       1,106,677      70,891,640

    TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY...................................     35,107,546      -8,233,294      26,874,252
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES...............................      2,665,792          18,789       2,684,581
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG...................................      6,717,977          19,119       6,737,096
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY...................................     42,200,756     -16,810,316      25,390,440
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS...........................      6,228,782      -1,931,024       4,297,758
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES...............................      1,001,758         -41,086         960,672
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.............................        277,036          -2,473         274,563
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE..............................     38,191,929     -14,242,964      23,948,965
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.............................      3,064,257        -103,216       2,961,041
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG....................................      6,956,210        -120,815       6,835,395
    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.........................     32,440,843        -998,802      31,442,041
    MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....................................      1,664,342                       1,664,342
    SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..................    176,517,228     -42,446,082     134,071,146

    TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
    Military Personnel Appropriations...............................    130,491,227      -1,254,500     129,236,727
    Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions.............      6,243,449                       6,243,449
    SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL..........................    136,734,676      -1,254,500     135,480,176

    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
    WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY......................................         50,432                          50,432
    WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.................................         62,898                          62,898
    WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..............................         45,084                          45,084
    WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA......................................      1,154,154                       1,154,154
    NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND...................................        474,164                         474,164
    CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.............................        720,721                         720,721
    DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF....................        850,598          30,000         880,598
    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................................        316,159          -3,600         312,559
    DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM..........................................     32,243,328         -52,940      32,190,388
    SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................     35,917,538         -26,540      35,890,998

    TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.........    525,921,798     -37,740,261     488,181,537

    DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
    ARMY............................................................        743,245         -21,500         721,745
    NAVY............................................................      1,605,929          59,360       1,665,289
    AIR FORCE.......................................................      1,354,785          11,400       1,366,185
    DEFENSE-WIDE....................................................      2,300,767        -169,700       2,131,067
    ARMY NATIONAL GUARD.............................................        197,237          51,300         248,537
    AIR NATIONAL GUARD..............................................        123,538          23,600         147,138
    ARMY RESERVE....................................................        113,595          34,200         147,795
    NAVY RESERVE....................................................         36,078                          36,078
    AIR FORCE RESERVE...............................................         46,821          10,400          57,221
    NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM................................        120,000                         120,000
    SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.................................      6,641,995            -940       6,641,055

    FAMILY HOUSING
    CONSTRUCTION, ARMY..............................................         99,695                          99,695
    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY.................................        393,511                         393,511
    CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.............................         16,541                          16,541
    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS................        353,036                         353,036
    CONSTURCTION, AIR FORCE.........................................        160,498                         160,498
    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............................        331,232                         331,232
    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.........................         58,668                          58,668
    SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING........................................      1,413,181                       1,413,181

    BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
    ARMY............................................................         29,691                          29,691
    NAVY............................................................        157,088                         157,088
    AIR FORCE.......................................................         64,555                          64,555
    SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE..........................        251,334                         251,334

    TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.........      8,306,510            -940       8,305,570

    TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051).    534,228,308     -37,741,201     496,487,107

                                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..................................................        135,161                         135,161
    SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS.......................................        135,161                         135,161

    NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
    WEAPONS ACTIVITIES..............................................      8,846,948         180,000       9,026,948
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION................................      1,940,302           5,000       1,945,302
    NAVAL REACTORS..................................................      1,375,496                       1,375,496
    FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES...................................        402,654                         402,654
    SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..............     12,565,400         185,000      12,750,400

    ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
    DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP...................................      5,527,347        -451,797       5,075,550
    OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................................        774,425                         774,425
    SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES............      6,301,772        -451,797       5,849,975

    SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS...................     19,002,333        -266,797      18,735,536

    TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND        19,002,333        -266,797      18,735,536
     INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS......................

    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)......     19,002,333        -266,797      18,735,536

    TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST............    553,230,641     -38,007,998     515,222,643

                                           NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST

                                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)

    PROCUREMENT
    AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY......................................        164,987                         164,987
    MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY.......................................         37,260                          37,260
    PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY......................................         26,030                          26,030
    PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY.................................        192,040                         192,040
    OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY.........................................      1,205,596                       1,205,596
    JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND............................        493,271         -48,271         445,000
    AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................        217,394                         217,394
    WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY.......................................          3,344                           3,344
    PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC..................................        136,930                         136,930
    OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY.........................................         12,186                          12,186
    PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS.......................................         48,934                          48,934
    AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................        128,900                         128,900
    MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE..................................        289,142                         289,142
    PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................        228,874                         228,874
    OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE....................................      3,859,964                       3,859,964
    PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE.......................................        212,418                         212,418
    SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT...........................................      7,257,270         -48,271       7,208,999

    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................          1,500                           1,500
    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................         35,747                          35,747
    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF..........................         17,100                          17,100
    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW..........................        137,087                         137,087
    SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION............        191,434                         191,434

    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY...................................     11,382,750       7,616,786      18,999,536
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES...............................         24,559                          24,559
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG...................................         60,845                          60,845
    AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND................................      3,762,257                       3,762,257
    IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.......................................        715,000                         715,000
    SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND......................................        600,000                         600,000
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY...................................      5,131,588      16,106,810      21,238,398
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS...........................        952,534       1,862,836       2,815,370
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES...............................         31,643                          31,643
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.............................          3,455                           3,455
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE..............................      9,090,013      13,312,681      22,402,694
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.............................         58,106                          58,106
    OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG....................................         19,900                          19,900
    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.........................      5,805,633        -100,000       5,705,633
    SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................     37,638,283      38,799,113      76,437,396

    MILITARY PERSONNEL
    MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS...............................      3,204,758                       3,204,758
    SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL....................................      3,204,758                       3,204,758

    OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
    WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.................................          2,500                           2,500
    WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..............................         86,350                          86,350
    DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF....................        186,000                         186,000
    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................................         10,262                          10,262
    DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM..........................................        272,704                         272,704
    COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND..............................      2,100,000      -1,100,000       1,000,000
    UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE..........................              0         300,000         300,000
    SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................      2,657,816        -800,000       1,857,816

    TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO BUDGET REQUEST     50,949,561      37,950,842      88,900,403

    TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050)...................    604,180,202         -57,156     604,123,046

    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]                     [4,500,000]
    TITLE XV--SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY............................     [3,500,000]                     [4,000,000]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

                  NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
                            (In Thousands of Dollars)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       FY 2016       Senate        Senate
                                       Request       Change      Authorized
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
                            ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

    NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-           534,228,308   -37,741,201   496,487,107
     MILITARY, BASE BUDGET (051)..
    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE             19,002,333      -266,797    18,735,536
     ACTIVITIES (053).............
    OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY              50,949,561    37,950,842    88,900,403
     OPERATIONS...................
    TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050).   604,180,202       -57,156   604,123,046

         OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE
       JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE OR ALREADY AUTHORIZED

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
    DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT                47,000                      47,000
     PURCHASES....................
    INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL           6,000                       6,000
     OF DOD REAL PROPERTY.........
    INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF          35,000                      35,000
     DOD REAL PROPERTY............
    SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF               88,000                      88,000
     DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).......

    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
    FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES              104,000                     104,000
     REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM......
    SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY              104,000                     104,000
     DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).....

    DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
    OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS..     7,545,000                   7,545,000
    SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED          7,545,000                   7,545,000
     ACTIVITIES (054).............

    TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE               7,737,000                   7,737,000
     DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS
     (050)........................

                 DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)

    NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050)
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--          585,265,869       209,641   585,475,510
     MILITARY (051)...............
    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE             19,106,333      -266,797    18,839,536
     ACTIVITIES (053).............
    DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES         7,545,000                   7,545,000
     (054)........................
    TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET      611,917,202       -57,156   611,860,046
     AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 050...

         NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE)

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
    CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL         6,932,000                   6,932,000
     PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY
     RETIREMENT FUND..............
    REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD     1,135,000                   1,135,000
     MANDATORY....................
    OFFSETTING RECEIPTS...........    -1,593,000                  -1,593,000
    SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF            6,474,000                   6,474,000
     DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).......

    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
    ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL      1,168,000                   1,168,000
     ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
     AND OTHER....................
    SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY            1,168,000                   1,168,000
     DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).....

    DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
    RADIATION EXPOSURE                    59,000                      59,000
     COMPENSATION TRUST FUND......
    PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND       514,000                     514,000
     AND OTHER....................
    SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED            573,000                     573,000
     ACTIVITIES (054).............

    TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE            8,215,000                   8,215,000
     MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050).....

          DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)

    DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--          591,739,869       209,641   591,949,510
     MILITARY (051)...............
    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE             20,274,333      -266,797    20,007,536
     ACTIVITIES (053).............
    DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES         8,118,000                   8,118,000
     (054)........................
    TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY          620,132,202       -57,156   620,075,046
     IMPLICATION (050)............
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

    TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

    SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT  (In Thousands of Dollars)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       FY 2016 Request              Senate Change              Senate Authorized
     Line           Item        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Qty          Cost           Qty           Cost           Qty          Cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            AIRCRAFT
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY
            FIXED WING
        2   UTILITY F/W                   0             879                                        0             879
             AIRCRAFT..........
        4   MQ-1 UAV...........          15         260,436                                       15         260,436
            ROTARY
        6   HELICOPTER, LIGHT            28         187,177                                       28         187,177
             UTILITY (LUH).....
        7   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK           64       1,168,461                                       64       1,168,461
             IIIA REMAN........
        8   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK            0         209,930                                        0         209,930
             IIIA REMAN (AP)...
       11   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M            94       1,435,945                                       94       1,435,945
             MODEL (MYP).......
       12   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M             0         127,079                                        0         127,079
             MODEL (MYP) (AP)..
       13   UH-60 BLACK HAWK A           40          46,641                                       40          46,641
             AND L MODELS......
       14   CH-47 HELICOPTER...          39       1,024,587                                       39       1,024,587
       15   CH-47 HELICOPTER              0          99,344                                        0          99,344
             (AP)..............
            MODIFICATION OF
             AIRCRAFT
       16   MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP).           0          97,543                                        0          97,543
       19   MULTI SENSOR ABN              0          95,725                                        0          95,725
             RECON (MIP).......
       20   AH-64 MODS.........           0         116,153                                        0         116,153
       21   CH-47 CARGO                   0          86,330                                        0          86,330
             HELICOPTER MODS
             (MYP).............
       22   GRCS SEMA MODS                0           4,019                                        0           4,019
             (MIP).............
       23   ARL SEMA MODS (MIP)           0          16,302                                        0          16,302
       24   EMARSS SEMA MODS              0          13,669                                        0          13,669
             (MIP).............
       25   UTILITY/CARGO                 0          16,166                                        0          16,166
             AIRPLANE MODS.....
       26   UTILITY HELICOPTER            0          13,793                                        0          13,793
             MODS..............
       28   NETWORK AND MISSION           0         112,807                                        0         112,807
             PLAN..............
       29   COMMS, NAV                    0          82,904                                        0          82,904
             SURVEILLANCE......
       30   GATM ROLLUP........           0          33,890                                        0          33,890
       31   RQ-7 UAV MODS......           0          81,444                                        0          81,444
            GROUND SUPPORT
             AVIONICS
       32   AIRCRAFT                      0          56,215                                        0          56,215
             SURVIVABILITY
             EQUIPMENT.........
       33   SURVIVABILITY CM...           0           8,917                                        0           8,917
       34   CMWS...............           0          78,348                      26,000            0         104,348
              Army UPL for AH-                                                  [26,000]
               64 ASE: urgent
               survivability
               requirement.....
            OTHER SUPPORT
       35   AVIONICS SUPPORT              0           6,937                                        0           6,937
             EQUIPMENT.........
       36   COMMON GROUND                 0          64,867                                        0          64,867
             EQUIPMENT.........
       37   AIRCREW INTEGRATED            0          44,085                                        0          44,085
             SYSTEMS...........
       38   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL           0          94,545                                        0          94,545
       39   INDUSTRIAL                    0           1,207                                        0           1,207
             FACILITIES........
       40   LAUNCHER, 2.75                0           3,012                                        0           3,012
             ROCKET............

            TOTAL AIRCRAFT              280       5,689,357                      26,000          280       5,715,357
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

            MISSILE
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY
            SURFACE-TO-AIR
             MISSILE SYSTEM
        1   LOWER TIER AIR AND            0         115,075                                        0         115,075
             MISSILE DEFENSE
             (AMD).............
        2   MSE MISSILE........                     414,946                     200,000           80         614,946
              Army UPL for               80                                    [200,000]
               Patriot PAC 3
               for improved
               ballistic
               missile defense.
            AIR-TO-SURFACE
             MISSILE SYSTEM
        3   HELLFIRE SYS                113          27,975                                      113          27,975
             SUMMARY...........
        4   JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND           0          27,738                                        0          27,738
             MSLS (JAGM).......
            ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
             MISSILE SYS
        5   JAVELIN (AAWS-M)            331          77,163                                      331          77,163
             SYSTEM SUMMARY....
        6   TOW 2 SYSTEM              1,704          87,525                                    1,704          87,525
             SUMMARY...........
        8   GUIDED MLRS ROCKET        1,668         251,060                                    1,668         251,060
             (GMLRS)...........
        9   MLRS REDUCED RANGE        3,121          17,428                                    3,121          17,428
             PRACTICE ROCKETS
             (RRPR)............
            MODIFICATIONS
       11   PATRIOT MODS.......           0         241,883                                        0         241,883
       12   ATACMS MODS........                      30,119                     -10,000            0          20,119
              Early to need....           0                                    [-10,000]
       13   GMLRS MOD..........           0          18,221                                        0          18,221
       14   STINGER MODS.......           0           2,216                                        0           2,216
       15   AVENGER MODS.......           0           6,171                                        0           6,171
       16   ITAS/TOW MODS......           0          19,576                                        0          19,576
       17   MLRS MODS..........           0          35,970                                        0          35,970
       18   HIMARS                        0           3,148                                        0           3,148
             MODIFICATIONS.....
            SPARES AND REPAIR
             PARTS
       19   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          33,778                                        0          33,778
             PARTS.............
            SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
             FACILITIES
       20   AIR DEFENSE TARGETS           0           3,717                                        0           3,717
       21   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           1,544                                        0           1,544
             $5.0M (MISSILES)..
       22   PRODUCTION BASE               0           4,704                                        0           4,704
             SUPPORT...........

            TOTAL MISSILE             7,017       1,419,957                     190,000        7,017       1,609,957
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

            PROCUREMENT OF
             W&TCV, ARMY
            TRACKED COMBAT
             VEHICLES
        1   STRYKER VEHICLE....           0         181,245                                        0         181,245
            MODIFICATION OF
             TRACKED COMBAT
             VEHICLES
        2   STRYKER (MOD)......           0          74,085                                        0          74,085
        3   STRYKER UPGRADE....          62         305,743                                       62         305,743
        5   BRADLEY PROGRAM               0         225,042                                        0         225,042
             (MOD).............
        6   HOWITZER, MED SP FT           0          60,079                                        0          60,079
             155MM M109A6 (MOD)
        7   PALADIN INTEGRATED           30         273,850                                       30         273,850
             MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
        8   IMPROVED RECOVERY                       123,629                      72,000           31         195,629
             VEHICLE (M88A2
             HERCULES).........
              16 M88A2s to               31                                     [72,000]
               supports
               modernization of
               ABCTs and
               industrial base.
        9   ASSAULT BRIDGE                0           2,461                                        0           2,461
             (MOD).............
       10   ASSAULT BREACHER              0           2,975                                        0           2,975
             VEHICLE...........
       11   M88 FOV MODS.......           0          14,878                                        0          14,878
       12   JOINT ASSAULT                 4          33,455                                        4          33,455
             BRIDGE............
       13   M1 ABRAMS TANK                0         367,939                                        0         367,939
             (MOD).............
            SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
             FACILITIES
       15   PRODUCTION BASE               0           6,479                                        0           6,479
             SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV)
            WEAPONS & OTHER
             COMBAT VEHICLES
       16   MORTAR SYSTEMS.....           0           4,991                                        0           4,991
       17   XM320 GRENADE                 0          26,294                                        0          26,294
             LAUNCHER MODULE
             (GLM).............
       18   PRECISION SNIPER                          1,984                      -1,984            0               0
             RIFLE.............
              Early to need....           0                                     [-1,984]
       19   COMPACT SEMI-                             1,488                      -1,488            0               0
             AUTOMATIC SNIPER
             SYSTEM............
              Early to need....           0                                     [-1,488]
       20   CARBINE............           0          34,460                                        0          34,460
       21   COMMON REMOTELY                           8,367                       6,400            0          14,767
             OPERATED WEAPONS
             STATION...........
              Transferred funds           0                                      [6,400]
       22   HANDGUN............                       5,417                      -5,417            0               0
              RFP release                 0                                     [-5,417]
               delayed, early
               to need.........
            MOD OF WEAPONS AND
             OTHER COMBAT VEH
       23   MK-19 GRENADE                 0           2,777                                        0           2,777
             MACHINE GUN MODS..
       24   M777 MODS..........           0          10,070                                        0          10,070
       25   M4 CARBINE MODS....           0          27,566                                        0          27,566
       26   M2 50 CAL MACHINE             0          44,004                                        0          44,004
             GUN MODS..........
       27   M249 SAW MACHINE              0           1,190                                        0           1,190
             GUN MODS..........
       28   M240 MEDIUM MACHINE           0           1,424                                        0           1,424
             GUN MODS..........
       29   SNIPER RIFLES                             2,431                      -1,400            0           1,031
             MODIFICATIONS.....
              Early to need....           0                                     [-1,400]
       30   M119 MODIFICATIONS.           0          20,599                                        0          20,599
       32   MORTAR MODIFICATION           0           6,300                                        0           6,300
       33   MODIFICATIONS LESS            0           3,737                                        0           3,737
             THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
             WTCV).............
            SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
             FACILITIES
       34   ITEMS LESS THAN               0             391                       2,500            0           2,891
             $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
              Transfer funds...                                                  [2,500]
       35   PRODUCTION BASE               0           9,027                                        0           9,027
             SUPPORT (WOCV-
             WTCV).............
       36   INDUSTRIAL                    0             304                                        0             304
             PREPAREDNESS......
       37   SMALL ARMS                    0           2,392                                        0           2,392
             EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
             ENH PROG).........

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT           127       1,887,073                      70,611          127       1,957,684
             OF W&TCV, ARMY....

            PROCUREMENT OF
             AMMUNITION, ARMY
            SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
             AMMUNITION
        1   CTG, 5.56MM, ALL              0          43,489                                        0          43,489
             TYPES.............
        2   CTG, 7.62MM, ALL              0          40,715                                        0          40,715
             TYPES.............
        3   CTG, HANDGUN, ALL             0           7,753                        -952            0           6,801
             TYPES.............
              Program funding                                                     [-952]
               ahead of need...
        4   CTG, .50 CAL, ALL             0          24,728                                        0          24,728
             TYPES.............
        5   CTG, 25MM, ALL                0           8,305                                        0           8,305
             TYPES.............
        6   CTG, 30MM, ALL                0          34,330                                        0          34,330
             TYPES.............
        7   CTG, 40MM, ALL                0          79,972                     -10,000            0          69,972
             TYPES.............
              Early to need....                                                [-10,000]
            MORTAR AMMUNITION
        8   60MM MORTAR, ALL              0          42,898                                        0          42,898
             TYPES.............
        9   81MM MORTAR, ALL              0          43,500                                        0          43,500
             TYPES.............
       10   120MM MORTAR, ALL             0          64,372                                        0          64,372
             TYPES.............
            TANK AMMUNITION
       11   CARTRIDGES, TANK,             0         105,541                                        0         105,541
             105MM AND 120MM,
             ALL TYPES.........
            ARTILLERY
             AMMUNITION
       12   ARTILLERY                     0          57,756                                        0          57,756
             CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
             105MM, ALL TYPES..
       13   ARTILLERY                     0          77,995                                        0          77,995
             PROJECTILE, 155MM,
             ALL TYPES.........
       14   PROJ 155MM EXTENDED           0          45,518                                        0          45,518
             RANGE M982........
       15   ARTILLERY                     0          78,024                                        0          78,024
             PROPELLANTS, FUZES
             AND PRIMERS, ALL..
            ROCKETS
       16   SHOULDER LAUNCHED             0           7,500                                        0           7,500
             MUNITIONS, ALL
             TYPES.............
       17   ROCKET, HYDRA 70,             0          33,653                                        0          33,653
             ALL TYPES.........
            OTHER AMMUNITION
       18   CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES.           0           5,639                                        0           5,639
       19   DEMOLITION                    0           9,751                                        0           9,751
             MUNITIONS, ALL
             TYPES.............
       20   GRENADES, ALL TYPES           0          19,993                                        0          19,993
       21   SIGNALS, ALL TYPES.           0           9,761                                        0           9,761
       22   SIMULATORS, ALL               0           9,749                                        0           9,749
             TYPES.............
            MISCELLANEOUS
       23   AMMO COMPONENTS,              0           3,521                                        0           3,521
             ALL TYPES.........
       24   NON-LETHAL                    0           1,700                                        0           1,700
             AMMUNITION, ALL
             TYPES.............
       25   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           6,181                                        0           6,181
             MILLION (AMMO)....
       26   AMMUNITION PECULIAR           0          17,811                                        0          17,811
             EQUIPMENT.........
       27   FIRST DESTINATION             0          14,695                                        0          14,695
             TRANSPORTATION
             (AMMO)............
            PRODUCTION BASE
             SUPPORT
       29   PROVISION OF                  0         221,703                                        0         221,703
             INDUSTRIAL
             FACILITIES........
       30   CONVENTIONAL                  0         113,250                                        0         113,250
             MUNITIONS
             DEMILITARIZATION..
       31   ARMS INITIATIVE....           0           3,575                                        0           3,575

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0       1,233,378                     -10,952            0       1,222,426
             OF AMMUNITION,
             ARMY..............

            OTHER PROCUREMENT,
             ARMY
            TACTICAL VEHICLES
        1   TACTICAL TRAILERS/            0          12,855                                        0          12,855
             DOLLY SETS........
        2   SEMITRAILERS,                 0              53                                        0              53
             FLATBED:..........
        4   JOINT LIGHT                 450         308,336                                      450         308,336
             TACTICAL VEHICLE..
        5   FAMILY OF MEDIUM            166          90,040                                      166          90,040
             TACTICAL VEH
             (FMTV)............
        6   FIRETRUCKS &                  0           8,444                                        0           8,444
             ASSOCIATED
             FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
        7   FAMILY OF HEAVY             273          27,549                                      273          27,549
             TACTICAL VEHICLES
             (FHTV)............
        8   PLS ESP............           0         127,102                                        0         127,102
       10   TACTICAL WHEELED              0          48,292                                        0          48,292
             VEHICLE PROTECTION
             KITS..............
       11   MODIFICATION OF IN            0         130,993                                        0         130,993
             SVC EQUIP.........
       12   MINE-RESISTANT                0          19,146                                        0          19,146
             AMBUSH-PROTECTED
             (MRAP) MODS.......
            NON-TACTICAL
             VEHICLES
       14   PASSENGER CARRYING            0           1,248                                        0           1,248
             VEHICLES..........
       15   NONTACTICAL                   0           9,614                                        0           9,614
             VEHICLES, OTHER...
            COMM--JOINT
             COMMUNICATIONS
       16   WIN-T--GROUND                 0         783,116                    -200,000            0         583,116
             FORCES TACTICAL
             NETWORK...........
              Delayed                                                         [-200,000]
               obligation of
               prior year funds
       17   SIGNAL                        0          49,898                                        0          49,898
             MODERNIZATION
             PROGRAM...........
       18   JOINT INCIDENT SITE           0           4,062                                        0           4,062
             COMMUNICATIONS
             CAPABILITY........
       19   JCSE EQUIPMENT                0           5,008                                        0           5,008
             (USREDCOM)........
            COMM--SATELLITE
             COMMUNICATIONS
       20   DEFENSE ENTERPRISE            0         196,306                                        0         196,306
             WIDEBAND SATCOM
             SYSTEMS...........
       21   TRANSPORTABLE                 0          44,998                     -15,000            0          29,998
             TACTICAL COMMAND
             COMMUNICATIONS....
              Early to need in                                                 [-15,000]
               FY16 due to one
               year delay......
       22   SHF TERM...........           0           7,629                                        0           7,629
       23   NAVSTAR GLOBAL                0          14,027                                        0          14,027
             POSITIONING SYSTEM
             (SPACE)...........
       24   SMART-T (SPACE)....           0          13,453                                        0          13,453
       25   GLOBAL BRDCST SVC--           0           6,265                                        0           6,265
             GBS...............
       26   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0           1,042                                        0           1,042
             (TAC SAT).........
       27   ENROUTE MISSION               0           7,116                                        0           7,116
             COMMAND (EMC).....
            COMM--C3 SYSTEM
       28   ARMY GLOBAL CMD &             0          10,137                                        0          10,137
             CONTROL SYS
             (AGCCS)...........
            COMM--COMBAT
             COMMUNICATIONS
       29   JOINT TACTICAL                0          64,640                                        0          64,640
             RADIO SYSTEM......
       30   MID-TIER NETWORKING           0          27,762                                        0          27,762
             VEHICULAR RADIO
             (MNVR)............
       31   RADIO TERMINAL SET,           0           9,422                                        0           9,422
             MIDS LVT(2).......
       32   AMC CRITICAL ITEMS--          0          26,020                                        0          26,020
             OPA2..............
       33   TRACTOR DESK.......           0           4,073                                        0           4,073
       34   SPIDER APLA REMOTE            0           1,403                                        0           1,403
             CONTROL UNIT......
       35   SPIDER FAMILY OF              0           9,199                                        0           9,199
             NETWORKED
             MUNITIONS INCR....
       36   SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT           0             349                                        0             349
             PROGRAM COMM/
             ELECTRONICS.......
       37   TACTICAL                      0          25,597                                        0          25,597
             COMMUNICATIONS AND
             PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
       38   UNIFIED COMMAND               0          21,854                                        0          21,854
             SUITE.............
       40   FAMILY OF MED COMM            0          24,388                                        0          24,388
             FOR COMBAT
             CASUALTY CARE.....
            COMM--INTELLIGENCE
             COMM
       42   CI AUTOMATION                 0           1,349                                        0           1,349
             ARCHITECTURE......
       43   ARMY CA/MISO GPF              0           3,695                                        0           3,695
             EQUIPMENT.........
            INFORMATION
             SECURITY
       45   INFORMATION SYSTEM            0          19,920                                        0          19,920
             SECURITY PROGRAM-
             ISSP..............
       46   COMMUNICATIONS                0          72,257                                        0          72,257
             SECURITY (COMSEC).
            COMM--LONG HAUL
             COMMUNICATIONS
       47   BASE SUPPORT                  0          16,082                                        0          16,082
             COMMUNICATIONS....
            COMM--BASE
             COMMUNICATIONS
       48   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0          86,037                                        0          86,037
       50   EMERGENCY                     0           8,550                                        0           8,550
             MANAGEMENT
             MODERNIZATION
             PROGRAM...........
       51   INSTALLATION INFO             0          73,496                                        0          73,496
             INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
             PROGRAM...........
            ELECT EQUIP--TACT
             INT REL ACT
             (TIARA)
       54   JTT/CIBS-M.........           0             881                                        0             881
       55   PROPHET GROUND.....           0          63,650                     -15,000            0          48,650
              Unjustified                                                      [-15,000]
               program growth..
       57   DCGS-A (MIP).......           0         260,268                                        0         260,268
       58   JOINT TACTICAL                0           3,906                                        0           3,906
             GROUND STATION
             (JTAGS)...........
       59   TROJAN (MIP).......           0          13,929                                        0          13,929
       60   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0           3,978                                        0           3,978
             (INTEL SPT) (MIP).
       61   CI HUMINT AUTO                0           7,542                                        0           7,542
             REPRTING AND
             COLL(CHARCS)......
       62   CLOSE ACCESS TARGET           0           8,010                                        0           8,010
             RECONNAISSANCE
             (CATR)............
       63   MACHINE FOREIGN               0           8,125                                        0           8,125
             LANGUAGE
             TRANSLATION SYSTEM-
             M.................
            ELECT EQUIP--
             ELECTRONIC WARFARE
             (EW)
       64   LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER           0          63,472                                        0          63,472
             MORTAR RADAR......
       65   EW PLANNING &                 0           2,556                                        0           2,556
             MANAGEMENT TOOLS
             (EWPMT)...........
       66   AIR VIGILANCE (AV).           0           8,224                                        0           8,224
       67   CREW...............           0           2,960                                        0           2,960
       68   FAMILY OF                     0           1,722                                        0           1,722
             PERSISTENT
             SURVEILLANCE
             CAPABILITIE.......
       69   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/          0             447                                        0             447
             SECURITY
             COUNTERMEASURES...
       70   CI MODERNIZATION...           0             228                                        0             228
            ELECT EQUIP--
             TACTICAL SURV.
             (TAC SURV)
       71   SENTINEL MODS......           0          43,285                                        0          43,285
       72   NIGHT VISION                  0         124,216                                        0         124,216
             DEVICES...........
       74   SMALL TACTICAL                0          23,216                                        0          23,216
             OPTICAL RIFLE
             MOUNTED MLRF......
       76   INDIRECT FIRE                 0          60,679                                        0          60,679
             PROTECTION FAMILY
             OF SYSTEMS........
       77   FAMILY OF WEAPON              0          53,453                                        0          53,453
             SIGHTS (FWS)......
       78   ARTILLERY ACCURACY            0           3,338                                        0           3,338
             EQUIP.............
       79   PROFILER...........           0           4,057                                        0           4,057
       81   JOINT BATTLE                  0         133,339                                        0         133,339
             COMMAND--PLATFORM
             (JBC-P)...........
       82   JOINT EFFECTS                 0          47,212                                        0          47,212
             TARGETING SYSTEM
             (JETS)............
       83   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0          22,314                                        0          22,314
             (LLDR)............
       84   COMPUTER                      0          12,131                                        0          12,131
             BALLISTICS: LHMBC
             XM32..............
       85   MORTAR FIRE CONTROL           0          10,075                                        0          10,075
             SYSTEM............
       86   COUNTERFIRE RADARS.           0         217,379                     -75,000            0         142,379
              Under execution                                                  [-75,000]
               of prior year
               funds...........
            ELECT EQUIP--
             TACTICAL C2
             SYSTEMS
       87   FIRE SUPPORT C2               0           1,190                                        0           1,190
             FAMILY............
       90   AIR & MSL DEFENSE             0          28,176                                        0          28,176
             PLANNING & CONTROL
             SYS...............
       91   IAMD BATTLE COMMAND           0          20,917                                        0          20,917
             SYSTEM............
       92   LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE           0           5,850                                        0           5,850
             SUPPORT (LCSS)....
       93   NETWORK MANAGEMENT            0          12,738                                        0          12,738
             INITIALIZATION AND
             SERVICE...........
       94   MANEUVER CONTROL              0         145,405                                        0         145,405
             SYSTEM (MCS)......
       95   GLOBAL COMBAT                 0         162,654                     -16,000            0         146,654
             SUPPORT SYSTEM-
             ARMY (GCSS-A).....
              Program growth...                                                [-16,000]
       96   INTEGRATED                    0           4,446                                        0           4,446
             PERSONNEL AND PAY
             SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP..
       98   RECONNAISSANCE AND            0          16,218                                        0          16,218
             SURVEYING
             INSTRUMENT SET....
       99   MOD OF IN-SVC                 0           1,138                                        0           1,138
             EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE)
            ELECT EQUIP--
             AUTOMATION
      100   ARMY TRAINING                 0          12,089                                        0          12,089
             MODERNIZATION.....
      101   AUTOMATED DATA                0         105,775                     -12,000            0          93,775
             PROCESSING EQUIP..
              Reduce IT                                                        [-12,000]
               procurement.....
      102   GENERAL FUND                  0          18,995                                        0          18,995
             ENTERPRISE
             BUSINESS SYSTEMS
             FAM...............
      103   HIGH PERF COMPUTING           0          62,319                                        0          62,319
             MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
      104   RESERVE COMPONENT             0          17,894                                        0          17,894
             AUTOMATION SYS
             (RCAS)............
            ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
             VISUAL SYS (A/V)
      106   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M           0           4,242                                        0           4,242
             (SURVEYING
             EQUIPMENT)........
            ELECT EQUIP--
             SUPPORT
      107   PRODUCTION BASE               0             425                                        0             425
             SUPPORT (C-E).....
      108   BCT EMERGING                  0           7,438                                        0           7,438
             TECHNOLOGIES......
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
      108A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           6,467                                        0           6,467
            CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
             EQUIPMENT
      109   PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS.           0             248                                        0             248
      110   FAMILY OF NON-                0           1,487                                        0           1,487
             LETHAL EQUIPMENT
             (FNLE)............
      112   CBRN DEFENSE.......           0          26,302                                        0          26,302
            BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
      113   TACTICAL BRIDGING..           0           9,822                                        0           9,822
      114   TACTICAL BRIDGE,              0          21,516                                        0          21,516
             FLOAT-RIBBON......
      115   BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL           0           4,959                                        0           4,959
             SET...............
      116   COMMON BRIDGE                 0          52,546                                        0          52,546
             TRANSPORTER (CBT)
             RECAP.............
            ENGINEER (NON-
             CONSTRUCTION)
             EQUIPMENT
      117   GRND STANDOFF MINE            0          58,682                                        0          58,682
             DETECTN SYSM
             (GSTAMIDS)........
      118   HUSKY MOUNTED                 0          13,565                                        0          13,565
             DETECTION SYSTEM
             (HMDS)............
      119   ROBOTIC COMBAT                0           2,136                                        0           2,136
             SUPPORT SYSTEM
             (RCSS)............
      120   EOD ROBOTICS                  0           6,960                                        0           6,960
             SYSTEMS
             RECAPITALIZATION..
      121   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0          17,424                                        0          17,424
             DISPOSAL EQPMT
             (EOD EQPMT).......
      122   REMOTE DEMOLITION             0           8,284                                        0           8,284
             SYSTEMS...........
      123   < $5M, COUNTERMINE            0           5,459                                        0           5,459
             EQUIPMENT.........
      124   FAMILY OF BOATS AND           0           8,429                                        0           8,429
             MOTORS............
            COMBAT SERVICE
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
      125   HEATERS AND ECU'S..           0          18,876                                        0          18,876
      127   SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT           0           2,287                                        0           2,287
      128   PERSONNEL RECOVERY            0           7,733                                        0           7,733
             SUPPORT SYSTEM
             (PRSS)............
      129   GROUND SOLDIER                0          49,798                                        0          49,798
             SYSTEM............
      130   MOBILE SOLDIER                0          43,639                                        0          43,639
             POWER.............
      132   FIELD FEEDING                 0          13,118                                        0          13,118
             EQUIPMENT.........
      133   CARGO AERIAL DEL &            0          28,278                                        0          28,278
             PERSONNEL
             PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
      135   FAMILY OF ENGR                0          34,544                                        0          34,544
             COMBAT AND
             CONSTRUCTION SETS.
      136   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M           0             595                                        0             595
             (ENG SPT).........
            PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
      137   QUALITY                       0           5,368                                        0           5,368
             SURVEILLANCE
             EQUIPMENT.........
      138   DISTRIBUTION                  0          35,381                                        0          35,381
             SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
             & WATER...........
            MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
      139   COMBAT SUPPORT                0          73,828                                        0          73,828
             MEDICAL...........
            MAINTENANCE
             EQUIPMENT
      140   MOBILE MAINTENANCE            0          25,270                                        0          25,270
             EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
      141   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           2,760                                        0           2,760
             $5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
            CONSTRUCTION
             EQUIPMENT
      142   GRADER, ROAD MTZD,            0           5,903                                        0           5,903
             HVY, 6X4 (CCE)....
      143   SCRAPERS,                     0          26,125                                        0          26,125
             EARTHMOVING.......
      146   TRACTOR, FULL                 0          27,156                                        0          27,156
             TRACKED...........
      147   ALL TERRAIN CRANES.           0          16,750                                        0          16,750
      148   PLANT, ASPHALT                0             984                                        0             984
             MIXING............
      149   HIGH MOBILITY                 0           2,656                                        0           2,656
             ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
             (HMEE)............
      150   ENHANCED RAPID                0           2,531                                        0           2,531
             AIRFIELD
             CONSTRUCTION CAPAP
      151   FAMILY OF DIVER               0             446                                        0             446
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
      152   CONST EQUIP ESP....           0          19,640                                        0          19,640
      153   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           5,087                                        0           5,087
             $5.0M (CONST
             EQUIP)............
            RAIL FLOAT
             CONTAINERIZATION
             EQUIPMENT
      154   ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP           0          39,772                                        0          39,772
      155   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           5,835                                        0           5,835
             $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
            GENERATORS
      156   GENERATORS AND                0         166,356                                        0         166,356
             ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
      157   TACTICAL ELECTRIC             0          11,505                                        0          11,505
             POWER
             RECAPITALIZATION..
            MATERIAL HANDLING
             EQUIPMENT
      159   FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS           0          17,496                                        0          17,496
            TRAINING EQUIPMENT
      160   COMBAT TRAINING               0          74,916                                        0          74,916
             CENTERS SUPPORT...
      161   TRAINING DEVICES,             0         303,236                     -25,000            0         278,236
             NONSYSTEM.........
              Unjustified                                                      [-25,000]
               program growth..
      162   CLOSE COMBAT                  0          45,210                                        0          45,210
             TACTICAL TRAINER..
      163   AVIATION COMBINED             0          30,068                                        0          30,068
             ARMS TACTICAL
             TRAINER...........
      164   GAMING TECHNOLOGY             0           9,793                                        0           9,793
             IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
             TRAINING..........
            TEST MEASURE AND
             DIG EQUIPMENT
             (TMD)
      165   CALIBRATION SETS              0           4,650                                        0           4,650
             EQUIPMENT.........
      166   INTEGRATED FAMILY             0          34,487                                        0          34,487
             OF TEST EQUIPMENT
             (IFTE)............
      167   TEST EQUIPMENT                0          11,083                                        0          11,083
             MODERNIZATION
             (TEMOD)...........
            OTHER SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
      169   RAPID EQUIPPING               0          17,937                                        0          17,937
             SOLDIER SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT.........
      170   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          52,040                                        0          52,040
             SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
      171   BASE LEVEL COMMON             0           1,568                                        0           1,568
             EQUIPMENT.........
      172   MODIFICATION OF IN-           0          64,219                                        0          64,219
             SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
             3)................
      173   PRODUCTION BASE               0           1,525                                        0           1,525
             SUPPORT (OTH).....
      174   SPECIAL EQUIPMENT             0           3,268                                        0           3,268
             FOR USER TESTING..
      176   TRACTOR YARD.......           0           7,191                                        0           7,191
            OPA2
      177   INITIAL SPARES--C&E           0          48,511                                        0          48,511

