[Senate Report 115-125]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 165
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-125
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
R E P O R T
[to accompany S. 1519]
on
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 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
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 10, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
Calendar No. 165
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-125
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
R E P O R T
[to accompany s. 1519]
on
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 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
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 10, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-141 WASHINGTON : 2017
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JACK REED, Rhode Island
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
TOM COTTON, Arkansas JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
JONI ERNST, Iowa RICHARD BLUMENTHAL Connecticut
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia TIM KAINE, Virginia
TED CRUZ, Texas ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
BEN SASSE, Nebraska ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
Christian Brose, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Page
PURPOSE OF THE BILL.............................................. 1
COMMITTEE OVERVIEW............................................... 2
SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND BUDGET AUTHORITY
IMPLICATION.................................................... 3
BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4)........................... 3
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 5
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 5
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 5
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)............... 5
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 5
Transfer of excess High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled
Vehicles to foreign countries (sec. 111)............... 5
Limitation on availability of funds for Army Air-Land
Mobile Tactical Communications and Data Network,
including Warfighter Information Network--Tactical
(WIN-T) (sec. 112)..................................... 6
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 7
Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia-class
submarine program (sec. 121)........................... 7
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (sec. 122)................ 7
Multiyear procurement authority for V-22 joint aircraft
program (sec. 123)..................................... 8
Design and construction of amphibious ship replacement
designated LX(R) or amphibious transport dock
designated LPD-30 (sec. 124)........................... 8
Modification of cost limitation baseline for CVN-78 class
aircraft carrier program (sec. 125).................... 9
Extension of limitation on use of sole-source
shipbuilding contracts for certain vessels (sec. 126).. 9
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 10
Inventory requirement for Air Force fighter aircraft
(sec. 131)............................................. 10
Comptroller General review of total force integration
initiatives for reserve component rescue squadrons
(Sec. 132)............................................. 11
Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters.... 11
F-35 economic order quantity contracting authority (sec.
141)................................................... 11
Authority for Explosive Ordnance Disposal units to
acquire new or emerging technologies and capabilities
(sec. 142)............................................. 12
Budget Items................................................. 12
Army..................................................... 12
AH-64 Apache Block IIIA Remanufacture................ 12
AH-64 Apache Block IIIB New Build.................... 12
Common Missile Warning System (CMWS)................. 12
Common Infrared Countermeasure (CIRCM)............... 12
Indirect Fire Protection Capability.................. 12
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile.......................... 13
Bradley program...................................... 13
Abrams Upgrade Program............................... 13
Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System... 13
High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV).. 13
Warfighter Information Network--Tactical............. 13
Distributed Common Ground System--Army (Military
Intelligence Program).............................. 14
Night Vision Test Equipment.......................... 14
Data Processing equipment............................ 14
Warfighter Information Network Tactical (WIN-T)
Increment 2 Spares................................. 14
Army Unfunded Requirements List...................... 14
Navy..................................................... 15
V-22................................................. 15
Carrier replacement program.......................... 15
Virginia-class submarine advance procurement......... 15
DDG-1000............................................ 16
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers....................... 16
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement.... 17
Littoral Combat Ship................................ 17
Amphibious ship replacement LX(R) or amphibious
transport dock designated LPD-30................... 17
Outfitting........................................... 18
Ship to Shore Connector............................. 18
Expeditionary Sea Base............................... 18
Cable ship.......................................... 18
Hybrid Electric Drive................................ 18
LCS support equipment................................ 18
LCS mine countermeasures mission modules............. 19
Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP).............. 19
Navy eProcurement System (Navy ePS).................. 19
Classified project................................... 19
Navy Unfunded Requirements List...................... 19
Air Force................................................ 20
Acquisition of Air Force light attack/observation
aircraft fleet..................................... 20
B-1B Squadrons....................................... 20
C-130 propulsion upgrades............................ 21
Budget request realignment........................... 21
Air Force Unfunded Requirements List................. 21
Defense Wide............................................. 22
Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow Upper Tier
Israeli cooperative missile defense programs....... 22
Silent Knight Terrain Following Terrain Avoidance
Radar.............................................. 22
Degraded Visual Environment.......................... 22
Shallow Water Combat Submersible..................... 23
Defense-wide Unfunded Requirements List.............. 23
Items of Special Interest.................................... 23
Air Force Low Density/High Demand assets................. 23
Aircrew Restraint........................................ 24
Amphibious assault ship acceleration..................... 24
Apache and Black Hawk Drive Train and Transmission Weapon
System Components Rapid Deployment..................... 24
Arctic Search and Rescue................................. 25
Army Force Structure--Retaining a Full BCT............... 25
Army M4 Modular Rail System Assessment................... 26
Army Position Navigation and Timing-GPS (A-PNT)
Distribution and Anti-Jam Capability................... 26
AWACS Upgrade to Block 40/50............................. 27
C-130H modernization..................................... 27
Columbia-class submarines................................ 28
Composite technology in submarine construction........... 28
Domestic supply of submarine missile launcher tubes...... 29
Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System
(EPAWSS)............................................... 29
Expedited testing, development and fielding for Paladin
Integrated Management.................................. 30
F-16 Block 40/50 Mission Training Centers................ 30
Future air-to-ground missile capability.................. 30
Health and Usage Monitoring Systems...................... 30
HH-60 Combat Rescue Helicopter Program................... 31
HMMWV Rollover Mitigation................................ 31
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)... 32
Light Utility Helicopter Industrial Base................. 33
Light-weight polymer technologies for ammunition and
small arms............................................. 33
Maintaining strategic deterrence......................... 34
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Inventory
Review................................................. 34
Missile Warning Systems.................................. 35
Navy Air-to-Ground Rocket Program........................ 35
Navy large surface combatants............................ 36
Primary aircraft assigned to Air National Guard rescue
squadrons.............................................. 36
SUSV Replacement Rapid Acquisition Strategy.............. 36
Total force integration initiatives for rescue squadrons
in the reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces...... 37
Unmanned U-2............................................. 38
USAF UH-1N Replacement................................... 38
USNS Navajo.............................................. 39
USS Los Alamos........................................... 39
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 39
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 39
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)............... 39
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 40
Mechanisms for expedited access to technical talent and
expertise at academic institutions to support
Department of Defense missions (sec. 211).............. 40
Codification and enhancement of authorities to provide
funds for defense laboratories for research and
development of technologies for military missions (sec.
212)................................................... 40
Modification of laboratory quality enhancement program
(sec. 213)............................................. 41
Prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 214)... 41
Expansion of definition of competitive procedures to
include competitive selection for award of research and
development proposals (sec. 215)....................... 42
Inclusion of modeling and simulation in test and
evaluation activities for purposes of planning and
budget certification (sec. 216)........................ 42
Differentiation of research and development activities
from service activities (sec. 217)..................... 43
Designation of additional Department of Defense science
and technology reinvention laboratories (sec. 218)..... 45
Department of Defense directed energy weapon system
prototyping and demonstration program (sec. 219)....... 45
Authority for the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering to promote innovation in the Department
of Defense (sec. 220).................................. 46
Limitation on availability of funds for F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter Follow-On Modernization (sec. 221)............. 47
Improvement of update process for populating mission data
files used in advanced combat aircraft (sec. 222)...... 47
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 47
Competitive acquisition plan for low probability of
detection data link networks (sec. 231)................ 47
Clarification of selection dates for pilot program for
the enhancement of the research, development, test, and
evaluation centers of the Department of Defense (sec.
232)................................................... 48
Requirement for a plan to build a prototype for a new
ground combat vehicle for the Army (sec. 233).......... 48
Plan for successfully fielding the Integrated Air and
Missile Defense Battle Command System (sec. 234)....... 50
Sense of the Congress on hypersonic weapons (sec. 235)... 50
Budget Items................................................. 50
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Unfunded
Requirements List...................................... 50
Army..................................................... 51
Defense research sciences............................ 51
University and industry research centers............. 51
Army basic research.................................. 52
Strategic materials.................................. 52
Aviation technology.................................. 52
Command, control, communications technology.......... 53
Army applied research................................ 53
Aviation advanced technology......................... 53
High performance computing modernization program..... 53
Military engineering advanced technology............. 54
Army advanced technology development................. 54
Army armored systems modernization advanced
development of advanced fuel cell prototypes....... 54
Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems--Active
Protection System (APS)............................ 54
Army Contract Writing System......................... 55
Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD)...... 55
Accelerated development of the Hercules recovery
vehicle............................................ 55
Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs.................. 55
Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program...... 56
Distributed Common Ground/Surface System............. 56
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 2-
Initial Networking (WIN-T Inc. 2).................. 56
Navy..................................................... 56
University research initiatives...................... 56
Ocean warfighting environmental applied research..... 56
Undersea warfare applied research.................... 57
Innovative naval prototypes applied research......... 57
United States Marine Corps advanced technology
demonstration...................................... 58
Future naval capabilities advanced technology
developments....................................... 58
Mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology... 58
Innovative naval prototypes advanced technology
developments....................................... 59
Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures....... 59
Aircraft carrier preliminary design.................. 59
Littoral Combat Ship................................. 60
Marine Corps Rapid Capabilities Office............... 60
Extra large unmanned undersea vehicles............... 60
Air Crew Systems Development......................... 61
F-35 System Design and Demonstration--Marine Corps... 61
F-35 System Design and Demonstration--Navy........... 62
Navy eProcurement (Navy ePS)......................... 62
Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS).... 62
DDG-1000............................................. 63
Management, technical, and international support..... 63
Classified project................................... 63
Air Force................................................ 63
Hypersonic wind tunnels.............................. 63
Human effectiveness applied research................. 63
Aerospace propulsion................................. 64
Electronic combat technology......................... 64
Commercial Space Situational Awareness (SSA)
Consortia/Testbed.................................. 64
Air Force Contracting Information Technology System.. 65
F-35 System Design and Demonstration--Air Force...... 65
Restructure of Air and Space Operations Center--
Weapons System upgrade program..................... 66
Advanced weapons systems testing capabilities........ 67
Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System (AF-
IPPS).............................................. 67
Minuteman III Squadrons.............................. 67
Pulsed solid rocket motor technology................. 67
Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network... 68
C-130J............................................... 68
Defense Wide............................................. 68
National defense education program................... 68
Manufacturing Engineering Education Program.......... 69
Support for minority women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics fields at historically
black colleges and universities.................... 69
Tactical technology.................................. 70
Electronics technology............................... 70
Analytic assessments................................. 70
Enhancement of Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership to Department of Defense............... 70
Sustaining Investment in Manufacturing USA Institutes 71
SERDP and ESTCP increases............................ 72
Microelectronics technology development and support.. 73
Operational energy capability improvement............ 73
Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Program.......... 73
Corrosion control and prevention funding increase.... 74
Defense technology offset............................ 74
Ground-Launched Intermediate-Range Missile........... 74
Government-unique Tracking and Reporting Tool........ 75
Defense-Wide Electronic Procurement Capabilities..... 75
Software developmental testing....................... 75
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles........................ 75
Items of Special Interest.................................... 76
Active electronically scanned array radar improvements... 76
Advanced airlift airship technology...................... 76
Aircraft battery cost-savings technology improvements.... 77
Botulinum Toxin Type A countermeasures................... 78
Briefings on autonomy, robotics, and artificial
intelligence........................................... 78
Clarification of definition of small business for
purposes of prototype project authority................ 78
Common data environment for modeling and simulation...... 79
Comptroller General review of Next Generation Air
Dominance.............................................. 79
Executive agent for printed circuit board technology..... 80
Facility leasing authority for Department of Defense
science and technology laboratories and test and
evaluation centers..................................... 80
Human simulation......................................... 81
Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP)................... 81
Improving aerospace materials performance................ 82
Joint directed energy test center........................ 82
Live, Virtual, and Constructive Training................. 83
Low cost unmanned aerospace systems development.......... 83
Machine learning for national security................... 84
Management innovation at Department of Defense labs and
test ranges............................................ 84
Marine Corps nano-sized vertical takeoff and landing
small unmanned aircraft................................ 85
Maritime barriers........................................ 85
Minerva special interest area on information operations.. 86
Next Generation Jammer................................... 86
Radiation detection technology........................... 87
Report on defense manufacturing and technology supply
chain.................................................. 87
Review of policies on use of directed energy weapon
systems................................................ 87
Small engine technologies................................ 88
Streamlined acquisition practices to support innovation
at Department of Defense laboratories.................. 88
Ultra Low Power Deployable Radar......................... 88
University science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics programs with the Junior Reserve Officer
Training Corps V....................................... 89
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 91
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 91
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)............... 91
Subtitle B--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 91
Sentinel Landscapes Partnership (sec. 311)............... 91
Increased percentage of sustainment funds authorized for
realignment to restoration and modernization at each
installation (sec. 312)................................ 91
Subtitle C--Reports.......................................... 91
Plan for modernized, dedicated Department of the Navy
adversary air training enterprise (sec. 321)........... 91
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 92
Defense Siting Clearinghouse (sec. 331).................. 92
Temporary installation reutilization authority for
arsenals, depots, and plants (sec. 332)................ 92
Pilot program for operation and maintenance budget
presentation (sec. 333)................................ 92
Servicewomen's commemorative partnerships (sec. 334)..... 93
Authority for agreements to reimburse states for costs of
suppressing wildfires on State lands caused by
Department of Defense activities under leases and other
grants of access to state lands (sec. 335)............. 93
Repurposing and reuse of surplus Army firearms (sec. 336) 93
Department of the Navy marksmanship awards (sec. 337).... 93
Subtitle E--Energy and Environment........................... 93
Authority to carry out environmental restoration
activities at National Guard and Reserve locations
(sec. 341)............................................. 93
Special considerations for energy performance goals (sec.
342)................................................... 94
Centers for Disease Control study on health implications
of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in
drinking water (sec. 343).............................. 94
Environmental oversight and remediation at Red Hill Bulk
Fuel Storage Facility (sec. 344)....................... 94
Budget Items................................................. 94
Army support reduction................................... 94
Navy information technology reduction.................... 94
Naval History and Heritage Command reduction............. 95
Air and Space Operations Center--Weapons System.......... 95
Air National Guard advertising reduction................. 95
Defense Acquisition University........................... 95
STARBASE increase........................................ 96
Funding for impact aid................................... 96
Defense environmental international cooperation program.. 96
Studies on aircraft inventories for the Air Force........ 96
CDC study increase....................................... 97
Bulk fuel savings........................................ 97
Foreign currency fluctuations............................ 97
Operation and Maintenance Unfunded Requirements List..... 98
Items of Special Interest.................................... 98
Availability and Readiness of Special Operations Forces
to Support Geographic Combatant Commander Requirements. 98
Basic Expeditionary Airmen Skills Training and Base Camp
Integration Lab........................................ 99
Cyber-secure microgrids and energy resilience for
installations.......................................... 100
Cybersecurity risk to Department of Defense facilities... 100
Defense Media Activity IP Streaming...................... 101
Defense threat assessment and master plan for climate.... 101
Defense-wide Working Capital Fund cash management
practices.............................................. 103
Department of Defense and Department of Energy
collaboration to improve energy resilience............. 103
Eastern Gulf Test and Training Range..................... 104
Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training
program................................................ 105
Energy assurance on military installations............... 106
Energy efficient military shelters....................... 106
Energy savings performance contracts and combined heat
and power.............................................. 106
Energy savings performance contracts assessment.......... 107
Fabric and membrane technology........................... 107
Foreign language training................................ 108
Implementation of Defense Science Board Task Force on
energy systems for forward/remote operating bases...... 108
Implementation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
cleanup................................................ 109
Increasing contracting efficiency through commercial off-
the-shelf solutions for personal protective equipment.. 110
Individual soldier equipment acquisition strategy........ 110
Item unique identification implementation and
verification........................................... 111
KC-46A aerial refueling tanker emergent requirements..... 111
Lithium-ion powered devices.............................. 111
Marine Corps cold-weather and high altitude training..... 112
Master plan and investment strategy for the modernization
of public shipyards under jurisdiction of the
Department of the Navy................................. 113
Military training for operations in densely populated
urban terrain.......................................... 114
Navy dry dock capacity................................... 114
Organic depot capacity and interoperability.............. 114
Paint training programs.................................. 115
Processes for translating strategy into force structure
and readiness decisions................................ 115
Report on F-35 Joint Strike Fighter sustainment
affordability and transparency......................... 116
Report on required training capabilities of the Fallon
Range Training Complex................................. 117
Report on small arms industrial base..................... 117
Review of corrosion control and prevention in the
Department of Defense.................................. 118
Review of minimum capital investment for certain depots.. 118
Review of training for commanders that consult and
interact with federally recognized tribes.............. 119
Ship and submarine depot maintenance..................... 119
Technology roadmap and comprehensive water strategy...... 120
Textile decisions........................................ 121
Third-party financed energy projects..................... 122
Use of proximate airfields to support undergraduate pilot
training installations................................. 122
Wargame for operations in the Arctic..................... 122
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 125
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 125
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 125
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 125
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 125
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves (sec. 412)................................ 125
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 126
Fiscal year 2018 limitation on number of non-dual status
technicians (sec. 414)................................. 126
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 415)......... 126
Number of members of the National Guard on full-time duty
in support of the reserves within the National Guard
Bureau (sec. 416)...................................... 127
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 127
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 127
Budget Items................................................. 127
Military personnel funding changes....................... 127
Military Personnel Unfunded Priorities List.............. 127
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 129
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 129
Clarification of baselines for authorized numbers of
general and flag officers on active duty and in joint
duty assignments (sec. 501)............................ 129
Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of
particular merit be placed at the top of the promotion
list (sec. 502)........................................ 129
Clarification to exception for removal of officers from
list of officers recommended for promotion after 18
months without appointment (sec. 503).................. 129
Flexibility in promotion of officers to positions of
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps and Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy
(sec. 504)............................................. 129
Repeal of requirement for specification of number of
officers who may be recommended for early retirement by
a Selective Early Retirement Board (sec. 505).......... 130
Extension of service-in-grade waiver authority for
voluntary retirement of certain general and flag
officers for purposes of enhanced flexibility in
officer personnel management (sec. 506)................ 130
Inclusion of Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics among officers subject to repeal of statutory
specification of general officer grade (sec. 507)...... 130
Clarification of effect of repeal of statutory
specification of general or flag officer grade for
various positions in the Armed Forces (sec. 508)....... 130
Grandfathering of retired grade of Assistant Judge
Advocates General of the Navy as of repeal of statutory
specification of general and flag officers grades in
the Armed Forces (sec. 509)............................ 131
Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced
education upon original appointment as a commissioned
officer (sec. 510)..................................... 131
Authority for officers to opt-out of promotion board
consideration (sec. 510A).............................. 131
Reauthorization of authority to order retired members to
active duty in high-demand, low-density assignments
(sec. 510B)............................................ 131
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 132
Consolidation of authorities to order members of the
reserve components of the Armed Forces to perform duty
(sec. 511)............................................. 132
Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within
the National Guard Bureau (sec. 512)................... 132
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 133
Report on policies for regular and reserve officer career
management (sec. 516).................................. 133
Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for
standards and qualifications for military specialties
within the Armed Forces (sec. 517)..................... 135
Confidential review of characterization of terms of
discharge of members of the Armed Forces who are
survivors of sexual assault (sec. 518)................. 135
Improvements to certain authorities and procedures of
discharge review boards (sec. 519)..................... 135
Public availability of information related to disposition
of claims regarding discharge or release of members of
the Armed Forces when claims involve sexual assault
(sec. 520)............................................. 136
Subtitle D--Military Justice Matters......................... 136
Revision to Manual for Courts-Martial with respect to
dissemination of visual depictions of private areas or
sexually explicit conduct without the consent of the
person depicted (sec. 521)............................. 136
Technical and conforming amendments in connection with
reform of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec.