            TOTAL OTHER                 889       5,899,028                    -358,000          889       5,541,028
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

            AIRCRAFT
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY
            COMBAT AIRCRAFT
        2   F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER)           0               0          12       1,150,000           12       1,150,000
             HORNET............
              Additional 12                                          12      [1,150,000]
               aircraft,
               unfunded
               requirement.....
        3   JOINT STRIKE                  4         897,542                     -24,500            4         873,042
             FIGHTER CV........
              Efficiencies and                                                 [-24,500]
               excess cost
               growth..........
        4   JOINT STRIKE                  0          48,630                                        0          48,630
             FIGHTER CV (AP)...
        5   JSF STOVL..........           9       1,483,414           6       1,024,900           15       2,508,314
              Efficiencies and                                                 [-25,100]
               excess cost
               growth..........
              Additional 6                                            6      [1,050,000]
               aircraft,
               unfunded
               requirement.....
        6   JSF STOVL (AP).....           0         203,060                                        0         203,060
        7   CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT)           0          41,300                                        0          41,300
        8   V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT).          19       1,436,355                                       19       1,436,355
        9   V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT)            0          43,853                                        0          43,853
             (AP)..............
       10   H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/         28         800,057                                       28         800,057
             AH-1Z)............
       11   H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/          0          56,168                                        0          56,168
             AH-1Z) (AP).......
       12   MH-60S (MYP).......           0          28,232                                        0          28,232
       14   MH-60R (MYP).......          29         969,991                                       29         969,991
       16   P-8A POSEIDON......          16       3,008,928                                       16       3,008,928
       17   P-8A POSEIDON (AP).           0         269,568                                        0         269,568
       18   E-2D ADV HAWKEYE...           5         857,654                                        5         857,654
       19   E-2D ADV HAWKEYE              0         195,336                                        0         195,336
             (AP)..............
            TRAINER AIRCRAFT
       20   JPATS..............           0           8,914                                        0           8,914
            OTHER AIRCRAFT
       21   KC-130J............           2         192,214                                        2         192,214
       22   KC-130J (AP).......           0          24,451                                        0          24,451
       23   MQ-4 TRITON........           3         494,259                                        3         494,259
       24   MQ-4 TRITON (AP)...           0          54,577                                        0          54,577
       25   MQ-8 UAV...........           2         120,020                                        2         120,020
       26   STUASL0 UAV........           0           3,450                                        0           3,450
            MODIFICATION OF
             AIRCRAFT
       28   EA-6 SERIES........           0           9,799                                        0           9,799
       29   AEA SYSTEMS........           0          23,151                                        0          23,151
       30   AV-8 SERIES........           0          41,890                       3,300            0          45,190
              AV-8B Link 16                                                      [3,300]
               upgrades,
               unfunded
               requirement.....
       31   ADVERSARY..........           0           5,816                                        0           5,816
       32   F-18 SERIES........           0         978,756                     170,000            0       1,148,756
              Jamming                                                          [170,000]
               protection
               upgrades,
               unfunded
               requirement.....
       34   H-53 SERIES........           0          46,887                                        0          46,887
       35   SH-60 SERIES.......           0         107,728                                        0         107,728
       36   H-1 SERIES.........           0          42,315                                        0          42,315
       37   EP-3 SERIES........           0          41,784                                        0          41,784
       38   P-3 SERIES.........           0           3,067                                        0           3,067
       39   E-2 SERIES.........           0          20,741                                        0          20,741
       40   TRAINER A/C SERIES.           0          27,980                                        0          27,980
       41   C-2A...............           0           8,157                                        0           8,157
       42   C-130 SERIES.......           0          70,335                                        0          70,335
       43   FEWSG..............           0             633                                        0             633
       44   CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C           0           8,916                                        0           8,916
             SERIES............
       45   E-6 SERIES.........           0         185,253                                        0         185,253
       46   EXECUTIVE                     0          76,138                                        0          76,138
             HELICOPTERS SERIES
       47   SPECIAL PROJECT               0          23,702                                        0          23,702
             AIRCRAFT..........
       48   T-45 SERIES........           0         105,439                                        0         105,439
       49   POWER PLANT CHANGES           0           9,917                                        0           9,917
       50   JPATS SERIES.......           0          13,537                                        0          13,537
       51   COMMON ECM                    0         131,732                                        0         131,732
             EQUIPMENT.........
       52   COMMON AVIONICS               0         202,745                                        0         202,745
             CHANGES...........
       53   COMMON DEFENSIVE              0           3,062                                        0           3,062
             WEAPON SYSTEM.....
       54   ID SYSTEMS.........           0          48,206                                        0          48,206
       55   P-8 SERIES.........           0          28,492                                        0          28,492
       56   MAGTF EW FOR                  0           7,680                                        0           7,680
             AVIATION..........
       57   MQ-8 SERIES........           0          22,464                                        0          22,464
       58   RQ-7 SERIES........           0           3,773                                        0           3,773
       59   V-22 (TILT/ROTOR              0         121,208                      23,000            0         144,208
             ACFT) OSPREY......
              MV-22 Integrated                                                  [15,000]
               Aircraft
               Survivability...
              MV-22 Ballistic                                                    [8,000]
               Protection......
       60   F-35 STOVL SERIES..           0         256,106                                        0         256,106
       61   F-35 CV SERIES.....           0          68,527                                        0          68,527
       62   QRC................           0           6,885                                        0           6,885
            AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
             REPAIR PARTS
       63   SPARES AND REPAIR             0       1,563,515                                        0       1,563,515
             PARTS.............
            AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
             EQUIP & FACILITIES
       64   COMMON GROUND                 0         450,959                                        0         450,959
             EQUIPMENT.........
       65   AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL           0          24,010                                        0          24,010
             FACILITIES........
       66   WAR CONSUMABLES....           0          42,012                                        0          42,012
       67   OTHER PRODUCTION              0           2,455                                        0           2,455
             CHARGES...........
       68   SPECIAL SUPPORT               0          50,859                                        0          50,859
             EQUIPMENT.........
       69   FIRST DESTINATION             0           1,801                                        0           1,801
             TRANSPORTATION....

            TOTAL AIRCRAFT              117      16,126,405          18       2,346,700          135      18,473,105
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

            WEAPONS
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY
            MODIFICATION OF
             MISSILES
        1   TRIDENT II MODS....           0       1,099,064                                        0       1,099,064
            SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
             FACILITIES
        2   MISSILE INDUSTRIAL            0           7,748                                        0           7,748
             FACILITIES........
            STRATEGIC MISSILES
        3   TOMAHAWK...........         100         184,814          49          30,000          149         214,814
              Combined with 47                                       49         [30,000]
               FY15 OCO
               missiles,
               returns
               production to
               MSR.............
            TACTICAL MISSILES
        4   AMRAAM.............         167         192,873                      15,000          167         207,873
              Additional                                                        [15,000]
               captive air
               training
               missiles........
        5   SIDEWINDER.........         227          96,427                                      227          96,427
        6   JSOW...............           0          21,419                                        0          21,419
        7   STANDARD MISSILE...         113         435,352                                      113         435,352
        8   RAM................          90          80,826                                       90          80,826
       11   STAND OFF PRECISION          27           4,265                                       27           4,265
             GUIDED MUNITIONS
             (SOPGM)...........
       12   AERIAL TARGETS.....           0          40,792                                        0          40,792
       13   OTHER MISSILE                 0           3,335                                        0           3,335
             SUPPORT...........
            MODIFICATION OF
             MISSILES
       14   ESSM...............          30          44,440                                       30          44,440
       15   ESSM (AP)..........           0          54,462                                        0          54,462
       16   HARM MODS..........           0         122,298                                        0         122,298
            SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
             FACILITIES
       17   WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL            0           2,397                                        0           2,397
             FACILITIES........
       18   FLEET SATELLITE               0          39,932                                        0          39,932
             COMM FOLLOW-ON....
            ORDNANCE SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
       19   ORDNANCE SUPPORT              0          57,641                       3,668            0          61,309
             EQUIPMENT.........
              Classified                                                         [3,668]
               Program.........
            TORPEDOES AND
             RELATED EQUIP
       20   SSTD...............           0           7,380                                        0           7,380
       21   MK-48 TORPEDO......           8          65,611                                        8          65,611
       22   ASW TARGETS........           0           6,912                                        0           6,912
            MOD OF TORPEDOES
             AND RELATED EQUIP
       23   MK-54 TORPEDO MODS.           0         113,219                                        0         113,219
       24   MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP           0          63,317                                        0          63,317
             MODS..............
       25   QUICKSTRIKE MINE...           0          13,254                                        0          13,254
            SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
       26   TORPEDO SUPPORT               0          67,701                                        0          67,701
             EQUIPMENT.........
       27   ASW RANGE SUPPORT..           0           3,699                                        0           3,699
            DESTINATION
             TRANSPORTATION
       28   FIRST DESTINATION             0           3,342                                        0           3,342
             TRANSPORTATION....
            GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
       29   SMALL ARMS AND                0          11,937                                        0          11,937
             WEAPONS...........
            MODIFICATION OF
             GUNS AND GUN
             MOUNTS
       30   CIWS MODS..........           0          53,147                                        0          53,147
       31   COAST GUARD WEAPONS           0          19,022                                        0          19,022
       32   GUN MOUNT MODS.....           0          67,980                                        0          67,980
       33   AIRBORNE MINE                 0          19,823                                        0          19,823
             NEUTRALIZATION
             SYSTEMS...........
            SPARES AND REPAIR
             PARTS
       35   SPARES AND REPAIR             0         149,725                                        0         149,725
             PARTS.............

            TOTAL WEAPONS               762       3,154,154          49          48,668          811       3,202,822
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

            PROCUREMENT OF
             AMMO, NAVY & MC
            NAVY AMMUNITION
        1   GENERAL PURPOSE               0         101,238                                        0         101,238
             BOMBS.............
        2   AIRBORNE ROCKETS,             0          67,289                                        0          67,289
             ALL TYPES.........
        3   MACHINE GUN                   0          20,340                                        0          20,340
             AMMUNITION........
        4   PRACTICE BOMBS.....           0          40,365                                        0          40,365
        5   CARTRIDGES & CART             0          49,377                                        0          49,377
             ACTUATED DEVICES..
        6   AIR EXPENDABLE                0          59,651                                        0          59,651
             COUNTERMEASURES...
        7   JATOS..............           0           2,806                                        0           2,806
        8   LRLAP 6" LONG RANGE           0          11,596                                        0          11,596
             ATTACK PROJECTILE.
        9   5 INCH/54 GUN                 0          35,994                                        0          35,994
             AMMUNITION........
       10   INTERMEDIATE                  0          36,715                                        0          36,715
             CALIBER GUN
             AMMUNITION........
       11   OTHER SHIP GUN                0          45,483                                        0          45,483
             AMMUNITION........
       12   SMALL ARMS &                  0          52,080                                        0          52,080
             LANDING PARTY AMMO
       13   PYROTECHNIC AND               0          10,809                                        0          10,809
             DEMOLITION........
       14   AMMUNITION LESS               0           4,469                                        0           4,469
             THAN $5 MILLION...
            MARINE CORPS
             AMMUNITION
       15   SMALL ARMS                    0          46,848                                        0          46,848
             AMMUNITION........
       16   LINEAR CHARGES, ALL           0             350                                        0             350
             TYPES.............
       17   40 MM, ALL TYPES...           0             500                                        0             500
       18   60MM, ALL TYPES....           0           1,849                                        0           1,849
       19   81MM, ALL TYPES....           0           1,000                                        0           1,000
       20   120MM, ALL TYPES...           0          13,867                                        0          13,867
       22   GRENADES, ALL TYPES           0           1,390                                        0           1,390
       23   ROCKETS, ALL TYPES.           0          14,967                                        0          14,967
       24   ARTILLERY, ALL                0          45,219                                        0          45,219
             TYPES.............
       26   FUZE, ALL TYPES....           0          29,335                                        0          29,335
       27   NON LETHALS........           0           3,868                                        0           3,868
       28   AMMO MODERNIZATION.           0          15,117                                        0          15,117
       29   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          11,219                                        0          11,219
             MILLION...........

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0         723,741                                        0         723,741
             OF AMMO, NAVY & MC

            SHIPBUILDING AND
             CONVERSION, NAVY
            OTHER WARSHIPS
        1   CARRIER REPLACEMENT           0       1,634,701                                        0       1,634,701
             PROGRAM...........
        2   CARRIER REPLACEMENT           0         874,658                                        0         874,658
             PROGRAM (AP)......
        3   VIRGINIA CLASS                2       3,346,370                                        2       3,346,370
             SUBMARINE.........
        4   VIRGINIA CLASS                0       1,993,740                     800,000            0       2,793,740
             SUBMARINE (AP)....
              Accelerate                                                       [800,000]
               shipbuilding
               funding.........
        5   CVN REFUELING                 1         678,274                                        1         678,274
             OVERHAULS.........
        6   CVN REFUELING                 0          14,951                                        0          14,951
             OVERHAULS (AP)....
        7   DDG 1000...........           0         433,404                                        0         433,404
        8   DDG-51.............           2       3,149,703                     400,000            2       3,549,703
              Incremental                                                      [400,000]
               funding for one
               DDG-51..........
       10   LITTORAL COMBAT               3       1,356,991                                        3       1,356,991
             SHIP..............
            AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
       12   LPD-17.............           1         550,000                                        1         550,000
       13   AFLOAT FORWARD                0               0                      97,000            0          97,000
             STAGING BASE......
              Accelerate                                                        [97,000]
               shipbuilding
               funding.........
       15   LHA REPLACEMENT....           0         277,543                     199,000            0         476,543
              Accelerate LHA-8                                                 [199,000]
               advanced
               procurement.....
       XX   LX (R) AP..........           0               0                      51,000            0          51,000
              Accelerate LX (R)                                                 [51,000]
      XXX   LCU Replacement....           0               0           1          34,000            1          34,000
              Accelerate LCU                                                    [34,000]
               replacement.....
            AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
             AND PRIOR YR
             PROGRAM COST
       17   TAO FLEET OILER....           1         674,190                                        1         674,190
       19   MOORED TRAINING               0         138,200                                        0         138,200
             SHIP (AP).........
       20   OUTFITTING.........           0         697,207                                        0         697,207
       21   SHIP TO SHORE                 5         255,630                                        5         255,630
             CONNECTOR.........
       22   SERVICE CRAFT......           0          30,014                                        0          30,014
       23   LCAC SLEP..........           4          80,738                                        4          80,738
       24   YP CRAFT                      0          21,838                                        0          21,838
             MAINTENANCE/ROH/
             SLEP..............
       25   COMPLETION OF PY              0         389,305                                        0         389,305
             SHIPBUILDING
             PROGRAMS..........
       XX   T-ATS(X) Fleet Tug.           0               0           1          75,000            1          75,000
              Accelerate T-                                                     [75,000]
               ATS(X)..........

            TOTAL SHIPBUILDING           19      16,597,457           2       1,656,000           21      18,253,457
             AND CONVERSION,
             NAVY..............

            OTHER PROCUREMENT,
             NAVY
            SHIP PROPULSION
             EQUIPMENT
        1   LM-2500 GAS TURBINE           0           4,881                                        0           4,881
        2   ALLISON 501K GAS              0           5,814                                        0           5,814
             TURBINE...........
        3   HYBRID ELECTRIC               0          32,906                                        0          32,906
             DRIVE (HED).......
            GENERATORS
        4   SURFACE COMBATANT             0          36,860                                        0          36,860
             HM&E..............
            NAVIGATION
             EQUIPMENT
        5   OTHER NAVIGATION              0          87,481                                        0          87,481
             EQUIPMENT.........
            PERISCOPES
        6   SUB PERISCOPES &              0          63,109                                        0          63,109
             IMAGING EQUIP.....
            OTHER SHIPBOARD
             EQUIPMENT
        7   DDG MOD............           0         364,157                      60,000            0         424,157
              Restore                                                           [60,000]
               additional DDG
               BMD
               modernization
               (CNO UPL).......
        8   FIREFIGHTING                  0          16,089                                        0          16,089
             EQUIPMENT.........
        9   COMMAND AND CONTROL           0           2,255                                        0           2,255
             SWITCHBOARD.......
       10   LHA/LHD MIDLIFE....           0          28,571                                        0          28,571
       11   LCC 19/20 EXTENDED            0          12,313                                        0          12,313
             SERVICE LIFE
             PROGRAM...........
       12   POLLUTION CONTROL             0          16,609                                        0          16,609
             EQUIPMENT.........
       13   SUBMARINE SUPPORT             0          10,498                                        0          10,498
             EQUIPMENT.........
       14   VIRGINIA CLASS                0          35,747                                        0          35,747
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
       15   LCS CLASS SUPPORT             0          48,399                                        0          48,399
             EQUIPMENT.........
       16   SUBMARINE BATTERIES           0          23,072                                        0          23,072
       17   LPD CLASS SUPPORT             0          55,283                                        0          55,283
             EQUIPMENT.........
       18   STRATEGIC PLATFORM            0          18,563                                        0          18,563
             SUPPORT EQUIP.....
       19   DSSP EQUIPMENT.....           0           7,376                                        0           7,376
       21   LCAC...............           0          20,965                                        0          20,965
       22   UNDERWATER EOD                0          51,652                                        0          51,652
             PROGRAMS..........
       23   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0         102,498                                        0         102,498
             MILLION...........
       24   CHEMICAL WARFARE              0           3,027                                        0           3,027
             DETECTORS.........
       25   SUBMARINE LIFE                0           7,399                                        0           7,399
             SUPPORT SYSTEM....
            REACTOR PLANT
             EQUIPMENT
       27   REACTOR COMPONENTS.           0         296,095                                        0         296,095
            OCEAN ENGINEERING
       28   DIVING AND SALVAGE            0          15,982                                        0          15,982
             EQUIPMENT.........
            SMALL BOATS
       29   STANDARD BOATS.....           0          29,982                                        0          29,982
            TRAINING EQUIPMENT
       30   OTHER SHIPS                   0          66,538                                        0          66,538
             TRAINING EQUIPMENT
            PRODUCTION
             FACILITIES
             EQUIPMENT
       31   OPERATING FORCES              0          71,138                                        0          71,138
             IPE...............
            OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
       32   NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS           0         132,625                                        0         132,625
       33   LCS COMMON MISSION            0          23,500                                        0          23,500
             MODULES EQUIPMENT.
       34   LCS MCM MISSION               0          85,151                     -55,800            0          29,351
             MODULES...........
              Procurement in                                                   [-55,800]
               excess of need
               ahead of
               satisfactory
               testing.........
       35   LCS SUW MISSION               0          35,228                                        0          35,228
             MODULES...........
       36   REMOTE MINEHUNTING            0          87,627                     -65,600            0          22,027
             SYSTEM (RMS)......
              Procurement in                                                   [-65,600]
               excess of need
               ahead of
               satisfactory
               testing.........
            LOGISTIC SUPPORT
       37   LSD MIDLIFE........           0           2,774                                        0           2,774
            SHIP SONARS
       38   SPQ-9B RADAR.......           0          20,551                                        0          20,551
       39   AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW            0         103,241                                        0         103,241
             COMBAT SYSTEM.....
       40   SSN ACOUSTICS......           0         214,835                      20,000            0         234,835
              Towed Array-                                                      [20,000]
               unfunded
               requirement.....
       41   UNDERSEA WARFARE              0           7,331                                        0           7,331
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
       42   SONAR SWITCHES AND            0          11,781                                        0          11,781
             TRANSDUCERS.......
            ASW ELECTRONIC
             EQUIPMENT
       44   SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC            0          21,119                                        0          21,119
             WARFARE SYSTEM....
       45   SSTD...............           0           8,396                                        0           8,396
       46   FIXED SURVEILLANCE            0         146,968                                        0         146,968
             SYSTEM............
       47   SURTASS............           0          12,953                                        0          12,953
       48   MARITIME PATROL AND           0          13,725                                        0          13,725
             RECONNSAISANCE
             FORCE.............
            ELECTRONIC WARFARE
             EQUIPMENT
       49   AN/SLQ-32..........           0         324,726                      28,000            0         352,726
              SEWIP Block II                                                    [28,000]
               unfunded
               requirement.....
            RECONNAISSANCE
             EQUIPMENT
       50   SHIPBOARD IW                  0         148,221                                        0         148,221
             EXPLOIT...........
       51   AUTOMATED                     0             152                                        0             152
             IDENTIFICATION
             SYSTEM (AIS)......
            SUBMARINE
             SURVEILLANCE
             EQUIPMENT
       52   SUBMARINE SUPPORT             0          79,954                                        0          79,954
             EQUIPMENT PROG....
            OTHER SHIP
             ELECTRONIC
             EQUIPMENT
       53   COOPERATIVE                   0          25,695                                        0          25,695
             ENGAGEMENT
             CAPABILITY........
       54   TRUSTED INFORMATION           0             284                                        0             284
             SYSTEM (TIS)......
       55   NAVAL TACTICAL                0          14,416                                        0          14,416
             COMMAND SUPPORT
             SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
       56   ATDLS..............           0          23,069                                        0          23,069
       57   NAVY COMMAND AND              0           4,054                                        0           4,054
             CONTROL SYSTEM
             (NCCS)............
       58   MINESWEEPING SYSTEM           0          21,014                                        0          21,014
             REPLACEMENT.......
       59   SHALLOW WATER MCM..           0          18,077                                        0          18,077
       60   NAVSTAR GPS                   0          12,359                                        0          12,359
             RECEIVERS (SPACE).
       61   AMERICAN FORCES               0           4,240                                        0           4,240
             RADIO AND TV
             SERVICE...........
       62   STRATEGIC PLATFORM            0          17,440                                        0          17,440
             SUPPORT EQUIP.....
            TRAINING EQUIPMENT
       63   OTHER TRAINING                0          41,314                                        0          41,314
             EQUIPMENT.........
            AVIATION ELECTRONIC
             EQUIPMENT
       64   MATCALS............           0          10,011                                        0          10,011
       65   SHIPBOARD AIR                 0           9,346                                        0           9,346
             TRAFFIC CONTROL...
       66   AUTOMATIC CARRIER             0          21,281                                        0          21,281
             LANDING SYSTEM....
       67   NATIONAL AIR SPACE            0          25,621                                        0          25,621
             SYSTEM............
       68   FLEET AIR TRAFFIC             0           8,249                                        0           8,249
             CONTROL SYSTEMS...
       69   LANDING SYSTEMS....           0          14,715                                        0          14,715
       70   ID SYSTEMS.........           0          29,676                                        0          29,676
       71   NAVAL MISSION                 0          13,737                                        0          13,737
             PLANNING SYSTEMS..
            OTHER SHORE
             ELECTRONIC
             EQUIPMENT
       72   DEPLOYABLE JOINT              0           1,314                                        0           1,314
             COMMAND & CONTROL.
       74   TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I           0          13,600                                        0          13,600
             SYSTEMS...........
       75   DCGS-N.............           0          31,809                                        0          31,809
       76   CANES..............           0         278,991                                        0         278,991
       77   RADIAC.............           0           8,294                                        0           8,294
       78   CANES-INTELL.......           0          28,695                                        0          28,695
       79   GPETE..............           0           6,962                                        0           6,962
       80   MASF...............           0             290                                        0             290
       81   INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM           0          14,419                                        0          14,419
             TEST FACILITY.....
       82   EMI CONTROL                   0           4,175                                        0           4,175
             INSTRUMENTATION...
       83   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          44,176                                        0          44,176
             MILLION...........
            SHIPBOARD
             COMMUNICATIONS
       84   SHIPBOARD TACTICAL            0           8,722                                        0           8,722
             COMMUNICATIONS....
       85   SHIP COMMUNICATIONS           0         108,477                                        0         108,477
             AUTOMATION........
       86   COMMUNICATIONS                0          16,613                                        0          16,613
             ITEMS UNDER $5M...
            SUBMARINE
             COMMUNICATIONS
       87   SUBMARINE BROADCAST           0          20,691                                        0          20,691
             SUPPORT...........
       88   SUBMARINE                     0          60,945                                        0          60,945
             COMMUNICATION
             EQUIPMENT.........
            SATELLITE
             COMMUNICATIONS
       89   SATELLITE                     0          30,892                                        0          30,892
             COMMUNICATIONS
             SYSTEMS...........
       90   NAVY MULTIBAND                0         118,113                                        0         118,113
             TERMINAL (NMT)....
            SHORE
             COMMUNICATIONS
       91   JCS COMMUNICATIONS            0           4,591                                        0           4,591
             EQUIPMENT.........
       92   ELECTRICAL POWER              0           1,403                                        0           1,403
             SYSTEMS...........
            CRYPTOGRAPHIC
             EQUIPMENT
       93   INFO SYSTEMS                  0         135,687                                        0         135,687
             SECURITY PROGRAM
             (ISSP)............
       94   MIO INTEL                     0             970                                        0             970
             EXPLOITATION TEAM.
            CRYPTOLOGIC
             EQUIPMENT
       95   CRYPTOLOGIC                   0          11,433                                        0          11,433
             COMMUNICATIONS
             EQUIP.............
            OTHER ELECTRONIC
             SUPPORT
       96   COAST GUARD                   0           2,529                                        0           2,529
             EQUIPMENT.........
            SONOBUOYS
       97   SONOBUOYS--ALL                0         168,763                                        0         168,763
             TYPES.............
            AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
       98   WEAPONS RANGE                 0          46,979                                        0          46,979
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
      100   AIRCRAFT SUPPORT              0         123,884                                        0         123,884
             EQUIPMENT.........
      103   METEOROLOGICAL                0          15,090                                        0          15,090
             EQUIPMENT.........
      104   DCRS/DPL...........           0             638                                        0             638
      106   AIRBORNE MINE                 0          14,098                                        0          14,098
             COUNTERMEASURES...
      111   AVIATION SUPPORT              0          49,773                                        0          49,773
             EQUIPMENT.........
            SHIP GUN SYSTEM
             EQUIPMENT
      112   SHIP GUN SYSTEMS              0           5,300                                        0           5,300
             EQUIPMENT.........
            SHIP MISSILE
             SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
      115   SHIP MISSILE                  0         298,738                                        0         298,738
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
      120   TOMAHAWK SUPPORT              0          71,245                                        0          71,245
             EQUIPMENT.........
            FBM SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
      123   STRATEGIC MISSILE             0         240,694                                        0         240,694
             SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
            ASW SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
      124   SSN COMBAT CONTROL            0          96,040                                        0          96,040
             SYSTEMS...........
      125   ASW SUPPORT                   0          30,189                                        0          30,189
             EQUIPMENT.........
            OTHER ORDNANCE
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
      129   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0          22,623                                        0          22,623
             DISPOSAL EQUIP....
      130   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           9,906                                        0           9,906
             MILLION...........
            OTHER EXPENDABLE
             ORDNANCE
      134   TRAINING DEVICE               0          99,707                                        0          99,707
             MODS..............
            CIVIL ENGINEERING
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
      135   PASSENGER CARRYING            0           2,252                                        0           2,252
             VEHICLES..........
      136   GENERAL PURPOSE               0           2,191                                        0           2,191
             TRUCKS............
      137   CONSTRUCTION &                0           2,164                                        0           2,164
             MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
      138   FIRE FIGHTING                 0          14,705                                        0          14,705
             EQUIPMENT.........
      139   TACTICAL VEHICLES..           0           2,497                                        0           2,497
      140   AMPHIBIOUS                    0          12,517                                        0          12,517
             EQUIPMENT.........
      141   POLLUTION CONTROL             0           3,018                                        0           3,018
             EQUIPMENT.........
      142   ITEMS UNDER $5                0          14,403                                        0          14,403
             MILLION...........
      143   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0           1,186                                        0           1,186
             VEHICLES..........
            SUPPLY SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
      144   MATERIALS HANDLING            0          18,805                                        0          18,805
             EQUIPMENT.........
      145   OTHER SUPPLY                  0          10,469                                        0          10,469
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
      146   FIRST DESTINATION             0           5,720                                        0           5,720
             TRANSPORTATION....
      147   SPECIAL PURPOSE               0         211,714                                        0         211,714
             SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
            TRAINING DEVICES
      148   TRAINING SUPPORT              0           7,468                                        0           7,468
             EQUIPMENT.........
            COMMAND SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
      149   COMMAND SUPPORT               0          36,433                                        0          36,433
             EQUIPMENT.........
      150   EDUCATION SUPPORT             0           3,180                                        0           3,180
             EQUIPMENT.........
      151   MEDICAL SUPPORT               0           4,790                                        0           4,790
             EQUIPMENT.........
      153   NAVAL MIP SUPPORT             0           4,608                                        0           4,608
             EQUIPMENT.........
      154   OPERATING FORCES              0           5,655                                        0           5,655
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
      155   C4ISR EQUIPMENT....           0           9,929                                        0           9,929
      156   ENVIRONMENTAL                 0          26,795                                        0          26,795
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
      157   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          88,453                                        0          88,453
             EQUIPMENT.........
      159   ENTERPRISE                    0          99,094                                        0          99,094
             INFORMATION
             TECHNOLOGY........
            OTHER
      160   NEXT GENERATION               0          99,014                                        0          99,014
             ENTERPRISE SERVICE
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
      160A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          21,439                                        0          21,439
            SPARES AND REPAIR
             PARTS
      161   SPARES AND REPAIR             0         328,043                                        0         328,043
             PARTS.............

            TOTAL OTHER                   0       6,614,715                     -13,400            0       6,601,315
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

            PROCUREMENT, MARINE
             CORPS
            TRACKED COMBAT
             VEHICLES
        1   AAV7A1 PIP.........           0          26,744                                        0          26,744
        2   LAV PIP............           0          54,879                                        0          54,879
            ARTILLERY AND OTHER
             WEAPONS
        3   EXPEDITIONARY FIRE            0           2,652                                        0           2,652
             SUPPORT SYSTEM....
        4   155MM LIGHTWEIGHT             0           7,482                                        0           7,482
             TOWED HOWITZER....
        5   HIGH MOBILITY                 0          17,181                                        0          17,181
             ARTILLERY ROCKET
             SYSTEM............
        6   WEAPONS AND COMBAT            0           8,224                                        0           8,224
             VEHICLES UNDER $5
             MILLION...........
            OTHER SUPPORT
        7   MODIFICATION KITS..           0          14,467                                        0          14,467
        8   WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT           0             488                                        0             488
             PROGRAM...........
            GUIDED MISSILES
        9   GROUND BASED AIR              0           7,565                                        0           7,565
             DEFENSE...........
       10   JAVELIN............           0           1,091                                        0           1,091
       11   FOLLOW ON TO SMAW..           0           4,872                                        0           4,872
       12   ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS            0             668                                        0             668
             SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
             H)................
            OTHER SUPPORT
       13   MODIFICATION KITS..           0          12,495                     140,000            0         152,495
              Additional                                                       [140,000]
               missiles........
            COMMAND AND CONTROL
             SYSTEMS
       14   UNIT OPERATIONS               0          13,109                                        0          13,109
             CENTER............
       15   COMMON AVIATION               0          35,147                                        0          35,147
             COMMAND AND
             CONTROL SYSTEM (C.
            REPAIR AND TEST
             EQUIPMENT
       16   REPAIR AND TEST               0          21,210                                        0          21,210
             EQUIPMENT.........
            OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
       17   COMBAT SUPPORT                0             792                                        0             792
             SYSTEM............
            COMMAND AND CONTROL
             SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
       19   ITEMS UNDER $5                0           3,642                                        0           3,642
             MILLION (COMM &
             ELEC).............
       20   AIR OPERATIONS C2             0           3,520                                        0           3,520
             SYSTEMS...........
            RADAR + EQUIPMENT
             (NON-TEL)
       21   RADAR SYSTEMS......           0          35,118                                        0          35,118
       22   GROUND/AIR TASK               3         130,661          -1         -32,115            2          98,546
             ORIENTED RADAR (G/
             ATOR).............
              Not meeting                                                      [-32,115]
               performance reqs
               reduce until
               technology is
               refined.........
       23   RQ-21 UAS..........           4          84,916                                        4          84,916
            INTELL/COMM
             EQUIPMENT (NON-
             TEL)
       24   FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM           0           9,136                                        0           9,136
       25   INTELLIGENCE                  0          29,936                                        0          29,936
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
       28   DCGS-MC............           0           1,947                                        0           1,947
            OTHER COMM/ELEC
             EQUIPMENT (NON-
             TEL)
       31   NIGHT VISION                  0           2,018                                        0           2,018
             EQUIPMENT.........
            OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
             TEL)
       32   NEXT GENERATION               0          67,295                                        0          67,295
             ENTERPRISE NETWORK
             (NGEN)............
       33   COMMON COMPUTER               0          43,101                                        0          43,101
             RESOURCES.........
       34   COMMAND POST                  0          29,255                                        0          29,255
             SYSTEMS...........
       35   RADIO SYSTEMS......           0          80,584                                        0          80,584
       36   COMM SWITCHING &              0          66,123                                        0          66,123
             CONTROL SYSTEMS...
       37   COMM & ELEC                   0          79,486                                        0          79,486
             INFRASTRUCTURE
             SUPPORT...........
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
       37A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           2,803                                        0           2,803
            ADMINISTRATIVE
             VEHICLES
       38   COMMERCIAL                    0           3,538                                        0           3,538
             PASSENGER VEHICLES
       39   COMMERCIAL CARGO              0          22,806                                        0          22,806
             VEHICLES..........
            TACTICAL VEHICLES
       41   MOTOR TRANSPORT               0           7,743                                        0           7,743
             MODIFICATIONS.....
       43   JOINT LIGHT                 109          79,429                                      109          79,429
             TACTICAL VEHICLE..
       44   FAMILY OF TACTICAL            0           3,157                                        0           3,157
             TRAILERS..........
            OTHER SUPPORT
       45   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           6,938                                        0           6,938
             MILLION...........
            ENGINEER AND OTHER
             EQUIPMENT
       46   ENVIRONMENTAL                 0              94                                        0              94
             CONTROL EQUIP
             ASSORT............
       47   BULK LIQUID                   0             896                                        0             896
             EQUIPMENT.........
       48   TACTICAL FUEL                 0             136                                        0             136
             SYSTEMS...........
       49   POWER EQUIPMENT               0          10,792                                        0          10,792
             ASSORTED..........
       50   AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT            0           3,235                                        0           3,235
             EQUIPMENT.........
       51   EOD SYSTEMS........           0           7,666                                        0           7,666
            MATERIALS HANDLING
             EQUIPMENT
       52   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          33,145                                        0          33,145
             EQUIPMENT.........
       53   GARRISON MOBILE               0           1,419                                        0           1,419
             ENGINEER EQUIPMENT
             (GMEE)............
            GENERAL PROPERTY
       57   TRAINING DEVICES...           0          24,163                                        0          24,163
       58   CONTAINER FAMILY...           0             962                                        0             962
       59   FAMILY OF                     0           6,545                                        0           6,545
             CONSTRUCTION
             EQUIPMENT.........
       60   FAMILY OF                     0           7,533                                        0           7,533
             INTERNALLY
             TRANSPORTABLE VEH
             (ITV).............
            OTHER SUPPORT
       62   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           4,322                                        0           4,322
             MILLION...........
            SPARES AND REPAIR
             PARTS
       63   SPARES AND REPAIR             0           8,292                                        0           8,292
             PARTS.............

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT,          116       1,131,418          -1         107,885          115       1,239,303
             MARINE CORPS......