522)................................................... 136
Priority of review by Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces of decisions of Courts of Criminal Appeals on
petitions for enforcement of victims' rights (sec. 523) 136
Assistance of defense counsel in additional post-trial
matters for accused convicted by court-martial (sec.
524)................................................... 136
Enumeration of additional limitations on acceptance of
plea agreements by military judges of general or
special courts-martial (sec. 525)...................... 137
Additional proceedings by Courts of Criminal Appeals by
order of United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces (sec. 526)...................................... 137
Clarification of applicability and effective dates for
statute of limitations amendments in connection with
Uniform Code of Military Justice reform (sec. 527)..... 137
Modification of year of initial review by Military
Justice Review Panel of Uniform Code of Military
Justice reform amendments (sec. 528)................... 137
Clarification of applicability of certain provisions of
law to civilian judges of the United States Court of
Military Commission Review (sec. 529).................. 137
Enhancement of effective prosecution and defense in
courts-martial and related matters (sec. 530).......... 138
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces jurisdiction to
review interlocutory appeals of decisions on certain
petitions for writs of mandamus (sec. 531)............. 138
Punitive article on wrongful broadcast or distribution of
intimate visual images or visual images of sexually
explicit conduct under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (sec. 532)..................................... 138
Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, Transition, and
Resilience................................................. 138
Ready, Relevant Learning initiative of the Navy (sec.
541)................................................... 138
Element in preseparation counseling for members of the
Armed Forces on assistance and support services for
caregivers of certain veterans through the Department
of Veterans Affairs (sec. 542)......................... 139
Discharge in the Selected Reserve of the commissioned
service obligation of military service academy
graduates who participate in professional athletics
(sec. 543)............................................. 139
Pilot programs on appointment in the excepted service in
the Department of Defense of physically disqualified
former cadets and midshipmen (sec. 544)................ 140
Limitation on availability of funds for attendance of Air
Force enlisted personnel at Air Force officer
professional military education in-residence courses
(sec. 545)............................................. 140
Pilot program on integration of Department of Defense and
non-Federal efforts for civilian employment of members
of the Armed Forces following transition from Active
Duty to civilian life (sec. 546)....................... 141
Two-year extension of suicide prevention and resilience
program for the National Guard and Reserves (sec. 547). 141
Sexual assault prevention and response training for all
individuals enlisted in the Armed Forces under a
delayed entry program (sec. 548)....................... 141
Use of assistance under Department of Defense Tuition
Assistance Program for non-traditional education to
develop cybersecurity and computer coding skills (sec.
549)................................................... 141
Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters.......................................... 142
Part I--Defense Dependents' Education Matters............ 142
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities
(sec. 551)......................................... 142
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 552)............................... 142
One-year extension of authorities relating to the
transition and support of military dependent
students to local educational agencies (sec. 553).. 142
Part II--Military Family Readiness Matters............... 143
Housing treatment for certain members of the Armed
Forces, and their spouses and other dependents,
undergoing a permanent change of station within the
United States (sec. 556)........................... 143
Direct hire authority for Department of Defense for
childcare services providers for Department child
development centers (sec. 557)..................... 143
Report on expanding and contracting for childcare
services of the Department of Defense (sec. 558)... 143
Report on review of General Schedule pay grades of
childcare services providers of the Department of
Defense (sec. 559)................................. 144
Pilot program on public-private partnerships for
telework facilities on military installations
outside the United States (sec. 560)............... 144
Report on mechanisms to facilitate the obtaining by
military spouses of professional licenses or
credentials in other States (sec. 561)............. 144
Additional military childcare matters (sec. 562)..... 145
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards........................... 145
Authority of Secretary of the Army to award the Personnel
Protection Equipment award of the Army to former
members of the Army (sec. 571)......................... 145
Authorization for award of Distinguished Service Cross to
Specialist Frank M. Crary for acts of valor in Vietnam
(sec. 572)............................................. 145
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 145
Modification of submittal date of Comptroller General of
the United States report on integrity of the Department
of Defense whistleblower program (sec. 581)............ 145
Report to Congress on accompanied and unaccompanied tours
of duty in remote locations with high family support
costs (sec. 582)....................................... 145
Items of Special Interest.................................... 146
Addressing challenges in remotely piloted aircraft
community.............................................. 146
DANTES program for members of the Armed Forces applying
for tuition assistance................................. 147
Department of Defense collaboration with educational
institutions on cybersecurity education and training... 147
Department of Defense review of overseas assignment
policy for civilian and contractor personnel in support
of Department of Defense operations.................... 147
Encouraging more flexibility in changes of station....... 148
Ensuring military borrowers receive appropriate benefits. 148
Greater discretion to garrisons for Family, Morale,
Wellness, and Recreation programs...................... 149
Leadership training...................................... 149
Quality of instruction in schools of the Department of
Defense Education Activity............................. 150
Report on credentialing program utilization.............. 150
Report on joint Department of Defense-Department of
Veterans Affairs suicide prevention.................... 150
Report on measures to prevent retaliation against
survivors of sexual assault and harassment in the
performance evaluation process......................... 151
Review of United States Marine Corps recruit training
policies............................................... 151
ROTC Cyber Institute..................................... 152
Service-specific history courses as a core curriculum
requirement of the military service academies.......... 153
Shortfall of United States Air Force aircraft maintenance
personnel.............................................. 153
Transition Assistance Program challenges for the National
Guard and Reserves..................................... 154
Transition Assistance Program information for unit
commanders............................................. 154
Use of Post-9/11 GI Bill for technical schools and
institutes............................................. 154
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.......... 155
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 155
Fiscal year 2018 increase in military basic pay (sec.
601)................................................... 155
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in
rates of Basic Allowance for Housing under certain
circumstances (sec. 602)............................... 155
Adjustment to Basic Allowance for Housing at with
dependents rate of certain members of the uniformed
services (sec. 603).................................... 155
Modification of authority of President to determine
alternative pay adjustment in annual basic pay of
members of the uniformed services (sec. 604)........... 156
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 156
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611).............. 156
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)... 156
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities
for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................ 156
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37
consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus
authorities (sec. 614)................................. 157
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)..... 157
Aviation bonus matters (sec. 616)........................ 157
Special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for
enlisted members who pilot remotely piloted aircraft
(sec. 617)............................................. 158
Technical and clerical amendments relating to 2008
consolidation of certain special pay authorities (sec.
618)................................................... 158
Subtitle C--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor
Benefits................................................... 158
Part I--Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay Reform. 158
Adjustment to the Survivor Benefit Plan for members
electing lump sum payments of retired pay under the
modernized retirement system for members of the
uniformed services (sec. 631)...................... 158
Technical correction regarding election to
participate in modernized retirement system for
non-regular component members experiencing a break
in service (sec. 632).............................. 158
Part II--Other Matters................................... 159
Authority for the Secretaries of the military
departments to provide for care of remains of those
who die on Active Duty and are interred in a
foreign cemetery (sec. 636)........................ 159
Technical corrections for use of member's current pay
grade and years of service in a division of
property involving disposable retired pay (sec.
637)............................................... 159
Permanent extension and cost-of-living adjustments of
Special Survivor Indemnity Allowances under the
survivor benefit plan (sec. 638)................... 159
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 159
Construction of domestic source requirement for footwear
furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces on
initial entry into the Armed Forces (sec. 651)......... 159
Inclusion of Department of Agriculture in Transition
Assistance Program (sec. 652).......................... 160
Review and update of regulations governing debt
collectors interactions with unit commanders (sec. 653) 160
Items of Special Interest.................................... 160
Report on base pay of senior enlisted members performing
special advisory duties................................ 160
United States Air Force civilian pay budgeting process....... 160
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 163
Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits........... 163
TRICARE Advantage demonstration program (sec. 701)....... 163
Continued access to medical care at facilities of the
uniformed services for certain members of the reserve
components (sec. 702).................................. 164
Modification of eligibility for TRICARE Reserve Select
and TRICARE Retired Reserve of certain members of the
reserve components (sec. 703).......................... 164
Expedited evaluation and treatment for prenatal surgery
under the TRICARE program (sec. 704)................... 164
Specification that individuals under the age of 21 are
eligible for hospice care services under the TRICARE
program (sec. 705)..................................... 164
Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the
TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program and treatment of
certain pharmaceutical agents (sec. 706)............... 164
Consolidation of cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE
Select and TRICARE Prime (sec. 707).................... 165
TRICARE technical amendments (sec. 708).................. 165
Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE program
(sec. 709)............................................. 165
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 166
Modification of priority for evaluation and treatment of
individuals at military treatment facilities (sec. 721) 166
Selection of directors of military treatment facilities
and tours of duty of such directors (sec. 722)......... 166
Clarification of administration of military medical
treatment facilities (sec. 723)........................ 166
Modification of execution of TRICARE contracting
responsibilities (sec. 724)............................ 166
Pilot program on establishment of integrated health care
delivery systems (sec. 725)............................ 167
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 167
Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility........ 167
Demonstration Fund (sec. 731)............................ 167
Additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce
deaths and severity of injuries caused by agents of war
(sec. 732)............................................. 167
Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and
development projects (sec. 733)........................ 168
Modification of determination of average wait times at
urgent care clinics and pharmacies at military medical
treatment facilities under pilot program (sec. 734).... 168
Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related
services for children of members of the Armed Forces
(sec. 735)............................................. 168
Inclusion of gambling disorder in health assessments and
related research efforts of the Department of Defense
(sec. 736)............................................. 168
Items of Special Interest.................................... 169
Aircraft medical kits on rotary aircraft responding to
mass casualty incidents................................ 169
Assessment of ability of Department of Defense to use
modeling and simulation capabilities to address medical
training requirements.................................. 169
Comptroller General report on Department of Defense
measures to maintain critical wartime medical readiness
skills and core competencies of health care providers.. 169
Comptroller General review of the Department of Defense's
recruitment and retention programs for military
dentists............................................... 170
Comptroller General review of workforce mix within the
military health system................................. 171
Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense
electronic health record interoperability.............. 171
Epidemiological study on the association between certain
cancers and military aircraft operations............... 172
Impact of medical care referrals on servicemembers
assigned to remote and isolated military installations
in the United States................................... 172
Improper medical claims payments......................... 172
Licensed mental health counselors........................ 173
Licensing of federally owned medical inventions.......... 173
Military dental research................................. 173
Novel drug therapies for PTSD............................ 173
Report on action to address mental health of remotely
piloted aircraft community............................. 174
Traumatic brain injury research.......................... 174
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS................................................ 175
Implementation of acquisition reforms........................ 175
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 176
Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private
competitions for conversion of Department of Defense
functions to performance by contractors (sec. 801)..... 176
Technical and conforming amendments related to program
management provisions (sec. 802)....................... 177
Should-cost management (sec. 803)........................ 177
Clarification of purpose of Defense acquisition (sec.
804)................................................... 177
Defense policy advisory committee on technology (sec.
805)................................................... 178
Report on extension of development, acquisition, and
sustainment authorities of the military departments to
the United States Special Operations Command (sec. 806) 178
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations................................ 179
Waiver authority for purposes of expanding competition
(sec. 811)............................................. 179
Increased simplified acquisition threshold applicable to
Department of Defense procurements (sec. 812).......... 179
Increased threshold for cost or pricing data and truth in
negotiations requirements (sec. 813)................... 179
Contract authority for advanced development of initial or
additional prototype units (sec. 814).................. 179
Treatment of independent research and development costs
on certain contracts (sec. 815)........................ 180
Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 816)......... 180
Repeal of domestic source restriction related to wearable
electronics (sec. 817)................................. 180
Use of outcome-based and performance-based requirements
for services contracts (sec. 818)...................... 180
Pilot program for longer term multiyear service contracts
(sec. 819)............................................. 181
Identification of commercial services (sec. 820)......... 181
Government Accountability Office bid protest reforms
(sec. 821)............................................. 181
Enhanced post-award debriefing rights (sec. 822)......... 182
Limitation on unilateral definitization (sec. 823)....... 182
Restriction on use of reverse auctions and lowest price
technically acceptable contracting methods for safety
equipment (sec. 824)................................... 182
Use of lowest price technically acceptable source
selection process (sec. 825)........................... 183
Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototype and rapid
fielding (sec. 826).................................... 183
Elimination of cost underruns as factor in calculation of
penalties for cost overruns (sec. 827)................. 183
Contract closeout authority (sec. 828)................... 183
Service contracts of the Department of Defense (sec. 829) 183
Department of Defense contractor workplace safety and
accountability (sec. 830).............................. 183
Department of Defense promotion of contractor compliance
with existing law (sec. 831)........................... 184
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................... 184
Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition
program (sec. 835)..................................... 184
Prohibition on use of lowest price technically acceptable
source selection process for major defense acquisition
programs (sec. 836).................................... 184
Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce..... 185
Training in commercial items procurement (sec. 841)...... 186
Modification of definition of acquisition workforce to
include personnel engaged in the acquisition or
development of cybersecurity systems (sec. 842)........ 186
Training and support for programs pursuing agile
acquisition methods (sec. 843)......................... 186
Credits to Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund (sec. 844)............................ 186
Subtitle E--Provisions Related to Commercial Items........... 186
Modification to definition of commercial items (sec. 851) 186
Revision to definition of commercial item (sec. 852)..... 187
Commercial item determinations (sec. 853)................ 187
Preference for acquisition of commercial items (sec. 854) 187
Inapplicable laws and regulations (sec. 855)............. 187
Subtitle F--Industrial Base Matters.......................... 188
Review regarding applicability of foreign ownership,
control, or influence requirements of national security
industrial program to national technology and
industrial base companies (sec. 861)................... 188
Pilot program on strengthening manufacturing in defense
industrial base (sec. 862)............................. 188
Sunset of certain provisions relating to the industrial
base (sec. 863)........................................ 188
Subtitle G--International Contracting Matters................ 189
Procurement exception relating to agreements with foreign
governments (sec. 865)................................. 189
Applicability of cost and pricing data certification
requirements (sec. 866)................................ 189
Enhancing program licensing (sec. 867)................... 189
Subtitle H--Other Transactions............................... 189
Use of Other Transaction Authority....................... 189
Other transaction authority (sec. 871)................... 191
Education and training for transactions other than
contracts and grants (sec. 872)........................ 191
Preference for use of other transactions and experimental
authority (sec. 873)................................... 191
Methods for entering into research agreements (sec. 874). 192
Subtitle I--Development and Acquisition of Software Intensive
and Digital Products and Services.......................... 192
Digitizing the Department of Defense business,
enterprise, and warfighting capabilities............... 192
Rights in technical data (sec. 881)...................... 193
Defense Innovation Board analysis of software acquisition
regulations (sec. 882)................................. 193
Pilot to tailor software-intensive major programs to use
agile methods (sec. 883)............................... 194
Review and realignment of defense business systems to
emphasize agile methods (sec. 884)..................... 194
Software development pilot using agile best practices
(sec. 885)............................................. 194
Use of open source software (sec. 886)................... 195
Subtitle J--Other Matters.................................... 196
Improved transparency and oversight over Department of
Defense research, development, test, and evaluation
efforts and procurement activities related to medical
research (sec. 891).................................... 196
Rights in technical data related to medical research
(sec. 892)............................................. 196
Oversight, audit, and certification from the Defense
Contract Audit Agency for procurement activities
related to medical research (sec. 893)................. 196
Requirements for Defense Contract Audit Agency report
(sec. 894)............................................. 196
Prototype projects to digitize defense acquisition
regulations, policies, and guidance, and empower user
tailoring of acquisition process (sec. 895)............ 196
Pilot program for adoption of acquisition strategy for
Defense Base Act insurance (sec. 896).................. 197
Phase III awards (sec. 897).............................. 197
Pilot program for streamlined technology transition from
the SBIR and STTR programs of the Department of Defense
(sec. 898)............................................. 197
Annual report on limitation of subcontractor intellectual
property rights (sec. 899)............................. 197
Extension from 20 to 30 years of maximum total period for
Department of Defense contracts for storage, handling,
or distribution of liquid fuels and natural gas (sec.
899A).................................................. 198
Exception for Department of Defense contracts from
requirement that business operations conducted under
government contracts accept and dispense $1 coins (sec.
899B).................................................. 198
Investing in rural small businesses (sec. 899C).......... 198
Items of Special Interest.................................... 198
Assess requirements in certain categories of business
systems for consolidation to pursue cost-effective
solutions.............................................. 198
Avoidance of specification of contractor facility
locations in solicitations and contract requirements... 199
Commercial off-the-shelf power supplies.................. 199
Comptroller General evaluation of Contractor Business
Systems Improvement Program............................ 200
Cybersecurity in modernizing the Department of Defense
healthcare management system........................... 201
Cybersecurity Regulation--Small Business Compliance
Assistance............................................. 201
Defense Acquisition University research collaboration
with academia.......................................... 202
Defense Innovation Unit Experimental..................... 202
Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations 203
Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals...... 203
Impact of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)
contract vehicles on small businesses and innovation... 204
Increase in licensing fees and the negative competitive
impact on the services sector.......................... 204
Integrity of patented intellectual property in reverse
engineering programs................................... 204
Notice of cost-free federal procurement technical
assistance in connection with registration of small
business concerns in procurement systems............... 205
Ongoing improvement to the management of the National
Technology and Industrial Base......................... 205
Procurement Technical Assistance Center transitional cost
share.................................................. 206
Program Management Report................................ 206
Report on Monopolistic Practices......................... 206
Strategic Capabilities Office Support.................... 207
Supporting the Development and Commercialization of
National Security Technologies......................... 207
Use of Commercial Services............................... 207
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 209
Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related
Matters.................................................... 209
Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense
(sec. 901)............................................. 209
Realignment of responsibilities, duties, and powers of
Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense
(sec. 902)............................................. 210
Clarification of the authority of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment with respect to
service acquisition programs for which the service
acquisition executive is the milestone decision
authority (sec. 903)................................... 213
Executive schedule matters relating to Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (sec. 904)..... 213
Technical amendment (sec. 905)........................... 213
Redesignation of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness as Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Health (sec. 906)........................ 213
Qualifications for appointment and additional duties and
powers of certain officials within the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (sec. 907).... 214
Five-year period of relief from Active Duty as a
commissioned officer of a regular component of the
Armed Forces for appointment to Under Secretary of
Defense positions (sec. 908)........................... 214
Redesignation of Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of
Defense as Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and
related matters (sec. 909)............................. 214
Reduction of number and elimination of specific
designations of Assistant Secretaries of Defense (sec.
910)................................................... 214
Limitation of maximum number of Deputy Assistant
Secretaries of Defense (sec. 911)...................... 215
Modification of definition of OSD personnel for purposes
of limitation on number of Office of Secretary of
Defense personnel (sec. 912)........................... 215
Subtitle B--Organization of Other Department of Defense
Offices and Elements....................................... 215
Reduction in authorized number of Assistant Secretaries
of the military departments (sec. 921)................. 215
Qualifications for appointment of Assistant Secretaries
of the military departments for financial management
(sec. 922)............................................. 215
Subtitle C--Organization and Management of the Department
of Defense Generally................................... 215
Reduction in limitation of number of Department of
Defense SES positions (sec. 931)....................... 215
Manner of carrying out reductions in major Department of
Defense headquarters activities (sec. 932)............. 216
Certifications on cost savings achieved by reductions in
major Department of Defense headquarters activities
(sec. 933)............................................. 216
Direct hire authority for the Department of Defense for
personnel to assist in business transformation and
management innovation (sec. 934)....................... 216
Data analytics capability for support of enhanced
oversight and management of the Defense Agencies and
Department of Defense Field Activities (sec. 935)...... 217
Enhanced use of data analytics to improve acquisition
program outcomes (sec. 936)............................ 217
Pilot programs on data integration strategies for the
Department of Defense (sec. 937)....................... 217
Background and security investigations for Department of
Defense personnel (sec. 938)........................... 218
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 220
Transfer of lead of Guam Oversight Council from the
Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the
Navy (sec. 951)........................................ 220
Corrosion control and prevention executive matters (sec.
952)................................................... 220
Items of Special Interest.................................... 220
Comptroller General of the United States report on
Department of Defense oversight of the defense agencies
and Department of Defense field activities............. 220
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Arctic..... 221
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 223
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 223
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 223
Calculations for payments into Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund using single level percentage
of basic pay determined on Armed Force-wide rather than
Armed Forces-wide basis (sec. 1002).................... 223
Certifications on audit readiness of the Department of
Defense and the military departments, Defense Agencies,
and other organizations and elements of the Department
of Defense (sec. 1003)................................. 223
Failure to obtain audit opinion on fiscal year full
financial statements of the Department of Defense (sec.
1004).................................................. 224
Improper payment matters (sec. 1005)..................... 224
Financial operations dashboard for the Department of
Defense (sec. 1006).................................... 225
Comptroller General of the United States recommendations
on audit capabilities and infrastructure and related
matters (sec. 1007).................................... 226
Subtitle B--Counterdrug Activities........................... 226
Extension and modification of authority to support a
unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in
Colombia (sec. 1011)................................... 226
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 226
Policy of the United States on minimum number of battle
force ships (sec. 1016)................................ 226
Operational readiness of Littoral Combat Ships on
extended deployment (sec. 1017)........................ 227
Authority to purchase used vessels to recapitalize the
Ready Reserve Force and the Military Sealift Command
surge fleet (sec. 1018)................................ 227
Surveying ships (sec. 1019).............................. 228
Pilot program on funding for national defense sealift
vessels (sec. 1020).................................... 228
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 229
Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or
release of individuals detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States
(sec. 1031)............................................ 229
Extension on prohibition on use of funds to construct or
modify facilities in the United States to house
detainees transferred from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1032)....................... 229
Extension on prohibition on use of funds for transfer or
release to certain countries of individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec.
1033).................................................. 230
Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment
of forces at or closure of United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1034)....................... 230
Authority to transfer individuals detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the
United States temporarily for emergency or critical
medical treatment (sec. 1035).......................... 230
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 230
Matters relating to the submittal of future-years defense
programs (sec. 1041)................................... 230
Department of Defense integration of information
operations and cyber-enabled information operations
(sec. 1042)............................................ 231
Prohibition on lobbying activities with respect to the
Department of Defense by certain officers of the Armed
Forces and civilian employees of the Department within
two years of separation from military service or
employment with the Department (sec. 1043)............. 231
Definition of ``unmanned aerial vehicle'' for the
purposes of title 10, United States Code (sec. 1044)... 231
Technical amendment relating to management of military
technicians (sec. 1045)................................ 231
Extension of prohibition on use of funds for retirement
of legacy maritime mine countermeasures platforms (sec.
1046).................................................. 232
Sense of Congress on the basing of KC-46A aircraft
outside the continental United States (sec. 1047)...... 232
Authorization to procure up to six polar-class
icebreakers (sec. 1048)................................ 232
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports.............................. 232
Assessment of global force posture (sec. 1061)........... 232
Army modernization strategy (sec. 1062).................. 233
Report on Army plan to improve operational unit readiness
by reducing the number of non-deployable soldiers
assigned to operation units (sec. 1063)................ 234
Efforts to combat physiological episodes on certain Navy
aircraft (sec. 1064)................................... 235
Studies on aircraft inventories for the Air Force (sec.
1065).................................................. 236
Plan and recommendations for interagency vetting of
foreign investments with potential impacts on national
defense and national security (sec. 1066).............. 237
Report on authorities for the employment, use, and status
of National Guard and Reserve technicians (sec. 1067).. 237
Conforming repeals and technical amendments in connection
with reports of the Department of Defense whose
submittal to Congress has previously been terminated by
law (sec. 1068)........................................ 238
Annual reports on approval of employment or compensation
of retired general or flag Officers by foreign
governments for Emoluments Clause purposes (sec. 1069). 238
Annual report on civilian casualties in connection with
United States military operations (sec. 1070).......... 238
Report on large-scale, joint exercises involving the air
and land domains (Sec. 1071)........................... 238
Department of Defense review of Navy capabilities in the
Arctic region (sec. 1072).............................. 238
Business case analysis on establishment of active duty
association and additional primary aircraft
authorizations for the 168th Air Refueling Wing (sec.
1073).................................................. 238
Report on Navy capacity to increase production of anti-
submarine warfare and search and rescue rotary wing
aircraft in light of increase in the size of the
surface fleet to 355 ships. (Sec. 1074)................ 239
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 239
Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare
Command insignia (sec. 1081)........................... 239
Collaborations between the Armed Forces and certain non-
Federal entities on support of Armed Forces missions
abroad (sec. 1082)..................................... 239
Federal charter for Spirit of America (sec. 1083)........ 240
Reconsideration of claims for disability compensation for
veterans who were the subjects of mustard gas or
lewisite experiments during World War II (sec. 1084)... 240
Prize competition to identify root cause of physiological
episodes on Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force training
and operational aircraft (sec. 1085)................... 240
Exception to the interdepartmental waiver doctrine for
cleanup of vehicle crashes (sec. 1086)................. 240
Transfer of surplus firearms to Corporation for the
Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety (sec.
1087).................................................. 241
Items of Special Interest.................................... 241
355 ship build-up review................................. 241
Arctic domain awareness.................................. 241
Assessment of Navy capabilities to support U.S. Coast
Guard and partner nations' international maritime law
enforcement activities................................. 242
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and
Low Intensity Conflict................................. 242
Audit progress........................................... 243
Budget Control Act Repeal................................ 243
Comptroller General of the United States review of the
U.S. Navy's approach to nuclear-powered aircraft
carrier dismantlement and disposal..................... 243
DUI prevention and rideshares............................ 245
Efficient use of non-tactical government owned
transportation......................................... 245
Encouraging Air Force Rescue Unit Associations........... 245
Management of Special Access Programs.................... 246
National Guard Counterdrug Program....................... 246
National Guard role in enhanced border security.......... 247
Navy strategic laydown and dispersal plan................ 248
Northern Triangle human rights training.................. 248
Plan on actions to address vulnerabilities arising from
unencrypted aircraft transponders on military aircraft. 248
Report on infrastructure required to protect national
security interests of the United States in the Arctic
region................................................. 249
Report on initiatives for mitigating military pilot
shortfalls............................................. 249
Trafficking of commodities............................... 250
Unmanned maritime systems test and training range........ 251
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 253
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Matters.................... 253
Pilot program on enhanced personnel management system for
cybersecurity and legal professionals in the Department
of Defense (sec. 1101)................................. 253
Inclusion of Strategic Capabilities Office and Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental of the Department of
Defense in personnel management authority to attract
experts in science and engineering (sec. 1102)......... 253
Permanent authority for demonstration projects relating
to acquisition personnel management policies and
procedures (sec. 1103)................................. 253
Establishment of senior scientific technical managers at
Major Range and Test Facility Base facilities and
Defense Test Resource Management Center (sec. 1104).... 254
Extension of temporary direct hire authority for domestic
defense industrial base facilities, the major range and
test facilities base (sec. 1105)....................... 254
Direct hire authority for financial management experts in
the Department of Defense workforce (sec. 1106)........ 254
Authority for wavier of requirement for a baccalaureate
degree for positions in the Department of Defense on
cybersecurity and computer programming (sec. 1107)..... 254
Subtitle B--Government-Wide Matters.......................... 255
Elimination of the foreign exemption provision in regard
to overtime for Federal civilian employees temporarily
assigned to a foreign area (sec. 1111)................. 255
One-year extension of authority to waive annual
limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on
pay for Federal civilian employees working overseas
(sec. 1112)............................................ 255
One-year extension of temporary authority to grant
allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian
personnel on official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1113) 255
Items of Special Interest.................................... 255
Direct hiring authorities................................ 255
Implementation of direct hiring authorities for military
spouses................................................ 255
Industry fellowships for civilian contracting officers... 256
Waiver of Long-Term Temporary Duty travel per diem rates. 256
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 257
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 257
Support of special operations for irregular warfare (sec.
1201).................................................. 257
Modification of authority on support of special
operations to combat terrorism (sec. 1202)............. 257
Modifications of certain authority in connection with
reform of defense security cooperation programs and
activities (sec. 1203)................................. 257
Global Security Contingency Fund matters (sec. 1204)..... 258
Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (sec.
1205).................................................. 258
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan..... 258
Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program and
related authorities (sec. 1211)........................ 258
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and
provide defense services to the military and security
forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1212)...................... 258
Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement
of certain coalition nations for support provided to
United States military operations (sec. 1213).......... 258
Extension of authority to acquire products and services
produced in countries along a major route of supply to
Afghanistan (sec. 1214)................................ 259
Extension of semiannual report on enhancing security and
stability in Afghanistan (sec. 1215)................... 259
Sense of Congress regarding the Afghan special immigrant
visa program (sec. 1216)............................... 259
Special immigrant visas for Afghan allies (sec. 1217).... 259
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran........ 260
Modification of authority to provide assistance to
counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1231) 260
Modification of authority to provide assistance to the
vetted Syrian opposition (sec. 1232)................... 260
Extension and modification of authority to support
operations and activities of the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1233)........................ 261
Modification and additional elements in annual report on
the military power of Iran (sec. 1234)................. 261
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation....... 262
Extension of limitation on military cooperation between
the United States and the Russian Federation (sec.
1241).................................................. 262
Extension of limitation on availability of funds relating
to sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea
(sec. 1242)............................................ 262
Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec.
1243).................................................. 262
Extension of authority on training for Eastern European
national security forces in the course of multilateral
exercises (sec. 1244).................................. 263
Security assistance for Baltic nations for joint program
for resiliency and deterrence against aggression (sec.
1245).................................................. 263
Annual report on military and security developments
involving the Russian Federation (sec. 1246)........... 264
Annual report on attempts of the Russian Federation to
provide disinformation and propaganda to members of the
Armed Forces by social media. (sec. 1247).............. 264
Support of European Deterrence Initiative to deter
Russian aggression (sec. 1248)......................... 264
Sense of Congress on the European Deterrence Initiative
(sec. 1249)............................................ 264
Enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative
(sec. 1250)............................................ 265
Sense of Congress on importance of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Intelligence Fusion Center (sec.
1251).................................................. 265
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region...... 265
Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative (sec. 1261)............ 265
Expansion of military-to-military engagement with the
government of Burma (sec. 1262)........................ 266
Agreement supplemental to Compact of Free Association
with Palau (sec. 1263)................................. 266
Workforce issues for relocation of Marines to Guam (sec.
1264).................................................. 267
United States policy with respect to freedom of
navigation operations and overflight beyond the
territorial seas (sec. 1265)........................... 267
Sense of Congress on the importance of the rule of law in
the South China Sea (sec. 1266)........................ 268
Sense of Congress on the importance of the relationship
between the United States and Japan (sec. 1267)........ 268
Sense of Congress on the importance of the United States
alliance with the Republic of Korea (sec. 1268)........ 268
Sense of Congress on extended deterrence for the Korean
Peninsula and Japan (sec. 1269)........................ 269
Defense partnership between the United States and Taiwan
(sec. 1270)............................................ 269
Naval port of call exchanges between the United States
and Taiwan (sec. 1270A)................................ 269
Program to enhance Taiwan's undersea warfare capabilities
(sec. 1270B)........................................... 269
Invitation of Taiwan military forces to participate in
joint military exercises (Sec. 1270C).................. 270
Report on military exchanges between senior officers and
officials of the United States and Taiwan (Sec. 1270D). 270
Subtitle F--Reports.......................................... 270
Submittal of Department of Defense Supplemental and Cost
of War Execution Reports on a quarterly basis (sec.
1271).................................................. 270
Consolidation of reports on United States Armed Forces,
civilian employees, and contractors deployed in support
of Operation Inherent Resolve and Operation Freedom's
Sentinel (sec. 1272)................................... 271
Subtitle G--Others Matters................................... 271
Modification of availability of funds in Special Defense
Acquisition Fund for precision guided munitions (sec.
1281).................................................. 271
Use of funds in the United States for certain United
States-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation activities (sec.
1282).................................................. 271
Foreign military sales letters of request for pricing and
availability (sec. 1283)............................... 272
Sense of Congress reaffirming strategic partnerships and
allies (sec. 1284)..................................... 272
Budget Items................................................. 272
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative................... 272
Items of Special Interest.................................... 272
Enhanced assistance and cooperation for Afghanistan by
the Government of India................................ 272
Importance of soft power tools in the Asia-Pacific region 273
Institutionalizing Advise and Assist Lessons Learned..... 273
NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence....... 274
Report on the military capabilities of Hezbollah......... 275
Security strategy for Great Lakes region of Africa....... 275
Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative.............. 276
Southeast Asia terrorism................................. 277
Transformation of the Kosovo Security Forces to the
Kosovo Armed Forces.................................... 277
U.S.-India defense cooperation........................... 277
Ukrainian wounded warriors............................... 279
United States commitment to the NATO alliance............ 280
Venezuelan military cooperation.......................... 280
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 283
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec.
1301).................................................. 283
Funding allocations (sec. 1302).......................... 283
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 285
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 285
Working capital funds (sec. 1401)........................ 285
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec.
1402).................................................. 285
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1403)....................................... 285
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404).................... 285
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)....................... 285
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 285
Authority to dispose of certain materials from and to
acquire additional materials for the National Defense
Stockpile (sec. 1411).................................. 285
Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters................ 286
Acquisition reporting on major chemical demilitarization
programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 1421)...... 286
Subtitle D--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 286
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1431)............................ 286
Armed Forces Retirement Home matters (sec. 1432)......... 286
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 286
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. 1441)...................... 286
Enhancement of database of emergency response
capabilities of the Department of Defense (sec. 1442).. 286
Items of Special Interest.................................... 287
Agro-terrorism........................................... 287
Assessment of designating a Joint Chemical-Biological
Defense Logistics Distribution Center.................. 287
Domestic production of Scandium.......................... 287
Fiscal stability of the National Defense Stockpile....... 288
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS......................................... 289
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 289
Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 289
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502).............. 289
Procurement (sec. 1503).................................. 289
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504).. 289
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505).................... 289
Military personnel (sec. 1506)........................... 289
Working capital funds (sec. 1507)........................ 289
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1508)....................................... 290
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509).................... 290
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)....................... 290
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 290
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)....... 290
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)................... 290
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 290
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531)............. 290
Budget Items................................................. 291
Defense Security Cooperation Agency...................... 291
Transfer of European Reassurance Initiative.............. 291
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS... 293
Subtitle A--Space Activities................................. 293
Air Force Space Command (sec. 1601)...................... 293
Air Force space contractor responsibility watch list
(sec. 1602)............................................ 293
Presidential National Voice Conferencing system (sec.
1603).................................................. 294
Limitation on use of funds for Delta IV launch vehicle
(sec. 1604)............................................ 295
Policy of the United States with respect to
classification of space as a combat domain (sec. 1605). 295
Launch support and infrastructure modernization (sec.