            AIRCRAFT
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE
            TACTICAL FORCES
        1   F-35...............          44       5,260,212                     -99,100           44       5,161,112
              Efficiencies and                                                 [-99,100]
               excess cost
               growth..........
        2   F-35 (AP)..........           0         460,260                                        0         460,260
            TACTICAL AIRLIFT
        3   KC-46A TANKER......          12       2,350,601                     -24,000           12       2,326,601
              FY15 excess to                                                   [-24,000]
               need by $24
               million due to
               program delays..
            OTHER AIRLIFT
        4   C-130J.............          14         889,154                                       14         889,154
        5   C-130J (AP)........           0          50,000                                        0          50,000
        6   HC-130J............           5         463,934                                        5         463,934
        7   HC-130J (AP).......           0          30,000                                        0          30,000
        8   MC-130J............           8         828,472                                        8         828,472
        9   MC-130J (AP).......           0          60,000                                        0          60,000
            MISSION SUPPORT
             AIRCRAFT
       11   CIVIL AIR PATROL A/           6           2,617                                        6           2,617
             C.................
            OTHER AIRCRAFT
       12   TARGET DRONES......          75         132,028                                       75         132,028
       14   RQ-4...............           0          37,800                                        0          37,800
       15   MQ-9...............          29         552,528          24         480,000           53       1,032,528
              Accelerating                                           24        [480,000]
               procurement
               schedule to meet
               CCDR demand.....
            STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
       17   B-2A...............           0          32,458                                        0          32,458
       18   B-1B...............           0         114,119                                        0         114,119
       19   B-52...............           0         148,987                                        0         148,987
       20   LARGE AIRCRAFT                0          84,335                                        0          84,335
             INFRARED
             COUNTERMEASURES...
            TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
       22   F-15...............           0         464,367                     249,304            0         713,671
              EPAWSS upgrade...                                                 [11,600]
              F-15C AESA radars                                       6         [48,000]
              F-15D AESA radars                                      24        [192,500]
              ADCP II upgrades.                                                 [10,000]
              F-15C MIDS JTRS                                                   [-6,387]
               transfer to
               RDT&E...........
              F-15E MIDS JTRS                                                   [-6,409]
               transfer to
               RDT&E...........
       23   F-16...............           0          17,134                                        0          17,134
       24   F-22A..............           0         126,152                                        0         126,152
       25   F-35 MODIFICATIONS.           0          70,167                                        0          70,167
       26   INCREMENT 3.2B.....           0          69,325                                        0          69,325
            AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
       28   C-5................           0           5,604                                        0           5,604
       30   C-17A..............           0          46,997                                        0          46,997
       31   C-21...............           0          10,162                                        0          10,162
       32   C-32A..............           0          44,464                                        0          44,464
       33   C-37A..............           0          10,861                                        0          10,861
            TRAINER AIRCRAFT
       34   GLIDER MODS........           0             134                                        0             134
       35   T-6................           0          17,968                                        0          17,968
       36   T-1................           0          23,706                                        0          23,706
       37   T-38...............           0          30,604                                        0          30,604
            OTHER AIRCRAFT
       38   U-2 MODS...........           0          22,095                                        0          22,095
       39   KC-10A (ATCA)......           0           5,611                                        0           5,611
       40   C-12...............           0           1,980                                        0           1,980
       42   VC-25A MOD.........           0          98,231                                        0          98,231
       43   C-40...............           0          13,171                                        0          13,171
       44   C-130..............           0           7,048                     123,200            0         130,248
              C-130H Electronic                                                 [13,500]
               Prop Control
               System - UPL....
              C-130H In-flight                                                   [1,500]
               Prop Balancing
               System - UPL....
              C-130H T-56 3.5                                                   [33,200]
               Engine Mods.....
              Funds added to                                                    [75,000]
               comply with Sec
               134, FY15 NDAA..
       45   C-130J MODS........           0          29,713                                        0          29,713
       46   C-135..............           0          49,043                                        0          49,043
       47   COMPASS CALL MODS..           0          68,415                      28,700            0          97,115
              Modification for                                                  [28,700]
               restored EC-130H
       48   RC-135.............           0         156,165                                        0         156,165
       49   E-3................           0          13,178                                        0          13,178
       50   E-4................           0          23,937                                        0          23,937
       51   E-8................           0          18,001                                        0          18,001
       52   AIRBORNE WARNING              0         183,308                                        0         183,308
             AND CONTROL SYSTEM
       53   FAMILY OF BEYOND              0          44,163                                        0          44,163
             LINE-OF-SIGHT
             TERMINALS.........
       54   H-1................           0           6,291                                        0           6,291
       55   UH-1N REPLACEMENT..           0           2,456                                        0           2,456
       56   H-60...............           0          45,731                                        0          45,731
       57   RQ-4 MODS..........           0          50,022                                        0          50,022
       58   HC/MC-130                     0          21,660                                        0          21,660
             MODIFICATIONS.....
       59   OTHER AIRCRAFT.....           0         117,767                      -2,246            0         115,521
              C2ISR TDL                                                         [-2,246]
               transfer to
               COMSEC equipment
       60   MQ-1 MODS..........           0           3,173                                        0           3,173
       61   MQ-9 MODS..........           0         115,226                                        0         115,226
       63   CV-22 MODS.........           0          58,828                                        0          58,828
            AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
             REPAIR PARTS
       64   INITIAL SPARES/               0         656,242                                        0         656,242
             REPAIR PARTS......
            COMMON SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
       65   AIRCRAFT                      0          33,716                                        0          33,716
             REPLACEMENT
             SUPPORT EQUIP.....
            POST PRODUCTION
             SUPPORT
       67   B-2A...............           0          38,837                                        0          38,837
       68   B-52...............           0           5,911                                        0           5,911
       69   C-17A..............           0          30,108                                        0          30,108
       70   CV-22 POST                    0           3,353                                        0           3,353
             PRODUCTION SUPPORT
       71   C-135..............           0           4,490                                        0           4,490
       72   F-15...............           0           3,225                                        0           3,225
       73   F-16...............           0          14,969                                        0          14,969
       74   F-22A..............           0             971                                        0             971
       76   MQ-9...............           0           5,000                                        0           5,000
            INDUSTRIAL
             PREPAREDNESS
       77   INDUSTRIAL                    0          18,802                                        0          18,802
             RESPONSIVENESS....
            WAR CONSUMABLES
       78   WAR CONSUMABLES....           0         156,465                                        0         156,465
            OTHER PRODUCTION
             CHARGES
       79   OTHER PRODUCTION              0       1,052,814                      59,086            0       1,111,900
             CHARGES...........
              Transfer from                                                     [59,086]
               RDT&E for NATO
               AWACS...........
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
       79A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          42,503                                        0          42,503

            TOTAL AIRCRAFT              193      15,657,769          24         814,944          217      16,472,713
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE.............

            MISSILE
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE
            MISSILE REPLACEMENT
             EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
             IC
        1   MISSILE REPLACEMENT           0          94,040                                        0          94,040
             EQ-BALLISTIC......
            TACTICAL
        3   JOINT AIR-SURFACE           360         440,578                                      360         440,578
             STANDOFF MISSILE..
        4   SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X)         506         200,777                                      506         200,777
        5   AMRAAM.............         262         390,112                                      262         390,112
        6   PREDATOR HELLFIRE         3,756         423,016                                    3,756         423,016
             MISSILE...........
        7   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB       1,942         133,697                                    1,942         133,697
            INDUSTRIAL
             FACILITIES
        8   INDUSTR'L                     0             397                                        0             397
             PREPAREDNS/POL
             PREVENTION........
            CLASS IV
        9   MM III                        0          50,517                                        0          50,517
             MODIFICATIONS.....
       10   AGM-65D MAVERICK...           0           9,639                                        0           9,639
       11   AGM-88A HARM.......           0             197                                        0             197
       12   AIR LAUNCH CRUISE             0          25,019                                        0          25,019
             MISSILE (ALCM)....
            MISSILE SPARES AND
             REPAIR PARTS
       14   INITIAL SPARES/               0          48,523                                        0          48,523
             REPAIR PARTS......
            SPECIAL PROGRAMS
       28   SPECIAL UPDATE                0         276,562                                        0         276,562
             PROGRAMS..........
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
       28A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0         893,971                                        0         893,971

            TOTAL MISSILE             6,826       2,987,045                                    6,826       2,987,045
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE.............

            SPACE PROCUREMENT,
             AIR FORCE
            SPACE PROGRAMS
        1   ADVANCED EHF.......           0         333,366                                        0         333,366
        2   WIDEBAND GAPFILLER            0          53,476                                        0          53,476
             SATELLITES(SPACE).
        3   GPS III SPACE                 1         199,218          -1        -199,218            0               0
             SEGMENT...........
              GPS III SV10                                           -1       [-199,218]
               early to need...
        4   SPACEBORNE EQUIP              0          18,362                                        0          18,362
             (COMSEC)..........
        5   GLOBAL POSITIONING            0          66,135                                        0          66,135
             (SPACE)...........
        6   DEF METEOROLOGICAL            0          89,351                     -89,351            0               0
             SAT PROG(SPACE)...
              Cut DMSP #20.....                                                [-89,351]
        7   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE            0         571,276                                        0         571,276
             LAUNCH CAPABILITY.
        8   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE            5         800,201                                        5         800,201
             LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
        9   SBIR HIGH (SPACE)..           0         452,676                                        0         452,676

            TOTAL SPACE                   6       2,584,061          -1        -288,569            5       2,295,492
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE.............

            PROCUREMENT OF
             AMMUNITION, AIR
             FORCE
            ROCKETS
        1   ROCKETS............           0          23,788                                        0          23,788
            CARTRIDGES
        2   CARTRIDGES.........           0         131,102                      38,500            0         169,602
              Increase to match                                                 [38,500]
               size of A-10
               fleet...........
            BOMBS
        3   PRACTICE BOMBS.....           0          89,759                                        0          89,759
        4   GENERAL PURPOSE               0         637,181                                        0         637,181
             BOMBS.............
        5   MASSIVE ORDNANCE              0          39,690                                        0          39,690
             PENETRATOR (MOP)..
        6   JOINT DIRECT ATTACK       6,341         374,688                                    6,341         374,688
             MUNITION..........
            OTHER ITEMS
        7   CAD/PAD............           0          58,266                                        0          58,266
        8   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0           5,612                                        0           5,612
             DISPOSAL (EOD)....
        9   SPARES AND REPAIR             0             103                                        0             103
             PARTS.............
       10   MODIFICATIONS......           0           1,102                                        0           1,102
       11   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           3,044                                        0           3,044
             MILLION...........
            FLARES
       12   FLARES.............           0         120,935                                        0         120,935
            FUZES
       13   FUZES..............           0         213,476                                        0         213,476
            SMALL ARMS
       14   SMALL ARMS.........           0          60,097                                        0          60,097

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT         6,341       1,758,843                      38,500        6,341       1,797,343
             OF AMMUNITION, AIR
             FORCE.............

            OTHER PROCUREMENT,
             AIR FORCE
            PASSENGER CARRYING
             VEHICLES
        1   PASSENGER CARRYING            0           8,834                                        0           8,834
             VEHICLES..........
            CARGO AND UTILITY
             VEHICLES
        2   MEDIUM TACTICAL               0          58,160                                        0          58,160
             VEHICLE...........
        3   CAP VEHICLES.......           0             977                                        0             977
        4   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          12,483                                        0          12,483
             MILLION...........
            SPECIAL PURPOSE
             VEHICLES
        5   SECURITY AND                  0           4,728                                        0           4,728
             TACTICAL VEHICLES.
        6   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           4,662                                        0           4,662
             MILLION...........
            FIRE FIGHTING
             EQUIPMENT
        7   FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH           0          10,419                                        0          10,419
             RESCUE VEHICLES...
            MATERIALS HANDLING
             EQUIPMENT
        8   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          23,320                                        0          23,320
             MILLION...........
            BASE MAINTENANCE
             SUPPORT
        9   RUNWAY SNOW REMOV &           0           6,215                                        0           6,215
             CLEANING EQUIP....
       10   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          87,781                                        0          87,781
             MILLION...........
            COMM SECURITY
             EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
       11   COMSEC EQUIPMENT...           0         136,998                       2,246            0         139,244
              Transfer for Link                                                  [2,246]
               16 upgrades.....
       12   MODIFICATIONS                 0             677                                        0             677
             (COMSEC)..........
            INTELLIGENCE
             PROGRAMS
       13   INTELLIGENCE                  0           4,041                                        0           4,041
             TRAINING EQUIPMENT
       14   INTELLIGENCE COMM             0          22,573                                        0          22,573
             EQUIPMENT.........
       15   MISSION PLANNING              0          14,456                                        0          14,456
             SYSTEMS...........
            ELECTRONICS
             PROGRAMS
       16   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL           0          31,823                                        0          31,823
             & LANDING SYS.....
       17   NATIONAL AIRSPACE             0           5,833                                        0           5,833
             SYSTEM............
       18   BATTLE CONTROL                0           1,687                                        0           1,687
             SYSTEM--FIXED.....
       19   THEATER AIR CONTROL           0          22,710                                        0          22,710
             SYS IMPROVEMENTS..
       20   WEATHER OBSERVATION           0          21,561                                        0          21,561
             FORECAST..........
       21   STRATEGIC COMMAND             0         286,980                                        0         286,980
             AND CONTROL.......
       22   CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN             0          36,186                                        0          36,186
             COMPLEX...........
       24   INTEGRATED STRAT              0           9,597                                        0           9,597
             PLAN & ANALY
             NETWORK (ISPAN)...
            SPCL COMM-
             ELECTRONICS
             PROJECTS
       25   GENERAL INFORMATION           0          27,403                                        0          27,403
             TECHNOLOGY........
       26   AF GLOBAL COMMAND &           0           7,212                                        0           7,212
             CONTROL SYS.......
       27   MOBILITY COMMAND              0          11,062                      19,900            0          30,962
             AND CONTROL.......
              Additional                                                        [19,900]
               battlefield air
               operations kits
               to meet need....
       28   AIR FORCE PHYSICAL            0         131,269                                        0         131,269
             SECURITY SYSTEM...
       29   COMBAT TRAINING               0          33,606                                        0          33,606
             RANGES............
       30   MINIMUM ESSENTIAL             0           5,232                                        0           5,232
             EMERGENCY COMM N..
       31   C3 COUNTERMEASURES.           0           7,453                                        0           7,453
       32   INTEGRATED                    0           3,976                                        0           3,976
             PERSONNEL AND PAY
             SYSTEM............
       33   GCSS-AF FOS........           0          25,515                                        0          25,515
       34   DEFENSE ENTERPRISE            0           9,255                                        0           9,255
             ACCOUNTING AND
             MGMT SYSTEM.......
       35   THEATER BATTLE MGT            0           7,523                                        0           7,523
             C2 SYSTEM.........
       36   AIR & SPACE                   0          12,043                                        0          12,043
             OPERATIONS CTR-WPN
             SYS...............
       37   AIR OPERATIONS                0          24,246                                        0          24,246
             CENTER (AOC) 10.2.
            AIR FORCE
             COMMUNICATIONS
       38   INFORMATION                   0          74,621                                        0          74,621
             TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.
       39   AFNET..............           0         103,748                     -17,000            0          86,748
              Restructure                                                      [-17,000]
               program.........
       41   JOINT                         0           5,199                                        0           5,199
             COMMUNICATIONS
             SUPPORT ELEMENT
             (JCSE)............
       42   USCENTCOM..........           0          15,780                                        0          15,780
            SPACE PROGRAMS
       43   FAMILY OF BEYOND              0          79,592                                        0          79,592
             LINE-OF-SIGHT
             TERMINALS.........
       44   SPACE BASED IR                0          90,190                                        0          90,190
             SENSOR PGM SPACE..
       45   NAVSTAR GPS SPACE..           0           2,029                                        0           2,029
       46   NUDET DETECTION SYS           0           5,095                                        0           5,095
             SPACE.............
       47   AF SATELLITE                  0          76,673                                        0          76,673
             CONTROL NETWORK
             SPACE.............
       48   SPACELIFT RANGE               0         113,275                                        0         113,275
             SYSTEM SPACE......
       49   MILSATCOM SPACE....           0          35,495                                        0          35,495
       50   SPACE MODS SPACE...           0          23,435                                        0          23,435
       51   COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM           0          43,065                                        0          43,065
            ORGANIZATION AND
             BASE
       52   TACTICAL C-E                  0          77,538                      36,000            0         113,538
             EQUIPMENT.........
              Increase JTAC                                                     [36,000]
               training and
               rehearsal
               simulators per
               AF unfunded
               priority list...
       54   RADIO EQUIPMENT....           0           8,400                                        0           8,400
       55   CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL              0           6,144                                        0           6,144
             EQUIPMENT.........
       56   BASE COMM                     0          77,010                                        0          77,010
             INFRASTRUCTURE....
            MODIFICATIONS
       57   COMM ELECT MODS....           0          71,800                                        0          71,800
            PERSONAL SAFETY &
             RESCUE EQUIP
       58   NIGHT VISION                  0           2,370                                        0           2,370
             GOGGLES...........
       59   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          79,623                                        0          79,623
             MILLION...........
            DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
             HANDLING EQ
       60   MECHANIZED MATERIAL           0           7,249                                        0           7,249
             HANDLING EQUIP....
            BASE SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
       61   BASE PROCURED                 0           9,095                                        0           9,095
             EQUIPMENT.........
       62   ENGINEERING AND EOD           0          17,866                                        0          17,866
             EQUIPMENT.........
       64   MOBILITY EQUIPMENT.           0          61,850                                        0          61,850
       65   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          30,477                                        0          30,477
             MILLION...........
            SPECIAL SUPPORT
             PROJECTS
       67   DARP RC135.........           0          25,072                                        0          25,072
       68   DCGS-AF............           0         183,021                                        0         183,021
       70   SPECIAL UPDATE                0         629,371                                        0         629,371
             PROGRAM...........
       71   DEFENSE SPACE                 0         100,663                                        0         100,663
             RECONNAISSANCE
             PROG..............
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
       71A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0      15,038,333                                        0      15,038,333
            SPARES AND REPAIR
             PARTS
       73   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          59,863                                        0          59,863
             PARTS.............

            TOTAL OTHER                   0      18,272,438                      41,146            0      18,313,584
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE.............

            PROCUREMENT,
             DEFENSE-WIDE
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DCAA
        1   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           1,488                                        0           1,488
             MILLION...........
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DCMA
        2   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           0           2,494                                        0           2,494
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DHRA
        3   PERSONNEL                     0           9,341                                        0           9,341
             ADMINISTRATION....
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DISA
        7   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0           8,080                      10,000            0          18,080
             SECURITY..........
              Sharkseer                                                         [10,000]
               increase........
        8   TELEPORT PROGRAM...           0          62,789                                        0          62,789
        9   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           9,399                                        0           9,399
             MILLION...........
       10   NET CENTRIC                   0           1,819                                        0           1,819
             ENTERPRISE
             SERVICES (NCES)...
       11   DEFENSE INFORMATION           0         141,298                                        0         141,298
             SYSTEM NETWORK....
       12   CYBER SECURITY                0          12,732                                        0          12,732
             INITIATIVE........
       13   WHITE HOUSE                   0          64,098                                        0          64,098
             COMMUNICATION
             AGENCY............
       14   SENIOR LEADERSHIP             0         617,910                                        0         617,910
             ENTERPRISE........
       15   JOINT INFORMATION             0          84,400                                        0          84,400
             ENVIRONMENT.......
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DLA
       16   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           0           5,644                                        0           5,644
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DMACT
       17   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           4          11,208                                        4          11,208
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DODEA
       18   AUTOMATION/                   0           1,298                                        0           1,298
             EDUCATIONAL
             SUPPORT &
             LOGISTICS.........
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DSS
       20   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           0           1,048                                        0           1,048
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DEFENSE THREAT
             REDUCTION AGENCY
       21   VEHICLES...........           0             100                                        0             100
       22   OTHER MAJOR                   0           5,474                                        0           5,474
             EQUIPMENT.........
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             MISSILE DEFENSE
             AGENCY
       23   THAAD..............          30         464,067                                       30         464,067
       24   AEGIS BMD..........          40         558,916           9         147,765           49         706,681
              Increase SM-3                                           9        [117,880]
               Block IB
               purchase........
              Increase SM-3                                           9          [2,565]
               Block IB
               canisters.......
              Undifferentiated                                                  [27,320]
               Block IB test
               and evaluation
               costs...........
       25   AEGIS BMD (AP).....           0         147,765                    -147,765            0               0
              Early to need....                                               [-147,765]
       26   BMDS AN/TPY-2                 0          78,634                                        0          78,634
             RADARS............
       27   AEGIS ASHORE PHASE            0          30,587                                        0          30,587
             III...............
       28   IRON DOME..........           1          55,000                     -13,900            1          41,100
              Request excess of                                                [-13,900]
               requirement.....
       XX   DAVIDS SLING.......           0               0                     150,000            0         150,000
              Increase for                                                     [150,000]
               David's Sling co-
               production......
      XXX   ARROW 3............           0               0                      15,000            0          15,000
              Increase for                                                      [15,000]
               Arrow 3 co-
               production......
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             NSA
       35   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0          37,177                                        0          37,177
             SECURITY PROGRAM
             (ISSP)............
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             OSD
       36   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,             17          46,939                                       17          46,939
             OSD...............
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             TJS
       38   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,              0          13,027                                        0          13,027
             TJS...............
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             WHS
       40   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,              0          27,859                                        0          27,859
             WHS...............
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
       40A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0         617,757                                        0         617,757
            AVIATION PROGRAMS
       41   MC-12..............           0          63,170                     -63,170            0               0
              SOCOM requested                                                  [-63,170]
               realignment.....
       42   ROTARY WING                   0         135,985                                        0         135,985
             UPGRADES AND
             SUSTAINMENT.......
       44   NON-STANDARD                  0          61,275                                        0          61,275
             AVIATION..........
       45   U-28...............           0               0                      63,170            0          63,170
              SOCOM requested                                                   [63,170]
               realignment.....
       47   RQ-11 UNMANNED                0          20,087                                        0          20,087
             AERIAL VEHICLE....
       48   CV-22 MODIFICATION.           0          18,832                                        0          18,832
       49   MQ-1 UNMANNED                 0           1,934                                        0           1,934
             AERIAL VEHICLE....
       50   MQ-9 UNMANNED                 0          11,726                      10,000            0          21,726
             AERIAL VEHICLE....
              MQ-9 capability                                                   [10,000]
               enhancements....
       51   STUASL0............           0           1,514                                        0           1,514
       52   PRECISION STRIKE              0         204,105                                        0         204,105
             PACKAGE...........
       53   AC/MC-130J.........           0          61,368                                        0          61,368
       54   C-130 MODIFICATIONS           0          66,861                     -35,449            0          31,412
              C-130 TF/TA                                                      [-35,449]
               adjustments.....
            SHIPBUILDING
       55   UNDERWATER SYSTEMS.           0          32,521                                        0          32,521
            AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
       56   ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M           0         174,734                                        0         174,734
            OTHER PROCUREMENT
             PROGRAMS
       57   INTELLIGENCE                  0          93,009                                        0          93,009
             SYSTEMS...........
       58   DISTRIBUTED COMMON            0          14,964                                        0          14,964
             GROUND/SURFACE
             SYSTEMS...........
       59   OTHER ITEMS <$5M...           0          79,149                                        0          79,149
       60   COMBATANT CRAFT               0          33,362                                        0          33,362
             SYSTEMS...........
       61   SPECIAL PROGRAMS...           0         143,533                                        0         143,533
       62   TACTICAL VEHICLES..           0          73,520                                        0          73,520
       63   WARRIOR SYSTEMS               0         186,009                                        0         186,009
             <$5M..............
       64   COMBAT MISSION                0          19,693                                        0          19,693
             REQUIREMENTS......
       65   GLOBAL VIDEO                  0           3,967                                        0           3,967
             SURVEILLANCE
             ACTIVITIES........
       66   OPERATIONAL                   0          19,225                                        0          19,225
             ENHANCEMENTS
             INTELLIGENCE......
       68   OPERATIONAL                   0         213,252                                        0         213,252
             ENHANCEMENTS......
            CBDP
       74   CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL           0         141,223                                        0         141,223
             SITUATIONAL
             AWARENESS.........
       75   CB PROTECTION &               0         137,487                                        0         137,487
             HAZARD MITIGATION.
            UNDISTRIBUTED
       XX   USCC CYBER                    0               0                      75,000            0          75,000
             CAPABILITIES......
              Cyber                                                             [75,000]
               capabilities....

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT,           92       5,130,853           9         210,651          101       5,341,504
             DEFENSE-WIDE......

            JOINT URGENT
             OPERATIONAL NEEDS
             FUND
            JOINT URGENT
             OPERATIONAL NEEDS
             FUND
        1   JOINT URGENT                  0          99,701                                        0          99,701
             OPERATIONAL NEEDS
             FUND..............

            TOTAL JOINT URGENT            0          99,701                                        0          99,701
             OPERATIONAL NEEDS
             FUND..............

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT..      22,785     106,967,393         100       4,880,184       22,885     111,847,577
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       FY 2016 Request              Senate Change              Senate Authorized
     Line           Item        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Qty          Cost           Qty           Cost           Qty          Cost
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            AIRCRAFT
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY
            FIXED WING
        3   AERIAL COMMON                 5          99,500                                        5          99,500
             SENSOR (ACS) (MIP)
        4   MQ-1 UAV...........           2          16,537                                        2          16,537
            MODIFICATION OF
             AIRCRAFT
       16   MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP).           0           8,700                                        0           8,700
       23   ARL SEMA MODS (MIP)           0          32,000                                        0          32,000
       31   RQ-7 UAV MODS......           0           8,250                                        0           8,250

            TOTAL AIRCRAFT                7         164,987                                        7         164,987
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

            MISSILE
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY
            AIR-TO-SURFACE
             MISSILE SYSTEM
        3   HELLFIRE SYS                270          37,260                                      270          37,260
             SUMMARY...........

            TOTAL MISSILE               270          37,260                                      270          37,260
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

            PROCUREMENT OF
             W&TCV, ARMY
            WEAPONS & OTHER
             COMBAT VEHICLES
       16   MORTAR SYSTEMS.....           0           7,030                                        0           7,030
       21   COMMON REMOTELY               0          19,000                                        0          19,000
             OPERATED WEAPONS
             STATION...........

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0          26,030                                        0          26,030
             OF W&TCV, ARMY....

            PROCUREMENT OF
             AMMUNITION, ARMY
            SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
             AMMUNITION
        4   CTG, .50 CAL, ALL             0           4,000                                        0           4,000
             TYPES.............
            MORTAR AMMUNITION
        8   60MM MORTAR, ALL              0          11,700                                        0          11,700
             TYPES.............
        9   81MM MORTAR, ALL              0           4,000                                        0           4,000
             TYPES.............
       10   120MM MORTAR, ALL             0           7,000                                        0           7,000
             TYPES.............
            ARTILLERY
             AMMUNITION
       12   ARTILLERY                     0           5,000                                        0           5,000
             CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
             105MM, ALL TYPES..
       13   ARTILLERY                     0          10,000                                        0          10,000
             PROJECTILE, 155MM,
             ALL TYPES.........
       15   ARTILLERY                     0           2,000                                        0           2,000
             PROPELLANTS, FUZES
             AND PRIMERS, ALL..
            ROCKETS
       17   ROCKET, HYDRA 70,             0         136,340                                        0         136,340
             ALL TYPES.........
            OTHER AMMUNITION
       19   DEMOLITION                    0           4,000                                        0           4,000
             MUNITIONS, ALL
             TYPES.............
       21   SIGNALS, ALL TYPES.           0           8,000                                        0           8,000

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0         192,040                                        0         192,040
             OF AMMUNITION,
             ARMY..............

            OTHER PROCUREMENT,
             ARMY
            TACTICAL VEHICLES
        5   FAMILY OF MEDIUM          1,191         243,998                                    1,191         243,998
             TACTICAL VEH
             (FMTV)............
        9   HVY EXPANDED MOBILE           0         223,276                                        0         223,276
             TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
             SERV..............
       11   MODIFICATION OF IN            0         130,000                                        0         130,000
             SVC EQUIP.........
       12   MINE-RESISTANT                0         393,100                                        0         393,100
             AMBUSH-PROTECTED
             (MRAP) MODS.......
            COMM--SATELLITE
             COMMUNICATIONS
       21   TRANSPORTABLE                 0           5,724                                        0           5,724
             TACTICAL COMMAND
             COMMUNICATIONS....
            COMM--BASE
             COMMUNICATIONS
       51   INSTALLATION INFO             0          29,500                                        0          29,500
             INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
             PROGRAM...........
            ELECT EQUIP--TACT
             INT REL ACT
             (TIARA)
       57   DCGS-A (MIP).......           0          54,140                                        0          54,140
       59   TROJAN (MIP).......           0           6,542                                        0           6,542
       61   CI HUMINT AUTO                0           3,860                                        0           3,860
             REPRTING AND
             COLL(CHARCS)......
            ELECT EQUIP--
             ELECTRONIC WARFARE
             (EW)
       68   FAMILY OF                     0          14,847                                        0          14,847
             PERSISTENT
             SURVEILLANCE
             CAPABILITIE.......
       69   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/          0          19,535                                        0          19,535
             SECURITY
             COUNTERMEASURES...
            ELECT EQUIP--
             TACTICAL SURV.
             (TAC SURV)
       84   COMPUTER                      0           2,601                                        0           2,601
             BALLISTICS: LHMBC
             XM32..............
            ELECT EQUIP--
             TACTICAL C2
             SYSTEMS
       87   FIRE SUPPORT C2               0              48                                        0              48
             FAMILY............
       94   MANEUVER CONTROL              0             252                                        0             252
             SYSTEM (MCS)......
            ELECT EQUIP--
             AUTOMATION
      101   AUTOMATED DATA                0             652                                        0             652
             PROCESSING EQUIP..
            CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
             EQUIPMENT
      111   BASE DEFENSE                  0           4,035                                        0           4,035
             SYSTEMS (BDS).....
            COMBAT SERVICE
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
      131   FORCE PROVIDER.....          12          53,800                                       12          53,800
      133   CARGO AERIAL DEL &            0             700                                        0             700
             PERSONNEL
             PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
            MATERIAL HANDLING
             EQUIPMENT
      159   FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS           0          10,486                                        0          10,486
            OTHER SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
      169   RAPID EQUIPPING               0           8,500                                        0           8,500
             SOLDIER SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT.........

            TOTAL OTHER               1,203       1,205,596                                    1,203       1,205,596
             PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

            JOINT IMPR
             EXPLOSIVE DEV
             DEFEAT FUND
            FORCE TRAINING
        3   TRAIN THE FORCE....           0           7,850                                        0           7,850
            JIEDDO DEVICE
             DEFEAT
        2   DEFEAT THE DEVICE..           0          77,600                                        0          77,600
            NETWORK ATTACK
        1   ATTACK THE NETWORK.           0         219,550                      -4,464            0         215,086
              Adjustment due to                                                 [-4,464]
               low execution in
               prior years.....
            STAFF AND
             INFRASTRUCTURE
        4   OPERATIONS.........           0         188,271                     -43,807            0         144,464
              Maintain prior                                                   [-43,807]
               year funding
               level...........

            TOTAL JOINT IMPR              0         493,271                     -48,271            0         445,000
             EXPLOSIVE DEV
             DEFEAT FUND.......

            AIRCRAFT
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY
            OTHER AIRCRAFT
       26   STUASL0 UAV........           3          55,000                                        3          55,000
            MODIFICATION OF
             AIRCRAFT
       30   AV-8 SERIES........           0          41,365                                        0          41,365
       32   F-18 SERIES........           0           8,000                                        0           8,000
       37   EP-3 SERIES........           0           6,300                                        0           6,300
       47   SPECIAL PROJECT               0          14,198                                        0          14,198
             AIRCRAFT..........
       51   COMMON ECM                    0          72,700                                        0          72,700
             EQUIPMENT.........
       52   COMMON AVIONICS               0          13,988                                        0          13,988
             CHANGES...........
       59   V-22 (TILT/ROTOR              0           4,900                                        0           4,900
             ACFT) OSPREY......
            AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
             EQUIP & FACILITIES
       65   AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL           0             943                                        0             943
             FACILITIES........

            TOTAL AIRCRAFT                3         217,394                                        3         217,394
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

            WEAPONS
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY
            TACTICAL MISSILES
       10   LASER MAVERICK.....           0           3,344                                        0           3,344

            TOTAL WEAPONS                 0           3,344                                        0           3,344
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

            PROCUREMENT OF
             AMMO, NAVY & MC
            NAVY AMMUNITION
        1   GENERAL PURPOSE               0           9,715                                        0           9,715
             BOMBS.............
        2   AIRBORNE ROCKETS,             0          11,108                                        0          11,108
             ALL TYPES.........
        3   MACHINE GUN                   0           3,603                                        0           3,603
             AMMUNITION........
        6   AIR EXPENDABLE                0          11,982                                        0          11,982
             COUNTERMEASURES...
       11   OTHER SHIP GUN                0           4,674                                        0           4,674
             AMMUNITION........
       12   SMALL ARMS &                  0           3,456                                        0           3,456
             LANDING PARTY AMMO
       13   PYROTECHNIC AND               0           1,989                                        0           1,989
             DEMOLITION........
       14   AMMUNITION LESS               0           4,674                                        0           4,674
             THAN $5 MILLION...
            MARINE CORPS
             AMMUNITION
       20   120MM, ALL TYPES...           0          10,719                                        0          10,719
       23   ROCKETS, ALL TYPES.           0           3,993                                        0           3,993
       24   ARTILLERY, ALL                0          67,200                                        0          67,200
             TYPES.............
       26   FUZE, ALL TYPES....           0           3,299                                        0           3,299
       25   DEMOLITION                    0             518                                        0             518
             MUNITIONS, ALL
             TYPES.............

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0         136,930                                        0         136,930
             OF AMMO, NAVY & MC

            OTHER PROCUREMENT,
             NAVY
            CIVIL ENGINEERING
             SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
      135   PASSENGER CARRYING            0             186                                        0             186
             VEHICLES..........
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
      160A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          12,000                                        0          12,000

            TOTAL OTHER                   0          12,186                                        0          12,186
             PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

            PROCUREMENT, MARINE
             CORPS
            GUIDED MISSILES
       10   JAVELIN............           0           7,679                                        0           7,679
            OTHER SUPPORT
       13   MODIFICATION KITS..           0          10,311                                        0          10,311
            COMMAND AND CONTROL
             SYSTEMS
       14   UNIT OPERATIONS               0           8,221                                        0           8,221
             CENTER............
            OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
       18   MODIFICATION KITS..           0           3,600                                        0           3,600
            COMMAND AND CONTROL
             SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
       19   ITEMS UNDER $5                0           8,693                                        0           8,693
             MILLION (COMM &
             ELEC).............
            INTELL/COMM
             EQUIPMENT (NON-
             TEL)
       27   RQ-11 UAV..........           0           3,430                                        0           3,430
            MATERIALS HANDLING
             EQUIPMENT
       52   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0           7,000                                        0           7,000
             EQUIPMENT.........

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT,            0          48,934                                        0          48,934
             MARINE CORPS......

            AIRCRAFT
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE
            OTHER AIRCRAFT
       15   MQ-9...............           0          13,500                                        0          13,500
            OTHER AIRCRAFT
       44   C-130..............           0           1,410                                        0           1,410
       56   H-60...............           0          39,300                                        0          39,300
       58   HC/MC-130                     0           5,690                                        0           5,690
             MODIFICATIONS.....
       61   MQ-9 MODS..........           0          69,000                                        0          69,000

            TOTAL AIRCRAFT                0         128,900                                        0         128,900
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE.............

            MISSILE
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE
            TACTICAL
        6   PREDATOR HELLFIRE         1,811         280,902                                    1,811         280,902
             MISSILE...........
        7   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB          63           2,520                                       63           2,520
            CLASS IV
       10   AGM-65D MAVERICK...           0           5,720                                        0           5,720

            TOTAL MISSILE             1,874         289,142                                    1,874         289,142
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE.............

            PROCUREMENT OF
             AMMUNITION, AIR
             FORCE
            CARTRIDGES
        2   CARTRIDGES.........           0           8,371                                        0           8,371
            BOMBS
        4   GENERAL PURPOSE               0          17,031                                        0          17,031
             BOMBS.............
        6   JOINT DIRECT ATTACK       5,953         184,412                                    5,953         184,412
             MUNITION..........
            FLARES
       12   FLARES.............           0          11,064                                        0          11,064
            FUZES
       13   FUZES..............           0           7,996                                        0           7,996

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT         5,953         228,874                                    5,953         228,874
             OF AMMUNITION, AIR
             FORCE.............

            OTHER PROCUREMENT,
             AIR FORCE
            SPCL COMM-
             ELECTRONICS
             PROJECTS
       25   GENERAL INFORMATION           0           3,953                                        0           3,953
             TECHNOLOGY........
       27   MOBILITY COMMAND              0           2,000                                        0           2,000
             AND CONTROL.......
            AIR FORCE
             COMMUNICATIONS
       42   USCENTCOM..........           0          10,000                                        0          10,000
            ORGANIZATION AND
             BASE
       52   TACTICAL C-E                  0           4,065                                        0           4,065
             EQUIPMENT.........
       56   BASE COMM                     0          15,400                                        0          15,400
             INFRASTRUCTURE....
            PERSONAL SAFETY &
             RESCUE EQUIP
       58   NIGHT VISION                  0           3,580                                        0           3,580
             GOGGLES...........
       59   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           3,407                                        0           3,407
             MILLION...........
            BASE SUPPORT
             EQUIPMENT
       62   ENGINEERING AND EOD           0          46,790                                        0          46,790
             EQUIPMENT.........
       64   MOBILITY EQUIPMENT.           0             400                                        0             400
       65   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           9,800                                        0           9,800
             MILLION...........
            SPECIAL SUPPORT
             PROJECTS
       71   DEFENSE SPACE                 0          28,070                                        0          28,070
             RECONNAISSANCE
             PROG..............
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
       71A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0       3,732,499                                        0       3,732,499

            TOTAL OTHER                   0       3,859,964                                        0       3,859,964
             PROCUREMENT, AIR
             FORCE.............

            PROCUREMENT,
             DEFENSE-WIDE
            MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
             DISA
        8   TELEPORT PROGRAM...           0           1,940                                        0           1,940
            CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
       40A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          35,482                                        0          35,482
            AVIATION PROGRAMS
       41   MC-12..............           0           5,000                                        0           5,000
            AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
       56   ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M     746,066          35,299                                  746,066          35,299
            OTHER PROCUREMENT
             PROGRAMS
       61   SPECIAL PROGRAMS...           1          15,160                                        1          15,160
       63   WARRIOR SYSTEMS              50          15,000                                       50          15,000
             <$5M..............
       68   OPERATIONAL                   3         104,537                                        3         104,537
             ENHANCEMENTS......