1606).................................................. 296
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related
Activities................................................. 296
Extension of authority to engage in commercial activities
as security for intelligence collection activities
(sec. 1611)............................................ 296
Subtitle C--Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related Matters 296
Policy of the United States on cyberspace, cybersecurity,
and cyber warfare (sec. 1621).......................... 296
Cyber posture review (sec. 1622)......................... 297
Modification and clarification of requirements and
authorities relating to establishment of unified
combatant command for cyber operations (sec. 1623)..... 297
Annual assessment of cyber resiliency of nuclear command
and control system (sec. 1624)......................... 298
Strategic Cybersecurity Program (sec. 1625).............. 298
Evaluation of agile acquisition of cyber tools and
applications (sec. 1626)............................... 299
Report on cost implications of terminating dual-hat
arrangement for Commander of United States Cyber
Command (sec. 1627).................................... 300
Modification of Information Assurance Scholarship Program
(sec. 1628)............................................ 300
Measuring compliance of components of Department of
Defense with cybersecurity requirements for securing
industrial control systems (sec. 1629)................. 301
Exercise on assessing cybersecurity support to election
systems of States (sec. 1630).......................... 301
Report on various approaches to cyber deterrence (sec.
1630A)................................................. 301
Prohibition on use of software platforms developed by
Kaspersky Lab (sec. 1630B)............................. 302
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces................................... 302
Collection, storage, and sharing of data relating to
nuclear security enterprise (sec. 1631)................ 302
Establishment of procedures for implementation of Nuclear
Enterprise Review (sec. 1632).......................... 302
Procurement authority for certain parts of
intercontinental ballistic missiles (sec. 1633)........ 302
Execution and programmatic oversight of nuclear command,
control, and communications programs (sec. 1634)....... 303
Measures in response to noncompliance of the Russian
Federation with its obligations under the INF Treaty
(sec. 1635)............................................ 304
Certification that the Nuclear Posture Review addresses
deterrent effect and operation of United States nuclear
forces in current and future security environment (sec.
1636).................................................. 305
Plan to manage Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack
Assessment System and multi-domain sensors (sec. 1637). 305
Certification requirement with respect to strategic
radiation hardened trusted foundry (sec. 1638)......... 305
Requirements for Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1639)...... 306
Sense of Congress on Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1640).. 306
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs......................... 306
Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli
Cooperative Missile Defense Program co-development and
co-production (sec. 1651).............................. 306
Development of persistent space-based sensor architecture
(sec. 1652)............................................ 307
Ground-based interceptor capacity and Fort Greely missile
field infrastructure requirements (sec. 1653).......... 308
Sense of the Senate on the state of United States missile
defense (sec. 1654).................................... 309
Sense of the Senate and report on ground-based mid-course
defense testing (sec. 1655)............................ 309
Items of Special Interest.................................... 310
Airborne boost phase laser missile defense demonstration. 310
AN/TPY-2 detection and cueing capability................. 310
Assistance of U.S. Special Operations Command to U.S.
Forces-Korea for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction 311
Cobra Dane radar system improvements..................... 311
Commercial Geospatial-Intelligence Imagery............... 312
Comptroller General review of very low frequency/low
frequency terminals.................................... 312
Conventional Prompt Strike............................... 313
Counter unmanned aerial systems capabilities............. 313
Expand capacity and capabilities of the ICCAE with focus
on data sciences, machine learning, artificial
intelligence, modeling & war gaming, and intelligence
integration............................................ 314
Fill rate of billets for United States Cyber Command.... 314
Importance and use of United States Federal Aviation
Administration licensed spaceports..................... 315
Increased procurement of low-cost ballistic missile
targets................................................ 316
Intelligence support to U.S. Strategic Command........... 316
Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
interoperability....................................... 316
Positioning, Navigation, and Timing alternate sources.... 317
Replacement of National Airborne Operations Center
aircraft............................................... 317
Report on Electromagnetic Pulse Attack Commission
findings and recommendations........................... 317
Reusable Launch Vehicles................................. 318
Sea-based X-Band Radar................................... 318
Simultaneous strategic missile system flight tests...... 318
Space Launch Automated Flight Safety and Termination
Systems................................................ 319
Staffing for nuclear command, control, and
communications acquisition............................. 319
Training for cyber mission forces........................ 319
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 321
Summary and explanation of funding tables................ 321
Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 321
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 322
Effective date (sec. 2003)............................... 322
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 323
Summary.................................................. 323
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 323
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 323
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........ 323
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2014 project (sec. 2104).......................... 324
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2015 project (sec. 2105).......................... 324
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014
project (sec. 2106).................................... 324
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015
projects (sec. 2107)................................... 324
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 325
Summary.................................................. 325
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 325
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 325
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 325
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 326
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014
projects (sec. 2205)................................... 326
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015
projects (sec. 2206)................................... 326
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 327
Summary.................................................. 327
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 327
Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 327
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 327
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)... 327
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2017 projects (sec. 2305)......................... 328
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015
projects (sec. 2306)................................... 328
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 329
Summary.................................................. 329
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 329
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)...... 329
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec.
2403).................................................. 329
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2017 project (sec. 2404).......................... 329
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014
projects (sec. 2405)................................... 330
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015
projects (sec. 2406)................................... 330
TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS................................ 331
Summary.................................................. 331
Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program......................................... 331
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 331
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 331
Subtitle B--Host Country In-Kind Contributions............... 331
Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec.
2511).................................................. 331
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2017 projects (sec. 2512)......................... 331
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 333
Summary.................................................. 333
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization of
Appropriations............................................. 333
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 333
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 333
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 333
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 334
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 334
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 334
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 334
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2015 project (sec. 2611).......................... 334
Extension of authorizations for certain fiscal year 2014
projects (sec. 2612)................................... 334
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015
projects (sec. 2613)................................... 334
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 335
Summary and explanation of tables........................ 335
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
Base Closure Account (sec. 2701)....................... 335
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and
closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702)....................... 335
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS....... 337
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 337
Authority to use expiring funds for certain military
construction projects (sec. 2801)...................... 337
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use
operation and maintenance funds for construction
projects in certain areas outside the United States
(sec. 2802)............................................ 337
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 337
Authority to use energy cost savings for energy
resilience, mission assurance, and weather damage
repair and prevention measures (sec. 2811)............. 337
Modification of unspecified minor military construction
project authority to cover correction of deficiencies
that are threats to installation resilience (sec. 2812) 337
Land exchange valuation of property with reduced
development that limits encroachment on military
installations (sec. 2813).............................. 337
Treatment of storm water collection systems as utility
systems (sec. 2814).................................... 338
Access to military installations by transportation
network companies (sec. 2815).......................... 338
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 338
Land conveyance, Natick Soldier Systems Center,
Massachusetts (sec. 2821).............................. 338
Land conveyance, Army and Air Force exchange service
property, Dallas, Texas (sec. 2822).................... 338
Land conveyances, certain former peacekeeper ICBM
facilities in Wyoming (sec. 2823)...................... 338
Land exchange, Naval Industrial Ordnance Reserve Plant,
Sunnyvale, California (sec. 2824)...................... 338
Land exchange, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas
(sec. 2825)............................................ 339
Subtitle D--Project Management and Oversight Reforms......... 339
Project management oversight reforms..................... 339
Notification requirement for certain cost overruns and
schedule delays (sec. 2831)............................ 339
Limited authority for private sector supervision of
military construction projects in event of extensive
overruns or project delays (sec. 2832)................. 339
Annual report on cost overruns and schedule delays (sec.
2833).................................................. 340
Report on design errors and omissions related to Fort
Bliss hospital replacement project (sec. 2834)......... 340
Report on cost increase and delay related to USSTRATCOM
command and control facility project at Offutt Air
Force Base (sec. 2835)................................. 340
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 340
Annual Department of Defense energy management reports
(sec. 2841)............................................ 340
Aggregation of energy efficiency and energy resilience
projects in life cycle costs (sec. 2842)............... 341
Authority of the Secretary of the Air Force to accept
lessee improvements at Air Force Plant 42 (sec. 2843).. 341
Prohibition on use of funds for Kwajalein project (sec.
2844).................................................. 341
Energy resilience (sec. 2845)............................ 341
Consideration of energy security and energy resilience in
awarding energy and fuel contracts for military
installations (sec. 2846).............................. 342
Requirement to address energy resilience in exercising
utility system conveyance authority (sec. 2847)........ 342
In-kind lease payments; prioritization of utility
services that promote energy resilience (sec. 2848).... 342
Disclosure of beneficial ownership by foreign persons of
high security space leased by the Department of Defense
(sec. 2849)............................................ 342
Items of Special Interest.................................... 342
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters conditions.................... 342
Joint Test and Training Operations Center................ 343
Life cycle construction materials........................ 343
Lincoln Laboratory....................................... 343
Major range and test facility bases...................... 344
Review of DOD utility privatization...................... 344
Unified Facilities Criteria for elevator design.......... 345
Window fall prevention................................... 345
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 347
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2901)................................... 347
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2902)................................... 347
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2903).............. 347
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2015
projects (sec. 2904)................................... 347
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 349
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 349
Overview..................................................... 349
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 350
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 350
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 350
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 350
Nuclear energy (sec. 3104)............................... 350
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 350
Assessment and development of prototype nuclear weapons
of foreign countries (sec. 3111)....................... 350
Use of funds for construction and project support
activities relating to MOX facility (sec. 3112)........ 351
Repeal, consolidation, and modification of reporting
requirements (sec. 3113)............................... 351
National Nuclear Security Administration personnel system
(sec. 3114)............................................ 351
Annual reports on unfunded priorities of National Nuclear
Security Administration (sec. 3115).................... 351
Budget Items................................................. 352
National Nuclear Security Administration research and
development certification and safety................... 352
Enhanced capabilities for subcritical experiments........ 352
National Nuclear Security Administration enhanced surety. 352
Stockpile Responsiveness Program......................... 352
Inertial confinement facility operations................. 353
National Nuclear Security Administration additive
manufacturing.......................................... 353
National Nuclear Security Administration component
manufacturing development.............................. 353
National Nuclear Security Administration deferred
maintenance............................................ 353
Defense Nuclear Security deferred maintenance............ 353
International nuclear security program................... 354
Nonproliferation and arms control........................ 354
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility.................... 354
Naval Reactors deferred maintenance...................... 355
Items of Special Interest.................................... 355
Common financial reporting............................... 355
Competition in contracting............................... 355
Comptroller General review of high explosives capability. 356
Comptroller General review of Kansas City Plant
capabilities........................................... 356
Comptroller General review of plutonium oxide feedstock
production capacity.................................... 357
National Nuclear Security Administration arms control
research and development plan.......................... 358
National Nuclear Security Administration plutonium
strategy............................................... 358
Pantex material staging facility......................... 359
Requirement for update on progress on interoperable
warhead................................................ 359
Requirements for managing schedules for analyses of
alternatives for projects of the National Nuclear
Security Administration................................ 360
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant planning..................... 360
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 363
Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 363
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 365
Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)...................... 365
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 367
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 369
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 377
Procurement (sec. 4101).................................. 378
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4102).................................................. 427
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 439
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201).. 440
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations (sec. 4202)..................... 481
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 485
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301).................... 486
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4302)................................. 507
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 517
Military personnel (sec. 4401)........................... 518
Military personnel for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4402)............................................ 519
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 520
Other authorizations (sec. 4501)......................... 520
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4502)............................................ 524
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 527
Military construction (sec. 4601)........................ 527
Military construction for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4602)............................................ 547
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 549
Department of Energy national security programs (sec.
4701).................................................. 550
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS......................................... 566
Departmental Recommendations............................. 566
Committee Action......................................... 566
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 567
Regulatory Impact........................................ 568
Changes in Existing Laws................................. 568
ADDITIONAL VIEWS................................................. 569
Additional Views of Mr. Rounds........................... 569
Calendar No. 165
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-125
======================================================================
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 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
_______
July 10, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Armed Services,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1519]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill (S. 1519) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2018 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 2018;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2018;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2018;
(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 2018; and
(7) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2018.
COMMITTEE OVERVIEW
One of Congress' most important constitutional
responsibilities is providing for the common defense. To
fulfill this fundamental duty, Congress has for the last 55
consecutive years passed the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA), which authorizes funding and provides authorities for
the U.S. military.
The Senate Armed Services Committee takes seriously its
obligation to our men and women in uniform and their families,
as well as the civilians and contractors who support our Armed
Forces. Their service represents the best of our country, and
this committee and the Congress honor their sacrifice.
The committee markup of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2018 contributes to a total of $640 billion
for national defense, which exceeds the President's budget
request and the spending cap of the Budget Control Act (BCA).
The committee believes this authorization is necessary to help
the U.S. military restore readiness, rebuild capacity, and
modernize the force for future challenges. The committee markup
also builds on the important work of previous legislation to
ensure our military is prepared to fulfill the missions of
today and rise to the challenges of tomorrow.
The committee markup:
Authorizes critical funding for the
Department of Defense (DOD) to rebuild a ready and
capable force by increasing maritime capacity,
procuring combat aircraft and munitions, and reducing
the shortfall in end strength.
Ensures the long-term viability of the All-
Volunteer Force by improving the quality of life of the
men and women of the total force (Active Duty, National
Guard, and Reserves), their families, and DOD civilian
personnel through fair pay and policies as well as
continued reform of the military health system.
Continues a comprehensive overhaul of the
acquisition system to ensure that our men and women in
uniform have the equipment they need to succeed and
drives innovation by allocating funds for advanced
technology development and next-generation capabilities
to ensure America's military dominance.
Advances our ability to protect our allies,
partners, and friends.
Enhances the capability of the U.S. Armed
Forces and the security forces of allied and partner
nations to defeat ISIS, al Qaeda, and other violent
extremist organizations.
Improves the ability of the U.S. Armed
Forces to counter threats in the information domain,
including space, cyber, and electronic warfare.
Reduces the threats from nuclear weapons and
materials by strengthening nonproliferation programs,
modernizing our nuclear deterrent, and ensuring the
safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear
stockpile, delivery systems, and infrastructure.
Terminates troubled or redundant programs
and activities, identifies efficiencies, and reduces
unnecessary defense expenditures to make the best use
of taxpayer dollars.
Promotes aggressive and thorough oversight
of the Department's programs and activities to ensure
compliance with relevant laws and regulations and
proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
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 2018 was $659.8
billion. Of this amount, $574.7 billion was requested for base
Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $20.5 billion was
requested for national security programs in the Department of
Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB), and $64.6 billion was requested for Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO).
The committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $692.1 billion in fiscal year 2018, including
$610.9 billion for base DOD programs, $21.0 billion for
national security programs in the DOE and the DNFSB, and $60.2
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 2018 defense
programs. The first table summarizes the committee's
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation
account for fiscal year 2018 and compares these amounts to the
request.
The second table summarizes the total budget authority
implication for national defense by including national defense
funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the
defense committees or are already authorized.
BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in
accordance with the procedures established in the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (title I of Public Law 111-139).
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for procurement activities at the levels
identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Transfer of excess High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles to
foreign countries (sec. 111)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV)
designated for transfer as Excess Defense Articles (EDA) must
be modernized and refurbished to like-new conditions by U.S.
workers prior to transfer, so as not to create conditions that
distort current and future costs to the U.S. Government.
The committee is aware of the existing requirement of
section 2321j(b)(1)(E) of title 22, United States Code, that
the transfer of EDAs to U.S. allies and partner nations will
not harm the U.S. industrial base. The committee is concerned
that the current state of practice for proposed EDA transfers
of HMMWVs does not comply with the title 22, United States
Code, requirement and threatens the long-term viability and
affordability of the Army fleet of wheeled vehicles,
specifically Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles.
According to the Army's ``Tactical Wheeled Vehicle
Strategy,'' the HMMWV will remain the Army's primary light
tactical wheeled vehicle for the foreseeable future. Even after
the planned procurement of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle,
the HMMWV is projected to comprise nearly two-thirds of the
light tactical wheeled vehicle fleet until at least 2050. To
carry out planned sustainment and modernization of the HMMWV
fleet over this period, the Army relies upon the original
equipment manufacturer and commercial supply chain and Army
Organic Industrial Base (AOIB) facilities, including Red River
Army Depot, Texas and Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois.
U.S. Government procurement accounts for less than one-
quarter of current HMMWV production. As such, per unit costs to
the Army for the repair, refurbishment, modernization, and new
production of HMMWVs depend directly upon vehicle sales to
foreign entities. These foreign sales drive demand signals for
the commercial supply chain across 43 states, help meet core
workload requirements for the AOIB, and are essential for the
Army to retain a capable and affordable HMMWV fleet in the
future.
The committee strongly supports the transfer of excess
HMMWVs to meet the operational needs of U.S. allies and
partners and recognizes the potential for circumstances
requiring exceptional urgency. Accordingly, the provision would
include authority for the Secretary of Defense to waive the
requirements of this section if doing so is in the national
security interests of the United States, provided that such a
waiver is received at least 30 days in advance of any planned
transfer and complies with the requirements of section 060403
of volume 3, chapter 6, of the Department of Defense Financial
Management Regulation.
Limitation on availability of funds for Army Air-Land Mobile Tactical
Communications and Data Network, including Warfighter
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) (sec. 112)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to report to Congress how the Army
intends to implement the recommendations of the Director of
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) for the Army's
Air-Land Mobile Tactical Communications and Data Network to
include the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)
program. In accordance with section 237 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) CAPE
conducted a comprehensive assessment of WIN-T to determine the
technological feasibility, achievability, suitability, and
survivability of a tactical communications and data network.
This report is to be submitted with the budget request for
Fiscal Year 2019. The provision would also prohibit the
Secretary of the Army from obligating any funds available in
Other Procurement, Army for the WIN-T, Increment 2 (Inc 2)
program subject to the submission of the Army's report.
The committee is aware that the Army's WIN-T is intended to
be the foundation to the Army's tactical network modernization
strategy and a critical component of the suite of tactical
mission command systems being fielded now. The Army assesses
this program as essential to warfighter communications
capabilities and will continue to deliver incremental increases
in command and control superiority over time. WIN-T is to
introduce a mobile, self-forming/self-healing network using
satellite and terrestrial on-the-move capabilities and high-
bandwidth radio systems to keep mobile forces connected,
communicating, and synchronized. It has had two increments.
WIN-T Increment 1 (Inc 1) provides networking ``at the halt.''
WIN-T Inc 2 is intended to provide the Army with on-the-move
networking capability. The WIN-T Inc 2 network retains
capabilities delivered by WIN-T Inc 1. WIN-T Inc 2 employs
satellite communications while on-the-move to extend the
network in maneuver brigade down to the company level for the
first time. The program is in full rate production. Total WIN-T
procurement costs to date are over $5.0 billion. The current
program is intended to spend an additional $9.0 billion. The
total procurement cost is estimated to be over $14.0 billion.
However, total sunk and projected costs for the entire network,
as estimated by the CAPE study, are in excess of $66.0 billion.
The committee has observed many problems with the network
in general and WIN-T in particular. This is especially so in
regard to Inc 2. Many problems have occurred in integrating the
``upper tactical network'' with the ``lower tactical network.''
These problems disrupt connectivity between brigade combat
teams and battalions with companies. Integrating WIN-T hardware
with armored vehicles has yet to be conclusively determined. It
is unclear if the Army has fully defined the requirements for
tactical close combat forces at company level. The committee
understands that the Army is reassessing its total requirement
and determining a new course of action in light of the above
noted problems.
The committee is concerned about the continued suitability,
effectiveness, security, and survivability of Army Air-Land
Mobile Tactical Communications and Data Network and WIN-T given
demonstrated threat capabilities of peer adversaries in
electronic warfare attack, electronic reconnaissance, and
massed fire strikes.
The committee continues to encourage the Army to repair
identified problems and to more carefully redefine its
requirements for the network and WIN-T program. The committee
further encourages the Army to leverage its new acquisition
authorities to seek non-developmental technologies to repair
and improve the network. This effort is key given investments
to date.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia class submarine program
(sec. 121)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to procure up to 13 Virginia-class
submarines under one or more multiyear contracts subject to
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code. The Secretary
would also be authorized to enter into one or more contracts
for advance procurement associated with such vessels and
equipment beginning in fiscal year 2018. These authorities
would be subject to the availability of appropriations or
funds.
The committee notes this would be the fourth multiyear
contract for the Virginia-class program. The Navy estimates
that the previous three multiyear procurement contracts (fiscal
years 2003-2008, 2009-2013, and 2014-2018) achieved savings of
greater than 10 percent, as compared to annual procurements.
For the fourth contract for fiscal years 2019-2023, the Navy is
estimating savings of 14 percent, or in excess of $5.0 billion,
for the multiyear procurement of 10 ships as compared to annual
procurement contracts.
The committee believes that should additional funds become
available for Virginia-class submarines, above what is planned
in the fiscal year 2018 future years defense program, the Navy
should obtain the benefits and savings of this authority for up
to 13 submarines.
Arleigh Burke class destroyers (sec. 122)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to procure up to 15 Arleigh Burke-
class Flight III guided missile destroyers under one or more
multiyear contracts subject to section 2306b of title 10,
United States Code, beginning no earlier than the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2018. This authority would be subject to
the availability of appropriations or funds. The committee also
recommends modifying the authority to procure an additional
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer provided in section 125(a)(1) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92).
The committee notes this would be the fourth multiyear
contract for the Arleigh Burke-class program. The Navy
estimates that each of the previous three multiyear procurement
contracts (fiscal years 1998-2001, 2002-2005, and 2013-2017)
achieved savings of greater than $1.0 billion, as compared to
annual procurements. For the fourth contract for fiscal years
2018-2022, the Navy is estimating savings of 9.3 percent, or in
excess of $1.8 billion, for the multiyear procurement of 10
ships as compared to annual procurement contracts.
The committee believes that should additional funds become
available for Arleigh Burke-class Flight III guided missile
destroyers, above what is planned in the fiscal year 2018
future years defense program, the Navy should obtain the
benefits and savings of this authority for up to 15 ships.
In authorizing procurement of an additional Arleigh Burke-
class destroyer in section 125(a)(1) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), the
committee's intent was and continues to be use of a fixed-price
contract with a fair and reasonable cost as determined by the
Navy service acquisition executive, which is consistent with
the contracts for Arleigh Burke-class destroyers awarded in
fiscal years 2011-2017 and planned for fiscal year 2018.
Multiyear procurement authority for V-22 joint aircraft program (sec.
123)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Department of Defense authority to enter into multiyear
procurement for the V-22 aircraft for up to five years.
Design and construction of amphibious ship replacement designated LX(R)
or amphibious transport dock designated LPD-30 (sec. 124)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to enter into and incrementally fund
a contract for design and construction of the amphibious ship
replacement designated LX(R) or the amphibious transport dock
designated LPD-30.
The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy, the
Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps support the LX(R) as a derivative of the San Antonio-
class (LPD-17) hull form. The committee further notes the
latest ``Navy Force Structure Assessment,'' which was published
in December 2016, increased the requirement for amphibious
ships from 34 to 38.
Modification of cost limitation baseline for CVN-78 class aircraft
carrier program (sec. 125)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
$12.0 billion cost limitation for procurement of aircraft
carriers after CVN-79.
The committee notes the contract award and delivery dates
of CVN-80 are approximately 3 years after those of CVN-79 and
the ship authorizations are 5 years apart. The committee also
notes the Secretary of the Navy certified to the congressional
defense committees on April 22, 2016, that CVN-80 will repeat
the design of CVN-79.
The committee understands the budget request's CVN-80 cost
estimate assumed between 2.0 and 2.5 percent in annual economic
inflation from CVN-79 to CVN-80. The committee also understands
the Navy's aircraft carrier program office is estimating a 9
percent reduction in production man hours from CVN-79 to CVN-
80.
The committee views the increase of $1.6 billion in the
procurement cost from CVN-79 ($11.4 billion) to CVN-80 ($13.0
billion) as unjustified. The committee believes $12.0 billion
is an achievable procurement end cost for CVN-80, based on 5
years between ship authorizations, inflation, man hour
reductions, and other factors.
The committee further believes the Navy should aggressively
challenge economic inflation assumptions to drive down costs in
each cost category. The committee notes the plans and ordnance
cost elements for CVN-80 are less than CVN-79 after accounting
for inflation. In contrast, the other cost, basic construction,
change orders, and propulsion equipment cost elements are
estimated to increase 14.4 percent, 19.8 percent, 27.1 percent,
and 30.8 percent from CVN-79 to CVN-80, respectively.
The committee also believes the cost growth between CVN-79
and CVN-80, which the Navy largely attributes to inflation,
should be at least partially offset by savings through ``design
for affordability'' initiatives, Ford-class learning curve,
CVN-80 repeating the design of CVN-79, man hour reductions, and
increased competition.
Extension of limitation on use of sole-source shipbuilding contracts
for certain vessels (sec. 126)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend to
include fiscal year 2018 the prohibition on funds from being
used to enter into, or prepare to enter into, sole source
contracts for one or more Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) or
Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPF), unless the Secretary of
the Navy submits to the congressional defense committees a
certification and a report.
The committee notes that since 2011 the Navy requirement
for EPFs has been 10 ships, which was most recently validated
in December 2016. In 2013, this requirement was met with the
procurement of the tenth EPF, and the Navy planned to shut down
the production line.
Without an authorization or request in the President's
budget request, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-235) included procurement
of an eleventh EPF at a cost of $200.0 million. Again, without
an authorization or request in the President's budget, a
twelfth EPF was added at a cost of $225.0 million into the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-113). Both of these EPFs were awarded to a
single shipbuilder, with no competition, using a sole source
contract.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Inventory requirement for Air Force fighter aircraft (sec. 131)
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 1,970 fighter aircraft,
within which the Secretary would also have to maintain a
minimum of 1,145 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 congressional 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 1,970 fighter
aircraft or primary mission aircraft inventory below
1,145 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 notification at
least 90 days prior to the date on which a fighter aircraft is
retired that includes the following:
(1) 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, and
how such unit and installation is affected.
(2) For each military installation and unit affected
by the proposed retirement, changes, if any, to the
designed operational capability (DOC) statement of the
unit as a result of a proposed retirement.
(3) Any anticipated changes in manpower
authorizations as a result of a proposed retirement
listed under (2) above.
The provision would also provide for exceptions to the
reporting requirements for individual fighter aircraft if the
Secretary determines, on a case-by-case basis, they are
nonoperational because of mishaps, other damage, or being
uneconomical to repair.
The committee understands the Air Force previously
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. On March 29, 2017, in response to a
question on the Air Force's actual total fighter aircraft
requirement, Lieutenant General Jerry Harris, Deputy Chief of
Staff for Strategic Plans, Programs, and Requirements,
testified, ``. . . we think the 1,900 number is a bare minimum
at the floor. We think it's probably closer to 2,100, a little
above that for our fighter aircraft.'' At the same hearing, in
response to a question on retiring the F-15C fleet, General
Harris testified, ``It is something that we're looking at as we
continue to bring in more fifth-gen capability, what assets do
we push out at the bottom of that chain.''
The Air Force currently fields 55 fighter squadrons in
fiscal year 2017 and as of May 1, 2017, possesses 1,970 total
fighter aircraft inventory and 1,145 primary mission aircraft
inventory, otherwise known as ``combat-coded'' fighter
aircraft. The committee is concerned that retiring entire
fleets such as the F-15C and the A-10C, without acquiring
sufficient replacement aircraft, will drive the fighter
aircraft inventory further below the level the Air Force states
is required.
The committee believes further reductions in fighter force
capacity below the levels that would be required by this
provision would: (1) pose excessive risk to the Air Force's
ability to execute the National Defense Strategy; (2) cause
remaining fighter squadrons to deploy more frequently; and (3)
drive readiness rates lower across the combat air forces. In
light of ongoing operations in Iraq and Syria against the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and in Afghanistan, and the
increasing military capabilities of China, Russia, North Korea,
and Iran, such reductions would be ill-advised.
Comptroller General review of total force integration initiatives for
reserve component rescue squadrons (Sec. 132)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Comptroller General of the United States to review the Air
Force's plan for fielding HH-60 helicopter replacement
programs, and provide a briefing on such review, no later than
March 1, 2018, to the congressional defense committees.
Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters
F-35 economic order quantity contracting authority (sec. 141)
The committee recommends a provision that would grant the
Department of Defense authority to enter into economic order
quantity contracts for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The committee remains highly supportive of the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter program and of efforts to procure increasing
numbers of aircraft at the lowest possible price. However, the
program is still in its System Design and Demonstration (SDD)
phase and at least two years until it reaches Milestone C,
typically the point at which the full rate production decision
is made.
The committee recognizes economic order quantity contracts
can produce cost savings. However, the committee believes the
Department should provide analysis similar to what is required
by a multiyear procurement authority, particularly considering
the significant level of funding expected to be expended under
this authority.
Authority for Explosive Ordnance Disposal units to acquire new or
emerging technologies and capabilities (sec. 142)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of Defense to provide Explosive Ordnance Disposal
(EOD) units with the authority to acquire new or emerging EOD
technologies and capabilities not listed in the Table of
Allowance or Table of Equipment.
Budget Items
ARMY
AH-64 Apache Block IIIA Remanufacture
The budget request included $935.9 million in line number 6
of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for AH-64 Apache Block
IIIA Remanufacture. The committee recommends an increase $39.0
million in AH-64 Apache Block IIIA Remanufacture. This is on
the Army unfunded priority list.
AH-64 Apache Block IIIB New Build
The budget request included $446.0 million in line number 8
of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for AH-64 Apache Block
IIIB New Build. The committee recommends an increase of $273.7
million in AH-64 Apache Block IIIB New Build. This is on the
Army unfunded priority list.
Common Missile Warning System (CMWS)
The budget request included $166.6 million in line number
33 of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for Common Missile
Warning System (CMWS). The committee recommends an increase
$25.0 million in APA for CMWS. This is on the Army unfunded
priority list.
Common Infrared Countermeasure (CIRCM)
The budget request included $49.8 million in line number 34
of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for Common Infrared
Countermeasure (CIRCM). The committee recommends an increase
$25.0 million in APA for CIRCM. This is on the Army unfunded
priority list.
Indirect Fire Protection Capability
The budget request included $57.7 million in line number 3
of Missile Procurement, Army, for Indirect Fire Protection
Capability Inc 2-1. The committee notes that there is prior
year funds available that are in excess of program needs. The
committee recommends a decrease of $19.0 million.
Joint Air-to-Ground Missile
The budget request included $178.4 million in line number 6
of Missile Procurement, Army, for Joint Air-to-Ground Msls
(JAGM). The committee notes that there are available funds due
to a delay in production decision. The committee recommends a
decrease of $45.0 million.
Bradley program
The budget request included $200.0 million in line number 1
of Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, (WTCV)
Army, for Bradley program. The committee notes an Army unfunded
requirement. The committee recommends an increase of $111.0
million in line item number G80718, specifically for the
recapitalization of 1 infantry Battalion Set of M2A4 Bradley
Fighting Vehicles.
Abrams Upgrade Program
The budget request included $275.0 million in line 15 of
Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
(WTCV), for the Abrams Upgrade Program. The committee
recommends an increase of $561.0 million in the Abrams Upgrade
Program. This recapitalization of 29 Abrams tanks into
M1A2SEPv3, Trophy Active Protection Systems, and production
base support is on the Army unfunded priority list.
Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System
The budget request included $6.5 million in line item 19 of
Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
(WTCV), for Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for
Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System. This is on
the Army unfunded priority list.
High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)
The budget request included $53.0 million in line number 3
of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for High Mobility Multi-
purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). The committee recommends an
increase of $15.0 million in OPA for HMMWV. This is on the Army
unfunded priority list.
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical
The budget request included $420.5 million in line number
19 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Warfighter Information
Network-Tactical (WIN-T). The committee notes an early to need
requirement in the budget for fiscal year 2018. The committee
is also aware that the WIN-T program is significantly
challenged by dated requirements, vulnerabilities to electronic
warfare, and cyber attacks and reliability issues. The
committee recommends a decrease of $420.5 million in OPA for
WIN-T.
Distributed Common Ground System-Army (Military Intelligence Program)
The budget request included $314.3 million in line item 68
of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Distributed Common Ground
System-Army (DCGS-A). The committee notes the program has
changing tactical requirements for fiscal year 2018. The
committee recommends a decrease of $150.0 million in OPA for
DCGS-A.
Night Vision Test Equipment
The budget request included $166.5 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), line number 84, for night vision
devices.
The committee urges all services to consider the use of
next generation digital night vision test sets with a high-
resolution video camera to support mission critical night
vision devices. The committee understands that the United
States Air Force readily adopted the new digital test sets
while continuing to assess the added benefits of the integrated
high-resolution camera solution. When combined together, the
test set and camera greatly improve test accuracy while
eliminating the inherent subjectivity of the legacy test
systems. The committee further understands that U.S. Special
Operations Command is the first military organization to field
the integrated high-resolution camera into the digital test
set. The committee encourages the services to procure next
generation digital night vision test devices with a high-
resolution camera.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million (in conjunction with other budget increases elsewhere
in this Act) in OPA, line number 84, for a total of $231.5
million for the procurement of 50 new night vision testing
devices.
Data Processing equipment
The budget request included $92.0 million in line number
108 of Other Procurement Army, (OPA), for automated data
processing equipment. The committee notes that the Army is
moving towards adoption of more commercial information
technology (IT) solutions, including commercial cloud and
networking capabilities, and consolidating more IT purchases
with other DOD elements and Services. The committee directs the
Army to accelerate these efforts, and therefore recommends a
reduction of $15.0 million for this effort.
Warfighter Information Network Tactical (WIN-T) Increment 2 Spares
The budget request included $38.3 million in line number
184 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Warfighter
Information Network Tactical (WIN-T) Increment 2 Spares. The
committee notes an early to need requirement in the budget for
fiscal year 2018. The committee recommends a decrease of $23.9
million in line item number BS9741 of OPA, for WIN-T Increment
2 Spares.
Army Unfunded Requirements List
The budget request included $18.4 billion for Procurement
for the Army.
The committee notes that the Army submitted an extensive
Unfunded Requirements List totaling $12.7 billion. The
committee believes that since the passage of the Budget Control
Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by artificial
constraints rather than the realities of the global strategic
environment. This reality has continued for the fiscal year
2018 budget request, which too relies on an arbitrary number
determined six years ago in the Budget Control Act. Such
constraints on the budget, along with a sustained high
operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation in our
military readiness in the near term, and the threat that we
will fall behind our adversaries in the long-term. For the last
several years military leaders have highlighted these problems
in great detail.
In order to address the degraded state of our military and
to stop the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee
believes that the budget should be based on requirements,
rather than arbitrary budget caps. The committee recommends an
increase of $6.4 billion to Procurement for the Army for items
identified in the Army's Unfunded Requirements List. Some
increases include missiles, helicopters, vehicles and equipment
to support growth in the Army. Greater details of each increase
can be found in the tables in Division D.
NAVY
V-22
The budget request included $677.4 million in line number
10 of Aviation Procurement, Navy (APN) for V-22 (Medium Lift).
The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in
line number 10 of APN.
Carrier replacement program
The budget request included $4.4 billion in line item 2 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for the carrier
replacement program.
The committee understands the Comptroller General has
identified $330.3 million in excess CVN-80 inflation costs. The
committee also notes Navy officials have indicated an amended
fiscal year 2018 budget request will be submitted to reduce the
CVN-80 procurement end cost by $325.0 million. The committee
believes further cost reductions are achievable through
``design for affordability'' initiatives, Ford-class learning
curve, man hour reductions, and increased competition.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $300.0
million for this program.
Virginia-class submarine advance procurement
The budget request included $1.9 billion in line item 5 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Virginia-class
submarine advance procurement.
The committee notes that $750.0 million in additional
economic order quantity funding for the Block V Virginia-class
submarines that begin procurement in fiscal year 2019 would
enable greater cost savings across the program.
The committee recommends an additional $450.0 million for
the Secretary of the Navy to use for (1) procurement of a third
Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2020; or (2) to expand
second and third tier contractors in the submarine industrial
base to support planned increased production requirements,
which may include economic order quantity procurement for
existing programs.
If the Secretary pursues option (2), the Secretary shall
notify the congressional defense committees within 30 days of
obligating funds for such purpose of the: obligation date,
contractor name or names, location, description of the
shortfall to be addressed, actions to be undertaken, desired
end state, usable end items to be procured, period of
performance, dollar amount, projected associated savings
including business case analysis if applicable, contract name,
and contract number.
The committee believes that utilizing economic order
quantity procurement, procuring an additional submarine, and
expanding the capabilities of the supplier base should lead to
greater cost savings and improved efficiency as production
increases to meet the Columbia-class schedule and higher
requirement for attack submarines in the Navy's latest Force
Structure Assessment.