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT,      746,120         212,418                                  746,120         212,418
             DEFENSE-WIDE......

            TOTAL PROCUREMENT..     755,430       7,257,270                     -48,271      755,430       7,208,999
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            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 2016  Request    Senate  Change      Authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                     TEST & EVAL, ARMY
             .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
         1   0601101A               IN-HOUSE LABORATORY                  13,018                               13,018
                                     INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
         2   0601102A               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           239,118            40,000            279,118
             .....................    Basic research program                              [40,000]
                                       increase.
         3   0601103A               UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                  72,603                               72,603
                                     INITIATIVES.
         4   0601104A               UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY             100,340                              100,340
                                     RESEARCH CENTERS.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH.           425,079            40,000            465,079
             .....................
             .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
         5   0602105A               MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY.....            28,314                               28,314
         6   0602120A               SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC               38,374                               38,374
                                     SURVIVABILITY.
         7   0602122A               TRACTOR HIP..............             6,879                                6,879
         8   0602211A               AVIATION TECHNOLOGY......            56,884                               56,884
         9   0602270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   19,243                               19,243
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        10   0602303A               MISSILE TECHNOLOGY.......            45,053                               45,053
        11   0602307A               ADVANCED WEAPONS                     29,428                               29,428
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        12   0602308A               ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND                27,862                               27,862
                                     SIMULATION.
        13   0602601A               COMBAT VEHICLE AND                   68,839                               68,839
                                     AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
        14   0602618A               BALLISTIAG TECHNOLOGY....            92,801                               92,801
        15   0602622A               CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND                   3,866                                3,866
                                     EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        16   0602623A               JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS              5,487                                5,487
                                     PROGRAM.
        17   0602624A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS                48,340                               48,340
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        18   0602705A               ELECTRONIAG AND                      55,301                               55,301
                                     ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
        19   0602709A               NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY..            33,807                               33,807
        20   0602712A               COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS......            25,068                               25,068
        21   0602716A               HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING            23,681                               23,681
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        22   0602720A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                20,850                               20,850
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        23   0602782A               COMMAND, CONTROL,                    36,160                               36,160
                                     COMMUNICATIONS
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        24   0602783A               COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE                12,656                               12,656
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        25   0602784A               MILITARY ENGINEERING                 63,409                               63,409
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        26   0602785A               MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/                  24,735                               24,735
                                     TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
        27   0602786A               WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY....            35,795                               35,795
        28   0602787A               MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.......            76,853                               76,853
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, APPLIED                   879,685                              879,685
                                     RESEARCH.
             .....................
             .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT
        29   0603001A               WARFIGHTER ADVANCED                  46,973                               46,973
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        30   0603002A               MEDICAL ADVANCED                     69,584                               69,584
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        31   0603003A               AVIATION ADVANCED                    89,736                               89,736
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        32   0603004A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS                57,663                               57,663
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
        33   0603005A               COMBAT VEHICLE AND                  113,071                              113,071
                                     AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        34   0603006A               SPACE APPLICATION                     5,554                                5,554
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
        35   0603007A               MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND              12,636                               12,636
                                     TRAINING ADVANCED
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        37   0603009A               TRACTOR HIKE.............             7,502                                7,502
        38   0603015A               NEXT GENERATION TRAINING             17,425                               17,425
                                     & SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
        39   0603020A               TRACTOR ROSE.............            11,912                               11,912
        40   0603125A               COMBATING TERRORISM--                27,520                               27,520
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
        41   0603130A               TRACTOR NAIL.............             2,381                                2,381
        42   0603131A               TRACTOR EGGS.............             2,431                                2,431
        43   0603270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   26,874                               26,874
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        44   0603313A               MISSILE AND ROCKET                   49,449                               49,449
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
        45   0603322A               TRACTOR CAGE.............            10,999                               10,999
        46   0603461A               HIGH PERFORMANCE                    177,159           -10,000            167,159
                                     COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
                                     PROGRAM.
             .....................    Encourage use of                                   [-10,000]
                                       commercial technology.
        47   0603606A               LANDMINE WARFARE AND                 13,993                               13,993
                                     BARRIER ADVANCED
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        48   0603607A               JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS              5,105                                5,105
                                     PROGRAM.
        49   0603710A               NIGHT VISION ADVANCED                40,929                               40,929
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        50   0603728A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                10,727                               10,727
                                     TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEMONSTRATIONS.
        51   0603734A               MILITARY ENGINEERING                 20,145                               20,145
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
        52   0603772A               ADVANCED TACTICAL                    38,163                               38,163
                                     COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
                                     SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.
        53   0603794A               C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY...            37,816                               37,816
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                  895,747           -10,000            885,747
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................
             .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                     DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
        54   0603305A               ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE                  10,347                               10,347
                                     SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
        55   0603308A               ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS                   25,061                               25,061
                                     INTEGRATION.
        56   0603619A               LANDMINE WARFARE AND                 49,636                               49,636
                                     BARRIER--ADV DEV.
        57   0603627A               SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND                 13,426                               13,426
                                     TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV
                                     DEV.
        58   0603639A               TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER              46,749                               46,749
                                     AMMUNITION.
        60   0603747A               SOLDIER SUPPORT AND                   6,258                                6,258
                                     SURVIVABILITY.
        61   0603766A               TACTICAL ELECTRONIC                  13,472                               13,472
                                     SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
                                     DEV.
        62   0603774A               NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS                  7,292                                7,292
                                     ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
        63   0603779A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                 8,813                                8,813
                                     TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
        65   0603790A               NATO RESEARCH AND                     6,075                                6,075
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        67   0603804A               LOGISTIAG AND ENGINEER               21,233                               21,233
                                     EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
        68   0603807A               MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV.            31,962                               31,962
        69   0603827A               SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED            22,194                               22,194
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        71   0604100A               ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.             9,805                                9,805
        72   0604115A               TECHNOLOGY MATURATION                40,917                               40,917
                                     INITIATIVES.
        73   0604120A               ASSURED POSITIONING,                 30,058                               30,058
                                     NAVIGATION AND TIMING
                                     (PNT).
        74   0604319A               INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION            155,361                              155,361
                                     CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
                                     INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                  498,659                              498,659
                                     COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                     PROTOTYPES.
             .....................
             .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION
        76   0604201A               AIRCRAFT AVIONIAG........            12,939                               12,939
        78   0604270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   18,843                               18,843
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        79   0604280A               JOINT TACTICAL RADIO.....             9,861                                9,861
        80   0604290A               MID-TIER NETWORKING                   8,763                                8,763
                                     VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
        81   0604321A               ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS                   4,309                                4,309
                                     SYSTEM.
        82   0604328A               TRACTOR CAGE.............            15,138                               15,138
        83   0604601A               INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS.            74,128             2,500             76,628
             .....................    Transfer from WTCV.....                              [2,500]
        85   0604611A               JAVELIN..................             3,945                                3,945
        87   0604633A               AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL......            10,076                               10,076
        88   0604641A               TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND             40,374                               40,374
                                     VEHICLE (TUGV).
        89   0604710A               NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG            67,582                               67,582
                                     DEV.
        90   0604713A               COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING,             1,763                                1,763
                                     AND EQUIPMENT.
        91   0604715A               NON-SYSTEM TRAINING                  27,155                               27,155
                                     DEVICES--ENG DEV.
        92   0604741A               AIR DEFENSE COMMAND,                 24,569                               24,569
                                     CONTROL AND
                                     INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
        93   0604742A               CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION              23,364                               23,364
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
        94   0604746A               AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT              8,960                                8,960
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        95   0604760A               DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE              9,138                                9,138
                                     SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
                                     DEV.
        96   0604780A               COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL               21,622                               21,622
                                     TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
        97   0604798A               BRIGADE ANALYSIS,                    99,242                               99,242
                                     INTEGRATION AND
                                     EVALUATION.
        98   0604802A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--              21,379                               21,379
                                     ENG DEV.
        99   0604804A               LOGISTIAG AND ENGINEER               48,339                               48,339
                                     EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
       100   0604805A               COMMAND, CONTROL,                     2,726                                2,726
                                     COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
                                     ENG DEV.
       101   0604807A               MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL             45,412                               45,412
                                     BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
                                     EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
       102   0604808A               LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER--           55,215                               55,215
                                     ENG DEV.
       104   0604818A               ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND &             163,643                              163,643
                                     CONTROL HARDWARE &
                                     SOFTWARE.
       105   0604820A               RADAR DEVELOPMENT........            12,309                               12,309
       106   0604822A               GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE              15,700                               15,700
                                     BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
       107   0604823A               FIREFINDER...............             6,243                                6,243
       108   0604827A               SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR             18,776                               18,776
                                     DEM/VAL.
       109   0604854A               ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD...             1,953                                1,953
       110   0605013A               INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               67,358                               67,358
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       111   0605018A               INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND            136,011           -50,000             86,011
                                     PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
             .....................    Restructure program....                            [-50,000]
       112   0605028A               ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE               230,210                              230,210
                                     VEHICLE (AMPV).
       113   0605030A               JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK               13,357                               13,357
                                     CENTER (JTNC).
       114   0605031A               JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK               18,055                               18,055
                                     (JTN).
       115   0605032A               TRACTOR TIRE.............             5,677                                5,677
       116   0605035A               COMMON INFRARED                      77,570            24,000            101,570
                                     COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
             .....................    Army UPL for AH-64 ASE                              [24,000]
                                       development.
       117   0605051A               AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY               18,112            60,000             78,112
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................    Army UPL for AH-64 ASE                              [60,000]
                                       development.
       118   0605350A               WIN-T INCREMENT 3--FULL              39,700                               39,700
                                     NETWORKING.
       119   0605380A               AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO             12,987            -6,832              6,155
                                     SYSTEM (JTRS).
             .....................    Only for SALT program..                             [-6,832]
       120   0605450A               JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND                  88,866                               88,866
                                     MISSILE (JAGM).
       121   0605456A               PAC-3/MSE MISSILE........             2,272                                2,272
       122   0605457A               ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND             214,099                              214,099
                                     MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
       123   0605625A               MANNED GROUND VEHICLE....            49,247                               49,247
       124   0605626A               AERIAL COMMON SENSOR.....                 2                                    2
       125   0605766A               NATIONAL CAPABILITIES                10,599                               10,599
                                     INTEGRATION (MIP).
       126   0605812A               JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL                 32,486                               32,486
                                     VEHICLE (JLTV)
                                     ENGINEERING AND
                                     MANUFACTURING
                                     DEVELOPMENT PH.
       127   0605830A               AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT               8,880                                8,880
                                     EQUIPMENT.
       128   0210609A               PALADIN INTEGRATED                  152,288                              152,288
                                     MANAGEMENT (PIM).
       129   0303032A               TROJAN--RH12.............             5,022                                5,022
       130   0304270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   12,686                               12,686
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM                  2,068,950            29,668          2,098,618
                                     DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION.
             .....................
             .....................  RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
       131   0604256A               THREAT SIMULATOR                     20,035                               20,035
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       132   0604258A               TARGET SYSTEMS                       16,684                               16,684
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       133   0604759A               MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.....            62,580                               62,580
       134   0605103A               RAND ARROYO CENTER.......            20,853                               20,853
       135   0605301A               ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL.....           205,145                              205,145
       136   0605326A               CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION             19,430                               19,430
                                     PROGRAM.
       138   0605601A               ARMY TEST RANGES AND                277,646                              277,646
                                     FACILITIES.
       139   0605602A               ARMY TECHNICAL TEST                  51,550                               51,550
                                     INSTRUMENTATION AND
                                     TARGETS.
       140   0605604A               SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY              33,246                               33,246
                                     ANALYSIS.
       141   0605606A               AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION...             4,760                                4,760
       142   0605702A               METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO             8,303                                8,303
                                     RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
       143   0605706A               MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS            20,403                               20,403
       144   0605709A               EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN              10,396                               10,396
                                     ITEMS.
       145   0605712A               SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL               49,337                               49,337
                                     TESTING.
       146   0605716A               ARMY EVALUATION CENTER...            52,694                               52,694
       147   0605718A               ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD               938                                  938
                                     COLLABORATION & INTEG.
       148   0605801A               PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES...            60,319                               60,319
       149   0605803A               TECHNICAL INFORMATION                28,478                               28,478
                                     ACTIVITIES.
       150   0605805A               MUNITIONS                            32,604            -8,000             24,604
                                     STANDARDIZATION,
                                     EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
             .....................    Under execution of                                  [-8,000]
                                       prior year funds.
       151   0605857A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                 3,186                                3,186
                                     TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
       152   0605898A               MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D.......            48,955                               48,955
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, RDT&E                   1,027,542            -8,000          1,019,542
                                     MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
             .....................
             .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                     DEVELOPMENT
       154   0603778A               MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT             18,397                               18,397
                                     PROGRAM.
       155   0603813A               TRACTOR PULL.............             9,461                                9,461
       156   0607131A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS                 4,945                                4,945
                                     PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
                                     PROGRAMS.
       157   0607133A               TRACTOR SMOKE............             7,569                                7,569
       158   0607135A               APACHE PRODUCT                       69,862                               69,862
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
       159   0607136A               BLACKHAWK PRODUCT                    66,653                               66,653
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
       160   0607137A               CHINOOK PRODUCT                      37,407                               37,407
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
       161   0607138A               FIXED WING PRODUCT                    1,151                                1,151
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
       162   0607139A               IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE              51,164                               51,164
                                     PROGRAM.
       163   0607140A               EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES                 2,481                                2,481
                                     FROM NIE.
       164   0607141A               LOGISTIAG AUTOMATION.....             1,673                                1,673
       166   0607665A               FAMILY OF BIOMETRIAG.....            13,237                               13,237
       167   0607865A               PATRIOT PRODUCT                     105,816                              105,816
                                     IMPROVEMENT.
       169   0202429A               AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT--             40,565                               40,565
                                     COCOM EXERCISE.
       171   0203728A               JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP                 35,719                               35,719
                                     OPERATION COORDINATION
                                     SYSTEM (JADOAG).
       172   0203735A               COMBAT VEHICLE                      257,167            40,000            297,167
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
             .....................    Stryker modification                                [40,000]
                                       and improvement.
       173   0203740A               MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM..            15,445                               15,445
       175   0203752A               AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT               364                                  364
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
       176   0203758A               DIGITIZATION.............             4,361                                4,361
       177   0203801A               MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE                   3,154                                3,154
                                     PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
                                     PROGRAM.
       178   0203802A               OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT                35,951                               35,951
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
       179   0203808A               TRACTOR CARD.............            34,686                               34,686
       180   0205402A               INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE--            10,750                               10,750
                                     OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV.
       181   0205410A               MATERIALS HANDLING                      402                                  402
                                     EQUIPMENT.
       183   0205456A               LOWER TIER AIR AND                   64,159                               64,159
                                     MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD)
                                     SYSTEM.
       184   0205778A               GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH               17,527                               17,527
                                     ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
       185   0208053A               JOINT TACTICAL GROUND                20,515                               20,515
                                     SYSTEM.
       187   0303028A               SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE            12,368                               12,368
                                     ACTIVITIES.
       188   0303140A               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  31,154                               31,154
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
       189   0303141A               GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT                12,274                               12,274
                                     SYSTEM.
       190   0303142A               SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT             9,355                                9,355
                                     (SPACE).
       191   0303150A               WWMCAG/GLOBAL COMMAND AND             7,053                                7,053
                                     CONTROL SYSTEM.
       193   0305179A               INTEGRATED BROADCAST                    750                                  750
                                     SERVICE (IBS).
       194   0305204A               TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL             13,225                               13,225
                                     VEHICLES.
       195   0305206A               AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE              22,870                               22,870
                                     SYSTEMS.
       196   0305208A               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           25,592                               25,592
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
       199   0305233A               RQ-7 UAV.................             7,297                                7,297
       201   0310349A               WIN-T INCREMENT 2--                   3,800                                3,800
                                     INITIAL NETWORKING.
       202   0708045A               END ITEM INDUSTRIAL                  48,442                               48,442
                                     PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
             9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......             4,536                                4,536
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL             1,129,297            40,000          1,169,297
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................
             .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                   6,924,959            91,668          7,016,627
                                     DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                     EVAL, ARMY.
             .....................
             .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                     TEST & EVAL, NAVY
             .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
         1   0601103N               UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                 116,196                              116,196
                                     INITIATIVES.
         2   0601152N               IN-HOUSE LABORATORY                  19,126                               19,126
                                     INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
         3   0601153N               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           451,606            55,000            506,606
             .....................    Basic research program                              [55,000]
                                       increase.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH.           586,928            55,000            641,928
             .....................
             .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
         4   0602114N               POWER PROJECTION APPLIED             68,723                               68,723
                                     RESEARCH.
         5   0602123N               FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED            154,963                              154,963
                                     RESEARCH.
         6   0602131M               MARINE CORPS LANDING                 49,001                               49,001
                                     FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
         7   0602235N               COMMON PICTURE APPLIED               42,551                               42,551
                                     RESEARCH.
         8   0602236N               WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT               45,056                               45,056
                                     APPLIED RESEARCH.
         9   0602271N               ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS             115,051                              115,051
                                     APPLIED RESEARCH.
        10   0602435N               OCEAN WARFIGHTING                    42,252                               42,252
                                     ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
                                     RESEARCH.
        11   0602651M               JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS              6,119                                6,119
                                     APPLIED RESEARCH.
        12   0602747N               UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED            123,750            18,600            142,350
                                     RESEARCH.
             .....................    Accelerate undersea                                 [18,600]
                                       warfare research.
        13   0602750N               FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES           179,686                              179,686
                                     APPLIED RESEARCH.
        14   0602782N               MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY               37,418                               37,418
                                     WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, APPLIED                   864,570            18,600            883,170
                                     RESEARCH.
             .....................
             .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT
        15   0603114N               POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED            37,093                               37,093
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        16   0603123N               FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED            38,044                               38,044
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        17   0603271N               ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS              34,899                               34,899
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
        18   0603640M               USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY            137,562                              137,562
                                     DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
        19   0603651M               JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS             12,745                               12,745
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
        20   0603673N               FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES           258,860           -10,000            248,860
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................    Capable manpower,                                  [-10,000]
                                       enablers, and sea
                                       basing.
        21   0603680N               MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY             57,074                               57,074
                                     PROGRAM.
        22   0603729N               WARFIGHTER PROTECTION                 4,807                                4,807
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
        23   0603747N               UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED            13,748                               13,748
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        24   0603758N               NAVY WARFIGHTING                     66,041                               66,041
                                     EXPERIMENTS AND
                                     DEMONSTRATIONS.
        25   0603782N               MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY                1,991                                1,991
                                     WARFARE ADVANCED
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                  662,864           -10,000            652,864
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................
             .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                     DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
        26   0603207N               AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL                   41,832                               41,832
                                     APPLICATIONS.
        27   0603216N               AVIATION SURVIVABILITY...             5,404                                5,404
        28   0603237N               DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND              3,086                                3,086
                                     AND CONTROL.
        29   0603251N               AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.........            11,643                               11,643
        30   0603254N               ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT..             5,555                                5,555
        31   0603261N               TACTICAL AIRBORNE                     3,087                                3,087
                                     RECONNAISSANCE.
        32   0603382N               ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS               1,636                                1,636
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        33   0603502N               SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER           118,588                              118,588
                                     MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
        34   0603506N               SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO                 77,385                               77,385
                                     DEFENSE.
        35   0603512N               CARRIER SYSTEMS                       8,348                                8,348
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        36   0603525N               PILOT FISH...............           123,246                              123,246
        37   0603527N               RETRACT LARCH............            28,819                               28,819
        38   0603536N               RETRACT JUNIPER..........           112,678                              112,678
        39   0603542N               RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL.....               710                                  710
        40   0603553N               SURFACE ASW..............             1,096                                1,096
        41   0603561N               ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM            87,160            11,000             98,160
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................    Accelerate unmanned                                 [11,000]
                                       underwater vehicle
                                       development.
        42   0603562N               SUBMARINE TACTICAL                   10,371                               10,371
                                     WARFARE SYSTEMS.
        43   0603563N               SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED                11,888                               11,888
                                     DESIGN.
        44   0603564N               SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN &             4,332                                4,332
                                     FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
        45   0603570N               ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER              482,040                              482,040
                                     SYSTEMS.
        46   0603573N               ADVANCED SURFACE                     25,904                               25,904
                                     MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
        47   0603576N               CHALK EAGLE..............           511,802                              511,802
        48   0603581N               LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP                118,416                              118,416
                                     (LAG).
        49   0603582N               COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION            35,901                               35,901
        50   0603595N               OHIO REPLACEMENT.........           971,393                              971,393
        51   0603596N               LAG MISSION MODULES......           206,149                              206,149
        52   0603597N               AUTOMATED TEST AND RE-                8,000                                8,000
                                     TEST (ATRT).
        53   0603609N               CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS...             7,678                                7,678
        54   0603611M               MARINE CORPS ASSAULT                219,082                              219,082
                                     VEHICLES.
        55   0603635M               MARINE CORPS GROUND                     623                                  623
                                     COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
        56   0603654N               JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE              18,260                               18,260
                                     ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
        57   0603658N               COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT...            76,247                               76,247
        58   0603713N               OCEAN ENGINEERING                     4,520                                4,520
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
        59   0603721N               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.            20,711                               20,711
        60   0603724N               NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM......            47,761                               47,761
        61   0603725N               FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT...             5,226                                5,226
        62   0603734N               CHALK CORAL..............           182,771                              182,771
        63   0603739N               NAVY LOGISTIC                         3,866                                3,866
                                     PRODUCTIVITY.
        64   0603746N               RETRACT MAPLE............           360,065                              360,065
        65   0603748N               LINK PLUMERIA............           237,416                              237,416
        66   0603751N               RETRACT ELM..............            37,944                               37,944
        67   0603764N               LINK EVERGREEN...........            47,312                               47,312
        68   0603787N               SPECIAL PROCESSES........            17,408                               17,408
        69   0603790N               NATO RESEARCH AND                     9,359                                9,359
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        70   0603795N               LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY...               887                                  887
        71   0603851M               JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS             29,448                               29,448
                                     TESTING.
        72   0603860N               JOINT PRECISION APPROACH             91,479                               91,479
                                     AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
                                     VAL.
        73   0603925N               DIRECTED ENERGY AND                  67,360                               67,360
                                     ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
        74   0604112N               GERALD R. FORD CLASS                 48,105            79,100            127,205
                                     NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
                                     (CVN 78--80).
             .....................    Full ship shock trials                              [79,100]
                                       for CVN-78.
        75   0604122N               REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM            20,089                               20,089
                                     (RMS).
        76   0604272N               TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL             18,969                               18,969
                                     INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
                                     (TADIRCM).
        77   0604279N               ASE SELF-PROTECTION                   7,874                                7,874
                                     OPTIMIZATION.
        78   0604292N               MH-XX....................             5,298                                5,298
        79   0604454N               LX (R)...................            46,486            29,000             75,486
             .....................    Accelerate LX (R)......                             [29,000]
        80   0604653N               JOINT COUNTER RADIO                   3,817                                3,817
                                     CONTROLLED IED
                                     ELECTRONIC WARFARE
                                     (JCREW).
        81   0604659N               PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS              9,595                                9,595
                                     DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
        82   0604707N               SPACE AND ELECTRONIC                 29,581                               29,581
                                     WARFARE (SEW)
                                     ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
                                     SUPPORT.
        83   0604786N               OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE              285,849                              285,849
                                     WARFARE WEAPON
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        84   0605812M               JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL                 36,656                               36,656
                                     VEHICLE (JLTV)
                                     ENGINEERING AND
                                     MANUFACTURING
                                     DEVELOPMENT PH.
        85   0303354N               ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT--             9,835                                9,835
                                     MIP.
        86   0304270N               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                      580                                  580
                                     DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                5,024,626           119,100          5,143,726
                                     COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                     PROTOTYPES.
             .....................
             .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION
        87   0603208N               TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT.            21,708                               21,708
        88   0604212N               OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT...            11,101                               11,101
        89   0604214N               AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV..            39,878                               39,878
        90   0604215N               STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT....            53,059                               53,059
        91   0604216N               MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER             21,358                               21,358
                                     UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
        92   0604218N               AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT                   4,515                                4,515
                                     ENGINEERING.
        93   0604221N               P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM             1,514                                1,514
        94   0604230N               WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM...             5,875                                5,875
        95   0604231N               TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM..            81,553                               81,553
        96   0604234N               ADVANCED HAWKEYE.........           272,149                              272,149
        97   0604245N               H-1 UPGRADES.............            27,235                               27,235
        98   0604261N               ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS..            35,763                               35,763
        99   0604262N               V-22A....................            87,918                               87,918
       100   0604264N               AIR CREW SYSTEMS                     12,679                               12,679
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       101   0604269N               EA-18....................            56,921                               56,921
       102   0604270N               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   23,685                               23,685
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       103   0604273N               EXECUTIVE HELO                      507,093                              507,093
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       104   0604274N               NEXT GENERATION JAMMER              411,767                              411,767
                                     (NGJ).
       105   0604280N               JOINT TACTICAL RADIO                 25,071                               25,071
                                     SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
       106   0604307N               SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT            443,433                              443,433
                                     SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
       107   0604311N               LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS                    747                                  747
                                     INTEGRATION.
       108   0604329N               SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)            97,002                               97,002
       109   0604366N               STANDARD MISSILE                    129,649                              129,649
                                     IMPROVEMENTS.
       110   0604373N               AIRBORNE MCM.............            11,647                               11,647
       111   0604376M               MARINE AIR GROUND TASK                2,778                                2,778
                                     FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC
                                     WARFARE (EW) FOR
                                     AVIATION.
       112   0604378N               NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE                23,695                               23,695
                                     CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
                                     SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
       113   0604404N               UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED           134,708          -134,708                  0
                                     AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE
                                     AND STRIKE (UCLASS)
                                     SYSTEM.
             .....................    Excess FY15 funds buy                             [-134,708]
                                       down FY16 requirements.
       114   0604501N               ADVANCED ABOVE WATER                 43,914                               43,914
                                     SENSORS.
       115   0604503N               SSN-688 AND TRIDENT                 109,908                              109,908
                                     MODERNIZATION.
       116   0604504N               AIR CONTROL..............            57,928                               57,928
       117   0604512N               SHIPBOARD AVIATION                  120,217                              120,217
                                     SYSTEMS.
       118   0604522N               AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE             241,754                              241,754
                                     RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
       119   0604558N               NEW DESIGN SSN...........           122,556                              122,556
       120   0604562N               SUBMARINE TACTICAL                   48,213            12,000             60,213
                                     WARFARE SYSTEM.
             .....................    Accelerate submarine                                [12,000]
                                       combat and weapon
                                       system modernization.
       121   0604567N               SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/                49,712                               49,712
                                     LIVE FIRE T&E.
       122   0604574N               NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER                4,096                                4,096
                                     RESOURCES.
       123   0604580N               VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE             167,719                              167,719
                                     (VPM).
       124   0604601N               MINE DEVELOPMENT.........            15,122                               15,122
       125   0604610N               LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO                  33,738                               33,738
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       126   0604654N               JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE               8,123                                8,123
                                     ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
       127   0604703N               PERSONNEL, TRAINING,                  7,686                                7,686
                                     SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
                                     FACTORS.
       128   0604727N               JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON                   405                                  405
                                     SYSTEMS.
       129   0604755N               SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT           153,836                              153,836
                                     & CONTROL).
       130   0604756N               SHIP SELF DEFENSE                    99,619                               99,619
                                     (ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
       131   0604757N               SHIP SELF DEFENSE                   116,798                              116,798
                                     (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW).
       132   0604761N               INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING.             4,353                                4,353
       133   0604771N               MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT......             9,443                                9,443
       134   0604777N               NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM.....            32,469                               32,469
       135   0604800M               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                537,901           -12,500            525,401
                                     (JSF)--EMD.
             .....................    F-35B Block 4                                      [-12,500]
                                       development early to
                                       need.
       136   0604800N               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                504,736           -12,500            492,236
                                     (JSF)--EMD.
             .....................    F-35C Block 4                                      [-12,500]
                                       development early to
                                       need.
       137   0604810M               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                 59,265                               59,265
                                     FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT--
                                     MARINE CORPS.
       138   0604810N               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                 47,579                               47,579
                                     FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT--
                                     NAVY.
       139   0605013M               INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY                5,914                                5,914
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       140   0605013N               INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               89,711                               89,711
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       141   0605212N               CH-53K RDTE..............           632,092                              632,092
       142   0605220N               SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR               7,778                                7,778
                                     (SSC).
       143   0605450N               JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND                  25,898                               25,898
                                     MISSILE (JAGM).
       144   0605500N               MULTI-MISSION MARITIME              247,929                              247,929
                                     AIRCRAFT (MMA).
       145   0204202N               DDG-1000.................           103,199                              103,199
       146   0304231N               TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM--               998                                  998
                                     MIP.
       147   0304785N               TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC                 17,785                               17,785
                                     SYSTEMS.
       148   0305124N               SPECIAL APPLICATIONS                 35,905                               35,905
                                     PROGRAM.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM                  6,308,800          -147,708          6,161,092
                                     DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION.
             .....................
             .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
       149   0604256N               THREAT SIMULATOR                     30,769                               30,769
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       150   0604258N               TARGET SYSTEMS                      112,606                              112,606
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       151   0604759N               MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.....            61,234                               61,234
       152   0605126N               JOINT THEATER AIR AND                 6,995                                6,995
                                     MISSILE DEFENSE
                                     ORGANIZATION.
       153   0605152N               STUDIES AND ANALYSIS                  4,011                                4,011
                                     SUPPORT--NAVY.
       154   0605154N               CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES            48,563                               48,563
       155   0605285N               NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER..             5,000                                5,000
       157   0605804N               TECHNICAL INFORMATION                   925                                  925
                                     SERVICES.
       158   0605853N               MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL &              78,143                               78,143
                                     INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
       159   0605856N               STRATEGIC TECHNICAL                   3,258                                3,258
                                     SUPPORT.
       160   0605861N               RDT&E SCIENCE AND                    76,948                               76,948
                                     TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
       161   0605863N               RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT             132,122                              132,122
                                     SUPPORT.
       162   0605864N               TEST AND EVALUATION                 351,912                              351,912
                                     SUPPORT.
       163   0605865N               OPERATIONAL TEST AND                 17,985                               17,985
                                     EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
       164   0605866N               NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC             5,316                                5,316
                                     WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
       165   0605867N               SEW SURVEILLANCE/                     6,519                                6,519
                                     RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
       166   0605873M               MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE            13,649                               13,649
                                     SUPPORT.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT                955,955                              955,955
                                     SUPPORT.
             .....................
             .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                     DEVELOPMENT
       174   0101221N               STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS             107,039                              107,039
                                     SYSTEM SUPPORT.
       175   0101224N               SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY             46,506                               46,506
                                     PROGRAM.
       176   0101226N               SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC                    3,900               800              4,700
                                     WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................    Accelerate combat rapid                                [800]
                                       attack weapon.
       177   0101402N               NAVY STRATEGIC                       16,569                               16,569
                                     COMMUNICATIONS.
       178   0203761N               RAPID TECHNOLOGY                     18,632                               18,632
                                     TRANSITION (RTT).
       179   0204136N               F/A-18 SQUADRONS.........           133,265                              133,265
       181   0204163N               FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS             62,867                               62,867
                                     (TACTICAL).
       182   0204228N               SURFACE SUPPORT..........            36,045                               36,045
       183   0204229N               TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK                25,228                               25,228
                                     MISSION PLANNING CENTER
                                     (TMPC).
       184   0204311N               INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE              54,218                               54,218
                                     SYSTEM.
       185   0204413N               AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL                  11,335                               11,335
                                     SUPPORT UNITS
                                     (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
       186   0204460M               GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED             80,129                               80,129
                                     RADAR (G/ATOR).
       187   0204571N               CONSOLIDATED TRAINING                39,087                               39,087
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
       188   0204574N               CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT                    1,915                                1,915
                                     SUPPORT.
       189   0204575N               ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW)              46,609                               46,609
                                     READINESS SUPPORT.
       190   0205601N               HARM IMPROVEMENT.........            52,708                               52,708
       191   0205604N               TACTICAL DATA LINKS......           149,997                              149,997
       192   0205620N               SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM            24,460                               24,460
                                     INTEGRATION.
       193   0205632N               MK-48 ADCAP..............            42,206             5,500             47,706
             .....................    Accelerate torpedo                                   [5,500]
                                       upgrades.
       194   0205633N               AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS....           117,759                              117,759
       195   0205675N               OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER           101,323                              101,323
                                     SYSTEMS.
       196   0206313M               MARINE CORPS                         67,763                               67,763
                                     COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
       197   0206335M               COMMON AVIATION COMMAND              13,431                               13,431
                                     AND CONTROL SYSTEM
                                     (CAC2S).
       198   0206623M               MARINE CORPS GROUND                  56,769                               56,769
                                     COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
                                     SYSTEMS.
       199   0206624M               MARINE CORPS COMBAT                  20,729                               20,729
                                     SERVICES SUPPORT.
       200   0206625M               USMC INTELLIGENCE/                   13,152                               13,152
                                     ELECTRONIC WARFARE
                                     SYSTEMS (MIP).
       201   0206629M               AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT                   48,535                               48,535
                                     VEHICLE.
       202   0207161N               TACTICAL AIM MISSILES....            76,016                               76,016
       203   0207163N               ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-           32,172                               32,172
                                     TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
       208   0303109N               SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS             53,239                               53,239
                                     (SPACE).
       209   0303138N               CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT                  21,677                               21,677
                                     NETWORK ENTERPRISE
                                     SERVICES (CANES).
       210   0303140N               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  28,102                               28,102
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
       211   0303150M               WWMCAG/GLOBAL COMMAND AND               294                                  294
                                     CONTROL SYSTEM.
       213   0305160N               NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND                 599                                  599
                                     OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE
                                     (METOC).
       214   0305192N               MILITARY INTELLIGENCE                 6,207                                6,207
                                     PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
       215   0305204N               TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL              8,550                                8,550
                                     VEHICLES.
       216   0305205N               UAS INTEGRATION AND                  41,831                               41,831
                                     INTEROPERABILITY.
       217   0305208M               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/            1,105                                1,105
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
       218   0305208N               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           33,149                               33,149
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
       219   0305220N               RQ-4 UAV.................           227,188                              227,188
       220   0305231N               MQ-8 UAV.................            52,770                               52,770
       221   0305232M               RQ-11 UAV................               635                                  635
       222   0305233N               RQ-7 UAV.................               688                                  688
       223   0305234N               SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL              4,647                                4,647
                                     UAS (STUASL0).
       224   0305239M               RQ-21A...................             6,435                                6,435
       225   0305241N               MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR            49,145                               49,145
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       226   0305242M               UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS               9,246                                9,246
                                     (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
       227   0305421N               RQ-4 MODERNIZATION.......           150,854                              150,854
       228   0308601N               MODELING AND SIMULATION               4,757                                4,757
                                     SUPPORT.
       229   0702207N               DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-              24,185                               24,185
                                     IF).
       231   0708730N               MARITIME TECHNOLOGY                   4,321                                4,321
                                     (MARITECH).
       231A  9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......         1,252,185                            1,252,185
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL             3,482,173             6,300          3,488,473
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................
             .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                  17,885,916            41,292         17,927,208
                                     DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                     EVAL, NAVY.
             .....................
             .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                     TEST & EVAL, AF
             .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
         1   0601102F               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           329,721            45,000            374,721
             .....................    Basic research program                              [45,000]
                                       increase.
         2   0601103F               UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                 141,754                              141,754
                                     INITIATIVES.
         3   0601108F               HIGH ENERGY LASER                    13,778                               13,778
                                     RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH.           485,253            45,000            530,253
             .....................
             .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
         4   0602102F               MATERIALS................           125,234           -10,000            115,234
             .....................    Nanostructured and                                 [-10,000]
                                       biological materials.
         5   0602201F               AEROSPACE VEHICLE                   123,438                              123,438
                                     TECHNOLOGIES.
         6   0602202F               HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS                 100,530                              100,530
                                     APPLIED RESEARCH.
         7   0602203F               AEROSPACE PROPULSION.....           182,326                              182,326
         8   0602204F               AEROSPACE SENSORS........           147,291                              147,291
         9   0602601F               SPACE TECHNOLOGY.........           116,122                              116,122
        10   0602602F               CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS...            99,851                               99,851
        11   0602605F               DIRECTED ENERGY                     115,604                              115,604
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        12   0602788F               DOMINANT INFORMATION                164,909                              164,909
                                     SCIENCES AND METHODS.
        13   0602890F               HIGH ENERGY LASER                    42,037                               42,037
                                     RESEARCH.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, APPLIED                 1,217,342           -10,000          1,207,342
                                     RESEARCH.
             .....................
             .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT
        14   0603112F               ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR               37,665                               37,665
                                     WEAPON SYSTEMS.
        15   0603199F               SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND              18,378                               18,378
                                     TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
        16   0603203F               ADVANCED AEROSPACE                   42,183                               42,183
                                     SENSORS.
        17   0603211F               AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/           100,733                              100,733
                                     DEMO.
        18   0603216F               AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND            168,821                              168,821
                                     POWER TECHNOLOGY.
        19   0603270F               ELECTRONIC COMBAT                    47,032                               47,032
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        20   0603401F               ADVANCED SPACECRAFT                  54,897                               54,897
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        21   0603444F               MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE              12,853                               12,853
                                     SYSTEM (MSSS).
        22   0603456F               HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS                  25,448                               25,448
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        23   0603601F               CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS                 48,536                               48,536
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        24   0603605F               ADVANCED WEAPONS                     30,195                               30,195
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        25   0603680F               MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY             42,630                               42,630
                                     PROGRAM.
        26   0603788F               BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE                46,414                               46,414
                                     DEVELOPMENT AND
                                     DEMONSTRATION.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                  675,785                              675,785
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................
             .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                     DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
        27   0603260F               INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED                 5,032                                5,032
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        29   0603438F               SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.             4,070                                4,070
        30   0603742F               COMBAT IDENTIFICATION                21,790                               21,790
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        31   0603790F               NATO RESEARCH AND                     4,736                                4,736
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        33   0603830F               SPACE SECURITY AND                   30,771                               30,771
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM.
        34   0603851F               INTERCONTINENTAL                     39,765                               39,765
                                     BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
                                     VAL.
        36   0604015F               LONG RANGE STRIKE........         1,246,228          -460,000            786,228
             .....................    Delayed EMD contract                              [-460,000]
                                       award.
        37   0604317F               TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER......             3,512                                3,512
        38   0604327F               HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED               54,637                               54,637
                                     TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
                                     (HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
        40   0604422F               WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON.            76,108                               76,108
        44   0604857F               OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE              6,457            13,500             19,957
                                     SPACE.
             .....................    Increase to match                                   [13,500]
                                       previous year funding
                                       level.
        45   0604858F               TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM..           246,514                              246,514
        46   0605230F               GROUND BASED STRATEGIC               75,166                               75,166
                                     DETERRENT.
        49   0207110F               NEXT GENERATION AIR                   8,830                                8,830
                                     DOMINANCE.
        50   0207455F               THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-              14,939                               14,939
                                     RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
        51   0305164F               NAVSTAR GLOBAL                      142,288                              142,288
                                     POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
                                     EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
        52   0306250F               CYBER OPERATIONS                     81,732            15,000             96,732
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................    Increase USCC Cyber                                 [15,000]
                                       Operations Technology
                                       Development.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                2,062,575          -431,500          1,631,075
                                     COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                     PROTOTYPES.
             .....................
             .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION
        55   0604270F               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                      929                                  929
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        56   0604281F               TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS               60,256                               60,256
                                     ENTERPRISE.
        57   0604287F               PHYSICAL SECURITY                     5,973                                5,973
                                     EQUIPMENT.
        58   0604329F               SMALL DIAMETER BOMB                  32,624                               32,624
                                     (SDB)--EMD.
        59   0604421F               COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS.....            24,208                               24,208
        60   0604425F               SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS            32,374                               32,374
                                     SYSTEMS.
        61   0604426F               SPACE FENCE..............           243,909                              243,909
        62   0604429F               AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC                   8,358                                8,358
                                     ATTACK.
        63   0604441F               SPACE BASED INFRARED                292,235                              292,235
                                     SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
        64   0604602F               ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE                    40,154                               40,154
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        65   0604604F               SUBMUNITIONS.............             2,506                                2,506
        66   0604617F               AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT.....            57,678                               57,678
        67   0604706F               LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS.....             8,187                                8,187
        68   0604735F               COMBAT TRAINING RANGES...            15,795                               15,795
        69   0604800F               F-35--EMD................           589,441           -25,000            564,441
             .....................    F-35A Block 4                                      [-25,000]
                                       development early to
                                       need.
        71   0604853F               EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH            84,438                               84,438
                                     VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
                                     EMD.
        72   0604932F               LONG RANGE STANDOFF                  36,643                               36,643
                                     WEAPON.
        73   0604933F               ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION..           142,551                              142,551
        74   0605213F               F-22 MODERNIZATION                  140,640                              140,640
                                     INCREMENT 3.2B.
        75   0605214F               GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS                 3,598                                3,598
                                     FUZE DEVELOPMENT.
        76   0605221F               KC-46....................           602,364          -200,000            402,364
             .....................    Schedule delay and                                [-200,000]
                                       availability of
                                       unobligated prior year
                                       funds.
        77   0605223F               ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING..            11,395                               11,395
        78   0605229F               AGAR HH-60                          156,085                              156,085
                                     RECAPITALIZATION.
        80   0605431F               ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM              228,230                              228,230
                                     (SPACE).
        81   0605432F               POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE)..            72,084                               72,084
        82   0605433F               WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM               56,343                               56,343
                                     (SPACE).
        83   0605458F               AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER               47,629                               47,629
                                     10.2 RDT&E.
        84   0605931F               B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT            271,961                              271,961
                                     SYSTEM.
        85   0101125F               NUCLEAR WEAPONS                     212,121                              212,121
                                     MODERNIZATION.
        86   0207171F               F-15 EPAWSS..............           186,481            29,500            215,981
             .....................    NRE for ADCPII upgrade.                             [28,000]
             .....................    Flight test support....                              [1,500]
        87   0207701F               FULL COMBAT MISSION                  18,082                               18,082
                                     TRAINING.
        88   0305176F               COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER                  993                                  993
                                     LOCATOR.
        89   0307581F               NEXTGEN JSTARS...........            44,343                               44,343
        91   0401319F               PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT               102,620                              102,620
                                     REPLACEMENT (PAR).
        92   0701212F               AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS...            14,563                               14,563
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM                  3,847,791          -195,500          3,652,291
                                     DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION.
             .....................
             .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
        93   0604256F               THREAT SIMULATOR                     23,844                               23,844
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        94   0604759F               MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.....            68,302                               68,302
        95   0605101F               RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE...            34,918                               34,918
        97   0605712F               INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST             10,476                               10,476
                                     & EVALUATION.
        98   0605807F               TEST AND EVALUATION                 673,908                              673,908
                                     SUPPORT.
        99   0605860F               ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH                21,858                               21,858
                                     PROGRAM (SPACE).
       100   0605864F               SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP).            28,228                               28,228
       101   0605976F               FACILITIES RESTORATION               40,518                               40,518
                                     AND MODERNIZATION--TEST
                                     AND EVALUATION SUPPORT.
       102   0605978F               FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT--             27,895                               27,895
                                     TEST AND EVALUATION
                                     SUPPORT.
       103   0606017F               REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND            16,507                               16,507
                                     MATURATION.
       104   0606116F               SPACE TEST AND TRAINING              18,997                               18,997
                                     RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
       106   0606392F               SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER            185,305                              185,305
                                     (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
       107   0308602F               ENTEPRISE INFORMATION                 4,841                                4,841
                                     SERVICES (EIS).
       108   0702806F               ACQUISITION AND                      15,357                               15,357
                                     MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
       109   0804731F               GENERAL SKILL TRAINING...             1,315                                1,315
       111   1001004F               INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES.             2,315                                2,315
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT              1,174,584                            1,174,584
                                     SUPPORT.
             .....................
             .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                     DEVELOPMENT
       112   0603423F               GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM           350,232                              350,232
                                     III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
                                     SEGMENT.
       113   0604233F               SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE            10,465                               10,465
                                     FLIGHT TRAINING.
       114   0604445F               WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE...            24,577                               24,577
       117   0605018F               AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL              69,694           -45,400             24,294
                                     AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
             .....................    Restructure program....                            [-45,400]
       118   0605024F               ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY               26,718                               26,718
                                     EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
       119   0605278F               HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E....            10,807                               10,807
       121   0101113F               B-52 SQUADRONS...........            74,520                               74,520
       122   0101122F               AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE                     451                                  451
                                     MISSILE (ALCM).
       123   0101126F               B-1B SQUADRONS...........             2,245                                2,245
       124   0101127F               B-2 SQUADRONS............           108,183                              108,183
       125   0101213F               MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS......           178,929                              178,929
       126   0101313F               STRAT WAR PLANNING                   28,481                               28,481
                                     SYSTEM--USSTRATCOM.
       127   0101314F               NIGHT FIST--USSTRATCOM...                87                                   87
       128   0101316F               WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC             5,315                                5,315
                                     COMMUNICATIONS.
       131   0105921F               SERVICE SUPPORT TO                    8,090                                8,090
                                     STRATCOM--SPACE
                                     ACTIVITIES.
       132   0205219F               MQ-9 UAV.................           123,439                              123,439
       134   0207131F               A-10 SQUADRONS...........                 0            16,200             16,200
             .....................    Sustain avionics                                    [16,200]
                                       software development.
       135   0207133F               F-16 SQUADRONS...........           148,297                              148,297
       136   0207134F               F-15E SQUADRONS..........           179,283            12,796            192,079
             .....................    Transfer from                                       [12,796]
                                       procurement.
       137   0207136F               MANNED DESTRUCTIVE                   14,860                               14,860
                                     SUPPRESSION.
       138   0207138F               F-22A SQUADRONS..........           262,552                              262,552
       139   0207142F               F-35 SQUADRONS...........           115,395                              115,395
       140   0207161F               TACTICAL AIM MISSILES....            43,360                               43,360
       141   0207163F               ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-           46,160                               46,160
                                     TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
       143   0207224F               COMBAT RESCUE AND                       412                                  412
                                     RECOVERY.
       144   0207227F               COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE               657                                  657
       145   0207247F               AF TENCAP................            31,428                               31,428
       146   0207249F               PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS              1,105                                1,105
                                     PROCUREMENT.
       147   0207253F               COMPASS CALL.............            14,249                               14,249
       148   0207268F               AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT           103,942                              103,942
                                     IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
       149   0207325F               JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE                 12,793                               12,793
                                     STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
       150   0207410F               AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS               21,193                               21,193
                                     CENTER (AOC).
       151   0207412F               CONTROL AND REPORTING                   559                                  559
                                     CENTER (CRC).
       152   0207417F               AIRBORNE WARNING AND                161,812                              161,812
                                     CONTROL SYSTEM (AWAAG).
       153   0207418F               TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL             6,001                                6,001
                                     SYSTEMS.
       155   0207431F               COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE               7,793                                7,793
                                     SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
       156   0207444F               TACTICAL AIR CONTROL                 12,465                               12,465
                                     PARTY-MOD.
       157   0207448F               C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK.             1,681                                1,681
       159   0207452F               DCAPES...................            16,796                               16,796
       161   0207590F               SEEK EAGLE...............            21,564                               21,564
       162   0207601F               USAF MODELING AND                    24,994                               24,994
                                     SIMULATION.
       163   0207605F               WARGAMING AND SIMULATION              6,035                                6,035
                                     CENTERS.
       164   0207697F               DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND              4,358                                4,358
                                     EXERCISES.
       165   0208006F               MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS.            55,835                               55,835
       167   0208087F               AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE              12,874                               12,874
                                     OPERATIONS.
       168   0208088F               AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE               7,681                                7,681
                                     OPERATIONS.
       171   0301017F               GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED              5,974                                5,974
                                     ON NETWORK (GSIN).
       177   0301400F               SPACE SUPERIORITY                    13,815                               13,815
                                     INTELLIGENCE.
       178   0302015F               E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE               80,360                               80,360
                                     OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
       179   0303001F               FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS               3,907                                3,907
                                     TERMINALS (FAB-T).
       180   0303131F               MINIMUM ESSENTIAL                    75,062                               75,062
                                     EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
                                     NETWORK (MEECN).
       181   0303140F               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  46,599                               46,599
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
       183   0303142F               GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT--             2,470                                2,470
                                     DATA INITIATIVE.
       186   0304260F               AIRBORNE SIGINT                     112,775                              112,775
                                     ENTERPRISE.
       189   0305099F               GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC                    4,235                                4,235
                                     MANAGEMENT (GATM).
       192   0305110F               SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK             7,879                                7,879
                                     (SPACE).
       193   0305111F               WEATHER SERVICE..........            29,955                               29,955
       194   0305114F               AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL,                 21,485                               21,485
                                     APPROACH, AND LANDING
                                     SYSTEM (ATCALS).
       195   0305116F               AERIAL TARGETS...........             2,515                                2,515
       198   0305128F               SECURITY AND                            472                                  472
                                     INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
       199   0305145F               ARMS CONTROL                         12,137                               12,137
                                     IMPLEMENTATION.
       200   0305146F               DEFENSE JOINT                           361                                  361
                                     COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
                                     ACTIVITIES.
       203   0305173F               SPACE AND MISSILE TEST                3,162                                3,162
                                     AND EVALUATION CENTER.
       204   0305174F               SPACE INNOVATION,                     1,543                                1,543
                                     INTEGRATION AND RAPID
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
       205   0305179F               INTEGRATED BROADCAST                  7,860                                7,860
                                     SERVICE (IBS).
       206   0305182F               SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM                6,902                                6,902
                                     (SPACE).
       207   0305202F               DRAGON U-2...............            34,471                               34,471
       209   0305206F               AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE              50,154                               50,154
                                     SYSTEMS.
       210   0305207F               MANNED RECONNAISSANCE                13,245                               13,245
                                     SYSTEMS.
       211   0305208F               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           22,784                               22,784
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
       212   0305219F               MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV......               716                                  716
       213   0305220F               RQ-4 UAV.................           208,053                              208,053
       214   0305221F               NETWORK-CENTRIC                      21,587                               21,587
                                     COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
       215   0305236F               COMMON DATA LINK                     43,986                               43,986
                                     EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA).
       216   0305238F               NATO AGS.................           197,486           -59,086            138,400
             .....................    Transfer from                                      [-59,086]
                                       procurement for NATO
                                       AWACS.
       217   0305240F               SUPPORT TO DCGS                      28,434                               28,434
                                     ENTERPRISE.
       218   0305265F               GPS III SPACE SEGMENT....           180,902                              180,902
       220   0305614F               JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM.....            81,911                               81,911
       221   0305881F               RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION..             3,149                                3,149
       222   0305913F               NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM               14,447                               14,447
                                     (SPACE).
       223   0305940F               SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS            20,077                               20,077
                                     OPERATIONS.
       225   0308699F               SHARED EARLY WARNING                    853                                  853
                                     (SEW).
       226   0401115F               C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON...            33,962                               33,962
       227   0401119F               C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS                42,864                               42,864
                                     (IF).
       228   0401130F               C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF).......            54,807                               54,807
       229   0401132F               C-130J PROGRAM...........            31,010                               31,010
       230   0401134F               LARGE AIRCRAFT IR                     6,802                                6,802
                                     COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
       231   0401219F               KC-10S...................             1,799                                1,799
       232   0401314F               OPERATIONAL SUPPORT                  48,453                               48,453
                                     AIRLIFT.
       233   0401318F               CV-22....................            36,576                               36,576
       235   0408011F               SPECIAL TACTIAG / COMBAT              7,963                                7,963
                                     CONTROL.
       236   0702207F               DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-               1,525                                1,525
                                     IF).
       237   0708610F               LOGISTIAG INFORMATION               112,676           -31,000             81,676
                                     TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
             .....................    Program growth.........                            [-31,000]
       238   0708611F               SUPPORT SYSTEMS                      12,657                               12,657
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       239   0804743F               OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING....             1,836                                1,836
       240   0808716F               OTHER PERSONNEL                         121                                  121
                                     ACTIVITIES.
       241   0901202F               JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY              5,911                                5,911
                                     AGENCY.
       242   0901218F               CIVILIAN COMPENSATION                 3,604                                3,604
                                     PROGRAM.
       243   0901220F               PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION.             4,598                                4,598
       244   0901226F               AIR FORCE STUDIES AND                 1,103                                1,103
                                     ANALYSIS AGENCY.
       246   0901538F               FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT                101,840                              101,840
                                     INFORMATION SYSTEMS
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       246A  9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......        12,780,142           165,000         12,945,142
             .....................    Three program increases                            [165,000]
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL            17,010,339            58,510         17,068,849
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................
             .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                  26,473,669          -533,490         25,940,179
                                     DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                     EVAL, AF.
             .....................
             .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                     TEST & EVAL, DW
             .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
         1   0601000BR              DTRA BASIC RESEARCH                  38,436                               38,436
                                     INITIATIVE.
         2   0601101E               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           333,119                              333,119
         3   0601110D8Z             BASIC RESEARCH                       42,022                               42,022
                                     INITIATIVES.
         4   0601117E               BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL            56,544                               56,544
                                     RESEARCH SCIENCE.
         5   0601120D8Z             NATIONAL DEFENSE                     49,453                               49,453
                                     EDUCATION PROGRAM.
         6   0601228D8Z             HISTORICALLY BLACK                   25,834                               25,834
                                     COLLEGES AND
                                     UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
                                     INSTITUTIONS.
         7   0601384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL              46,261                               46,261
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH.           591,669                              591,669
             .....................
             .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
         8   0602000D8Z             JOINT MUNITIONS                      19,352                               19,352
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
         9   0602115E               BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....           114,262                              114,262
        10   0602234D8Z             LINCOLN LABORATORY                   51,026                               51,026
                                     RESEARCH PROGRAM.
        11   0602251D8Z             APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE             48,226           -15,000             33,226
                                     ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
                                     PRIORITIES.
             .....................    General program                                    [-15,000]
                                       decrease.
        12   0602303E               INFORMATION &                       356,358                              356,358
                                     COMMUNICATIONS
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        14   0602383E               BIOLOGICAL WARFARE                   29,265                               29,265
                                     DEFENSE.
        15   0602384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             208,111                              208,111
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM.
        16   0602668D8Z             CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH..            13,727                               13,727
        18   0602702E               TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY......           314,582            -5,000            309,582
             .....................    Multi-azimuth defense                               [-5,000]
                                       fast intercept round
                                       engagement system.
        19   0602715E               MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL            220,115           -10,000            210,115
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
             .....................    Decrease in program                                [-10,000]
                                       growth.
        20   0602716E               ELECTRONIAG TECHNOLOGY...           174,798                              174,798
        21   0602718BR              WEAPONS OF MASS                     155,415                              155,415
                                     DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
                                     TECHNOLOGIES.
        22   0602751D8Z             SOFTWARE ENGINEERING                  8,824                                8,824
                                     INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
                                     RESEARCH.
        23   1160401BB              SOF TECHNOLOGY                       37,517                               37,517
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, APPLIED                 1,751,578           -30,000          1,721,578
                                     RESEARCH.
             .....................
             .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT
        24   0603000D8Z             JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED             25,915                               25,915
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        26   0603122D8Z             COMBATING TERRORISM                  71,171                               71,171
                                     TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
        27   0603133D8Z             FOREIGN COMPARATIVE                  21,782                               21,782
                                     TESTING.
        28   0603160BR              COUNTERPROLIFERATION                290,654                              290,654
                                     INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATI
                                     ON PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
        30   0603176C               ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND                12,139                               12,139
                                     PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
        31   0603177C               DISCRIMINATION SENSOR                28,200                               28,200
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        32   0603178C               WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY.......            45,389            30,000             75,389
             .....................    Fiber laser prototype                               [20,000]
                                       development.
             .....................    Divert attitude control                             [10,000]
                                       tech to support MOKV.
        33   0603179C               ADVANCED C4ISR...........             9,876                                9,876
        34   0603180C               ADVANCED RESEARCH........            17,364                               17,364
        35   0603225D8Z             JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS              18,802                               18,802
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
        36   0603264S               AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR              2,679                                2,679
                                     THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)--
                                     THEATER CAPABILITY.
        37   0603274C               SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA                 64,708                               64,708
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        38   0603286E               ADVANCED AEROSPACE                  185,043                              185,043
                                     SYSTEMS.
        39   0603287E               SPACE PROGRAMS AND                  126,692                              126,692
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        40   0603288D8Z             ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS.....            14,645            -5,000              9,645
             .....................    General program                                     [-5,000]
                                       decrease.
        41   0603289D8Z             ADVANCED INNOVATIVE                  59,830                               59,830
                                     ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
        42   0603294C               COMMON KILL VEHICLE                  46,753            20,000             66,753
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
             .....................    Increase for Multiple                               [20,000]
                                       Object Kill Vehicle.
        43   0603384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             140,094                              140,094
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM--
                                     ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
        44   0603527D8Z             RETRACT LARCH............           118,666                              118,666
        45   0603618D8Z             JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED            43,966                               43,966
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        46   0603648D8Z             JOINT CAPABILITY                    141,540           -10,000            131,540
                                     TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEMONSTRATIONS.
             .....................    General program                                    [-10,000]
                                       decrease.
        47   0603662D8Z             NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS              6,980                                6,980
                                     CAPABILITIES.
        50   0603680D8Z             DEFENSE-WIDE                        157,056                              157,056
                                     MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
                                     AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
        51   0603699D8Z             EMERGING CAPABILITIES                33,515                               33,515
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
        52   0603712S               GENERIC LOGISTIAG R&D                16,543                               16,543
                                     TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEMONSTRATIONS.
        53   0603713S               DEPLOYMENT AND                       29,888                               29,888
                                     DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        54   0603716D8Z             STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL              65,836                               65,836
                                     RESEARCH PROGRAM.
        55   0603720S               MICROELECTRONIAG                     79,037                               79,037
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
                                     AND SUPPORT.
        56   0603727D8Z             JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM             9,626                                9,626
        57   0603739E               ADVANCED ELECTRONIAG                 79,021                               79,021
                                     TECHNOLOGIES.
        58   0603760E               COMMAND, CONTROL AND                201,335                              201,335
                                     COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
        59   0603766E               NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE             452,861           -20,000            432,861
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
             .....................    Decrease to reduce                                 [-20,000]
                                       inefficiency.
        60   0603767E               SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........           257,127                              257,127
        61   0603769SE              DISTRIBUTED LEARNING                 10,771                               10,771
                                     ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
        62   0603781D8Z             SOFTWARE ENGINEERING                 15,202                               15,202
                                     INSTITUTE.
        63   0603826D8Z             QUICK REACTION SPECIAL               90,500           -20,000             70,500
                                     PROJECTS.
             .....................    Program decrease.......                            [-20,000]
        66   0603833D8Z             ENGINEERING SCIENCE &                18,377                               18,377
                                     TECHNOLOGY.
        67   0603941D8Z             TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE            82,589                               82,589
                                     & TECHNOLOGY.
        68   0604055D8Z             OPERATIONAL ENERGY                   37,420                               37,420
                                     CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
        69   0303310D8Z             CWMD SYSTEMS.............            42,488                               42,488
        70   1160402BB              SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY              57,741                               57,741
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                3,229,821            -5,000          3,224,821
                                     TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................
             .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                     DEVELOPMENT AND
                                     PROTOTYPES
        71   0603161D8Z             NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL             31,710                               31,710
                                     PHYSICAL SECURITY
                                     EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
        73   0603600D8Z             WALKOFF..................            90,567                               90,567
        74   0603714D8Z             ADVANCED SENSORS                     15,900             4,000             19,900
                                     APPLICATION PROGRAM.
             .....................    Increase to match                                    [4,000]
                                       previous year funding
                                       level.
        75   0603851D8Z             ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY               52,758                               52,758
                                     TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
                                     PROGRAM.
        76   0603881C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           228,021                              228,021
                                     TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
        77   0603882C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE         1,284,891                            1,284,891
                                     MIDCOURSE DEFENSE
                                     SEGMENT.
        78   0603884BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             172,754                              172,754
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
        79   0603884C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           233,588                              233,588
                                     SENSORS.
        80   0603890C               BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS....           409,088                              409,088
        81   0603891C               SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA....           400,387                              400,387
        82   0603892C               AEGIS BMD................           843,355                              843,355
        83   0603893C               SPACE TRACKING &                     31,632                               31,632
                                     SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
        84   0603895C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            23,289                               23,289
                                     SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
        85   0603896C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           450,085                              450,085
                                     COMMAND AND CONTROL,
                                     BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
                                     COMMUNICATI.
        86   0603898C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            49,570                               49,570
                                     JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
        87   0603904C               MISSILE DEFENSE                      49,211                               49,211
                                     INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS
                                     CENTER (MDIOC).
        88   0603906C               REGARDING TRENCH.........             9,583                                9,583
        89   0603907C               SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR               72,866                               72,866
                                     (SBX).
        90   0603913C               ISRAELI COOPERATIVE                 102,795           166,000            268,795
                                     PROGRAMS.
             .....................    Increase for Arrow/                                [166,000]
                                       David's Sling.
        91   0603914C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           274,323                              274,323
                                     TEST.
        92   0603915C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           513,256                              513,256
                                     TARGETS.
        93   0603920D8Z             HUMANITARIAN DEMINING....            10,129                               10,129
        94   0603923D8Z             COALITION WARFARE........            10,350                               10,350
        95   0604016D8Z             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE                 1,518            10,000             11,518
                                     CORROSION PROGRAM.
             .....................    Program Increase.......                             [10,000]
        96   0604115C               TECHNOLOGY MATURATION                96,300                               96,300
                                     INITIATIVES.
        97   0604250D8Z             ADVANCED INNOVATIVE                 469,798                              469,798
                                     TECHNOLOGIES.
        98   0604400D8Z             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE                 3,129                                3,129
                                     (DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
                                     SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       103   0604826J               JOINT C5 CAPABILITY                  25,200                               25,200
                                     DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION
                                     AND INTEROPERABILITY
                                     ASSESSMENTS.
       105   0604873C               LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION           137,564                              137,564
                                     RADAR (LRDR).
       106   0604874C               IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE           278,944            20,000            298,944
                                     INTERCEPTORS.
             .....................    Redesigned kill vehicle                             [20,000]
                                       development.
       107   0604876C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            26,225                               26,225
                                     TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT
                                     TEST.
       108   0604878C               AEGIS BMD TEST...........            55,148                               55,148
       109   0604879C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            86,764                               86,764
                                     SENSOR TEST.
       110   0604880C               LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3)..            34,970                               34,970
       111   0604881C               AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO-            172,645                              172,645
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       112   0604887C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            64,618                               64,618
                                     MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST.
       114   0303191D8Z             JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC                 2,660                                2,660
                                     TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
       115   0305103C               CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE               963                                  963
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                6,816,554           200,000          7,016,554
                                     COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                     PROTOTYPES.
             .....................
             .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
                                     DEMONSTRATION
       116   0604161D8Z             NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL              8,800                                8,800
                                     PHYSICAL SECURITY
                                     EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
       117   0604165D8Z             PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE                 78,817            10,000             88,817
                                     CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................    CPGS development and                                [10,000]
                                       flight test.
       118   0604384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             303,647                              303,647
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
       119   0604764K               ADVANCED IT SERVICES                 23,424                               23,424
                                     JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE
                                     (AITS-JPO).
       120   0604771D8Z             JOINT TACTICAL                       14,285                               14,285
                                     INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
                                     SYSTEM (JTIDS).
       121   0605000BR              WEAPONS OF MASS                       7,156                                7,156
                                     DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
                                     CAPABILITIES.
       122   0605013BL              INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               12,542                               12,542
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       123   0605021SE              HOMELAND PERSONNEL                      191                                  191
                                     SECURITY INITIATIVE.
       124   0605022D8Z             DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY                 3,273                                3,273
                                     PROGRAM.
       125   0605027D8Z             OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT                5,962                                5,962
                                     INITIATIVES.
       126   0605070S               DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS               13,412                               13,412
                                     DEVELOPMENT AND
                                     DEMONSTRATION.
       127   0605075D8Z             DCMO POLICY AND                       2,223                                2,223
                                     INTEGRATION.
       128   0605080S               DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES            31,660                               31,660
                                     (DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
       129   0605090S               DEFENSE RETIRED AND                  13,085                               13,085
                                     ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
                                     (DRAS).
       130   0605210D8Z             DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC               7,209                                7,209
                                     PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
       131   0303141K               GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT                15,158           -10,000              5,158
                                     SYSTEM.
             .....................    Early to need..........                            [-10,000]
       132   0305304D8Z             DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY                 4,414                                4,414
                                     INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
                                     (EEIM).
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM                    545,258                 0            545,258
                                     DEVELOPMENT &
                                     DEMONSTRATION.
             .....................
             .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
       133   0604774D8Z             DEFENSE READINESS                     5,581                                5,581
                                     REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
       134   0604875D8Z             JOINT SYSTEMS                         3,081                                3,081
                                     ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT.
       135   0604940D8Z             CENTRAL TEST AND                    229,125                              229,125
                                     EVALUATION INVESTMENT
                                     DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
       136   0604942D8Z             ASSESSMENTS AND                      28,674                               28,674
                                     EVALUATIONS.
       138   0605100D8Z             JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT            45,235                               45,235
                                     TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
       139   0605104D8Z             TECHNICAL STUDIES,                   24,936                               24,936
                                     SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS.
       141   0605126J               JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND             35,471                               35,471
                                     MISSILE DEFENSE
                                     ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
       144   0605142D8Z             SYSTEMS ENGINEERING......            37,655            -5,000             32,655
             .....................    Reducing reporting and                              [-5,000]
                                       inefficiencies.
       145   0605151D8Z             STUDIES AND ANALYSIS                  3,015                                3,015
                                     SUPPORT--OSD.
       146   0605161D8Z             NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL              5,287                                5,287
                                     SECURITY.
       147   0605170D8Z             SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND               5,289                                5,289
                                     INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
       148   0605200D8Z             GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD                2,120                                2,120
                                     (INTELLIGENCE).
       149   0605384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             102,264                              102,264
                                     DEFENSE PROGRAM.
       158   0605790D8Z             SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION             2,169                                2,169
                                     RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
                                     BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
                                     TRANSFER.
       159   0605798D8Z             DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY                   13,960                               13,960
                                     ANALYSIS.
       160   0605801KA              DEFENSE TECHNICAL                    51,775                               51,775
                                     INFORMATION CENTER
                                     (DTIC).
       161   0605803SE              R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD                 9,533                                9,533
                                     ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
                                     EVALUATION.
       162   0605804D8Z             DEVELOPMENT TEST AND                 17,371                               17,371
                                     EVALUATION.
       163   0605898E               MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D.......            71,571                               71,571
       164   0606100D8Z             BUDGET AND PROGRAM                    4,123                                4,123
                                     ASSESSMENTS.
       165   0203345D8Z             DEFENSE OPERATIONS                    1,946                                1,946
                                     SECURITY INITIATIVE
                                     (DOSI).
       166   0204571J               JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL                7,673                                7,673
                                     SUPPORT.
       169   0303166J               SUPPORT TO INFORMATION               10,413                               10,413
                                     OPERATIONS (IO)
                                     CAPABILITIES.
       170   0303260D8Z             DEFENSE MILITARY                        971                                  971
                                     DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE
                                     (DMDPO).
       171   0305193D8Z             CYBER INTELLIGENCE.......             6,579                                6,579
       173   0804767D8Z             COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT            43,811                               43,811
                                     AND TRAINING
                                     TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)--
                                     MHA.
       174   0901598C               MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA.......            35,871                               35,871
       176   0903230D8W             WHS--MISSION OPERATIONS               1,072                                1,072
                                     SUPPORT - IT.
       176A  9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......            49,500                               49,500
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT                856,071            -5,000            851,071
                                     SUPPORT.
             .....................
             .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
                                     DEVELOPMENT
       178   0604130V               ENTERPRISE SECURITY                   7,929                                7,929
                                     SYSTEM (ESS).
       179   0605127T               REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL                1,750                                1,750
                                     OUTREACH (RIO) AND
                                     PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
                                     INFORMATION MANA.
       180   0605147T               OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN                   294                                  294
                                     ASSISTANCE SHARED
                                     INFORMATION SYSTEM
                                     (OHASIS).
       181   0607210D8Z             INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS             22,576                               22,576
                                     AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
       182   0607310D8Z             CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL             1,901                                1,901
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
       183   0607327T               GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY               8,474                                8,474
                                     COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
                                     INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
                                     TSCMIS).
       184   0607384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL              33,561                               33,561
                                     DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
       186   0208043J               PLANNING AND DECISION AID             3,061                                3,061
                                     SYSTEM (PDAS).
       187   0208045K               C4I INTEROPERABILITY.....            64,921                               64,921
       189   0301144K               JOINT/ALLIED COALITION                3,645                                3,645
                                     INFORMATION SHARING.
       193   0302016K               NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND               963                                  963
                                     SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
       194   0302019K               DEFENSE INFO                         10,186                               10,186
                                     INFRASTRUCTURE
                                     ENGINEERING AND
                                     INTEGRATION.
       195   0303126K               LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS--           36,883                               36,883
                                     DAG.
       196   0303131K               MINIMUM ESSENTIAL                    13,735                               13,735
                                     EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
                                     NETWORK (MEECN).
       197   0303135G               PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE             6,101                                6,101
                                     (PKI).
       198   0303136G               KEY MANAGEMENT                       43,867                               43,867
                                     INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
       199   0303140D8Z             INFORMATION SYSTEMS                   8,957                                8,957
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
       200   0303140G               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                 146,890                              146,890
                                     SECURITY PROGRAM.
       201   0303150K               GLOBAL COMMAND AND                   21,503                               21,503
                                     CONTROL SYSTEM.
       202   0303153K               DEFENSE SPECTRUM                     20,342                               20,342
                                     ORGANIZATION.
       203   0303170K               NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE                  444                                  444
                                     SERVICES (NCES).
       205   0303610K               TELEPORT PROGRAM.........             1,736                                1,736
       206   0304210BB              SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR             65,060                               65,060
                                     CONTINGENCIES.
       210   0305103K               CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE             2,976                                2,976
       215   0305186D8Z             POLICY R&D PROGRAMS......             4,182                                4,182
       216   0305199D8Z             NET CENTRICITY...........            18,130                               18,130
       218   0305208BB              DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/            5,302                                5,302
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
       221   0305208K               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/            3,239                                3,239
                                     SURFACE SYSTEMS.
       225   0305327V               INSIDER THREAT...........            11,733                               11,733
       226   0305387D8Z             HOMELAND DEFENSE                      2,119                                2,119
                                     TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
                                     PROGRAM.
       234   0708011S               INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS..            24,605                               24,605
       235   0708012S               LOGISTIAG SUPPORT                     1,770                                1,770
                                     ACTIVITIES.
       236   0902298J               MANAGEMENT HQ--OJAG......             2,978                                2,978
       237   1105219BB              MQ-9 UAV.................            18,151             5,000             23,151
             .....................    MQ-9 capability                                      [5,000]
                                       enhancements.
       238   1105232BB              RQ-11 UAV................               758                                  758
       240   1160403BB              AVIATION SYSTEMS.........           173,934            17,207            191,141
             .....................    ISR payload technology                               [2,000]
                                       improvements.
             .....................    C-130 TF/TA Program                                 [15,207]
                                       Adjustment.
       241   1160405BB              INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS                  6,866                                6,866
                                     DEVELOPMENT.
       242   1160408BB              OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.            63,008                               63,008
       243   1160431BB              WARRIOR SYSTEMS..........            25,342                               25,342
       244   1160432BB              SPECIAL PROGRAMS.........             3,401                                3,401
       245   1160480BB              SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES....             3,212                                3,212
       246   1160483BB              MARITIME SYSTEMS.........            63,597                               63,597
       247   1160489BB              GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE             3,933                                3,933
                                     ACTIVITIES.
       248   1160490BB              OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS             10,623                               10,623
                                     INTELLIGENCE.
       248A  9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......         3,564,272                            3,564,272
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL             4,538,910            22,207          4,561,117
                                     SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
             .....................
             .....................  UNDISTRIBUTED
        xx   xxxxx                  DEFENSE WIDE CYBER                        0           200,000            200,000
                                     VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.
             .....................    Assess all major weapon                            [200,000]
                                       systems for cyber
                                       vulnerability.
       xxx   xxxxxx                 UCAS-D DEVELOPMENT AND                    0           725,000            725,000
                                     FOLLOW ON PROTOTYPING.
             .....................    Supports continued                                 [725,000]
                                       efforts on UCAS-D and
                                       follow on prototyping.
         x   xxxxx                  TECHNOLOGY OFFSET                         0           400,000            400,000
                                     INITIATIVE.
             .....................    Supports innovative                                [400,000]
                                       technology development.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED..                 0         1,325,000          1,325,000
             .....................
             .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                  18,329,861         1,507,207         19,837,068
                                     DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                     EVAL, DW.
             .....................
             .....................  OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
                                     DEFENSE
             .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
         1   0605118OTE             OPERATIONAL TEST AND                 76,838                               76,838
                                     EVALUATION.
         2   0605131OTE             LIVE FIRE TEST AND                   46,882                               46,882
                                     EVALUATION.
         3   0605814OTE             OPERATIONAL TEST                     46,838                               46,838
                                     ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
             .....................  SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT                170,558                              170,558
                                     SUPPORT.
             .....................
             .....................  TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST &            170,558                              170,558
                                     EVAL, DEFENSE.
             .....................
             .....................  TOTAL RDT&E..............        69,784,963         1,106,677         70,891,640
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2016  Request   Senate  Change      Authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                      TEST & EVAL, ARMY
             ......................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                      DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
       60    0603747A                SOLDIER SUPPORT AND                   1,500                               1,500
                                      SURVIVABILITY.
             ......................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                    1,500                               1,500
                                      COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                      PROTOTYPES.
             ......................
             ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                       1,500                               1,500
                                      DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                      EVAL, ARMY.
             ......................
             ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                      TEST & EVAL, NAVY
             ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                      DEVELOPMENT
      231A   9999999999              CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......            35,747                              35,747
             ......................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL                35,747                              35,747
                                      SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
             ......................
             ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                      35,747                              35,747
                                      DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                      EVAL, NAVY.
             ......................
             ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                      TEST & EVAL, AF
             ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                      DEVELOPMENT
      133    0205671F                JOINT COUNTER RCIED                     300                                 300
                                      ELECTRONIC WARFARE.
      246A   9999999999              CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......            16,800                              16,800
             ......................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL                17,100                              17,100
                                      SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
             ......................
             ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                      17,100                              17,100
                                      DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                      EVAL, AF.
             ......................
             ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                      TEST & EVAL, DW
             ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
                                      DEVELOPMENT
      248A   9999999999              CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......           137,087                             137,087
             ......................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL               137,087                             137,087
                                      SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
             ......................
             ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                     137,087                             137,087
                                      DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                      EVAL, DW.
             ......................
             ......................  TOTAL RDT&E..............           191,434                             191,434
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     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 2016                           Senate
      Line                           Item                              Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................       1,094,429      -1,094,429                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,094,429]
      020    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................          68,873                             68,873
      030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................         508,008                            508,008
      040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................         763,300        -763,300                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                       [-763,300]
      050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................       1,054,322      -1,054,322                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,054,322]
      060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................       1,546,129      -1,546,129                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,546,129]
      070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................       3,158,606      -3,158,606                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-3,158,606]
      080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................         438,909                            438,909
      090    LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................       1,214,116          77,200          1,291,316
               Readiness funding increase........................                         [77,200]
      100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................       7,616,008          10,500          7,626,508
               Readiness funding increase........................                         [10,500]
      110    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.       2,617,169          34,000          2,651,169
               Kwajalein facilities restoration..................                         [34,000]
      120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............         421,269                            421,269
      130    COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................         164,743                            164,743
      170    COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT...........         448,633         -12,357            436,276
               Streamlining of Army Combatant Commands Direct                            [-12,357]
                Mission Support..................................
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................      21,114,514      -7,507,443         13,607,071