The committee also notes Virginia-class submarines will
benefit from savings associated with missile tube continuous
production and economic order quantity authorities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $27.0
million due to the associated savings.
Therefore, the committee recommends a net increase of $1.2
billion.
DDG-1000
The budget request included $224.0 million in line item 8
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for the DDG-1000
program. Following a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach in 2010, the
committee understands the Navy was directed to fund the DDG-
1000 program to the higher cost estimate for fiscal years 2011
through 2015 provided by the Director of the Office of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation, and to the Navy's cost
estimate for fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
While recognizing this cost estimating adjustment increased
procurement costs, the committee is concerned by continued
significant cost growth in this program across the fiscal year
2016 to 2020 period. In the fiscal year 2016, 2017, and 2018
budget requests, the Navy estimated $572.9 million, $914.3
million, and $1.1 billion, respectively, remaining in
procurement costs across the three-ship program. The committee
notes the program unit cost has risen above $6.4 billion and
urges the Secretary of the Navy to take further measures to
regain cost control.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0
million for this program.
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
The budget request included $3.5 billion in line item 9 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-
class destroyers (DDG-51).
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2016 budget
request included funding for two Flight IIA DDG-51 ships and a
Flight III engineering change proposal (ECP) to be applied to
one of these two ships. The National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law
114-113) supported the budget request.
The committee further notes that the Navy funded the two
requested fiscal year 2016 Flight IIA DDG-51 ships on March 29,
2016. However, the committee is unaware of a plan to award the
fiscal year 2016 Flight III ECP.
The committee therefore recommends a decrease of $225.0
million for this program, because the fiscal year 2016 Flight
III ECP funds can be applied to fiscal year 2018 Arleigh Burke-
class destroyer requirements.
The committee also recommends an increase of $1.8 billion
for one additional Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a net increase of
$1.6 billion.
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement
The budget request included $90.3 million in line item 10
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-
class destroyer advance procurement.
The committee believes that utilizing economic order
quantity procurement across the proposed fiscal year 2018 to
2022 multiyear procurement contract should lead to greater cost
savings and improved efficiency.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $300.0
million.
Littoral Combat Ship
The budget request included $636.1 million in line item 11
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of
one Littoral Combat Ship.
The committee notes unjustified unit cost growth in the
other cost ($37.0 million) and other electronics ($3.0 million)
categories.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $40.0
million for this program.
Amphibious ship replacement LX(R) or amphibious transport dock
designated LPD-30
The budget request included no funding in line items 12 or
13 for procurement or advance procurement associated with the
amphibious ship replacement LX(R) or amphibious transport dock
designated LPD-30.
The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy, the
Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps support the LX(R) as a derivative of the San Antonio-
class (LPD-17) hull form. The committee further notes the
latest Navy Force Structure Assessment, which was published in
December 2016, increased the requirement for amphibious ships
from 34 to 38.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
billion for construction of either an amphibious ship
replacement LX(R) or the amphibious transport dock designated
LPD-30.
Outfitting
The budget request included $548.7 million in line item 24
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for outfitting.
Based on planned delivery dates, the committee notes post-
delivery funding is early to need for SSN-791, LCS-15, LCS-17,
LCS-19, LCS-20, LHA-7, and EPF-11.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $38.2
million.
Ship to Shore Connector
The budget request included $212.6 million in line item 25
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of
3 Ship to Shore Connectors.
The committee notes unjustified unit cost growth in this
program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0
million.
Expeditionary Sea Base
The budget request included no funding in line item 14 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Expeditionary Sea
Bases.
The committee recommends an increase of $661.0 million for
one additional Expeditionary Sea Base.
Cable ship
The budget request included no funding in line item 32 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for a cable ship.
The committee recommends an increase of $250.0 million for
procurement of one cable ship and directs the Secretary of the
Navy to utilize an existing United States or foreign design,
with modifications he deems necessary, to maximize
affordability and expedite delivery.
Hybrid Electric Drive
The budget request included $6.3 million in line item 4 of
Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Hybrid Electric Drive.
The committee had insufficient budget justification to
support this request. Specifically, the P-3a budget exhibit was
omitted, which details ship modifications.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.3
million for this program.
LCS support equipment
The budget request included $48.0 million in line item 17
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS) support equipment.
The committee notes this request includes procurement of
two MT-30 engines, one Freedom variant main propulsion diesel
engine (MPDE), and one Independence variant MPDE to serve as
battle spares.
The committee further notes the Navy has previously
procured three MT-30s, two Freedom variant MPDEs, and two
Independence variant MPDEs in this line item. The committee
also notes the P-5a and P-21 budget exhibits were omitted,
which detail procurement history and production schedules, and
requests these exhibits be restored in the fiscal year 2019
budget request.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $42.6
million for this program due to procurement early to need.
LCS mine countermeasures mission modules
The budget request included $55.9 million in line item 37
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS) mine countermeasures (MCM) mission modules.
The committee notes this request included procurement of
two Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems (AMNS). The committee
further notes that the initial operational capability of the
MCM mission module is planned for fiscal year 2021 and believes
at least one AMNS is early to need.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.1
million for this program.
Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
The budget request included $4.2 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), BLI 8106 for Navy Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) in Command Support Equipment. The committee is
concerned about duplication among the military services in
enterprise resource systems. The committee recommends a
decrease of $4.2 million in BLI 8106.
Navy eProcurement System (Navy ePS)
The budget request included $3.7 million in Other
Procurement, Navy (OPN), BLI 8106 for the Navy eProcurement
System in Command Support Equipment. The committee is concerned
about duplication among the military services in contract
writing systems. The committee recommends a decrease of $3.7
million in BLI 8106.
Classified project
The budget request included $23.7 million in line item 162
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for classified programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 billion for
project 0428.
Navy Unfunded Requirements List
The budget request included $49.5 billion for Procurement
for the Department of the Navy.
The committee notes that the Navy and the Marine Corps
submitted extensive Unfunded Requirements Lists totaling $8.5
billion. The committee believes that since the passage of the
Budget Control Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by
artificial constraints rather than the realities of the global
strategic environment. This reality has continued for the
fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an
arbitrary number determined six years ago in the Budget Control
Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained
high operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation
in our military readiness in the near term, and the threat that
we will fall behind our adversaries in the long-term. For the
last several years military leaders have highlighted these
problems in great detail.
In order to address the degraded state of our military and
to stop the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee
believes that the budget should be based on requirements,
rather than arbitrary budget caps. The committee recommends an
increase of $6.0 billion to Procurement for the Department of
the Navy for items identified in the Navy and the Marine Corps'
Unfunded Requirements Lists. Some increases include ten F/A-18
Super Hornets, four F-35Bs and six F-35Cs, and munitions.
Greater details of each increase can be found in the tables in
Division D.
AIR FORCE
Acquisition of Air Force light attack/observation aircraft fleet
The budget request included no funds in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for the acquisition of a fleet of
light attack/observation aircraft.
The committee believes while sustaining the A-10C fleet for
close air support, the Air Force should procure a fleet of 300
low-cost, light-attack/observation aircraft that would require
minimal work to develop. These aircraft could conduct counter-
terrorism operations, perform close air support and other
missions in permissive environments, and help season fighter
pilots to mitigate the Air Force's growing and critical fighter
pilot shortfall. The aircraft could also provide an affordable
path to a light attack capability for allies, partners, and
friends with limited financial resources. The Air Force could
procure the first 200 of these aircraft by fiscal year 2022.
The committee is concerned that continued reliance on the
A-10, B-1, B-52, F-16, and F-15E fleets to conduct armed
reconnaissance and close air support (CAS) missions in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other regions significantly
reduces airframe lifespans due to utilization rates that are
much higher than planned and programmed. Additionally, these
operations will continue to reduce aircrew training focused on
their primary designated operational capability tasked missions
in high-end contested and degraded operations against near-peer
potential adversaries.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2
billion in APAF, line number to be determined, for a total of
$1.2 billion, for acquisition of a light attack/observation
aircraft fleet. This effort will be informed by the Air Force's
Light Attack Capabilities Experimentation Campaign conducted in
fiscal year 2017 to evaluate capabilities for armed
reconnaissance, strike control and reconnaissance, combat
search and rescue, CAS, and other combat missions.
B-1B Squadrons
The budget request included $155.6 million in line number
19 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF).
The committee notes that $34.0 million of that funding was
included for F-101 Engine Service Life Extension Program. The
committee notes that $34.0 million was appropriated in fiscal
year 2017 for the same purposes and the fiscal year 2018
request is thus excess to need.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $34.0
million in line number 19 of APAF.
C-130 propulsion upgrades
The budget request included $66.3 million in line number 47
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF).
The committee recommends an increase of $26.8 million in
line number 47 of APAF.
Budget request realignment
The Air Force requested that the committee make several
realignments in their budget to correct various errors in their
submission of the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF). The
table below reflects these adjustments:
CHANGES TO CORRECT SUBMISSION ERRORS
[in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Account Line Item Amount Quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-130J................................................ APAF 88 -$102.1 -3
C-130J................................................ APAF 4 +$102.1 +3
C-130J................................................ APAF 37 -$10.7
C-130J Mods........................................... APAF 48 +$10.7
Compass Call Mods..................................... APAF 51 -$108.173
Compass Call.......................................... APAF 17A +$108.173
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Unfunded Requirements List
The budget request included $24.7 billion for Procurement
for the Air Force.
The committee notes that the Air Force submitted an
extensive Unfunded Requirements List totaling $10.7 billion.
The committee believes that since the passage of the Budget
Control Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by
artificial constraints rather than the realities of the global
strategic environment. This reality has continued for the
fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an
arbitrary number determined six years ago in the Budget Control
Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained
high operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation
in our military readiness in the near term, and the threat that
we will fall behind our adversaries in the long-term. For the
last several years military leaders have highlighted these
problems in great detail.
In order to address the degraded state of our military and
to stop the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee
believes that the budget should be based on requirements,
rather than arbitrary budget caps. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.6 billion to Procurement for the Air Force for
items identified in the Air Force's Unfunded Requirements List.
Some increases include 14 F-35As, 2 KC-46s, and additional
missiles. Greater details of each increase can be found in the
tables in Division D.
Defense Wide
Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow Upper Tier Israeli cooperative
missile defense programs
The budget request included $42.0 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide, PE 208866C, for Israeli Missile Defense
Cooperative Programs in support of the Missile Defense Agency.
The committee recommends an increase of $290.0 million in PE
208866C, for a total of $332.0 million to continue procurement
of Israel's multi-tiered missile defense systems. The
additional funding shall be apportioned as follows: $50.0
million for the Iron Dome Defense System (LIN MD83); $120.0
million for the David's Sling Weapon's System (LIN MD 34); and
$120.0 million for the Arrow Upper Tier (LIN MD20). Additional
measures pertaining to this provision are contained in title 16
of this Act.
Silent Knight Terrain Following Terrain Avoidance Radar
The budget request included $159.0 million for Procurement,
Defense-wide (PDW), Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment, line
49, of which $44.1 million is for Silent Knight Terrain
Following Terrain Avoidance Radar.
The committee notes that during multi-ship interoperability
flight testing, U.S. Special Operations Command identified
close range formation radar performance issues that will
require software modifications. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a decrease of $7.5 million from PDW, Rotary Wing
Upgrades and Sustainment, Line 49, for a total of $36.6
million, and a corresponding increase of $7.5 million to
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide,
Aviation Systems (PE1160403BB), for a total of $7.5 million, to
address suitability and effectiveness issues associated with
multi-ship formation interoperability of the Silent Knight
Terrain Following Terrain Avoidance Radar program.
Degraded Visual Environment
The budget request included $159.0 million for Procurement,
Defense-wide (PDW), Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment, line
49, of which $26.7 million is for the Degraded Visual
Environment (DVE) program.
The committee understands that collaboration between U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Department of the
Army on the development and fielding of DVE capabilities has
resulted in efficiencies. As a result, SOCOM has requested the
transfer of $6.0 million from PDW, Rotary Wing Upgrades and
Sustainment to RDT&E (PE1160403BB) Aviation Systems, Line 251,
to complete Special Operations Force-unique integration and
qualification efforts for additional sensor technologies.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.0
million to PDW, Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment, Line 49,
for a total of $20.7 million, and a corresponding increase of
$6.0 million to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-wide, Aviation Systems (PE1160403BB), for a total of
$6.0 million.
Shallow Water Combat Submersible
The budget request includes $92.6 million for Procurement,
Defense-wide (PDW), Underwater Systems, line 62, of which $38.8
million is for the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS).
The committee understands that as a result of an
intentional late fiscal year 2017 award to integrate design
changes found during development testing, the proposed SWCS buy
for fiscal year 2018 has been reduced by one vessel. As a
result, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has requested
the transfer of $12.8 million from PDW, Underwater Systems,
line 62, to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-wide, Maritime Systems (PE1160483BB) address
developmental challenges with the Dry Combat Submersible (DCS)
program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of
$12.8 million to PDW, Underwater Systems, line 62, for a total
of $26.0 million, and a corresponding increase of $12.8 million
to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide,
Maritime Systems (PE1160483BB), for a total of $34.3 million,
for DCS capability enhancements.
Defense-Wide Unfunded Requirements List
The budget request included $4.9 billion for Procurement
for Defense-Wide.
The committee notes that the Defense-Wide agencies
submitted an extensive Unfunded Requirements List totaling
$753.0 million. The committee believes that since the passage
of the Budget Control Act in 2011, budget requests have been
guided by artificial constraints rather than the realities of
the global strategic environment. This reality has continued
for the fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an
arbitrary number determined six years ago in the Budget Control
Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained
high operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation
in our military readiness in the near term, and the threat that
we will fall behind our adversaries in the long-term. For the
last several years military leaders have highlighted these
problems in great detail.
In order to address the degraded state of our military and
to stop the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee
believes that the budget should be based on requirements,
rather than arbitrary budget caps. The committee recommends an
increase of $347.5 million to Procurement for Defense-Wide for
items identified in the Defense Wide Unfunded Requirements
List. Increases include 24 additional THAAD interceptors.
Greater details of each increase can be found in the tables in
Division D.
Items of Special Interest
Air Force Low Density/High Demand assets
``Low Density/High Demand'' or ``LD/HD'' assets are defined
as ``force elements consisting of major platforms, weapons
systems, units, and/or personnel that possess unique mission
capabilities and are in continual high demand to support
worldwide joint military operations''. Air Force LD/HD assets
are required by Combatant Commanders around the globe during
contingency operations as well as critical to their war plans
and include both the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
System (JSTARS) and Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWACS).
Currently, the Air Force does not possess enough of these
aircraft to meet wartime requirements due to low numbers
driving higher required mission capability rates and a high
operations tempo due to the constant demand in support of
contingency operations around the globe. The committee is
concerned that any reduction in these assets before a follow on
system is in production puts our national security at high risk
and will immediately create gaps in capability. Therefore, the
committee recommends that the Secretary of the Air Force ensure
replacement assets be in production before retirement of any
LD/HD assets.
Aircrew Restraint
The Committee is aware of aircraft mishaps where helicopter
crewmembers have experienced injuries due to the type of
restraints in use. The fiscal year 2017 NDAA directed the
Secretary of Defense, in partnership with a federally funded
research and development center, to study technologies designed
to prevent and mitigate helicopter injuries to crewmembers and
to improve survivability among individuals involved in such
crashes. The Committee is aware of tested, off-the-shelf
technology (MARS--Mobile Aircrew Restraint System) currently in
use by the U.S. Air Force and planned for use by the U.S. Navy,
that meets the goals of the fiscal year 2017 NDAA and provides
dramatic reductions in injury probability as compared to the
existing tether and gunner's belt solution. The U.S. Air Force
has issued an Air Worthiness Release (AWR) for this device in
HH-60 aircraft and while the Committee acknowledges that the
Army has taken preliminary steps to publish its own AWR for
fielding this technology in UH-60 aircraft, the two platforms
are almost identical.
The committee recommends the Army use the tests and
approvals of the MARS system from the U.S. Air Force for the
UH-60 aircraft and accelerate the issuance of Safe for Flight
instructions.
Amphibious assault ship acceleration
The committee is concerned with the Navy procurement
profile for large deck amphibious assault ships, which includes
a span of seven years until the next large deck amphibious
assault ship (LHA-9) is procured in 2024.
The committee notes efficiencies could be gained by
reducing this span and thereby enabling a steadier workforce
with an increased learning curve, material and equipment
suppliers on more reliable and fixed delivery contracts and a
more effective continuous improvement schedule.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to
accelerate procurement of LHA-9 to not later than 2021.
Apache and Black Hawk Drive Train and Transmission Weapon System
Components Rapid Deployment
The Committee recognizes that the Army has stated that
their top aviation priority is the development of a turbine
engine, drive train, and transmission, which increases power
output and reduces fuel consumption of the engines fitted to
Black Hawk and Apache helicopters. Section 806 of the fiscal
year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act provides new
funding and acquisition flexibility to experiment with,
prototype, and rapidly deploy weapon system components and
other technologies in order to outpace rapidly changing
technologies and threats. In selecting prototype projects under
Section 2447c, of title 10, the Committee urges the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition Logistics and Technology
(ALT), Army Program Executive Officer (PEO) Aviation, and
relevant Section 2447b oversight boards, to consult with the
domestic drive train and transmission industry concerning
innovative drive train and transmission component technologies
which address one or more of the elements in subsection (c)(1)
of section 2447b as applicable to the two rotorcraft systems.
Arctic Search and Rescue
The committee is aware that growing international interest
in the Arctic has led to increasing commercial and security
activity in the High North. With this steady surge in demand,
the committee remains concerned by the limited capabilities of
the United States to conduct search and rescue operations
throughout the Arctic region. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense's Report to Congress on Strategy to
Protect United States National Security Interests in the Arctic
Region, a report required by this committee in Section 1068 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(P.L. 114-92), identified the need for additional personnel
recovery capability in this region. Specifically, the report
calls for ``forward deployed/based assets in a sustainable
location and/or rapidly deployable air drop response/
sustainment packages suitable to remote land, cold water, or
ice pack operating environments.''
The committee understands that the Alaska National Guard
currently possesses two air-dropped, palletized Arctic
Sustainment Packages (ASPs) to enable the survival of fifty
individuals for three or more days in extreme Arctic
conditions. The ASP is rapidly deployable over varied terrain,
and allows personnel to survive and operate in the High North.