             MOBILIZATION
      180    STRATEGIC MOBILITY..................................         401,638                            401,638
      190    ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS...........................         261,683                            261,683
      200    INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.............................           6,532                              6,532
             SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................         669,853                            669,853

             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
      210    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................         131,536                            131,536
      220    RECRUIT TRAINING....................................          47,843                             47,843
      230    ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING...........................          42,565                             42,565
      240    SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS..............         490,378                            490,378
      250    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................         981,000          33,200          1,014,200
               Readiness funding increase........................                         [33,200]
      260    FLIGHT TRAINING.....................................         940,872                            940,872
      270    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................         230,324                            230,324
      280    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................         603,519                            603,519
      290    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................         491,922                            491,922
      300    EXAMINING...........................................         194,079                            194,079
      310    OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION....................         227,951                            227,951
      320    CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.....................         161,048                            161,048
      330    JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS...............         170,118                            170,118
             SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................       4,713,155          33,200          4,746,355

             ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
      350    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         485,778                            485,778
      360    CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES...........................         813,881                            813,881
      370    LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.........................         714,781                            714,781
      380    AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT...............................         322,127                            322,127
      390    ADMINISTRATION......................................         384,813                            384,813
      400    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................       1,781,350                          1,781,350
      410    MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.................................         292,532                            292,532
      420    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         375,122                            375,122
      430    OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT...............................       1,119,848          -4,500          1,115,348
               Army outreach reduction...........................                         [-4,500]
      440    ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES..............................         225,358                            225,358
      450    REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..............................         239,755                            239,755
      460    FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS............         223,319                            223,319
      470    INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS.................         469,865                            469,865
      480    MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS......................          40,521                             40,521
      480A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,120,974          25,500          1,146,474
               Additional SOUTHCOM ISR and intel support.........                         [20,000]
               Readiness increase................................                          [5,500]
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0        -238,451           -238,451
               Streamlining of Army Management Headquarters......                       [-238,451]
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................       8,610,024        -217,451          8,392,573

             UNDISTRIBUTED
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0        -281,500           -281,500
               Foreign currency adjustment.......................                       [-281,500]
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -260,100           -260,100
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-260,100]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -541,600           -541,600

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY.................      35,107,546      -8,233,294         26,874,252

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
             OPERATING FORCES
      020    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................          16,612                             16,612
      030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................         486,531                            486,531
      040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................         105,446                            105,446
      050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................         516,791                            516,791
      060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................          87,587                             87,587
      070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................         348,601                            348,601
      080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................          81,350                             81,350
      090    LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................          59,574          32,400             91,974
               Readiness funding increase........................                         [32,400]
      100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................         570,852                            570,852
      110    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         245,686                            245,686
      120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............          40,962                             40,962
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       2,559,992          32,400          2,592,392

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      130    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................          10,665                             10,665
      140    ADMINISTRATION......................................          18,390                             18,390
      150    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................          14,976                             14,976
      160    MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.................................           8,841                              8,841
      170    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................          52,928                             52,928
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -6,011             -6,011
               Streamlining of Army Reserve Management                                    [-6,011]
                Headquarters.....................................
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         105,800          -6,011             99,790

             UNDISTRIBUTED
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0          -7,600             -7,600
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                         [-7,600]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0          -7,600             -7,600

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.............       2,665,792          18,789          2,684,581

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................         709,433                            709,433
      020    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................         167,324                            167,324
      030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................         741,327                            741,327
      040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................          88,775           7,700             96,475
               ARNG border security enhancement..................                          [7,700]
      050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................          32,130                             32,130
      060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................         943,609          52,600            996,209
               Readiness funding increase........................                         [39,600]
               ARNG border security enhancement..................                         [13,000]
      070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................         703,137                            703,137
      080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................          84,066                             84,066
      090    LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................         166,848          22,500            189,348
               Readiness funding increase........................                         [22,500]
      100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................       1,022,970                          1,022,970
      110    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         673,680                            673,680
      120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............         954,574                            954,574
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       6,287,873          82,800          6,370,673

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      130    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................           6,570                              6,570
      140    ADMINISTRATION......................................          59,629            -250             59,379
               Reduction to National Guard Heritage Paintings....                           [-250]
      150    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................          68,452                             68,452
      160    MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.................................           8,841                              8,841
      170    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         283,670         -11,500            272,170
               Reduction to Army Marketing Program...............                        [-11,500]
      180    REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..............................           2,942                              2,942
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0         -26,631            -26,631
               Streamlining of Army National Guard Management                            [-26,631]
                Headquarters.....................................
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         430,104         -38,381            391,723

             UNDISTRIBUTED
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0         -25,300            -25,300
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                        [-25,300]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0         -25,300            -25,300

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG.................       6,717,977          19,119          6,737,096

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.................       4,940,365      -4,940,365                  0
                 Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.....                     [-4,940,365]
      020    FLEET AIR TRAINING..................................       1,830,611                          1,830,611
      030    AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES......          37,225                             37,225
      040    AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT...................         103,456                            103,456
      050    AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................................         376,844          13,900            390,744
               Readiness funding increase........................                         [13,900]
      060    AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................         897,536        -897,536                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                       [-897,536]
      070    AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................          33,201                             33,201
      080    AVIATION LOGISTICS..................................         544,056           5,300            549,356
               Readiness funding increase........................                          [5,300]
      090    MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS...................       4,287,658      -4,287,658                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-4,287,658]
      100    SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING..................         787,446                            787,446
      110    SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE..............................       5,960,951      -5,960,951                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-5,960,951]
      120    SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT.......................       1,554,863                          1,554,863
      130    COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS...............................         704,415                            704,415
      140    ELECTRONIC WARFARE..................................          96,916                             96,916
      150    SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE......................         192,198                            192,198
      160    WARFARE TACTICS.....................................         453,942                            453,942
      170    OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............         351,871                            351,871
      180    COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...............................       1,186,847                          1,186,847
      190    EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE...............................         123,948                            123,948
      200    DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................           2,443                              2,443
      210    COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................          98,914                             98,914
      220    COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.........          73,110          -5,483             67,628
               Streamlining of Navy Combatant Commanders Direct                           [-5,483]
                Mission Support..................................
      230    CRUISE MISSILE......................................         110,734                            110,734
      240    FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE.............................       1,206,736                          1,206,736
      250    IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT..................         141,664                            141,664
      260    WEAPONS MAINTENANCE.................................         523,122                            523,122
      270    OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................         371,872                            371,872
      280    ENTERPRISE INFORMATION..............................         896,061                            896,061
      290    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION..........       2,220,423                          2,220,423
      300    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................       4,472,468          14,000          4,486,468
               Funding increase for Behavioral Counseling........                         [14,000]
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................      34,581,896     -16,058,793         18,523,103

             MOBILIZATION
      310    SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE.......................         422,846                            422,846
      320    AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS..................           6,464             500              6,964
               Readiness funding increase........................                            [500]
      330    SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS......................         361,764                            361,764
      340    EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS...............          69,530                             69,530
      350    INDUSTRIAL READINESS................................           2,237                              2,237
      360    COAST GUARD SUPPORT.................................          21,823                             21,823
             SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................         884,664             500            885,164

             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
      370    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................         149,375                            149,375
      380    RECRUIT TRAINING....................................           9,035                              9,035
      390    RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.....................         156,290                            156,290
      400    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................         653,728                            653,728
      410    FLIGHT TRAINING.....................................           8,171                              8,171
      420    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................         168,471                            168,471
      430    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................         196,048                            196,048
      440    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................         234,233                            234,233
      450    OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION....................         137,855                            137,855
      460    CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.....................          77,257                             77,257
      470    JUNIOR ROTC.........................................          47,653                             47,653
             SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................       1,838,116                          1,838,116

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      480    ADMINISTRATION......................................         923,771                            923,771
      490    EXTERNAL RELATIONS..................................          13,967                             13,967
      500    CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT..........         120,812                            120,812
      510    MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT..........         350,983                            350,983
      520    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         265,948                            265,948
      530    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................         335,482                            335,482
      550    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         197,724                            197,724
      570    PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN....................         274,936                            274,936
      580    ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................       1,122,178                          1,122,178
      590    HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT.............          48,587                             48,587
      600    COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS..............................          25,599                             25,599
      610    SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS................          72,768                             72,768
      620    NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE.........................         577,803                            577,803
      680    INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES.............           4,768                              4,768
      680A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................         560,754                            560,754
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0        -209,823           -209,823
               Streamlining of Navy Management Headquarters......                       [-209,823]
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................       4,896,080        -209,823          4,686,257

             UNDISTRIBUTED
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0         -59,900            -59,900
               Foreign currency adjustment.......................                        [-59,900]
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -482,300           -482,300
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-482,300]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -542,200           -542,200

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY.................      42,200,756     -16,810,316         25,390,440

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    OPERATIONAL FORCES..................................         931,079        -931,079                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                       [-931,079]
      020    FIELD LOGISTICS.....................................         931,757        -931,757                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                       [-931,757]
      030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         227,583                            227,583
      040    MARITIME PREPOSITIONING.............................          86,259                             86,259
      050    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............         746,237                            746,237
      060    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................       2,057,362           1,200          2,058,562
               Readiness funding increase for Criminal                                     [1,200]
                Investigative Equipment..........................
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       4,980,277      -1,861,636          3,118,641

             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
      070    RECRUIT TRAINING....................................          16,460                             16,460
      080    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................             977                                977
      090    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................          97,325                             97,325
      100    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................          40,786                             40,786
      110    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................         347,476                            347,476
      120    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................         164,806                            164,806
      130    OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION....................          39,963                             39,963
      140    JUNIOR ROTC.........................................          23,397                             23,397
             SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................         731,190                            731,190

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      150    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................          37,386                             37,386
      160    ADMINISTRATION......................................         358,395                            358,395
      180    ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................          76,105                             76,105
      180A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................          45,429                             45,429
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0         -32,588            -32,588
               Streamlining of Marine Corps Management                                   [-32,588]
                Headquarters.....................................
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         517,315         -32,588            484,727

             UNDISTRIBUTED
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0         -19,800            -19,800
               Foreign currency adjustment.......................                        [-19,800]
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0         -17,000            -17,000
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                        [-17,000]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0         -36,800            -36,800

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS.........       6,228,782      -1,931,024          4,297,758

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.................         563,722                            563,722
      020    INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................           6,218                              6,218
      030    AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................          82,712                             82,712
      040    AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................             326                                326
      050    AVIATION LOGISTICS..................................          13,436                             13,436
      070    SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING..................             557                                557
      090    COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS...............................          14,499                             14,499
      100    COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...............................         117,601                            117,601
      120    ENTERPRISE INFORMATION..............................          29,382                             29,382
      130    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION..........          48,513                             48,513
      140    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................         102,858                            102,858
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................         979,824                            979,824

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      150    ADMINISTRATION......................................           1,505                              1,505
      160    MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT..........          13,782                             13,782
      170    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................           3,437                              3,437
      180    ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................           3,210                              3,210
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -1,386             -1,386
               Streamlining of Navy Reserve Management                                    [-1,386]
                Headquarters.....................................
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................          21,934          -1,386             20,548

             UNDISTRIBUTED
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0         -39,700            -39,700
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                        [-39,700]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0         -39,700            -39,700

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.............       1,001,758         -41,086            960,672

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    OPERATING FORCES....................................          97,631                             97,631
      020    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................          18,254                             18,254
      030    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION..........          28,653                             28,653
      040    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................         111,923                            111,923
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................         256,461                            256,461

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      050    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................             924                                924
      060    ADMINISTRATION......................................          10,866                             10,866
      070    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................           8,785                              8,785
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -1,473             -1,473
               Streamlining of Marine Corps Reserve Management                            [-1,473]
                Headquarters.....................................
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................          20,575          -1,473             19,102

             UNDISTRIBUTED
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0          -1,000             -1,000
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                         [-1,000]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0          -1,000             -1,000

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE...........         277,036          -2,473            274,563

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...............................       3,336,868      -3,336,868                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-3,336,868]
      020    COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES...........................       1,897,315      -1,897,315                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,897,315]
      030    AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)......       1,797,549         -40,300          1,757,249
               Cancel transition of A-10 to F-15E training.......                        [-78,000]
               Readiness increase................................                         [37,700]
      040    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       6,537,127      -6,537,127                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-6,537,127]
      050    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.       1,997,712                          1,997,712
      060    BASE SUPPORT........................................       2,841,948                          2,841,948
      070    GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................         930,341                            930,341
      080    OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS.......................         924,845                            924,845
      100    LAUNCH FACILITIES...................................         271,177                            271,177
      110    SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS...............................         382,824                            382,824
      120    COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.........         900,965         -15,380            885,586
               Streamlining of Air Force Combatant Commanders                            [-15,380]
                Direct Mission Support...........................
      130    COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................         205,078         -41,000            164,078
               Cutting Joint Enabling Capabilities Command.......                        [-41,000]
      xxx    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................         907,496          16,800            924,296
               Increase One Program..............................                         [20,000]
               Unjustified increase..............................                         [-3,200]
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................      22,931,245     -11,851,190         11,080,055

             MOBILIZATION
      140    AIRLIFT OPERATIONS..................................       2,229,196                          2,229,196
      150    MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS...........................         148,318                            148,318
      160    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       1,617,571      -1,617,571                  0
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,617,571]
      170    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         259,956                            259,956
      180    BASE SUPPORT........................................         708,799                            708,799
             SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................       4,963,840      -1,617,571          3,346,269

             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
      190    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................          92,191                             92,191
      200    RECRUIT TRAINING....................................          21,871                             21,871
      210    RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC)..............          77,527                             77,527
      220    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         228,500                            228,500
      230    BASE SUPPORT........................................         772,870                            772,870
      240    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................         359,304          43,100            402,404
               Readiness increase for RPA training...............                         [43,100]
      250    FLIGHT TRAINING.....................................         710,553                            710,553
      260    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................         228,252                            228,252
      270    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................          76,464                             76,464
      280    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         375,513                            375,513
      290    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................          79,690                             79,690
      300    EXAMINING...........................................           3,803                              3,803
      310    OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION....................         180,807                            180,807
      320    CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.....................         167,478                            167,478
      330    JUNIOR ROTC.........................................          59,263                             59,263
             SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................       3,434,086          43,100          3,477,186

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      340    LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................       1,141,491                          1,141,491
      350    TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................         862,022         -10,000            852,022
               Acquisition Management Adjustment.................                        [-10,000]
      360    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................          61,745                             61,745
      370    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         298,759                            298,759
      380    BASE SUPPORT........................................       1,108,220         -12,000          1,096,220
               Reduce IT procurement.............................                        [-12,000]
      390    ADMINISTRATION......................................         689,797         -20,700            669,097
               DEAMS reduction-Funding ahead of need.............                        [-20,700]
      400    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................         498,053                            498,053
      410    OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................         900,253                            900,253
      420    CIVIL AIR PATROL....................................          25,411                             25,411
      450    INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT...............................          89,148                             89,148
      450A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,187,859          -4,900          1,182,959
               Unjustified increase..............................                         [-4,900]
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0        -276,203           -276,203
               Streamlining of Air Force Management Headquarters.                       [-276,203]
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................       6,862,758        -323,803          6,538,955

             UNDISTRIBUTED
       xx    Restore EC-130 Compass Call.........................               0          27,300             27,300
               Costs associated with preventing divestiture of EC-                        [27,300]
                130..............................................
        x    Restore A-10........................................               0         235,300            235,300
               Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A-                        [235,300]
                10 fleet.........................................
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -618,300           -618,300
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-618,300]
             UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0        -137,800           -137,800
               Foreign currency adjustment.......................                       [-137,800]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -493,500           -493,500

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............      38,191,929     -14,242,964         23,948,965

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...............................       1,779,378                          1,779,378
      020    MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS..........................         226,243                            226,243
      030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         487,036                            487,036
      040    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         109,342                            109,342
      050    BASE SUPPORT........................................         373,707                            373,707
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       2,975,706                          2,975,706

             ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
      060    ADMINISTRATION......................................          53,921                             53,921
      070    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................          14,359                             14,359
      080    MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC)..............          13,665                             13,665
      090    OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)................           6,606                              6,606
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -2,116             -2,116
               Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A-                          [2,500]
                10 fleet.........................................
               Streamlining of Air Force Reserve Management                               [-4,616]
                Headquarters.....................................
             SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES          88,551          -2,116             86,435

             UNDISTRIBUTED
     xxxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -101,100           -101,100
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-101,100]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -101,100           -101,100

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE...........       3,064,257        -103,216          2,961,041

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.................................       3,526,471                          3,526,471
      020    MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS..........................         740,779           2,600            743,379
               ARNG border security enhancement..................                          [2,600]
      030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       1,763,859                          1,763,859
      040    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         288,786                            288,786
      050    BASE SUPPORT........................................         582,037                            582,037
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       6,901,932           2,600          6,904,532

             ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
      060    ADMINISTRATION......................................          23,626                             23,626
      070    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................          30,652                             30,652
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -3,015             -3,015
               Streamlining of Air National Guard Management                              [-3,015]
                Headquarters.....................................
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          42,200             42,200
               Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A-                         [42,200]
                10 fleet.........................................
             SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES          54,278          39,185             93,463

             UNDISTRIBUTED
     xxxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -162,600           -162,600
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-162,600]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -162,600           -162,600

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG..................       6,956,210        -120,815          6,835,395

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF...............................         485,888          20,000            505,888
               Middle East Assurance Initiative..................                         [20,000]
      020    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE..................         534,795          -4,000            530,795
               DOD Rewards reduction-funding ahead of need.......                         [-4,000]
      030    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES.........       4,862,368                          4,862,368
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       5,883,051          16,000          5,899,051

             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
      040    DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY......................         142,659                            142,659
      050    NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY.........................          78,416                             78,416
      060    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING..         354,372                            354,372
             SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................         575,447                            575,447

             ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
      070    CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS.............................         160,320                            160,320
      090    DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY.......................         570,177                            570,177
      100    DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY..................       1,374,536                          1,374,536
      110    DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY....................         642,551                            642,551
      120    DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY..................       1,282,755          10,000          1,292,755
               Sharkseer increase................................                         [10,000]
      140    DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY.......................          26,073                             26,073
      150    DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY............................         366,429                            366,429
      160    DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY..............................         192,625                            192,625
      180    DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY.................         115,372                            115,372
      190    DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY.................         524,723          -7,000            517,723
               Reduction to Combating Terrorism Fellowship.......                         [-7,000]
      200    DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE............................         508,396                            508,396
      230    DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..........          33,577                             33,577
      240    DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY.....................         415,696                            415,696
      260    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............       2,753,771          30,250          2,784,021
               Impact Aid........................................                         [30,000]
               School lunches for territories....................                            [250]
      270    MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY..............................         432,068                            432,068
      290    OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT.......................         110,612         -53,100             57,512
               Guam outside the fence infastructure..............                        [-20,000]
               Defense industry adjustment.......................                        [-33,100]
      300    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE..................       1,388,285          -9,500          1,378,785
               BRAC 2017 Planning and Support....................                        [-10,500]
               OSD fleet architecture study......................                          [1,000]
      310    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE                   83,263                             83,263
              ACTIVITIES.........................................
      320    WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES....................         621,688                            621,688
      320A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................      14,379,428                         14,379,428
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0        -897,552           -897,552
               Streamlining of Department of Defense Management                         [-897,552]
                Headquarters.....................................
             SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES      25,982,345        -926,902         25,055,443

             UNDISTRIBUTED
       xx    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0         -51,900            -51,900
               Foreign currency adjustment.......................                        [-51,900]
      xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0         -36,000            -36,000
               Bulk fuel savings.................................                        [-36,000]
             SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0         -87,900            -87,900

             TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.......      32,440,843        -998,802         31,442,041

             MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
             US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF
      010    US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE...          14,078                             14,078
             SUBTOTAL, US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF.          14,078                             14,078

             OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
      010    OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID.......         100,266                            100,266
             SUBTOTAL, OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC         100,266                            100,266
              AID................................................

             COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT
      010    FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION..........         358,496                            358,496
             SUBTOTAL, COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT......         358,496                            358,496

             DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND
      010    ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD................................          84,140                             84,140
             SUBTOTAL, DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND          84,140                             84,140

             ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
      040    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY.....................         234,829                            234,829
             SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY...........         234,829                            234,829

             ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
      050    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY.....................         292,453                            292,453
             SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY...........         292,453                            292,453

             ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
      060    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE................         368,131                            368,131
             SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE......         368,131                            368,131

             ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE
      070    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE..................           8,232                              8,232
             SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE........           8,232                              8,232

             ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES
      080    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES.......         203,717                            203,717
             SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED            203,717                            203,717
              SITES..............................................

             TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS..................       1,664,342                          1,664,342

             TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.....................     176,517,228     -42,446,082        134,071,146
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS  (In Thousands of Dollars)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       FY 2016                           Senate
      Line                           Item                              Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................         257,900       1,094,429          1,352,329
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,094,429]
      040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................       1,110,836         763,300          1,874,136
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                        [763,300]
      050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................         261,943       1,054,322          1,316,265
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,054,322]
      060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................          22,160       1,546,129          1,568,289
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,546,129]
      070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................       1,119,201       3,158,606          4,277,807
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [3,158,606]
      080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................         117,881                            117,881
      100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................          50,000                             50,000
      140    ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES...............................       4,500,666                          4,500,666
      150    COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM...............          10,000                             10,000
      160    RESET...............................................       1,834,777                          1,834,777
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       9,285,364       7,616,786         16,902,150

             MOBILIZATION
      190    ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS...........................          40,000                             40,000
             SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................          40,000                             40,000

             ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
      350    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         529,891                            529,891
      380    AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT...............................           5,033                              5,033
      420    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         100,480                            100,480
      450    REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..............................         154,350                            154,350
      480A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,267,632                          1,267,632
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................       2,057,386                          2,057,386

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY.................      11,382,750       7,616,786         18,999,536

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
             OPERATING FORCES
      030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................           2,442                              2,442
      050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................             813                                813
      070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................             779                                779
      100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................          20,525                             20,525
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          24,559                             24,559

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.............          24,559                             24,559

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................           1,984                              1,984
      030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................           4,671                              4,671
      060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................          15,980                             15,980
      070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................          12,867                             12,867
      100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................          23,134                             23,134
      120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............           1,426                              1,426
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          60,062                             60,062

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      150    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................             783                                783
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................             783                                783

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG.................          60,845                             60,845

             AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
             MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
      010    SUSTAINMENT.........................................       2,214,899                          2,214,899
      030    EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................         182,751                            182,751
      040    TRAINING AND OPERATIONS.............................         281,555                            281,555
             SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE.......................       2,679,205                          2,679,205

             MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
      060    SUSTAINMENT.........................................         901,137                            901,137
      080    EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................         116,573                            116,573
      090    TRAINING AND OPERATIONS.............................          65,342                             65,342
             SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR......................       1,083,052                          1,083,052

             TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND..............       3,762,257                          3,762,257

             IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
             IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
      010    IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND...........................         715,000                            715,000
             SUBTOTAL, IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.................         715,000                            715,000

             TOTAL IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.....................         715,000                            715,000

             SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
             SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
      010    SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND..........................         600,000                            600,000
             SUBTOTAL, SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND................         600,000                            600,000

             TOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND....................         600,000                            600,000

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.................         358,417       4,943,665          5,302,082
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [4,940,365]
               Readiness funding increase........................                          [3,300]
      030    AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES......             110                                110
      040    AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT...................           4,513                              4,513
      050    AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................................         126,501                            126,501
      060    AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................          75,897         914,536            990,433
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                        [897,536]
               Readiness funding increase........................                         [17,000]
      070    AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................           2,770                              2,770
      080    AVIATION LOGISTICS..................................          34,101                             34,101
      090    MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS...................       1,184,878       4,287,658          5,472,536
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [4,287,658]
      100    SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING..................          16,663                             16,663
      110    SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE..............................       1,922,829       5,960,951          7,883,780
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [5,960,951]
      130    COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS...............................          33,577                             33,577
      160    WARFARE TACTICS.....................................          26,454                             26,454
      170    OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............          22,305                             22,305
      180    COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...............................         513,969                            513,969
      190    EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE...............................          10,007                             10,007
      250    IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT..................          60,865                             60,865
      260    WEAPONS MAINTENANCE.................................         275,231                            275,231
      290    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION..........           7,819                              7,819
      300    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................          61,422                             61,422
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       4,738,328      16,106,810         20,845,138

             MOBILIZATION
      340    EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS...............           5,307                              5,307
      360    COAST GUARD SUPPORT.................................         160,002                            160,002
             SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................         165,309                            165,309

             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
      400    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................          44,845                             44,845
             SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................          44,845                             44,845

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      480    ADMINISTRATION......................................           2,513                              2,513
      490    EXTERNAL RELATIONS..................................             500                                500
      510    MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT..........           5,309                              5,309
      520    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................           1,469                              1,469
      550    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         156,671                            156,671
      580    ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................           8,834                              8,834
      620    NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE.........................           1,490                              1,490
      680A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................           6,320                              6,320
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         183,106                            183,106

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY.................       5,131,588      16,106,810         21,238,398

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    OPERATIONAL FORCES..................................         353,133         931,079          1,284,212
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                        [931,079]
      020    FIELD LOGISTICS.....................................         259,676         931,757          1,191,433
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                        [931,757]
      030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         240,000                            240,000
      060    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................          16,026                             16,026
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................         868,835       1,862,836          2,731,671

             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
      110    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................          37,862                             37,862
             SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................          37,862                             37,862

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      150    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................          43,767                             43,767
      180A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................           2,070                              2,070
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................          45,837                             45,837

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS.........         952,534       1,862,836          2,815,370

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.................           4,033                              4,033
      020    INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................              60                                 60
      030    AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................          20,300                             20,300
      100    COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...............................           7,250                              7,250
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          31,643                             31,643

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.............          31,643                             31,643

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    OPERATING FORCES....................................           2,500                              2,500
      040    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................             955                                955
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................           3,455                              3,455

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE...........           3,455                              3,455

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...............................       1,505,738       3,333,368          4,839,106
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [3,336,868]
               Retain Current A-10 Fleet.........................                         [-1,400]
               Unjustified Increase..............................                         [-2,100]
      020    COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES...........................         914,973       1,887,615          2,802,588
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,897,315]
               Unjustified Increase..............................                        [-14,000]
               Readiness funding increase........................                          [4,300]
      030    AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)......          31,978                             31,978
      040    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       1,192,765       6,537,127          7,729,892
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [6,537,127]
      050    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.          85,625                             85,625
      060    BASE SUPPORT........................................         917,269                            917,269
      070    GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................          30,219                             30,219
      080    OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS.......................         174,734                            174,734
      100    LAUNCH FACILITIES...................................             869                                869
      110    SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS...............................           5,008                              5,008
      120    COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.........         100,190                            100,190
      xxx    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................          22,893                             22,893
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       4,982,261      11,758,110         16,740,371

             MOBILIZATION
      140    AIRLIFT OPERATIONS..................................       2,995,703                          2,995,703
      150    MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS...........................         108,163                            108,163
      160    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         511,059       1,617,571          2,128,630
               Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,617,571]
      180    BASE SUPPORT........................................           4,642                              4,642
             SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................       3,619,567       1,617,571          5,237,138

             TRAINING AND RECRUITING
      190    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................              92                                 92
      240    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................          11,986                             11,986
             SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................          12,078                             12,078

             ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
      340    LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................          86,716                             86,716
      380    BASE SUPPORT........................................           3,836                              3,836
      400    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................         165,348                            165,348
      410    OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................         204,683         -63,000            141,683
               Reduction to the Office of Security Cooperation in                        [-63,000]
                Iraq.............................................
      450    INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT...............................              61                                 61
      450A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................          15,463                             15,463
             SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         476,107         -63,000            413,107

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............       9,090,013      13,312,681         22,402,694

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
             OPERATING FORCES
      030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................          51,086                             51,086
      050    BASE SUPPORT........................................           7,020                              7,020
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          58,106                             58,106

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE...........          58,106                             58,106

             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
             OPERATING FORCES
      020    MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS..........................          19,900                             19,900
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          19,900                             19,900

             TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG..................          19,900                             19,900

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
             OPERATING FORCES
      010    JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF...............................           9,900                              9,900
      030    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES.........       2,345,835                          2,345,835
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       2,355,735                          2,355,735

             ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
      090    DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY.......................          18,474                             18,474
      120    DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY..................          29,579                             29,579
      140    DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY.......................         110,000                            110,000
      160    DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY..............................           5,960                              5,960
      190    DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY.................       1,677,000        -100,000          1,577,000
               Reduction from Coalition Support Funds............                       [-100,000]
      260    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............          73,000                             73,000
      300    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE..................         106,709                            106,709
      320    WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES....................           2,102                              2,102
      320A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,427,074                          1,427,074
             SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.       3,449,898        -100,000          3,349,898

             TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.......       5,805,633        -100,000          5,705,633

             TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.....................      37,638,283      38,799,113         76,437,396
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL

    TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL

    SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Item                           FY 2016  Request     Senate  Change    Senate  Authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MILITARY PERSONNEL
    MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
    MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS...................        130,491,227          -1,254,500         129,236,727
        Military Personnel Underexecution...............                              [-987,200]
        Additional support for the National Guard's                                     [21,700]
         Operation Phalanx..............................
        Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE                                      [-85,000]
         consolidation..................................
        TRICARE program improvement initiatives.........                                [15,000]
        Financial literacy improvement..................                                [85,000]
        Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Army.....                               [-65,200]
        Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Navy.....                               [-81,400]
        Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Marine                                  [-27,000]
         Corps..........................................
        Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Air Force                              [-130,400]
    SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.........        130,491,227          -1,254,500         129,236,727

    MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
    MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS.          6,243,449                               6,243,449
    SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND               6,243,449                   0           6,243,449
     CONTRIBUTIONS......................................

    TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL...........................        136,734,676          -1,254,500         135,480,176
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Item                           FY 2016  Request     Senate  Change    Senate  Authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MILITARY PERSONNEL
    MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
    MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS...................          3,204,758                   0           3,204,758
    SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.........          3,204,758                   0           3,204,758

    TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL...........................          3,204,758                   0           3,204,758
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

    TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

    SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS  (In Thousands of Dollars)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       FY 2016                           Senate
        Line                           Item                            Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 WORKING CAPITAL FUND
                 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
           020   SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY.........................          50,432                             50,432
                 SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............          50,432                             50,432

                 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
           010   SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS..........................          62,898                             62,898
                 SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......          62,898                             62,898

                 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
           030   DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)..................          45,084                             45,084
                 SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....          45,084                             45,084

                 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
           020   WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA......................       1,154,154                          1,154,154
                 SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............       1,154,154                          1,154,154

                 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND......................       1,312,568                          1,312,568

                 NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
           040   POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING....................          15,456                             15,456
           060   LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE....................         124,493                            124,493
           070   DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS....................           8,243                              8,243
           080   TAH MAINTENANCE.................................          27,784                             27,784
           090   RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT........................          25,197                             25,197
           100   READY RESERVE FORCE.............................         272,991                            272,991
                 SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND.........         474,164                            474,164

                 TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND.............         474,164                            474,164

                 CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
                 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
            01   CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--O&M......................         139,098                            139,098
                 SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...............         139,098                            139,098

                 RDT&E
            02   CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--RDT&E....................         579,342                            579,342
                 SUBTOTAL, RDT&E.................................         579,342                            579,342

                 PROCUREMENT
            03   CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--PROC.....................           2,281                              2,281
                 SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT...........................           2,281                              2,281

                 TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.......         720,721                            720,721

                 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
                 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
           010   DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,           739,009          22,000            761,009
                  DEFENSE........................................
                   SOUTHCOM Operational support..................                         [30,000]
                   Transfer to Demand Reduction Program..........                         [-8,000]
                 SUBTOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG             739,009          22,000            761,009
                  ACTIVITIES.....................................

                 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM
           020   DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM...................         111,589           8,000            119,589
                   Expanded drug testing.........................                          [8,000]
                 SUBTOTAL, DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM.........         111,589           8,000            119,589

                 TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES,           850,598          30,000            880,598
                  DEF............................................

                 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
                 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
           010   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................         310,459                            310,459
                 SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............         310,459                            310,459

                 RDT&E
           020   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................           4,700          -2,600              2,100
                   Funding ahead of need.........................                         [-2,600]
                 SUBTOTAL, RDT&E.................................           4,700          -2,600              2,100

                 PROCUREMENT
           030   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................           1,000          -1,000                  0
                   Funding ahead of need.........................                         [-1,000]
                 SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT...........................           1,000          -1,000                  0

                 TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL...........         316,159          -3,600            312,559

                 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
                 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
           010   IN-HOUSE CARE...................................       9,082,298                          9,082,298
           020   PRIVATE SECTOR CARE.............................      14,892,683                         14,892,683
           030   CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT.....................       2,415,658         -10,290          2,405,368
                   Reduction of funds related to Combating                               [-10,290]
                    Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project.
           040   INFORMATION MANAGEMENT..........................       1,677,827                          1,677,827
           050   MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES...........................         327,967                            327,967
           060   EDUCATION AND TRAINING..........................         750,614                            750,614
           070   BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS..................       1,742,893                          1,742,893
            xx   UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT.......               0         -36,400            -36,400
                   Foreign currency adjustment...................                        [-36,400]
                 SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...............      30,889,940         -46,690         30,843,250

                 RDT&E
           090   R&D RESEARCH....................................          10,996                             10,996
           100   R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT......................          59,473          -3,150             56,323
                   Reduction of funds related to Combating                                [-3,150]
                    Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project.
           110   R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT........................         231,356          -3,100            228,256
                   Reduction of funds related to Combating                                [-3,100]
                    Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project.
           120   R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION....................         103,443                            103,443
           130   R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT.....................         515,910                            515,910
           140   R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT......................          41,567                             41,567
           150   R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT....................          17,356                             17,356
                 SUBTOTAL, RDT&E.................................         980,101          -6,250            973,851

                 PROCUREMENT
           160   PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING.........................          33,392                             33,392
           170   PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION................         330,504                            330,504
           180   PROC THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM........           1,494                              1,494
           190   PROC IEHR.......................................           7,897                              7,897
                 SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT...........................         373,287                            373,287

                 TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM....................      32,243,328         -52,940         32,190,388

                 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS......................      35,917,538         -26,540         35,890,998
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS  (In Thousands of Dollars)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       FY 2016                           Senate
        Line                           Item                            Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 WORKING CAPITAL FUND
                 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
           020   TRANSPORTATION OF FALLEN HEROES.................           2,500                              2,500
                 SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......           2,500                              2,500

                 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
           030   DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)..................          86,350                             86,350
                 SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....          86,350                             86,350

                 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND......................          88,850                             88,850

                 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
                 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
           010   DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,           186,000                            186,000
                  DEFENSE........................................
                 SUBTOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG             186,000                            186,000
                  ACTIVITIES.....................................

                 TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES,          186,000                            186,000
                  DEF............................................

                 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
                 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
           010   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................          10,262                             10,262
                 SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............          10,262                             10,262

                 TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL..........          10,262                             10,262

                 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
                 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
           010   IN-HOUSE CARE...................................          65,149                             65,149
           020   PRIVATE SECTOR CARE.............................         192,210                            192,210
           030   CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT.....................           9,460                              9,460
           060   EDUCATION AND TRAINING..........................           5,885                              5,885
                 SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...............         272,704                            272,704

                 TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM...................         272,704                            272,704

                 COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
                 COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
           090   COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND..............       2,100,000      -1,100,000          1,000,000
                   Request excess to need........................                     [-1,100,000]
                 SUBTOTAL, COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND....       2,100,000      -1,100,000          1,000,000

                 TOTAL, COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND.......       2,100,000      -1,100,000          1,000,000

                 UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE
                 UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE
           xxx   UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE..........               0         300,000            300,000
                   Provides assistance to Ukraine................                        [300,000]
                 SUBTOTAL, UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE               0         300,000            300,000

                 TOTAL, UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE...               0         300,000            300,000

                 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATION.......................       2,657,816        -800,000          1,857,816
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       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 Greely              Physical Readiness Training           7,800                             7,800
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, ARMY             CALIFORNIA               Concord                  Pier.......................          98,000                            98,000
    MILCON, ARMY             COLORADO                 Fort Carson, Colorado    Rotary Wing Taxiway........           5,800                             5,800
    MILCON, ARMY             GEORGIA                  Fort Gordon              Command and Control                  90,000                            90,000
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, ARMY             GERMANY                  Grafenwoehr              Vehicle Maintenance Shop...          51,000                            51,000
    MILCON, ARMY             GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA     Guantanamo Bay           Unaccompanied Personnel                   0            76,000          76,000
                                                                                Housing.
    MILCON, ARMY             MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               Access Control Point-Reece                0            19,500          19,500
                                                                                Road.
    MILCON, ARMY             MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               Access Control Point-Mapes                0            15,000          15,000
                                                                                Road.
    MILCON, ARMY             NEW YORK                 Fort Drum, New York      NCO Academy Complex........          19,000                            19,000
    MILCON, ARMY             NEW YORK                 U.S. Military Academy    Waste Water Treatment Plant          70,000                            70,000
    MILCON, ARMY             OKLAHOMA                 Fort Sill                Reception Barracks Complex           56,000                            56,000
                                                                                Ph2.
    MILCON, ARMY             OKLAHOMA                 Fort Sill                Training Support Facility..          13,400                            13,400
    MILCON, ARMY             TEXAS                    Corpus Christi           Powertrain Facility                  85,000                            85,000
                                                                                (Infrastructure/Metal).
    MILCON, ARMY             TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   Homeland Defense Operations          43,000           -43,000               0
                                                                                Center.
    MILCON, ARMY             VIRGINIA                 Fort Lee                 Training Support Facility..          33,000                            33,000
    MILCON, ARMY             VIRGINIA                 Joint Base Myer-         Instruction Building.......          37,000           -37,000               0
                                                       Henderson
    MILCON, ARMY             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Host Nation Support........          36,000                            36,000
                                                       Locations
    MILCON, ARMY             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Minor Construction.........          25,000                            25,000
                                                       Locations
    MILCON, ARMY             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........          73,245                            73,245
                                                       Locations
    MILCON, ARMY             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Prior Year Unobligated                    0           -52,000         -52,000
                                                       Locations                Amounts.
          SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARMY                                                                                   743,245           -21,500         721,745
                             .......................  .......................
    MIL CON, NAVY
    MIL CON, NAVY            ARIZONA                  Yuma                     Aircraft Maint. Facilities           50,635                            50,635
                                                                                & Apron (So. CALA).
    MIL CON, NAVY            BAHRAIN ISLAND           SW Asia                  Mina Salman Pier                     37,700                            37,700
                                                                                Replacement.
    MIL CON, NAVY            BAHRAIN ISLAND           SW Asia                  Ship Maintenance Support             52,091                            52,091
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Camp Pendleton,          Raw Water Pipeline                   44,540           -44,540               0
                                                       California               Pendleton to Fallbrook.
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Camp Pendleton,          Pendleton Ops Center.......               0            25,000          25,000
                                                       California
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Coronado                 Coastal Campus Utilities...           4,856                             4,856
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Lemoore                  F-35C Hangar Modernization           56,497                            56,497
                                                                                and Addition.
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Lemoore                  F-35C Training Facilities..           8,187                             8,187
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Lemoore                  RTO and Mission Debrief               7,146                             7,146
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Miramar                  KC-130J Enlisted Air Crew                 0            11,200          11,200
                                                                                Trainer.
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Point Mugu               E-2C/D Hangar Additions and          19,453                            19,453
                                                                                Renovations.
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Point Mugu               Triton Avionics and Fuel              2,974                             2,974
                                                                                Systems Trainer.
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               San Diego                LCS Support Facility.......          37,366                            37,366
    MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Twentynine Palms,        Microgrid Expansion........           9,160                             9,160
                                                       California
    MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Jacksonville             Fleet Support Facility                8,455                             8,455
                                                                                Addition.
    MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Jacksonville             Triton Mission Control                8,296                             8,296
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Mayport                  LCS Mission Module                   16,159                            16,159
                                                                                Readiness Center.
    MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Pensacola                A-School Unaccopanied                18,347                            18,347
                                                                                Housing (Corry Station).
    MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Whiting Field            T-6B JPATS Training                  10,421                            10,421
                                                                                Operations Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            GEORGIA                  Albany                   Ground Source Heat Pumps...           7,851                             7,851
    MIL CON, NAVY            GEORGIA                  Kings Bay                Industrial Control System             8,099                             8,099
                                                                                Infrastructure.
    MIL CON, NAVY            GEORGIA                  Townsend                 Townsend Bombing Range               48,279            -5,000          43,279
                                                                                Expansion Phase 2.
    MIL CON, NAVY            GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    Live-Fire Training Range            125,677                           125,677
                                                                                Complex (NW Field).
    MIL CON, NAVY            GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    Municipal Solid Waste                10,777                            10,777
                                                                                Landfill Closure.
    MIL CON, NAVY            GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    Sanitary Sewer System                45,314                            45,314
                                                                                Recapitalization.
    MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Barking Sands            PMRF Power Grid                      30,623                            30,623
                                                                                Consolidation.
    MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Joint Base Pearl Harbor- UEM Interconnect Sta C to             6,335                             6,335
                                                       Hickam                   Hickam.
    MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Welding School Shop                   8,546                             8,546
                                                       Hickam                   Consolidation.
    MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Kaneohe Bay              Airfield Lighting                    26,097                            26,097
                                                                                Modernization.
    MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Kaneohe Bay              Bachelor Enlisted Quarters.          68,092                            68,092
    MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Kaneohe Bay              P-8A Detachment Support              12,429                            12,429
                                                                                Facilities.
    MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   MCB Hawaii               LHD Pad Conversions MV22                  0            12,800          12,800
                                                                                Landing Pads.
    MIL CON, NAVY            ITALY                    Sigonella                P-8A Hangar and Fleet                62,302                            62,302
                                                                                Support Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            ITALY                    Sigonella                Triton Hangar and Operation          40,641                            40,641
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Camp Butler              Military Working Dog                 11,697                            11,697
                                                                                Facilities (Camp Hansen).
    MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Iwakuni                  E-2D Operational Trainer              8,716                             8,716
                                                                                Complex.
    MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Iwakuni                  Security Modifications--              9,207                             9,207
                                                                                CVW5/MAG12 HQ.
    MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Kadena AB                Aircraft Maint. Shelters &           23,310                            23,310
                                                                                Apron.
    MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Yokosuka                 Child Development Center...          13,846                            13,846
    MIL CON, NAVY            MARYLAND                 Patuxent River           Unaccompanied Housing......          40,935                            40,935
    MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune             Range Safety Improvements..               0            19,400          19,400
    MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune, North      Simulator Integration/Range          54,849                            54,849
                                                       Carolina                 Control Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Cherry Point Marine      Air Field Security                        0            23,300          23,300
                                                       Corps Air Station        Improvements.
    MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Cherry Point Marine      KC130J Enlsited Air Crew              4,769                             4,769
                                                       Corps Air Station        Trainer Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Cherry Point Marine      Unmanned Aircraft System             29,657                            29,657
                                                       Corps Air Station        Facilities.
    MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           New River                Operational Trainer                   3,312                             3,312
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           New River                Radar Air Traffic Control             4,918                             4,918
                                                                                Facility Addition.
    MIL CON, NAVY            POLAND                   RedziKowo Base           AEGIS Ashore Missile                 51,270                            51,270
                                                                                Defense Complex.
    MIL CON, NAVY            SOUTH CAROLINA           Parris Island            Range Safety Improvements &          27,075                            27,075
                                                                                Modernization.
    MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Dam Neck                 Maritime Surveillance                23,066                            23,066
                                                                                System Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Norfolk                  Communications Center......          75,289                            75,289
    MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Norfolk                  Electrical Repairs to Piers          44,254                            44,254
                                                                                2,6,7, and 11.
    MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Norfolk                  MH60 Helicopter Training              7,134                             7,134
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Portsmouth               Waterfront Utilities.......          45,513                            45,513
    MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Quantico                 ATFP Gate..................           5,840                             5,840
    MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Quantico                 Electrical Distribution               8,418                             8,418
                                                                                Upgrade.
    MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Quantico                 Embassy Security Guard BEQ           43,941                            43,941
                                                                                & Ops Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Quantico                 TBS Fire Station                          0            17,200          17,200
                                                                                Replacement.
    MIL CON, NAVY            WASHINGTON               Bangor                   WRA Land/Water Interface...          34,177                            34,177
    MIL CON, NAVY            WASHINGTON               Bremerton                Dry Dock 6 Modernization &           22,680                            22,680
                                                                                Utility Improve..
    MIL CON, NAVY            WASHINGTON               Indian Island            Shore Power to Ammunition             4,472                             4,472
                                                                                Pier.
    MIL CON, NAVY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    MCON Design Funds..........          91,649                            91,649
                                                       Locations
    MIL CON, NAVY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Unspecified Minor                    22,590                            22,590
                                                       Locations                Construction.
          SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, NAVY                                                                                1,605,929            59,360       1,665,289
                             .......................  .......................
    MILCON, AIR FORCE
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        ALASKA                   Eielson AFB              F-35A Flight Sim/Alter               37,000                            37,000
                                                                                Squad Ops/AMU Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        ALASKA                   Eielson AFB              Rpr Central Heat & Power             34,400                            34,400
                                                                                Plant Boiler Ph3.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Davis-Monthan AFB        HC-130J AGE Covered Storage           4,700                             4,700
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Davis-Monthan AFB        HC-130J Wash Rack..........          12,200                            12,200
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 Communications Facility....               0            21,000          21,000
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 F-35A ADAL Fuel Offload               5,000                             5,000
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 F-35A Aircraft Maintenance           13,200                            13,200
                                                                                Hangar/Sq 3.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 F-35A Bomb Build-Up                   5,500                             5,500
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 F-35A Sq Ops/AMU/Hangar/Sq           33,000                            33,000
                                                                                4.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        COLORADO                 U.S. Air Force Academy   Front Gates Force                    10,000                            10,000
                                                                                Protection Enhancements.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        FLORIDA                  Cape Canaveral Afs       Range Communications                 21,000                            21,000
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        FLORIDA                  Eglin AFB                F-35A Consolidated HQ                 8,700                             8,700
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        FLORIDA                  Hurlburt Field           ADAL 39 Information                  14,200                            14,200
                                                                                Operations Squad Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        GREENLAND                Thule AB                 Thule Consolidation Ph 1...          41,965                            41,965
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    APR--Dispersed Maint Spares          19,000                            19,000
                                                                                & SE Storage Fac.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    APR--Installation Control            22,200                            22,200
                                                                                Center.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    APR--South Ramp Utilities             7,100                             7,100
                                                                                Phase 2.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    PRTC Roads.................           2,500                             2,500
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        HAWAII                   Joint Base Pearl Harbor- F-22 Fighter Alert Facility          46,000                            46,000
                                                       Hickam
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        JAPAN                    Yokota AB                C-130J Flight Simulator               8,461                             8,461
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        KANSAS                   McConnell AFB            Air Traffic Control Tower..               0            11,200          11,200
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        KANSAS                   McConnell AFB            KC-46A ADAL Deicing Pads...           4,300                             4,300
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        LOUISIANA                Barksdale AFB            Consolidated Communications               0            20,000          20,000
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               CYBERCOM Joint Operations            86,000                            86,000
                                                                                Center, Increment 3.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        MISSOURI                 Whiteman AFB             Consolidated Stealth Ops &           29,500                            29,500
                                                                                Nuclear Alert Fac.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        MONTANA                  Malmstrom AFB            Tactical Response Force              19,700                            19,700
                                                                                Alert Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEBRASKA                 Offutt AFB               Dormitory (144 RM).........          21,000                            21,000
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEVADA                   Nellis AFB               F-35A Airfield Pavements...          31,000                            31,000
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEVADA                   Nellis AFB               F-35A Live Ordnance Loading          34,500                            34,500
                                                                                Area.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEVADA                   Nellis AFB               F-35A Munitions Maintenance           3,450                             3,450
                                                                                Facilities.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW MEXICO               Cannon AFB               Construct AT/FP Gate--                7,800                             7,800
                                                                                Portales.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW MEXICO               Holloman AFB             Marshalling Area ARM/DE-ARM           3,000                             3,000
                                                                                Pad D.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW MEXICO               Holloman AFB             Fixed Ground Control.......               0             3,200           3,200
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW MEXICO               Kirtland AFB             Space Vehicles Component             12,800                            12,800
                                                                                Development Lab.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW YORK                 Fort Drum, New York      ASOS Expansion.............               0             6,000           6,000
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NIGER                    Agadez                   Construct Airfield and Base          50,000                            50,000
                                                                                Camp.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        NORTH CAROLINA           Seymour Johnson AFB      Air Traffic Control Tower/           17,100                            17,100
                                                                                Base Ops Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        OKLAHOMA                 Altus AFB                Dormitory (120 RM).........          18,000                            18,000
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        OKLAHOMA                 Altus AFB                KC-46A FTU ADAL Fuel Cell            10,400                            10,400
                                                                                Maint Hangar.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        OKLAHOMA                 Tinker AFB               Air Traffic Control Tower..          12,900                            12,900
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        OKLAHOMA                 Tinker AFB               KC-46A Depot Maintenance             37,000                            37,000
                                                                                Dock.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        OMAN                     Al Musannah AB           Airlift Apron..............          25,000                            25,000
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        SOUTH DAKOTA             Ellsworth AFB            Dormitory (168 RM).........          23,000                            23,000
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   BMT Classrooms/Dining                35,000                            35,000
                                                                                Facility 3.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   BMT Recruit Dormitory 5....          71,000                            71,000
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        UNITED KINGDOM           Croughton RAF            Consolidated SATCOM/Tech             36,424                            36,424
                                                                                Control Facility.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        UNITED KINGDOM           Croughton RAF            JIAC Consolidation--Ph 2...          94,191                            94,191
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        UTAH                     Hill AFB                 F-35A Flight Simulator                5,900                             5,900
                                                                                Addition Phase 2.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        UTAH                     Hill AFB                 F-35A Hangar 40/42                   21,000                            21,000
                                                                                Additions and AMU.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        UTAH                     Hill AFB                 Hayman Igloos..............          11,500                            11,500
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED     Classified Location      Long Range Strike Bomber...          77,130                            77,130
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED     Classified Location      Munitions Storage..........           3,000                             3,000
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Prior Year Unobligated                    0           -50,000         -50,000
                                                       Locations                Amounts.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Planning and Design........          89,164                            89,164
                                                       Locations
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Unspecified Minor Military           22,900                            22,900
                                                       Locations                Construction.
    MILCON, AIR FORCE        WYOMING                  F. E. Warren AFB         Weapon Storage Facility....          95,000                            95,000
          SUBTOTAL, MILCON, AIR FORCE                                                                            1,354,785            11,400       1,366,185
                             .......................  .......................
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        ALABAMA                  Fort Rucker              Fort Rucker ES/PS                    46,787                            46,787
                                                                                Consolidation/Replacement.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        ALABAMA                  Maxwell AFB              Maxwell ES/MS Replacement/           32,968                            32,968
                                                                                Renovation.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        ARIZONA                  Fort Huachuca            JITC Buildings 52101/52111            3,884                             3,884
                                                                                Renovations.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CALIFORNIA               Camp Pendleton,          SOF Combat Service Support           10,181                            10,181
                                                       California               Facility.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CALIFORNIA               Camp Pendleton,          SOF Performance Resiliency           10,371                            10,371
                                                       California               Center-West.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CALIFORNIA               Coronado                 SOF Logistics Support Unit           47,218                            47,218
                                                                                One Ops Fac. #2.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CALIFORNIA               Fresno Yosemite IAP ANG  Replace Fuel Storage and             10,700                            10,700
                                                                                Distrib. Facilities.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        COLORADO                 Fort Carson, Colorado    SOF Language Training                 8,243                             8,243
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CONUS CLASSIFIED         Classified Location      Operations Support Facility          20,065                            20,065
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        DELAWARE                 Dover AFB                Construct Hydrant Fuel               21,600                            21,600
                                                                                System.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        DJIBOUTI                 Camp Lemonier, Djibouti  Construct Fuel Storage &             43,700                            43,700
                                                                                Distrib. Facilities.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        FLORIDA                  Hurlburt Field           SOF Fuel Cell Maintenance            17,989                            17,989
                                                                                Hangar.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        FLORIDA                  MacDill AFB              SOF Operational Support              39,142                            39,142
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GEORGIA                  Moody AFB                Replace Pumphouse and Truck          10,900                            10,900
                                                                                Fillstands.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Garmisch                 Garmisch E/MS-Addition/              14,676                            14,676
                                                                                Modernization.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Grafenwoehr              Grafenwoehr Elementary               38,138                            38,138
                                                                                School Replacement.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Rhine Ordnance Barracks  Medical Center Replacement           85,034                            85,034
                                                                                Incr 5.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB           Construct Fuel Pipeline....           5,500                             5,500
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB           Medical/Dental Clinic                34,071                            34,071
                                                                                Addition.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Stuttgart-Patch          Patch Elementary School              49,413                            49,413
                                                       Barracks                 Replacement.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        HAWAII                   Kaneohe Bay              Medical/Dental Clinic               122,071                           122,071
                                                                                Replacement.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        HAWAII                   Schofield Barracks       Behavioral Health/Dental            123,838                           123,838
                                                                                Clinic Addition.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        JAPAN                    Kadena AB                Airfield Pavements.........          37,485                            37,485
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        KENTUCKY                 Fort Campbell, Kentucky  SOF Company HQ/Classrooms..          12,553                            12,553
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        KENTUCKY                 Fort Knox                Fort Knox HS Renovation/MS           23,279                            23,279
                                                                                Addition.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               NSAW Campus Feeders Phase 2          33,745                            33,745
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               NSAW Recapitalize Building           34,897                            34,897
                                                                                #2 Incr 1.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEVADA                   Nellis AFB               Replace Hydrant Fuel System          39,900                            39,900
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEW MEXICO               Cannon AFB               Construct Pumphouse and              20,400                            20,400
                                                                                Fuel Storage.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEW MEXICO               Cannon AFB               SOF Squadron Operations              11,565                            11,565
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEW MEXICO               Cannon AFB               SOF ST Operational Training          13,146                            13,146
                                                                                Facilities.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEW YORK                 West Point               West Point Elementary                55,778                            55,778
                                                                                School Replacement.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune, North      SOF Combat Service Support           14,036                            14,036
                                                       Carolina                 Facility.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune, North      SOF Marine Battalion                 54,970                            54,970
                                                       Carolina                 Company/Team Facilities.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               Butner Elementary School             32,944                            32,944
                                                                                Replacement.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF 21 STS Operations                16,863                            16,863
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF Battalion Operations             38,549                            38,549
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF Indoor Range...........           8,303                             8,303
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF Intelligence Training            28,265                            28,265
                                                                                Center.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF Special Tactics                  43,887                            43,887
                                                                                Facility (PH 2).
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        OHIO                     Wright-Patterson AFB     Satellite Pharmacy                    6,623                             6,623
                                                                                Replacement.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        OREGON                   Klamath Falls IAP        Replace Fuel Facilities....           2,500                             2,500
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        PENNSYLVANIA             Philadelphia             Replace Headquarters.......          49,700           -49,700               0
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        POLAND                   RedziKowo Base           Aegis Ashore Missile                169,153                           169,153
                                                                                Defense System Complex.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        SOUTH CAROLINA           Fort Jackson             Pierce Terrace Elementary            26,157                            26,157
                                                                                School Replacement.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        SPAIN                    Rota                     Rota ES and HS Additions...          13,737                            13,737
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        TEXAS                    Fort Bliss               Hospital Replacement Incr 7         239,884                           239,884
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   Ambulatory Care Center               61,776                            61,776
                                                                                Phase 4.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        VIRGINIA                 Fort Belvoir             Construct Visitor Control             5,000                             5,000
                                                                                Center.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        VIRGINIA                 Fort Belvoir             Replace Ground Vehicle                4,500                             4,500
                                                                                Fueling Facility.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        VIRGINIA                 Joint Base Langley-      Replace Fuel Pier and                28,000                            28,000
                                                       Eustis                   Distribution Facility.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        VIRGINIA                 Joint Expeditionary      SOF Applied Instruction              23,916                            23,916
                                                       Base Little Creek--      Facility.
                                                       Story
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Contingency Construction...          10,000                            10,000
                                                       Locations
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    ECIP Design................          10,000                            10,000
                                                       Locations
    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    Exercise Related Minor                8,687                             8,687
                                                       Locations                Construction.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........         118,632                           118,632
                                                       Locations
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Unspecified Minor                    23,676                            23,676
                                                       Locations                Construction.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Prior year savings,                       0          -120,000        -120,000
                                                       Locations                including rescoped medical
                                                                                facility at Fort Knox.
    MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Planning & Design..........          31,772                            31,772
                                                       Locations
          SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, DEF-WIDE                                                                            2,300,767          -169,700       2,131,067
                             .......................  .......................
    MILCON, ARNG
    MILCON, ARNG             ALABAMA                  Camp Foley               Vehicle Maintenance Shop...               0             4,500           4,500
    MILCON, ARNG             CONNECTICUT              Camp Hartell             Ready Building (CST-WMD)...          11,000                            11,000
    MILCON, ARNG             DELAWARE                 Dagsboro                 National Guard Vehicle               10,800                            10,800
                                                                                Maintenance Shop.
    MILCON, ARNG             FLORIDA                  Palm Coast               National Guard Readiness             18,000                            18,000
                                                                                Center.
    MILCON, ARNG             GEORGIA                  Fort Stewart             Tactical Aerial Unmanned                  0             6,800           6,800
                                                                                Systems.
    MILCON, ARNG             ILLINOIS                 Sparta                   Basic 10M-25M Firing Range            1,900                             1,900
                                                                                (Zero).
    MILCON, ARNG             KANSAS                   Salina                   Automated Combat Pistol/MP            2,400                             2,400
                                                                                Firearms Qual Cour.
    MILCON, ARNG             KANSAS                   Salina                   Modified Record Fire Range.           4,300                             4,300
    MILCON, ARNG             MARYLAND                 Easton                   National Guard Readiness             13,800                            13,800
                                                                                Center.
    MILCON, ARNG             MISSISSIPPI              Gulfport                 Aviation Classification and               0            40,000          40,000
                                                                                Repair.
    MILCON, ARNG             NEVADA                   Reno                     National Guard Vehicle                8,000                             8,000
                                                                                Maintenance Shop Add/A.
    MILCON, ARNG             OHIO                     Camp Ravenna             Modified Record Fire Range.           3,300                             3,300
    MILCON, ARNG             OREGON                   Salem                    National Guard/Reserve               16,500                            16,500
                                                                                Center Bldg Add/Alt (J.
    MILCON, ARNG             PENNSYLVANIA             Fort Indiantown Gap      Training Aids Center.......          16,000                            16,000
    MILCON, ARNG             VERMONT                  North Hyde Park          National Guard Vehicle                7,900                             7,900
                                                                                Maintenance Shop Addit.
    MILCON, ARNG             VIRGINIA                 Richmond                 National Guard/Reserve               29,000                            29,000
                                                                                Center Building (JFHQ).
    MILCON, ARNG             WASHINGTON               Yakima                   Enlisted Barracks,                   19,000                            19,000
                                                                                Transient Training.
    MILCON, ARNG             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........          20,337                            20,337
                                                       Locations
    MILCON, ARNG             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Unspecified Minor                    15,000                            15,000
                                                       Locations                Construction.
          SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARNG                                                                                   197,237            51,300         248,537
                             .......................  .......................
    MILCON, ANG
    MILCON, ANG              ALABAMA                  Dannelly Field           TFI--Replace Squadron                 7,600                             7,600
                                                                                Operations Facility.
    MILCON, ANG              CALIFORNIA               Moffett Field            Replace Vehicle Maintenance           6,500                             6,500
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, ANG              COLORADO                 Buckley Air Force Base   ASE Maintenance and Storage           5,100                             5,100
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, ANG              CONNECTICUT              Bradley                  Ops and Deployment Facility               0             6,300           6,300
    MILCON, ANG              FLORIDA                  Cape Canaveral Afs       Space Control Facility.....               0             6,100           6,100
    MILCON, ANG              GEORGIA                  Savannah/Hilton Head     C-130 Squadron Operations             9,000                             9,000
                                                       IAP                      Facility.
    MILCON, ANG              HAWAII                   Joint Base Pearl Harbor- F-22 Composite Repair                     0             9,700           9,700
                                                       Hickam                   Facility.
    MILCON, ANG              IOWA                     Des Moines Map           Air Operations Grp/CYBER              6,700                             6,700
                                                                                Beddown-Reno Blg 430.
    MILCON, ANG              KANSAS                   Smokey Hill ANG Range    Range Training Support                2,900                             2,900
                                                                                Facilities.
    MILCON, ANG              LOUISIANA                New Orleans              Replace Squadron Operations          10,000                            10,000
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, ANG              MAINE                    Bangor IAP               Add to and Alter Fire Crash/          7,200                             7,200
                                                                                Rescue Station.
    MILCON, ANG              NEW HAMPSHIRE            Pease International      Bidg Mo KC-46 Fuselage                    0             1,500           1,500
                                                       Trade Port               Trainer.
    MILCON, ANG              NEW HAMPSHIRE            Pease International      KC-46A ADAL Flight                    2,800                             2,800
                                                       Trade Port               Simulator Bldg 156.
    MILCON, ANG              NEW JERSEY               Atlantic City IAP        Fuel Cell and Corrosion              10,200                            10,200
                                                                                Control Hangar.
    MILCON, ANG              NEW YORK                 Niagara Falls IAP        Remotely Piloted Aircraft             7,700                             7,700
                                                                                Beddown Bldg 912.
    MILCON, ANG              NORTH CAROLINA           Charlotte/Douglas IAP    Replace C-130 Squadron                9,000                             9,000
                                                                                Operations Facility.
    MILCON, ANG              NORTH DAKOTA             Hector IAP               Intel Targeting Facilities.           7,300                             7,300
    MILCON, ANG              OKLAHOMA                 Will Rogers World        Medium Altitude Manned ISR            7,600                             7,600
                                                       Airport                  Beddown.
    MILCON, ANG              OREGON                   Klamath Falls IAP        Replace Fire Crash/Rescue             7,200                             7,200
                                                                                Station.
    MILCON, ANG              WEST VIRGINIA            Yeager Airport           Force Protection--Relocate            3,900                             3,900
                                                                                Coonskin Road.
    MILCON, ANG              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Planning and Design........           5,104                             5,104
                                                       Locations
    MILCON, ANG              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Unspecified Minor                     7,734                             7,734
                                                       Locations                Construction.
          SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ANG                                                                                    123,538            23,600         147,138
                             .......................  .......................
    MILCON, ARMY R
    MILCON, ARMY R           CALIFORNIA               Miramar                  Army Reserve Center........          24,000                            24,000
    MILCON, ARMY R           FLORIDA                  MacDill AFB              AR Center/AS Facility......          55,000                            55,000
    MILCON, ARMY R           MISSISSIPPI              Starkville               Army Reserve Center........           9,300                             9,300
    MILCON, ARMY R           NEW YORK                 Orangeburg               Organizational Maintenance            4,200                             4,200
                                                                                Shop.
    MILCON, ARMY R           PENNSYLVANIA             Conneaut Lake            DAR Highway Improvement....           5,000                             5,000
    MILCON, ARMY R           PUERTO RICO              Fort Buchanan            Access Control Point.......               0            10,200          10,200
    MILCON, ARMY R           VIRGINIA                 Fort AP Hill             Equipment Concentration....               0            24,000          24,000
    MILCON, ARMY R           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........           9,318                             9,318
                                                       Locations
    MILCON, ARMY R           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Unspecified Minor                     6,777                             6,777
                                                       Locations                Construction.
          SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARMY R                                                                                 113,595            34,200         147,795
                             .......................  .......................
    MIL CON, NAVY RES
    MIL CON, NAVY RES        NEVADA                   Fallon                   NAVOPSPTCEN Fallon.........          11,480                            11,480
    MIL CON, NAVY RES        NEW YORK                 Brooklyn                 Reserve Center Storage                2,479                             2,479
                                                                                Facility.
    MIL CON, NAVY RES        VIRGINIA                 Dam Neck                 Reserve Training Center              18,443                            18,443
                                                                                Complex.
    MIL CON, NAVY RES        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    MCNR Planning & Design.....           2,208                             2,208
                                                       Locations
    MIL CON, NAVY RES        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    MCNR Unspecified Minor                1,468                             1,468
                                                       Locations                Construction.
          SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, NAVY RES                                                                               36,078                            36,078
                             .......................  .......................
    MILCON, AF RES
    MILCON, AF RES           CALIFORNIA               March AFB                Satellite Fire Station.....           4,600                             4,600
    MILCON, AF RES           FLORIDA                  Patrick AFB              Aircrew Life Support                  3,400                             3,400
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, AF RES           GEORGIA                  Dobbins                  Fire Station/Security                     0            10,400          10,400
                                                                                Complex.
    MILCON, AF RES           OHIO                     Youngstown               Indoor Firing Range........           9,400                             9,400
    MILCON, AF RES           TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   Consolidate 433 Medical               9,900                             9,900
                                                                                Facility.
    MILCON, AF RES           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Planning and Design........          13,400                            13,400
                                                       Locations
    MILCON, AF RES           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Unspecified Minor Military            6,121                             6,121
                                                       Locations                Construction.
          SUBTOTAL, MILCON, AF RES                                                                                  46,821            10,400          57,221
                             .......................  .......................
    NATO SEC INV PRGM
    NATO SEC INV PRGM        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    NATO Security            NATO Security Investment            120,000                           120,000
                                                       Investment Program       Program.
          SUBTOTAL, NATO SEC INV PRGM                                                                              120,000                           120,000
                             .......................  .......................
          TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION                                                                            6,641,995              -940       6,641,055
                             .......................  .......................
    FAMILY HOUSING
    FAM HSG CON, ARMY
    FAM HSG CON, ARMY        FLORIDA                  Camp Rudder              Family Housing Replacement            8,000                             8,000
                                                                                Construction.
    FAM HSG CON, ARMY        GERMANY                  Wiesbaden Army Airfield  Family Housing Improvements           3,500                             3,500
    FAM HSG CON, ARMY        ILLINOIS                 Rock Island              Family Housing Replacement           20,000                            20,000
                                                                                Construction.
    FAM HSG CON, ARMY        KOREA                    Camp Walker              Family Housing New                   61,000                            61,000
                                                                                Construction.
    FAM HSG CON, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Family Housing P & D.......           7,195                             7,195
                                                       Locations
          SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, ARMY                                                                               99,695                            99,695
                             .......................  .......................
    FAM HSG O&M, ARMY
    FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Furnishings................          25,552                            25,552
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Leased Housing.............         144,879                           144,879
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Maintenance of Real                  75,197                            75,197
                                                       Locations                Property Facilities.
    FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Management Account.........          48,515                            48,515
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Military Housing                     22,000                            22,000
                                                       Locations                Privitization Initiative.
    FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Miscellaneous..............             840                               840
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Services...................          10,928                            10,928
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Utilities..................          65,600                            65,600
                                                       Locations
          SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, ARMY                                                                              393,511                           393,511
                             .......................  .......................
    FAM HSG CON, N/MC
    FAM HSG CON, N/MC        VIRGINIA                 Wallops Island           Construct Housing Welcome               438                               438
                                                                                Center.
    FAM HSG CON, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Design.....................           4,588                             4,588
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG CON, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Improvements...............          11,515                            11,515
                                                       Locations
          SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, N/MC                                                                               16,541                            16,541
                             .......................  .......................
    FAM HSG O&M, N/MC
    FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Furnishings Account........          17,534                            17,534
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Leasing....................          64,108                            64,108
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Maintenance of Real                  99,323                            99,323
                                                       Locations                Property.
    FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Management Account.........          56,189                            56,189
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Miscellaneous Account......             373                               373
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Privatization Support Costs          28,668                            28,668
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Services Account...........          19,149                            19,149
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Utilities Account..........          67,692                            67,692
                                                       Locations
          SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, N/MC                                                                              353,036                           353,036

    FAM HSG CON, AF
    FAM HSG CON, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Improvements...............         150,649                           150,649
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG CON, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........           9,849                             9,849
                                                       Locations
          SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, AF                                                                                160,498                           160,498

    FAM HSG O&M, AF
    FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Furnishings Account........          38,746                            38,746
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Housing Privatization......          41,554                            41,554
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Leasing....................          28,867                            28,867
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Maintenance................         114,129                           114,129
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Management Account.........          52,153                            52,153
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Miscellaneous Account......           2,032                             2,032
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Services Account...........          12,940                            12,940
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Utilities Account..........          40,811                            40,811
                                                       Locations
          SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, AF                                                                                331,232                           331,232
                             .......................  .......................
    FAM HSG O&M, DW
    FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Furnishings Account........           4,203                             4,203
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Leasing....................          51,952                            51,952
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Maintenance of Real                   1,448                             1,448
                                                       Locations                Property.
    FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Management Account.........             388                               388
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Services Account...........              31                                31
                                                       Locations
    FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Utilities Account..........             646                               646
                                                       Locations
          SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, DW                                                                                 58,668                            58,668
                             .......................  .......................
          TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING                                                                                   1,413,181                         1,413,181
                             .......................  .......................
    DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
    DOD BRAC--ARMY
    DOD BRAC--ARMY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Base Realignment &       Base Realignment and                 29,691                            29,691
                                                       Closure, Army            Closure.
          SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC--ARMY                                                                                  29,691                            29,691
                             .......................  .......................
    DOD BRAC--NAVY
    DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Base Realignment &       Base Realignment & Closure.         118,906                           118,906
                                                       Closure, Navy
    DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-100: Planing, Design              7,787                             7,787
                                                       Locations                and Management.
    DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-101: Various Locations.          20,871                            20,871
                                                       Locations
    DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-138: NAS Brunswick, ME.             803                               803
                                                       Locations
    DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-157: MCSA Kansas City,               41                                41
                                                       Locations                MO.
    DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-172: NWS Seal Beach,              4,872                             4,872
                                                       Locations                Concord, CA.
    DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-84: JRB Willow Grove &            3,808                             3,808
                                                       Locations                Cambria Reg AP.
          SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC--NAVY                                                                                 157,088                           157,088
                             .......................  .......................
    DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE
    DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE      WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DoD BRAC Activities--Air             64,555                            64,555
                                                       Locations                Force.
          SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE                                                                             64,555                            64,555
                             .......................  .......................
          TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE                                                               251,334                           251,334
                             .......................  .......................
          TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC                                                  8,306,510              -940       8,305,570
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          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 2016  Request   Senate  Change      Authorized
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
      Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
      Appropriation Summary:
        Energy Programs
          Nuclear Energy......................................           135,161                             135,161

        Atomic Energy Defense Activities
          National nuclear security administration:
            Weapons activities................................         8,846,948         180,000           9,026,948
            Defense nuclear nonproliferation..................         1,940,302           5,000           1,945,302
            Naval reactors....................................         1,375,496               0           1,375,496
            Federal salaries and expenses.....................           402,654               0             402,654
          Total, National nuclear security administration.....        12,565,400         185,000          12,750,400

          Environmental and other defense activities:
            Defense environmental cleanup.....................         5,527,347        -451,797           5,075,550
            Other defense activities..........................           774,425               0             774,425
          Total, Environmental & other defense activities.....         6,301,772        -451,797           5,849,975
        Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...............        18,867,172        -266,797          18,600,375
    Total, Discretionary Funding..............................        19,002,333        -266,797          18,735,536

    Nuclear Energy
      Idaho sitewide safeguards and security..................           126,161                             126,161
      Used nuclear fuel disposition...........................             9,000                               9,000
    Total, Nuclear Energy.....................................           135,161               0             135,161

    Weapons Activities
      Directed stockpile work
        Life extension programs
          B61 Life extension program..........................           643,300                             643,300
          W76 Life extension program..........................           244,019                             244,019
          W88 Alt 370.........................................           220,176                             220,176
          W80-4 Life extension program........................           195,037                             195,037
        Total, Life extension programs........................         1,302,532               0           1,302,532

        Stockpile systems
          B61 Stockpile systems...............................            52,247                              52,247
          W76 Stockpile systems...............................            50,921                              50,921
          W78 Stockpile systems...............................            64,092                              64,092
          W80 Stockpile systems...............................            68,005                              68,005
          B83 Stockpile systems...............................            42,177                              42,177
          W87 Stockpile systems...............................            89,299                              89,299
          W88 Stockpile systems...............................           115,685                             115,685
        Total, Stockpile systems..............................           482,426               0             482,426

        Weapons dismantlement and disposition
          Operations and maintenance..........................            48,049                              48,049

        Stockpile services
          Production support..................................           447,527                             447,527
          Research and development support....................            34,159                              34,159
          R&D certification and safety........................           192,613                             192,613
          Management, technology, and production..............           264,994                             264,994
        Total, Stockpile services.............................           939,293               0             939,293

        Nuclear material commodities
          Uranium sustainment.................................            32,916                              32,916
          Plutonium sustainment...............................           174,698                             174,698
          Tritium sustainment.................................           107,345                             107,345
          Domestic uranium enrichment.........................           100,000                             100,000
        Total, Nuclear material commodities...................           414,959               0             414,959
      Total, Directed stockpile work..........................         3,187,259               0           3,187,259

      Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
        Science
          Advanced certification..............................            50,714                              50,714
          Primary assessment technologies.....................            98,500                              98,500
          Dynamic materials properties........................           109,000                             109,000
          Advanced radiography................................            47,000                              47,000
          Secondary assessment technologies...................            84,400                              84,400
        Total, Science........................................           389,614               0             389,614

        Engineering
          Enhanced surety.....................................            50,821                              50,821
          Weapon systems engineering assessment technology....            17,371                              17,371
          Nuclear survivability...............................            24,461                              24,461
          Enhanced surveillance...............................            38,724          10,000              48,724
            Program increase..................................                           [10,000]
        Total, Engineering ...................................           131,377          10,000             141,377

        Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
          Ignition............................................            73,334                              73,334
          Support of other stockpile programs.................            22,843                              22,843
          Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support....            58,587                              58,587
          Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............             4,963                               4,963
          Joint program in high energy density laboratory                  8,900                               8,900
           plasmas............................................
          Facility operations and target production...........           333,823                             333,823
          Undistributed.......................................                 0                                   0
        Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield.....           502,450               0             502,450

        Advanced simulation and computing.....................           623,006                             623,006

        Response Capabilities Program.........................                 0          20,000              20,000
          Supports flexible design capability for national                               [20,000]
           labs...............................................