In light of emerging commercial and security requirements in
the region, the committee believes that additional ASPs are
needed to meet personnel recovery requirements, and urges the
Secretary of Defense to prioritize their resourcing.
Army Force Structure--Retaining a Full BCT
Since 2012, the U.S. Army had charted a course to reduce
the Active component from 570,000 to 450,000 service members.
In 2015, as a part of the reduction in end-strength, the Army
recommended that the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th
Infantry Division (4/25 IBCT ABN) be converted to an airborne
infantry battalion task force.
The committee is aware that soon following his visit to
Alaska, General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army,
the U.S. Army announced on March 21, 2016, its intentions to
``delay the reduction of an Alaska based combat unit [the 4th
Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division or 4/
25], determining that such a move would continue to degrade its
ability to respond to new threats in a rapidly changing global
security environment.'' The committee understand that the
delayed reduction of 4/25 was the only reduction delayed across
the entire Active component of the U.S. Army.
The committee is aware that in December 2016, the actual
size of the Active component of the U.S. Army was approximately
470,000. The committee understands that it was the U.S. Army's
intention to continue the reduction of the active component by
10,000 soldiers to 460,000 soldiers by the end of Fiscal Year
2017.
In December of 2016, both the House and Senate passed S.
2943, the National Defense Authorization (NDAA) for Fiscal Year
2017 and it was subsequently signed into law. Within this
legislation was a new and increased authorized Active component
size of 476,000.
On April 7, 2017, the U.S. Army announced its intent to
``retain 4/25 as a brigade combat team and not convert it to an
airborne task force'' due to ``emerging mission requirements
and increasing Army end strength as authorized in the [FY 2017
NDAA.]''
The committee strongly commends the U.S. Army's decision to
first delay and then to fully retain 4/25 as a full brigade
combat team. The committee affirms that forward-deployed and
rapidly responsive ground forces, including the 4/25 IBCT
(ABN), help deter aggression and provide reassurance to our
allies and partners
Army M4 Modular Rail System Assessment
The Committee notes that while the Army has made over 90
upgrades to the M4 Carbine since first fielding, it still uses
a legacy rail system compared to other readily available,
government-provided rail systems that free-float the barrel. In
the mid-2000s, SOCOM and the Army Marksmanship Unit fielded
free-float rail systems for their M4 Carbines that placed zero
weight on the barrel, ensured barrel harmonics are uninhibited,
improved rifle accuracy, and increased durability. Over the
last decade, the Army has spent over $2.9 billion dollars
funding weapon enhancements (scopes, night vision, lasers,
lights, slings, etc.) designed to increase soldier lethality.
Utilizing a legacy rail can degrade shooting accuracy
regardless of how well equipped and trained a soldier is.
The Committee is aware that an Army unit tested the legacy
rail against a free-float rail. In the commercial market, free-
float rails have become the industry standard. The committee
notes further that the legacy rail remains the baseline Army
requirement and that the Army has not developed an acquisition
plan to replace the legacy rail. Therefore, the committee
requires the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees by August 31, 2017, on the
feasibility of adopting a free-float rail system for the M4
carbine including an update on the Army's rail system
requirement.
Army Position Navigation and Timing-GPS (A-PNT) Distribution and Anti-
Jam Capability
Military vehicles depend on precise positioning,
navigation, and timing (PNT) data to enable critical command,
control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. Exploitation of global
positioning systems (GPS) risks U.S. forces ability to move,
shoot, and communicate. The Army has determined that it must
provide an Assured PNT (A-PNT) solution with distributed PNT
architecture that support GPS anti-jam antennas and upgraded
GPS signals (``M Code''). The committee is concerned that the
A-PNT PoR is years from Initial Operating Capability, when
technologies exist today that address the near-term requirement
and are pathways to the A-PNT program of record (PoR), that
will speed the capability to the warfighter, create
efficiencies, and save costs.
Specifically, the committee understands that the DAGR
Distributed Device (D3/Enhanced D3) was selected by the Army as
its lead Military GPS User Equipment (MGUE) platform. The D3
provides near-term capability, supports the A-PNT PoR, anti-jam
antenna technology, and is a firm path to fielding MGUE. This
solution meets requirements and near-term fielding and upgrade
timelines for Stryker CS21, AMPV, JLTV, Patriot Missile System,
and efforts by the Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) to mitigate
regional threats.
To address the threat in GPS denied environments, the
committee understands that the Army was planning to provide the
D3 as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) to the platforms in
the near term to align with platform upgrade efforts. However,
the committee has been informed that the Army has revised the
A-PNT acquisition program and is no longer planning to provide
D3 to the vehicle platforms as GFE. The committee is concerned
that this decision would delay fielding of the capability,
eliminates the opportunity to establish the distributed
architecture required for the upcoming A-PNT PoR, is contrary
to the Rapid Capabilities Office PNT program, delays fielding
of MGUE which conflicts with the congressional mandate, and
does not support rapid implementation of anti-jam antenna
technology.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, no
later than September 29, 2017, detailing the revised A-PNT PoR
acquisition plan, to include a detailed explanation of the
current plans to address near-term interim A-PNT integration,
test, fielding (as GFE) and follow-on logistics support of a
distributed PNT system that supports M-Code in the time-frame
required for critical platform upgrade and reset schedules.
AWACS Upgrade to Block 40/50
The committee fully supports the ongoing efforts by the Air
Force to upgrade its fleet of E-3 Airborne Warning and Control
System (AWACS) aircraft and strongly encourages the Air Force
to fully fund the Block 40/45 upgrade on the entire fleet of
AWACS.
C-130H modernization
The committee remains committed to the Air Force's Avionics
Modernization Program (AMP), and urges the Air Force to pursue
the most rapid upgrade possible of the 176 C-130H aircraft. The
committee continues to support the current two-increment AMP
upgrade strategy, but is concerned that extensive development
needlessly delays completion of both AMP increments despite
availability of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and non-
developmental item (NDI) technologies, including glass cockpit
and autopilot systems and components, that are available and in
use on C-130 aircraft today.
Achieving the best possible value/capability for the
taxpayer and the Air Force is the goal. Therefore, the
committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to maximize
efforts to procure COTS and NDI solutions and that minimize use
of unnecessary military standard (MIL-STD) systems. This
approach must adhere to the intent of Section 2377 of Title 10,
United States Code, and comprehensively apply the tenets of
DoD's Better Buying Power (BBP) 3.0 policy. COTS/NDI solutions
are currently flying on both U.S. Government and civilian C-130
aircraft that are lighter, less expensive, and have proven
reliability at or above that of the MIL-STD solutions. Such
cost-effective solutions should be embraced to the maximum
extent possible and practical.
Therefore, the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees
within 180 days of enactment of this Act that details (1) how
the intent of Section 2377 of Title 10, United States Code, and
the prescribed processes of DoD BBP 3.0 have been vigorously
applied to defining both the technical requirements and
acquisition strategy for AMP Increments 1 & 2, including the
Air Force's creation of incentives to offerors for accelerated
and cost-capped implementation; (2) how the standards
requirements applied to the C-130 cockpit modernization are not
excessive given the operational mission profiles and
considering other COTS technologies already operational these
aircraft; and (3) how the proposed solution will reduce total
ownership cost to the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve
units that must then operate and maintain the aircraft.
Columbia-class submarines
The budget request included $842.9 million in line item 1
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Columbia-class
submarines advance procurement.
The committee notes the cost estimate for the lead ship
non-recurring engineering program support increased from the
2014 Life Cycle Cost Estimate to the 2016 Milestone B cost
estimate. The committee asked about this increase, but the Navy
did not provide a timely answer to the questions. The committee
is disappointed by the Navy's performance and expects the Navy
to ensure robust, punctual explanations are provided whenever
the committee asks for program clarifications.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to conduct a comprehensive security classification review
of the Columbia-class program to ensure all systems and
capabilities are properly classified. The Secretary shall
submit his findings at the appropriate classification level to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives not later December 1, 2017.
Composite technology in submarine construction
The committee notes that the Navy has successfully
integrated composite technology into different submarine
classes and that composites can reduce procurement costs and
lower overall lifecycle costs for certain components and
subsystems. For example, a February 2016, Navy report to
Congress found a composite technology alternative for Columbia-
class bow domes would save the Navy at least $6.6 million and
avoid an additional $8.7 million in tooling.
The committee believes the Navy should further explore
opportunities to integrate proven composite technology,
particularly for Virginia-class submarines, including the bow
dome and Virginia Payload Module, and Columbia-class
submarines, including the superstructure.
Therefore, not later than November 1, 2017, the Secretary
of the Navy shall deliver a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
feasibility and merits of further integrating proven composite
technology into Virginia-class and Columbia-class submarines.
The report shall:
(1) Identify non-composite systems and components
planned for Block V Virginia-class submarines and
Columbia-class submarines for which a proven composite
alternative is in development or fielded; and
(2) For those systems and components identified in
paragraph (1), provide the approximate cost and
schedule differences if such composite systems and
components were substituted for non-composite systems
and components.
Domestic supply of submarine missile launcher tubes
The committee supports the Navy's ongoing efforts to
reduce cost and risk in development and production of
launcher tubes for both the Virginia Payload Module
(VPM) and the Columbia-class program, including the
Common Missile Compartment (CMC). In written testimony
for a hearing of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on
June 7, 2017, Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, Director of
the Navy's Strategic Systems Programs, testified to the
importance of the CMC as a critical component for both
the U.S. Columbia-class and United Kingdom Dreadnought-
class programs, with any delay to the joint CMC effort
having the potential to impact the ability of both
nations to maintain an effective sea-based deterrent.
Missile tube construction is a critical and fragile subset
of the U.S. shipbuilding industrial base that is regenerating
after the last Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine was built
in the 1990s. The committee is aware of the Navy's work to
reduce risk in the restart of launcher system production at the
surface test launch facility at the Naval Air Warfare Center
Weapons Division, China Lake, to demonstrate that the launcher
industrial base can replicate the successful performance of the
Ohio-class Trident II (D5) launcher system.
The committee urges the Navy to take every appropriate
measure to ensure a viable supply of launcher tubes are
available through the U.S. industrial base to meet the cost and
schedule requirements facing both the Columbia-class program
and the Virginia-class guided missile variant through VPM.
Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS)
The committee is aware that the U.S. Air Force has reduced
funding programmed for the Eagle Passive Active Warning and
Survivability System (EPAWSS) modernization program for the F-
15C fleet in future fiscal years. The committee continues to
strongly support EPAWSS modernization for both the F-15C and F-
15E fleet. The U.S. Air Force requires an integrated electronic
warfare system for its air superiority aircraft in order to
dominate current and future threats. EPAWSS provides radar
warning, geo-location, situational awareness, and self-
protection solutions to detect and defeat surface and airborne
threats in contested environments. The committee expects the
Secretary of the Air Force to execute the EPAWSS modernization
program for the F-15C and F-15E as previously planned.
Expedited testing, development and fielding for Paladin Integrated
Management
The committee continues to support the Paladin Integrated
Management (PIM) upgrade to the M109A6 Paladin, the primary
indirect fire weapons platform in the U.S. Army's Armored
Brigade Combat Teams (ABCT), and calls for the Secretary of the
Army to prioritize and expedite PIM OT&E to include immediate
tasking of a crew with required expertise to execute the OT&E.
The PIM program is critical to the U.S. Army. It significantly
improves force protection and survivability and reduces
logistics burden for the Armored Brigade Combat team field
artillery Soldiers.
F-16 Block 40/50 Mission Training Centers
The Secretary of the Air Force has directed the Air Force
to accelerate procurement of additional F-16 Mission Training
Centers (MTC) suites for Air National Guard use in order to
provide continuity of training between live and virtual
scenarios, develop and maintain required combat readiness
without dependence on the availability of off-station
resources, reduce flight operations tempo and flying hour cost
required to gain equal training readiness, reduce travel cost,
reduce personnel tempo impacts for pilots, and increase dwell
time for wings, allowing more deployment flexibility.
Additional MTCs would save travel costs and make the F-16 block
40/50 MTC more available to Active Duty, Reserve, and Air
National Guard F-16 block 40/50 pilots, resulting in enhanced
readiness.
Future air-to-ground missile capability
It has come to the committee's attention the Air Force
lacks an air-to-ground missile capability sufficient to deter
massed armor formations that may be encountered against near-
peer adversaries in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.
Currently fielded air-to-ground missiles lack the ability to be
launched en masse from fighter aircraft against multiple
maneuvering armored targets.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide the congressional defense committees with a
briefing 60 days following passage of this Act on the
integration activities enabled by this authorization.
Health and Usage Monitoring Systems
The Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act
included directive report language (113-446) ``UH-72 Helicopter
health monitoring system.'' This section encouraged the Army to
engage in a demonstration of the Next Generation Health
Monitoring System (NGHMS) on the UH-72 and directed the
Secretary of the Army to report to Congress on the potential
for integrating and demonstrating NGHMS. The Army response
states, if ``savings and reduction of contractor logistics
support (CSL) costs could be achieved . . . the Army will
consider integrating NGHMS on the UH-72 fleet and changing the
current aircraft maintenance construct.''
The committee is aware that the Army conducted a
preliminary design review (PDR) in December 2016 and a critical
design review (CDR) in February 2017. Bench-testing and
installation on an experimental aircraft was conducted in
March-April 2016. This effort will conclude with installations
on 8 Army UH-72 by December 2017. The committee understands
that the program is on cost and schedule and that preliminary
results are encouraging.
NGHMS can achieve total platform state of awareness. Such
advanced maintenance intelligence could enable early warning
for failing platform systems, reduce emergency maintenance
demands, provide predictable platform maintenance schedules,
reduce cost and increase readiness. With this in mind, the
committee is aware that Program Office Stryker is reviewing
NGHMS for potential application on Ground Combat Vehicles.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
September 15, 2017, that provides the status and available
results of the UH-72 NGHMS testing. The report should include
the Army's plan for procuring and integrating NGHMS into the
UH-72 fleet; to include a detailed description of the planned
changes to the UH-72 aircraft maintenance construct, expected
efficiencies and estimated annual cost savings. The report
shall also include a summary of Program Office Strykers review
of NGHMS for potential application on Ground Combat Vehicles.
HH-60 Combat Rescue Helicopter Program
The committee understands the need to replace the current
HH-60G Pave Hawk fleet to support the demanding personnel
recovery missions for the Department. With the limited
availability of the current combat rescue helicopter fleet and
high usage, the need to accelerate deliveries of this new fleet
is well understood. The committee supports incentivizing the
contract to accelerate development and first flight, but is
concerned that the Department is not taking action to ensure
alignment of procurement funding with the activities that would
support this acceleration. The committee urges the Department
to take all actions necessary to ensure that if the contractor
can meet the accelerated schedule to complete development that
there is funding in place to transition to production without
delaying first flight and early production activities.
HMMWV Rollover Mitigation
The committee is concerned by the number of High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) rollover accidents that
have occurred in recent years, after the vehicles were up-
armored to improve ballistic protection and resistance to mines
and improvised explosive devices. The committee understands
that commercial-off-the-shelf solutions are available to
mitigate the problem of rollover accidents. The committee
encourages the Army and Army National Guard to work
expeditiously to mitigate the risk of HMMWV rollover accidents.
In particular, HMMWV Modernization activities should be
specifically directed to mitigate the risk of rollovers and
loss of control accidents in the existing Army and National
Guard fleet by supporting retrofit installation of antilock
braking systems and electronic stability control kits. The
committee requests that the Department of the Army provide a
briefing on plans to mitigate rollover accidents within the
HMMWV fleet.
Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
The E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
(JSTARS) aircraft has long provided significant joint air
command and control in both land and maritime arenas. The
committee is pleased that the budget request includes some
funding to continue this program's essential warfighting
function until the JSTARS Recapitalization Program reaches Full
Operational Capability (FOC) in 2028. The committee expects
that the Department of the Air Force will take no action to
prematurely retire E-8C aircraft before the JSTARS Recap
program reaches this milestone. The committee is greatly
concerned that a lengthy JSTARS Recap acquisition program could
result in a capabilities gap which will leave the combatant
commanders without an acceptable level of ground moving target
indicator and battle management command and control capability
for several years. Accordingly, the committee encourages the
Secretary of the Air Force to fund all necessary modifications,
including, but not limited to, Prime Mission Equipment-
Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (PME-DMS) on all 16 E-8C
aircraft and to maintain all E-8C aircraft in a singular
configuration and deployable state to continue world-wide
missions, avoid degradation of mission performance, and meet
Combatant Commander requirements for operations during the
period.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than
November 1, 2017, that describes, in detail, a strategy to
sufficiently address manning, sustainment, modernization, and
viability deficiencies that would resolve capability gaps,
shortfalls, and deficiencies of the E-8C fleet of aircraft. The
briefing should include a strategy that addresses right-sizing
and balancing unit manning among the Total Force; maintaining
proficient and current aircrews to meet operational
requirements; resolving obsolescence and diminishing
manufacturing sources of parts and supply; necessary mission
system upgrades and operational enhancements across the E-8C
fleet to keep the aircraft viable and relevant until the JSTARS
Recapitalization aircraft is fielded; resolving maintenance
deficiencies; standardizing existing aircraft capabilities in
areas such as imagery servers and the Automated Information
System; and the associated cost, budget, and timeline required
to implement the strategy.
Light Utility Helicopter Industrial Base
The committee notes that the Army's Aviation Restructure
Initiative repurposed UH-72A Lakota Light Utility Helicopters
(LUH) to become the primary entry-level training helicopter at
the United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence (USAACE)
at Fort Rucker. The committee understands that the Army has a
helicopter pilot shortage of about 700 pilots, which generates
a need for additional LUHs to meet pilot training requirements.
In addition to USAACE, the Army National Guard also
utilizes UH-72A helicopters for Security and Support missions.
The committee understands that unmet requirements for UH-72A
exist presently at USAACE, Combat Training Centers, and the
Army Test and Evaluation Command. The committee understands
that the Army issued a Justification and Approval (J&A) for 16
Lakotas without providing for full and open competition in
December 2015. The pre-award J&A was subsequently protested in
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). The committee further
understands that the Army appealed the COFC's initial ruling in
October 2016, but no exact timeline for a final ruling is
known.