        Nonnuclear Readiness Campaign.........................                 0                                   0

        Advanced manufacturing
          Additive manufacturing..............................                 0                                   0
          Component manufacturing development.................           112,256                             112,256
          Processing technology development...................            17,800                              17,800
        Total, Advanced manufacturing.........................           130,056               0             130,056
      Total, RDT&E............................................         1,776,503          30,000           1,806,503

      Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
        Operating
          Program readiness...................................            75,185                              75,185
          Material recycle and recovery.......................           173,859                             173,859
          Containers..........................................                 0                                   0
          Storage.............................................            40,920                              40,920
          Maintenance and repair of facilities................                 0                                   0
          Recapitalization....................................           104,327                             104,327
        Total, Operating......................................           394,291               0             394,291

        Construction:
          Albuquerque Complex upgrades project................                 0                                   0
          15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12..........                 0                                   0
          15-D-612 Emergency Operations Center, LLNL..........                 0                                   0
          15-D-611 Emergency Operations Center, SNL...........                 0                                   0
          15-D-301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX......                 0                                   0
          15-D-302, TA-55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL.            18,195                              18,195
          12-D-301 TRU waste facilities, LANL.................                 0                                   0
          11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL...             3,903                               3,903
          07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility            11,533                              11,533
           upgrade project, LANL..............................
          07-D-220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL.            40,949                              40,949
          06-D-141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities                430,000                             430,000
           Replacement Project Y-12...........................
          04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement                  155,610                             155,610
           project, LANL......................................
        Total, Construction...................................           660,190               0             660,190
      Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities.......         1,054,481               0           1,054,481

      Secure transportation asset
        Operations and equipment..............................           146,272                             146,272
        Program direction.....................................           105,338                             105,338
      Total, Secure transportation asset......................           251,610               0             251,610

      Nuclear counterterrorism incident response..............                 0                                   0

      Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs......                 0                                   0

      Infrastructure and safety
        Operations of facilities
          Kansas City Plant...................................           100,250                             100,250
          Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory..............            70,671                              70,671
          Los Alamos National Laboratory......................           196,460                             196,460
          Nevada National Security Site.......................            89,000                              89,000
          Pantex..............................................            58,021                              58,021
          Sandia National Laboratory..........................           115,300                             115,300
          Savannah River Site.................................            80,463                              80,463
          Y-12 National security complex......................           120,625                             120,625
        Total, Operations of facilities.......................           830,790               0             830,790

        Safety operations.....................................           107,701                             107,701
        Maintenance...........................................           227,000                             227,000
        Recapitalization......................................           257,724         150,000             407,724
          Increase to support deferred maintenance............                          [150,000]
        Construction:
          16-D-621 Substation replacement at TA-3, LANL.......            25,000                              25,000
          15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12..........            17,919                              17,919
        Total, Construction...................................            42,919               0              42,919
      Total, Infrastructure and safety........................         1,466,134         150,000           1,616,134

      Site stewardship
        Environmental projects and operations.................                 0                                   0
        Nuclear materials integration.........................            17,510                              17,510
        Minority serving institution partnerships program.....            19,085                              19,085
      Total, Site stewardship.................................            36,595               0              36,595

      Defense nuclear security
        Operations and maintenance............................           619,891                             619,891
        Construction:
          14-D-710 Device assembly facility argus installation            13,000                              13,000
           project, NV........................................
      Total, Defense nuclear security.........................           632,891               0             632,891

      Information technology and cybersecurity................           157,588                             157,588

      Legacy contractor pensions..............................           283,887                             283,887

      Domestic uranium enrichment.............................                 0                                   0
    Total, Weapons Activities.................................         8,846,948         180,000           9,026,948

    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
      Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
        Global threat reduction initiative....................                 0                                   0

        Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
          Global material security............................           426,751                             426,751
          Material management and minimization................           311,584                             311,584
          Nonproliferation and arms control...................           126,703                             126,703
          Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D................           419,333                             419,333

          Nonproliferation Construction:
            99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication                  345,000                             345,000
             Facility, SRS....................................
            Analysis of Alternatives..........................                 0           5,000               5,000
              Assess alternatives to MOX......................                            [5,000]
          Total, Nonproliferation construction................           345,000           5,000             350,000

        Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs......         1,629,371           5,000           1,634,371

      Legacy contractor pensions..............................            94,617                              94,617
      Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program..           234,390                             234,390
      Use of prior-year balances..............................           -18,076                             -18,076
      Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .............         1,940,302           5,000           1,945,302

      Rescission..............................................                 0                                   0
    Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...................         1,940,302           5,000           1,945,302

    Naval Reactors
      Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............           445,196                             445,196
      Naval reactors development..............................           444,400                             444,400
      Ohio replacement reactor systems development............           186,800                             186,800
      S8G Prototype refueling.................................           133,000                             133,000
      Program direction.......................................            45,000                              45,000
      Construction:
        15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3.............               900                                 900
        15-D-903 KL Fire System Upgrade.......................               600                                 600
        15-D-902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility..........             3,100                               3,100
        14-D-902 KL Materials characterization laboratory                 30,000                              30,000
         expansion, KAPL......................................
        14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project,            86,000                              86,000
         NRF..................................................
        10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL.....................               500                                 500
      Total, Construction.....................................           121,100               0             121,100
    Total, Naval Reactors.....................................         1,375,496               0           1,375,496

    Federal Salaries And Expenses
      Program direction.......................................           402,654                             402,654
    Total, Office Of The Administrator........................           402,654               0             402,654

    Defense Environmental Cleanup
      Closure sites:
        Closure sites administration..........................             4,889                               4,889

      Hanford site:
        River corridor and other cleanup operations:
          River corridor and other cleanup operations.........           196,957                             196,957

        Central plateau remediation:
          Central plateau remediation.........................           555,163                             555,163
          Richland community and regulatory support...........            14,701                              14,701
        Construction:
          15-D-401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL.....            77,016                              77,016
      Total, Hanford site.....................................           843,837               0             843,837

      Idaho National Laboratory:
        Idaho cleanup and waste disposition...................           357,783                             357,783
        Idaho community and regulatory support................             3,000                               3,000
      Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................           360,783               0             360,783

      NNSA sites
        Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................             1,366                               1,366
        Nevada................................................            62,385                              62,385
        Sandia National Laboratories..........................             2,500                               2,500
        Los Alamos National Laboratory........................           188,625          20,000             208,625
          Accelerate cleanup of transuranic waste.............                           [20,000]
        Construction:
          15-D-406 Hexavalent chromium D & D (Vl-Lanl-0030)...                 0
      Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites..................           254,876          20,000             274,876

      Oak Ridge Reservation:
        OR Nuclear facility D & D
          OR Nuclear facility D & D...........................            75,958                              75,958
          Construction:
            14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility...             6,800                               6,800
        Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D......................            82,758               0              82,758

        U233 Disposition Program..............................            26,895                              26,895

        OR cleanup and disposition:
          OR cleanup and disposition..........................            60,500                              60,500
          Construction:
            15-D-405--Sludge Buildout.........................                 0                                   0
        Total, OR cleanup and disposition.....................            60,500               0              60,500

      OR reservation community and regulatory support.........             4,400                               4,400
      Solid waste stabilization and disposition
             Oak Ridge technology development.................             2,800                               2,800
      Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................           177,353               0             177,353

      Office of River Protection:
        Waste treatment and immobilization plant
          01-D-416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction..........           595,000                             595,000
          01-D-16E Pretreatment facility......................            95,000                              95,000
        Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant.......           690,000               0             690,000

        Tank farm activities
          Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition.           649,000                             649,000
          Construction:
            15-D-409 Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System,              75,000                              75,000
             Hanford..........................................
        Total, Tank farm activities...........................           724,000               0             724,000
      Total, Office of River protection.......................         1,414,000               0           1,414,000

      Savannah River sites:
        Savannah River risk management operations.............           386,652                             386,652
        SR community and regulatory support...................            11,249                              11,249

        Radioactive liquid tank waste:
          Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and                581,878                             581,878
           disposition........................................
          Construction:
            15-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #6..............            34,642                              34,642
            05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah            194,000                             194,000
             River............................................
          Total, Construction.................................           228,642               0             228,642
        Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste..................           810,520               0             810,520
      Total, Savannah River site..............................         1,208,421               0           1,208,421

      Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
        Waste isolation pilot plant...........................           212,600                             212,600
            Construction:
              15-D-411 Safety significant confinement                     23,218                              23,218
               ventilation system, WIPP.......................
              15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP....................             7,500                               7,500
            Total, Construction...............................            30,718               0              30,718
          Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..................           243,318               0             243,318

      Program direction.......................................           281,951                             281,951
      Program support.........................................            14,979                              14,979

      Safeguards and Security:
        Oak Ridge Reservation.................................            17,228                              17,228
        Paducah...............................................             8,216                               8,216
        Portsmouth............................................             8,492                               8,492
        Richland/Hanford Site.................................            67,601                              67,601
        Savannah River Site...................................           128,345                             128,345
        Waste Isolation Pilot Project.........................             4,860                               4,860
        West Valley...........................................             1,891                               1,891
      Technology development..................................            14,510                              14,510
      Use of prior-year balances..............................                 0                                   0
    Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup...................         5,055,550          20,000           5,075,550

      Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution................           471,797        -471,797                   0
        Requires industry match authorization that will not be                         [-471,797]
         forthcoming..........................................

    Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup......................         5,527,347        -451,797           5,075,550

    Other Defense Activities
      Specialized security activities.........................           221,855                             221,855

      Environment, health, safety and security
        Environment, health, safety and security..............           120,693                             120,693
        Program direction.....................................            63,105                              63,105
      Total, Environment, Health, safety and security.........           183,798               0             183,798

      Enterprise assessments
        Enterprise assessments................................            24,068                              24,068
        Program direction.....................................            49,466                              49,466
      Total, Enterprise assessments...........................            73,534               0              73,534

      Office of Legacy Management
        Legacy management.....................................           154,080                             154,080
        Program direction.....................................            13,100                              13,100
      Total, Office of Legacy Management......................           167,180               0             167,180

      Defense-related activities
      Defense related administrative support
        Chief financial officer...............................            35,758                              35,758
        Chief information officer.............................            83,800                              83,800
        Management............................................             3,000                               3,000
      Total, Defense related administrative support...........           122,558               0             122,558

      Office of hearings and appeals..........................             5,500                               5,500
    Subtotal, Other defense activities........................           774,425               0             774,425
    Total, Other Defense Activities...........................           774,425               0             774,425
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701)

                            LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

                          Departmental Recommendations

        On April 28, 2015, Senator McCain, with concurrence by
    Senator Reed, introduced by request the Administration's
    proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2016. This bill--S.1118--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.1118.

                                Committee Action

        The committee vote to report the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 passed by roll call
    vote, 22-4, as follows: In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe,
    Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst,
    Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Manchin,
    Shaheen, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Kaine, King, and Heinrich.
    Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Gillibrand, and Hirono.
        The other 16 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 2016 in closed
    session because of classified and proprietary information
    expected to be discussed.
        VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17-9
        In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
    Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed,
    Nelson, Manchin, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King
        Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Ernst, Lee, Cruz, McCaskill,
    Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, and Heinrich
        2. MOTION: To include a provision for the Chief of the
    National Guard Bureau to take into account the actual number of
    members of the Army National Guard in each State when
    allocating full-time operational support duty personnel.
        VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19-7
        In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
    Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Lee, Graham, Cruz,
    McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Kaine, and
    King
        Opposed: Senators Ernst, Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, Donnelly,
    Hirono, and Heinrich
        3. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the
    Department of Defense: to provide current and evidence-based
    standards of care regarding contraception methods and
    counseling to all health care providers employed by the
    Department; to ensure service women have access to
    comprehensive contraception counseling prior to deployment and
    throughout their military careers; and to require the Secretary
    of Defense to establish a uniform, standard curriculum to be
    used in family planning education programs for all members of
    the Armed Forces
        VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-12
        In favor: Senators Ayotte, Fischer, Reed, Nelson,
    McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
    Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
        Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Cotton,
    Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and Cruz
        4. MOTION: Motion to strike a provision that would modify
    the waiver and exception of section 1608 of the fiscal year
    2015 National Defense Authorization Act and replace with a
    provision that would add a special rule to section 1608 of the
    fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act.
        VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15-11
        In Favor: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
    Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Manchin,
    Shaheen, Gillibrand, and Blumenthal
        Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Tillis, Reed,
    Nelson, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
        5. MOTION: To strike the provision in the chairman's mark
    that would require the Secretary of Defense to certify certain
    matters before transferring to a foreign country detainees held
    at Guantanamo Bay.
        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
        6. 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: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
        In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte,
    Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham,
    and Cruz
        Opposed: Senators Wicker, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin,
    Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
    and Heinrich
        7. MOTION: To include a provision to prohibit the
    construction of domestic detention facilities or to transfer
    detainees held at Guantanamo to the United States until the
    Secretary of Defense submits a plan and Congress approves the
    plan.
        VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19-7
        In favor: Senators McCain, Wicker, Rounds, Tillis,
    Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin,
    Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
    and Heinrich
        Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, Fischer,
    Cotton, Ernst, and Cruz
        8. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the
    expenditure of funds in fiscal years 2016 through 2020 to
    dismantle a nuclear weapon of the United States, unless that
    nuclear weapon was retired before September 30, 2008, or is
    being dismantled pursuant to a nuclear arms reduction treaty.
        VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
        In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
    Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham,
    and Cruz
        Opposed: Senators Tillis, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin,
    Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
    and Heinrich
        9. MOTION: To strike a provision that would amend Section
    10106 of title 10, United States Code, by specifying the Army
    National Guard as the primary combat reserve of the Army.
        VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
        In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
    Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, Gillibrand,
    and Donnelly
        Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Reed, Nelson,
    McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King,
    and Heinrich
        10. MOTION: A provision to eliminate the 4 year, 7.5% per
    year reduction to HQ and administrative support costs and
    replace with a 1 year 3.75% reduction and request for a plan
    for what, if anything, should be done in the out years.
        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
        11. MOTION: To exempt certain service members from impact
    of changes proposed to the calculation of the basic allowance
    for housing.
        VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 9-17
        In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Cruz, Shaheen,
    Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Kaine, and Heinrich
        Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
    Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Reed,
    Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Hirono, and King.
        12. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the
    Secretary of Defense to certify that Congress has received the
    written MOU between the United States and any country to which
    a detainee at Guantanamo is transferred and to include a
    provision to require the Secretary of Defense to report on
    previous MOUs between the United States and countries to which
    Guantanamo detainees have been transferred.
        VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17-9
        In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
    Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee,
    Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Gillibrand, and Heinrich
        Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Manchin, Shaheen,
    Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King.
        13. MOTION: To strike a provision requiring a GAO
    assessment of the potential costs and benefits for privatizing
    the Department of Defense commissaries and a provision
    requiring a Department of Defense plan on privatization of the
    Defense Commissary System and to replace them with a modified
    provision that would require a GAO assessment of the potential
    costs and benefits from privatizing Department of Defense
    commissaries.
        VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 11-15
        In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Rounds, Sullivan,
    Graham, Nelson, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and
    Heinrich
        Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton,
    Ernst, Tillis, Lee, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen,
    Blumenthal, and King
        14. MOTION: To limit the obligation of $38 billion of
    overseas contingency operation funding unless the discretionary
    caps are increased for defense and non-defense in equal
    amounts, or an equal amount of emergency funding is provided to
    non-defense spending.
        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
        15. MOTION: To transfer up to $38 billion of overseas
    contingency operation funding to base budget if an act is
    passed that increases spending for defense and non-defense in a
    proportionally equal manner.
        VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 23-3
        In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer,
    Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson,
    McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
    Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
        Opposed: Senators Sessions, Lee, and Cruz
        16. MOTION: A sense of the Senate that sequestration is a
    harmful way to budget and that sequestration relief should
    increase spending for defense and non-defense in equal amounts,
    and that increase should be offset by changes in mandatory and
    discretionary spending, and revenues.
        VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16-10
        In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Tillis, Graham, Reed,
    Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
    Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
        Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
    Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, and Cruz

                   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 2016.

                            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. REED

        This bill includes many provisions which improve our
    national security and provide the necessary training, equipment
    and support our men and women in uniform deserve. However, I
    was ultimately unable to vote for this bill because it
    continues an unsustainable approach to our national security
    and economic future that must be addressed.
        Our national defense decisions should be based on actual
    needs, not on arbitrary spending caps or budget gimmicks.
        The President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for the
    defense was $38 billion above the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA)
    spending caps.
        The President requested this $38 billion be authorized and
    appropriated as part of the annual base budget. The requested
    also contained $50.9 billion for overseas contingency
    operations (OCO) pursuant to the Office of Management and
    Budget's standards for additional funding. For some time now,
    the President, Secretary Carter, Secretary Hagel, Secretary
    Panetta, and Secretary Gates have implored Congress to end the
    damaging effects of the Budget Control Act's harmful sequester
    and spending caps.
        However, the Chairman's mark, following the lead of the
    Senate Republican's Budget Resolution, does not clearly address
    the BCA's destructive impacts. Instead, it turns to a gimmick.
    This mark transfers $39.3 billion from the base budget to the
    OCO budget, for a total of $90.2 billion in OCO, but a base
    budget conveniently below BCA levels in order to avoid
    triggering automatic reductions through sequestration.
        This transfer from base to OCO raises several concerns:
        First, adding funds to OCO does not solve, and actually
    complicates, the Department of Defense's (DOD) budgetary
    problems. Defense budgeting needs to be based on our long-term
    military strategy, which requires DOD to focus at least five
    years into the future. A one year plus up to OCO does not
    provide DOD with the certainty and stability it needs when
    building its five year budget. As General Dempsey, Chairman of
    the Joint Chiefs, testified, ``we need to fix the base budget .
    . . we won't have the certainty we need'' if there is a year-
    by-year OCO fix. Defense Secretary Carter added that raising
    OCO does not allow the Defense Department to plan ``efficiently
    or strategically.'' This instability undermines the morale of
    our troops and their families--who want to know their futures
    are planned for more than one year at a time--and the
    confidence of our defense industry partners we rely on to
    provide the best technologies available to our troops.
        Second, the transfer does not provide additional funds for
    the many domestic agencies which are also critical to our
    national security. We cannot defend our homeland without the
    FBI, funded through the Department of Justice, or TSA, ICE and
    the Coast Guard, funded through the Department of Homeland
    Security. Furthermore, without adequate support for the State
    Department, danger to our troops increases. As retired Marine
    Corps General Mattis said, ``If you don't fund the State
    Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' In
    addition, failing to provide BCA cap relief to non-DOD
    departments and agencies would also shortchange veterans who
    receive employment services, transition assistance, and
    housing/homeless support.
        Third, moving funding from the base budget to OCO has no
    impact on reducing the deficit. OCO and emergency funding are
    outside budget caps for a reason--they provide for ongoing
    military operations or to respond to other unforeseen events
    like natural disasters. To transfer funds into these accounts
    to skirt the law is not fiscally responsible or honest
    accounting.
        During the markup, I offered an amendment to address these
    concerns. My amendment would have fully authorized the
    President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, but prohibit the
    obligation or expenditure of the $39.3 billion moved to OCO by
    the Chairman's mark until BCA caps are raised or eliminated for
    all agencies, defense and non-defense, or similar emergency
    funding is also provided for domestic agencies. Unfortunately,
    my amendment failed on a 14-12 vote.
        I commend the leadership of Chairman McCain for completing
    the markup of this bill. I stand ready to work with my
    colleagues to find a bipartisan solution to the BCA caps and
    sequestration which are risking harm to all agencies and
    functions of our government. Our men and women in uniform and
    those they protect deserve a resolution to this problem.

                                                             Jack Reed.

                         ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE

        I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the Senate Armed Services
    Committee. This year's National Defense Authorization Act
    contains many provisions that will maintain our military's
    capabilities, restore its readiness, and support our military
    families. While I have long advocated for an end to
    sequestration to our national security, the president has not
    shown a willingness to come to the table with realistic plans
    to stop his disarming of America. The committee instead moved
    forward with providing necessary funding by utilizing the
    overseas contingency operations (OCO) account in order to meet
    our military's basic readiness needs. While the use of OCO in
    this manner does not provide a long-term solution to the
    ongoing defense spending shortfalls, given the growing
    worldwide threats, it far outweighs the damage that would have
    been done to our nation's security next year under current
    budget caps.
    Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
        The committee included a provision that again prevents Base
    Realignment and Closure (BRAC) next year. I support this
    provision. The United States has reduced force size and
    capability to unacceptable levels. Our naval fleet is at a
    historically low level of ships; our Air Force is the smallest
    in its history; and our Army may shrink to a force not seen
    since before World War II. We must have the infrastructure to
    support growing and rebuilding our military to the size and
    capability required to provide for this nation's security.
    Additionally, the defense community should not bear the near-
    term costs of a BRAC round in this tough economic climate for
    savings that will not be realized for another 20 years.
    Commissaries
        I disagree with legislation contained in this bill that
    directs the Department of Defense to privatize military
    commissaries on a minimum of five major bases and sets into
    motion the potential for all commissaries to be privatized.
    This will be done without an assessment, and it ignores
    recommendations made by the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission in January. The commissary
    benefit is the most utilized service the military offers its
    members, and 95 percent of service members and their families
    use the commissaries for the purchase of household goods in
    order to achieve needed savings in their family budgets. Before
    making any changes to military commissaries, Congress must
    understand the potential impact of these changes, to include
    privatization, on the overall system and our military. The FY15
    NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of
    the management, food, and pricing options for the commissary
    system utilizing an independent organization experienced in
    grocery retail analysis. The committee expects to receive a
    report in September 2015. The statute, however, did not require
    an analysis to determine whether privatization would be a
    viable option for commissary operations. Congress should
    consider the information from the Department of Defense report
    due in September, the recommendations of the Military
    Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, the
    recommendations being prepared by the Department of Defense on
    the commission's recommendations, and the results of an
    analysis on privatization before making any changes to the
    commissary system. To do otherwise, would break faith with our
    service members and their families.
    Guantanamo Bay
        My greatest disappointment in the bill is the inclusion of
    language that would allow the closure of the detention center
    at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba, and the eventual transfer of
    GTMO detainees to the United States. Members from many states
    have voiced concern with housing these terrorists in their
    states, especially now that ISIL has demonstrated the ability
    to call up sleeper cells to attack locations here in our
    country. Furthermore, I disagree with those who think that
    closing the detention facility at GTMO will end the propaganda
    campaign being waged by our enemies. The propaganda war will
    simply shift to whatever facility these terrorists are brought
    to in the U.S., allowing them to engage in a whole new
    propaganda campaign against `GTMO North.' The terrorists
    created GTMO's image, not actions at GTMO. The attacks leading
    up to, including on and after 9/11, were not the result of
    holding detainees at GTMO. Moving these terrorists held at GTMO
    to the United States will not stop future terrorist attacks
    against our homeland. We are at war; these are war criminals
    and need to be handled accordingly. The President continues to
    want to deal with this threat through law enforcement. Law
    enforcement alone is not enough to protect us. Furthermore, the
    risk of a terrorist's release in the U.S., or elsewhere, and
    the security risk to those living near the location selected to
    house these terrorists is too great in my opinion.
    Military Force Structure
        Finally, I am disappointed we did not prioritize sustaining
    the size of our military force structure, particularly our
    Army. The threats we face are outpacing our ability to deter
    and confront them as a result of the massive cuts associated
    with sequestration. I believe we are sacrificing too much
    capability at a time when we should be maintaining our current
    structure and capabilities in these uncertain times. We have
    been wrong in the past when it comes to assumptions regarding
    the size of our forces and the capabilities required to protect
    this country. Despite the increased funding in this bill due to
    OCO, we are on the road to repeat the same mistakes that will
    take years to fix.

                                                       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)
    2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), building once
    again on its well-deserved reputation of bipartisan support for
    our men and women in uniform. While this bill and associated
    report are not perfect, they include several praiseworthy
    components, including provisions related to the A-10 and the
    service of military families. Despite these positive provisions
    in the bill, I remain deeply concerned about the impact of the
    Budget Control Act's discretionary defense spending caps on our
    nation's ability to defend itself and its interests.
    A-10
        I am pleased that the SASC, the House Armed Services
    Committee, and the full House of Representatives have again
    rejected the Air Force's dangerous and misguided proposal to
    prematurely divest the A-10.
        The bill passed by SASC on a strong and bipartisan basis
    would prohibit the Air Force from retiring, preparing to
    retire, or placing in storage or on backup aircraft inventory
    status any A-10 aircraft before December 31, 2016. The
    legislation would prohibit any significant reductions in A-10
    unit manning levels before that date. The legislation would
    also require the Secretary of the Air Force to commission an
    independent assessment of the required capabilities or mission
    platform to eventually replace the A-10 and its uniquely
    effective close air support (CAS) capabilities.
        Soldiers, special operators, and Joint Terminal Attack
    Controllers (JTACs) consistently say that the A-10 is the Air
    Force's best CAS aircraft and that it provides CAS capabilities
    that no other current aircraft can. They also say that if the
    Air Force were permitted to prematurely divest the A-10 before
    an equally capable replacement reaches full operational
    capability, the quality of CAS available to our ground forces
    will decline and Americans will be killed and injured
    unnecessarily. That is why I have fought, and will continue to
    fight, to oppose the premature divestment of the A-10.
        If there were any lingering doubt about the continued
    lethality, survivability, effectiveness, or relevance of the A-
    10, one only need to look to Iraq and Syria where the A-10 is
    taking the fight to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
    (ISIL).
        With A-10s fighting ISIL in the Middle East, assuring
    allies in Europe, and deterring aggression on the Korean
    peninsula, now is not the time to divest the Air Force's most
    combat-effective and cost-efficient CAS aircraft.
        If the Air Force decides to ignore the clear and consistent
    will of the overwhelming majority of soldiers, special
    operators, and JTACs, I will continue to stand with them in
    opposition to the Air Force's plans to prematurely divest the
    A-10.
        Instead of engaging in an annual battle over the future of
    the A-10, I welcome the opportunity to work with the Air Force
    to begin to identify the required capabilities and mission
    platform that could eventually replace the A-10. Once an
    equally capable platform reaches full operational capability, I
    will be among the first to support the retirement of the A-10.
    Military Families Serve Too
        Americans who step forward to defend our country deserve
    great credit for their uniquely honorable, difficult, and
    important service to our country. We are safe and free because
    of the bravery and sacrifice of service members and veterans.
    However, as we honor our troops and veterans, we also must not
    forget that military families serve too--often making serious
    career and personal sacrifices on behalf of our country and
    their loved ones in uniform.
        On March 3, 2015, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    General Martin Dempsey testified that ``Those who defend this
    Nation and the families who support them remain our most
    valuable national treasure and our competitive advantage.''
        As General Dempsey's statement suggests, when honoring our
    service members, we must also not forget the family members who
    make their service possible.
        Anyone who has served in the military, been married to a
    service member, or even attended a military retirement ceremony
    understands that a successful military career depends greatly
    on the support and sacrifice of military families. A career in
    the military often involves frequent moves and long separations
    that present unique and tremendous challenges for military
    families.
        The service and sacrifice of military families not only
    deserve recognition and respect, but military families are also
    a critical component of military readiness. It is difficult for
    a mother, father, husband, or wife serving in the military to
    focus on training and their mission if they are worried about
    the well-being of their spouse or children.
        Perhaps that is why, on March 10, 2015, the Commandant of
    the United States Marine Corps, General Joseph Dunford,
    testified that ``A key element in our overall readiness is
    family readiness. The family members of our Marines are very
    much a part of the Marine Corps family. Their sacrifices and
    support are not taken for granted.''
        However, current laws and regulations fail to fully reflect
    the sacrifices of military families or their importance to
    military readiness. Under current laws and regulations, the
    military members who sit as juries in courts martial are
    sometimes confronted with the undesirable dilemma of either
    supporting justice or a military family--but not both.
        In rare and tragic cases, a military family that has
    sacrificed in support of their service member suffers when the
    service member commits misconduct after reaching retirement
    eligibility. In some of these cases, the jury must choose
    either to impose a just sentence that will take the retirement
    benefits a family was counting on, or give an unjustly weak
    sentence to spare the innocent family. When the jury chooses
    justice for the service member, the innocent family is often
    left with nothing.
        For these reasons, I am proud that that the version of the
    National Defense Authorization Act passed by SASC includes the
    amendment I introduced, along with Senator Gillibrand, which
    would make transitional benefits available to innocent,
    retirement-eligible military family members in instances when
    the service member forfeits those benefits due to a court
    martial.
        I am also pleased that the bill passed by the committee
    includes my Sense of Congress language that recognizes the
    valuable service of military families and emphasizes the view
    of the committee that military juries should not have to choose
    between a fair sentence and protecting military families.
        I am pleased that the committee recognized the principle
    that innocent military families who serve and sacrifice
    alongside their service member should receive transitional
    benefits. That same rationale suggests that a military family
    that sacrifices for years alongside a service member should not
    be deprived of the retirement benefits they helped earn and
    have come to rely on.
        That is why I also introduced an amendment with Senator
    Gillibrand that would have provided access to the portion of
    retirement benefits a family member would have received in a
    divorce settlement had the service member not forfeited them.
        I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner with my
    colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives, as well
    as with the Department of Defense, to ensure that our laws and
    military regulations fully reflect the fact that military
    families serve too.
    Defense Sequestration: A Serious Threat to Our National Security
        The protection of American national security interests
    require that the United States maintain sufficient military
    strength to assure our allies, deter our adversaries, and when
    necessary, decisively defeat our enemies.
        Sound national security strategy is based on a clear-eyed
    assessment of our interests, the threats to those interests,
    and the means required to protect those interests from the most
    likely and most dangerous threats.
        Unfortunately, the gap is growing between the military we
    need and the military we have.
        Any objective analysis of global events demonstrates that
    the world is becoming more dangerous. From ISIS's terror in
    Iraq and Syria, to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons
    capability, to Putin's aggression in Ukraine, to China's
    bullying of its neighbors in the east and south China Seas, now
    is not the time to cut American military strength.
        As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
    testified February 26, 2015, ``. . . in my 50-plus years in the
    intelligence business, I don't know of a time that has been
    more beset by challenges and crises around the world. I worry a
    lot about the safety and security of this country for a lot of
    reasons.''
        In light of these growing threats and with American troops
    in harm's way, one would expect the U.S. to be building its
    military capabilities and capacities. Instead, Congress and the
    administration have not made the tough decisions necessary to
    eliminate the defense sequestration budget caps.
        While there is no question that the Department of Defense
    must work harder to serve as a better steward of our tax
    dollars, Americans should have no doubt that defense
    sequestration represents a dangerous and irresponsible policy
    that will leave our troops ill-prepared, our allies in doubt,
    our enemies emboldened, and our citizens less safe.
        As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin
    Dempsey testified on March 3, 2015, ``. . . with threats
    proliferating, resources declining, and sequestration just
    months away, our ability to assure our allies is in question
    and our advantages over our adversaries are shrinking.''
        As someone who voted against the Budget Control Act and has
    worked to end defense sequestration, I will continue to work in
    a bipartisan manner to end defense sequestration once and for
    all to ensure the federal government fulfills its preeminent
    responsibility of protecting the American people.
                                                          Kelly Ayotte.

                         ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. TILLIS

        Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed, I have the privilege of
    representing America's Global Response Force, the XVIII ABN
    Corps and the 82nd ABN Division. As Senator Reed knows from his
    long service in the Division, the 82nd is the most decorated
    combat unit in the armed forces--it is America's Guard of
    Honor. General Colin Powell famously said, ``There is nothing
    that gets a bad guy's attention quicker than knowing the 82nd
    ABN is flying straight for his nose.'' But to put it bluntly,
    the Air Force wants to take the ``air'' out of ``airborne''. In
    2012 the Air Force decided to de-activate the Reserve Air Wing
    at Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg and eliminate on-site daily
    support for training for XVIII ABN Corps, 82nd ABN and USASOC.
    The 440th Air Wing at Pope Field consists of 8-12 C-130 Hs
        Last year this committee required the Air Force to produce
    a report on the C-130 fleet during which time the Air Force was
    required to maintain its wings at Pope and Little Rock for one
    year--the report came out in April, the committee expected it
    last December. The Congress was to be given time to respond.
        Unfortunately the Air Force began dismantling the Wing at
    Pope long before the report was produced and in direct
    opposition to this Committee's instructions.
        When asked about this, the Air Force said, ``Congress said
    nothing about us taking away pilots and maintainers, we are
    leaving the Aircraft''.
        The Chairman's mark is full of behaviors like this:
    including Air Force refusal to heed the recommendations of the
    National Commission on the Air Force and the SECAF's refusal to
    cut the size of AF headquarters.
        I have repeatedly asked the Air Force for documentation as
    to the impact on Airborne and Special Operations training the
    departure of dedicated Air Force Wings will have. The Air Force
    and the Army Staff have consistently produced statistics about
    planes needed to ``deploy'' Fort Bragg troops which because of
    the volume have to come from across the country. It has not
    produced figures as to the effect of the removal of the Pope
    planes on the day to day training of Airborne and Special
    Operations forces.
        The USAF Reserve said that planes at Pope were a
    ``luxury''. When I asked if the commanders of XVIII ABN Corps
    and 82nd ABN had been consulted, I was told that the Air Force
    does not consult with Army three stars.
        The Chief of Staff of the Air Force said that the Air Force
    needed to maintain C-130s at Minneapolis, Youngstown and
    Pittsburgh for important missions. With all due respect is
    there any mission at Pittsburgh, Youngstown and Minneapolis
    that is as important as supporting Airborne and Special
    Operations units.
        In the last three months, senior commanders at Fort Bragg
    have taken the extraordinary step of delivering public remarks
    noting that Airborne and Special Operations leadership were not
    consulted about the Air Force decision and that the loss of on-
    site planes will severely hamper their ability to train and
    meet requirements of emergency contingencies.
        The Pope planes provide between 25-40% of all Airborne and
    SOF daily training missions.
        Last year they dropped 50% of the 82nd ABN's chutes. The
    440th AW provides 100% of 18 ASOG (Air Force) training--Air
    Force Special Operations Group
        Even as a cost savings device the transfer of 8-12 planes
    out of Pope makes no sense, as planes will have to be flown in
    (often on a voluntarily basis if they are Reserve units) from
    around the country and those units will have to go on TDY
    orders, etc. This also does not provide for the moving to the
    left effects of weather grounding planes that would have to fly
    into Pope from as far away as Washington State. As the XVIII
    ABN Corps Commander said, the downstream effects will be
    problematic.
    Joint Airborne/Air Transportability Training (JA/ATT)
        From FY 2010 through FY 14 the 440th AW provided 507
    JAATT's (Missions/Contract's) with 668 C-130 Tails used. Of the
    507 Missions, 128 were ``Add-on'' missions that the 440th by
    virtue of being here was able to help support. We were able to
    fill local priority shortfalls 29 times during this time frame.
    The 440th on average, flies 89% of all of its JAATT's for
    locally assigned units on Fort Bragg. Over the five year time
    span, the 440th has a 95% mission effective rate due to the
    ability to generate spare aircraft to support the missions. The
    unfunded spares were utilized for local missions 146 times
    creating a 28.80% spare utilization rate helping allow 42,635
    Paratroopers to be air dropped for locally assigned units on
    Fort Bragg.
    Air Force's Own Air Mobility Command Talking Points noted
        ``The loss of 440AW does remove the 4 tails a week
    available for opportune training Ft Bragg has utilized outside
    of the JA/ATT process . . . As MAF fleets get smaller & re-
    balanced between the Active & Reserve, JA/ATT planning/
    scheduling will have to become more efficient IOT maximize
    effectiveness of the USAF airlift platforms made available . .
    . this is a fundamental change that has to occur even if the C-
    130s at Pope AAF were never part of the FY15 President's
    Budget.''
        The Air Force's own scheduling system can't handle the
    requirements at Fort Bragg if the Pope planes go away.
        This amendment is simple. It stops the movement of C-130 H
    units from one facility of the Department of Defense for one
    year until certification is provided by the Secretary of the
    Air Force, after certification by the senior commanders of the
    United States Airborne and Special Operations Forces certify
    that the departure of such aircraft does not impact the
    training requirements of their units.
        There are new commanders at Fort Bragg. This gives them the
    time to evaluate the impact of the movement of C-130s in and
    out of Fort Bragg.
        If the actual combat commanders certify that this should
    happen--and I am not talking about Pentagon bureaucrats and the
    Army Staff--then we should all be satisfied with their
    judgement.

                                                         Thom Tillis.

                                      [all]