The committee further understands that the Fiscal Year 2017
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31) appropriated
funding for the Army to procure 28 UH-72A helicopters ``in
support of ongoing mission requirements at the Army Aviation
Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, the Combat Training
Centers, and the Army Test and Evaluation Center.'' In
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 25,
2017, the Acting Secretary of the Army, Robert M. Speer, stated
that ``the 2017 funding is held up in the same protest''. The
committee understands the Secretary's statement to mean that
the Army does not intend to obligate funding for the 28 Lakotas
funded by Congress in P.L. 115-31 in a timely manner.
The committee understands that there is dispute over the
Army's interpretation of its obligations pursuant to P.L. 115-
31. The committee notes that the language on Lakota procurement
contained in P.L. 115-31 is clear, directive, and legally
binding. The committee is concerned about the impact of
continued contracting delays on the Army's pilot training
capability and the UH-72A industrial base.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to re-examine the Army's position on obligating funding for the
28 Lakota helicopters appropriated in P.L. 115-31. The
committee urges the Secretary to avoid conflating issues which
may be legally separate and distinct. No later than 30 days
after the enactment of this Act, the committee requires the
Secretary to provide to congressional defense committees a
report which includes a legal analysis on its position
regarding obligating funding for Lakotas as directed by
Congress in P.L. 115-31. The report shall also include a plan
for the Army to mitigate its pilot shortage.
Light-weight polymer technologies for ammunition and small arms
The committee continues to support the Department of
Defense's efforts to decrease the weight of metal cartridge
cases for ammunition in order to decrease burdens on the
warfighter. Notable improvements include the potential for
increased individual mobility, decreased logistical resupply
burdens, and reduced fuel consumption in operations.
In addition to weight reduction, the committee understands
that polymers have the potential to act as better heat
insulators, enable the firing of more ammunition, and provide
cost savings compared to conventional metal cartridge cases.
The committee remains encouraged by the ongoing research and
potential for cased telescoped 5.56mm ammunition, which could
decrease logistical weight by roughly 40 percent and reduce
bulk storage volume by at least 12 percent.
Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the
Department to expand its efforts beyond light-weight polymer
ammunition casings and explore polymer magazines, ammunition
pallets, rounds, and other advancements that could further
reduce weight on the warfighter. For example, the Marine Corps
estimates that a polymer .50 caliber pallet could reduce weight
by 1,000 pounds per pallet.
The committee continues to hold the view that any new
ammunition must meet all specifications for pressure, velocity,
and accuracy and must be a drop-in replacement in terms of
training, weapon function, lethality, storage, and
transportation.
Maintaining strategic deterrence
The committee is concerned with the potential for delays in
the development and fielding of Columbia-class submarines
(SSBNs). The committee understands the Columbia-class is
planned to replace Ohio-class submarines as they decommission
to maintain 10 operational SSBNs. Although the Navy's schedule
currently shows the Columbia-class program meeting required
delivery dates, there is little to no margin for delay in the
program schedule to address unforeseen first-of-class issues.
The committee believes the strategic deterrence mission
that SSBNs perform is too important and the consequences of a
gap in SSBN capacity so great that the Department of Defense
should develop contingency plans for how the U.S. Strategic
Command (STRATCOM) Commander could mitigate the possibility of
an insufficient number of SSBNs to perform required patrols.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on
the options available to the Department of Defense for
mitigating the risk of delays of various lengths, ranging from
6 months to 5 years, in delivery of the 12 boats in the
Columbia-class. For each of the various delay lengths, the
Secretary shall identify specific mitigation options that could
be available to STRATCOM or the Navy if the number of
operational SSBNs were to drop below the required level. The
Secretary shall submit this report no later than February 1,
2018.
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Inventory Review
The committee notes that the Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) program has deployed more than 27,000 vehicles
primarily in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation
Iraqi Freedom, and follow-on operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq. In 2013, the Army conducted the MRAP III study, the
results of which influenced the Department of Defense's
decision to retain about 8,600 vehicles (mostly placed in Army
Prepositioned Stocks) and to divest the remainder. The
committee believes the security environment in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the Middle East has changed considerably since
the MRAP III was conducted and may have changed or invalidated
the study's assumptions. In light of the new and emerging
security environment, the committee believes that the DOD
should thoroughly review the MRAP inventory.
Therefore, not later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
deliver a report to the congressional defense committees which
defines the near-, medium-, and long-term requirements for
protected vehicles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other areas
that the Secretary deems appropriate. The report shall examine
the MRAP inventory and make recommendations regarding its
continued management. These recommendations should include the
number of MRAPs which should be retained in the inventory and
whether any of those retained should undergo modifications.
Missile Warning Systems
The committee is interested in efforts by the Army to field
technology that can provide missile warning and laser warning
capabilities for rotary and small fixed wing aircraft. As new
threats proliferate, it is critical that future aircraft
survivability equipment (ASE) be able to detect and defend air
crews in a first-encounter scenario. Given the potentially
transformational nature of such future ASE procurements, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army or his designee to
brief the congressional defense committees on procurement of
missile warning systems no later than 30 days after the
enactment of this Act. The briefing should cover interim and
future solutions, technology readiness, cost estimations, and
fielding timeline.
Navy Air-to-Ground Rocket Program
The Committee recognizes the work performed by the Navy to
transform the standard 2.75-inch Hydra rocket into an
affordable, laser-guided, precision strike munition. It is now
qualified on manned and unmanned, fixed-wing and rotary-wing
platforms. According to the Defense Department, the weapon's
size, accuracy and weight have made it ideal for target
engagements in urban terrain and where low-collateral damage is
critical. These attributes have fostered adoption of the weapon
system by the rest of the Joint Services. The Hydra rocket has
also become a priority of international allies, further
highlighting the importance of having a thorough acquisition
done right.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Navy to: (1)
consider additional platforms for employing Hydra; (2)
streamline Hydra logistics; and (3) continue the program's
efforts to qualify and integrate a single software variant for
rotary and fixed-wing aircraft.
Navy large surface combatants
The committee notes that the Navy's 2016 Force Structure
Assessment (FSA) sets a requirement for 355 ships in the battle
force. While the current fleet includes 87 large surface
combatants, the committee understands that the FSA calls for
104 large surface combatants. The committee believes that the
Navy should maintain the two proven shipbuilding sources of
large surface combatants. The committee emphasizes that the
acquisition strategy for the next multiyear procurement
contract should help sustain the dual-source large surface
combatant shipbuilding base.
Primary aircraft assigned to Air National Guard rescue squadrons
The committee finds that National Guard rescue squadrons in
Alaska, California, and New York play a critical role in rescue
response throughout the United States during times of disaster
or crisis, a mission that prepares these units remarkably well
for success in combat. The committee notes that certain rescue
squadrons, in addition to civilian and deployment requirements
conducted by all National Guard rescue squadrons, are tasked
with alert requirements in support of active duty missions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than
180 days after the passage of this Act on the readiness of Air
National Guard units to meet active duty alert mission
requirements and whether such units have the appropriate number
of primary aircraft assigned to fully execute all assigned
missions.
SUSV Replacement Rapid Acquisition Strategy
The committee understands that extreme cold weather
conditions and difficult terrains like deep snow, tundra, mud,
swamps, and wetlands create mobility challenges for U.S. ground
forces. In fact, the Chosin Reservoir Campaign during the
Korean War realistically depicted the adverse effects that
extreme cold weather operating conditions had on U.S. Forces.
The committee is aware that in 1983, the U.S. Army first
began to field the M973 Small Unit Support Vehicle (SUSV)--a
14-person, tracked, semi-amphibious vehicle capable of
navigating a wide range of otherwise impassable terrain that
traditional wheeled and tracked vehicles cannot traverse. The
SUSV travels with a footprint of just 1.8 pounds per square
inch--less pressure than the human foot exerts--and is much
better equipped to traverse difficult terrains like deep snow,
tundra, mud, swamps, and wetlands.
The committee is concerned that due to a limited
availability of repair parts and no Army program to help
support or maintain them, many of these 30-plus year old SUSVs
are being cannibalized for parts to keep the few functional one
remaining running and the entire fleet has just five years left
on their projected life cycle before they will be classified
obsolete. Currently there are approximately 200 SUSVs spread
across the U.S. Army and the National Guard in states such as
Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, and Vermont, and other states,
such as Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Hampshire
have an articulated requirement for the SUSV' unique
capabilities.
The committee is also aware that on February 12, 2017,
Headquarters, Department of the Army, G8, validated the
requirement for a Joint All-Terrain/All-Weather Support Vehicle
(JAASV) However, the committee is concerned that any program
sourcing solution for the SUSV would not be sourced at this
time and that the requirement will compete for funding in
Program objective Memorandum 2019-2023. The committee is also
concerned that allied and near peer Competitor countries are
developing extreme cold weather ground transportation
capabilities that far exceed U.S. military capabilities,
notably the recent advances in all-weather/cross-country
mobility being demonstrated by new Russian specialty vehicles.
The committee believes that the U.S. Army, Air Force,
Marine Corps, and National Guard forces currently need a
tactical vehicle that will provide transportation for a squad-
sized element, emergency medical evacuation, command and
control capability, and general cargo transportation on- and
off-road in a wide range of otherwise impassable terrain, to
include ice and extreme cold weather conditions to support
year-round training and missions. The committee believes that
the newly identified requirement--the JAASV--will enhance joint
operations and facilitate interoperability under the adverse
conditions that demand all-terrain, all-weather cross-country
mobility that traditional wheeled and tracked vehicles cannot
traverse.
Total force integration initiatives for rescue squadrons in the reserve
component of the U.S. Armed Forces
The committee is aware that the National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force--a report requested by this
committee in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (Public Law 112-329)--recommended that ``new
equipment will arrive at Air Reserve Component units
simultaneously with its arrival at Active Component units in
the proportional share of each component . . . The Air Force
should no longer recapitalize by cascading equipment from the
Active Component to the Reserve Components.'' Further, the
Commission members testified to this committee that ``There is
no more significant element to an integrated total force than a
fully integrated fielding plan for all equipment, especially
aircraft.''
The committee notes that the Air Force concurred with this
recommendation without reservation and highlighted the KC-46
and F-35 Lightning II programs as examples of this commitment.
While the committee is encouraged that the Air Force has
prioritized the fielding of the HH-60G replacement programs,
and reaffirms the need to field this critical capability to the
total force as rapidly as possible, the committee remains
concerned that the Air Force has not observed the principle of
concurrent and proportional fielding for the fielding of the
HH-60G replacement program.
The committee is aware that the Air Force plans to field
the HH-60G Ops Loss Replacement helicopter to National Guard
Rescue Squadrons until the HH-60W is fielded to all components
in 2030. However, the committee believes the Air Force's
current fielding plan does not fulfill the letter or spirit of
the Commission's recommendation of concurrent and proportional
fielding, and that the Air Force has not provided sufficient
grounds to justify an exception to this fundamental component
of total force integration.
The committee believes that the Air Force's fielding plan
should prioritize the integrated fielding of the HH-60G
replacement program to units that are scheduled to deploy
overseas in support of contingency operations, that stand alert
in support of active-duty missions, and that maintain high
levels of readiness to rapidly deploy in support of alert
missions overseas.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to review its fielding plan of the HH-60G replacement
programs, and urges the Air Force to provide recommendations on
how it intends to fulfill its commitment to comply with the
Commission's recommendation.
Unmanned U-2
Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) prevents the Air Force
from retiring the U-2 aircraft unless the Department of Defense
were to meet certain conditions. One of those conditions is
that, prior to retirement, the Chairman of the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) would have to certify in
writing that the capability to be fielded at the same time or
before the U-2 aircraft retirement would result in equal or
greater capability available to the commanders of the combatant
commands. While the RQ-4 Global Hawk remotely piloted aircraft
(RPA) provides impressive capabilities, the committee believes
it has not achieved a level of capability that would permit the
Chairman of the JROC to make that certification.
At various times, the Air Force has argued that the level
of U-2 operating and support costs, particularly manpower
costs, was the reason for wanting to retire the U-2. The
committee understands that the Air Force has considered the
possibility of modifying the U-2 aircraft to make it an RPA.
Under such a plan, the avionics systems would be modified to
allow the aircrews to remotely operate the U-2, thereby
removing the pilot from the cockpit.
While supportive of enhancing RPA capability, the committee
would like to understand the ramifications of pursuing such an
option, including the pros and cons of making such a
modification. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to submit such a report with the budget request
for fiscal year 2019.
USAF UH-1N Replacement
The Committee recognizes the urgent need to replace the
current Air Force fleet of UH-1N aircraft that protect our
inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) sites and perform
the continuity of government mission for the National Capitol
Region (NCR), which are obsolete and inadequate to support
their missions. The continued delay and changes in the
acquisition approach to support this urgent need have led to a
delay in fielding this critical capability to the warfighter.
The committee believes that the Air Force user needs are well
understood. The program requirements have been discussed since
2001, and even though the Department has been buying combat
aircraft for some time, there continues to be delays to this
procurement.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to expedite procurement and delivery of replacement
aircraft and urges the Department, if viable, to use existing
production lines to field this capability as soon as possible.
The committee further directs the Secretary to pursue a rapid
acquisition strategy. The committee encourages the Air Force to
consider the benefits of a common helicopter airframe across
the Air Force to reduce supply, logistics, training, and
lifecycle costs.
USNS Navajo
The committee notes the Navy has a tradition of naming tug
boats for Native American tribes. The committee further notes
that over the next several years the Navy will be
decommissioning all Powhatan-class fleet ocean tugs (T-ATF) and
Safeguard-class salvage ships (T-ARS). The committee
understands that these ships will be replaced by a single class
of vessels with the designation T-ATS.
In keeping with the tradition of naming U.S. Navy ships
after Native American tribes, the committee urges the Secretary
of the Navy to name the first T-ATS vessel the USNS Navajo.
USS Los Alamos
The committee notes that 2018 will be the 75th anniversary
of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The committee further notes
that people of Los Alamos, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and
the Navy, have a 74-year relationship that spans the Manhattan
Project through the creation of a nuclear Navy and to the sea-
based leg of the strategic nuclear triad of the United States.
The people of Los Alamos and surrounding communities have
contributed to the Navy's offensive edge since World War II,
through the Cold War, that continues today.
The committee believes that naming a submarine USS Los
Alamos will recognize and continue to forge the longstanding
relationship between the Navy and Los Alamos. Therefore, the
committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to name the next
nuclear-powered fast attack submarine the USS Los Alamos.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for research, development, test, and
evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4201
of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Mechanisms for expedited access to technical talent and expertise at
academic institutions to support Department of Defense missions
(sec. 211)
The committee recommends a provision that would give the
Secretary of Defense the authority to establish one or more
multi-institution task order contracts, consortia, cooperative
agreements, or other arrangements with universities that do not
have similar existing constructs to facilitate expedited access
to university technical expertise in support of Department of
Defense mission areas, such as cybersecurity, explosives
detection, modeling and simulation, microelectronics, unmanned
systems, advanced materials, machine learning, and myriad
others.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
is not optimally positioned to capitalize on all cross-
functional aspects of emerging technologies that serve multiple
purposes. Unfortunately, the majority of technological
advancements exist under proprietary agreements unavailable to
the academic research community at large. While existing
programs are available in part, the committee believes a more
streamlined construct must be available for expedited access to
combine technical expertise and research efforts, reduce costs,
and eliminate duplication of effort.
The committee notes and supports the ongoing basic research
activities that are funded by the Department of Defense at
universities and government labs, which have led to the
development of most of the operational capabilities used by our
nation's military today, ranging from stealth to precision
munitions to battlefield medicine, aircraft sustainment, and
the Internet. The committee intends the authority in the
recommended provision to supplement those basic research
funding authorities and activities, and it expects the
Department to issue guidelines as appropriate that reflect a
streamlined, efficient process for components to have increased
access to the technical expertise resident in our nation's
universities to help address the technical, engineering, and
management challenges facing the Department.
In carrying out the mechanisms established in the
recommended provision, the committee urges the Department to
expand the number of individual institutions actively pursuing
and demonstrating technical expertise in academic research that
directly supports the efforts of the Department of Defense.
Codification and enhancement of authorities to provide funds for
defense laboratories for research and development of
technologies for military missions (sec. 212)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 139 of title 10, United States Code, to codify the
research authorities of the defense laboratories originally
established in section 219 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417) and improved and made permanent in subsequent legislation.
The committee notes that this authority allows Department of
Defense laboratory directors to more efficiently and flexibly
support innovative in-house research activities; support
transition of technological innovations into operational use;
support training and education of laboratory technical staff;
and make minor improvements and repairs to critical research
infrastructure and equipment.
The committee notes that the House Armed Services Committee
received testimony on January 7, 2016, from the Navy
Acquisition Executive, Sean Stackley: ``Section 219 funding is
lifeblood to our warfare centers, our science and technical
community, and so everything that you all have done to support
that is paying off huge dividends, and it is underpinning our
efforts in terms of prototyping and experimentation.'' The
committee commends the Defense Department on its use of the
section 219 authority to date, and it urges the Department to
continue to use the authority to support technological
innovation and the productivity of the Defense laboratory
system.
The committee further encourages the Department to
communicate the value of these types of laboratory activities
in terms of their support for operational forces and improving
outcomes of acquisition programs both to the public and to
Pentagon decision-makers. Finally, the committee directs the
Secretary to use this authority as one method to support joint
research and development activities that connect the skills and
expertise of laboratories from multiple services to meet common
technical challenges.
Modification of laboratory quality enhancement program (sec. 213)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
Laboratory Quality Enhancement Program established in section
211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 (Public Law 114-328). The committee has become aware that
certain imprecise wording in the underlying statute has raised
confusion within the Department of Defense and that
interpretations of the statute different from what was intended
by Congress have prevented certain aspects of the Laboratory
Quality Enhancement Program from being implemented. The
recommended provision would provide the clarifications
necessary to proceed with implementation as envisioned in the
original statute. The recommended provision would also add some
new responsibilities for the panels created in the original
statute and establish its relationship to the Under Secretary
of Defense for Research and Engineering, established in section
901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 (Public Law 114-328).
Prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 214)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2374a of title 10, United States Code, which authorizes
the defense research enterprise to carry out programs to award
prizes in recognition of outstanding achievements in basic,
advanced, and applied research, technology development, and
prototype development that have the potential for application
to the performance of the military missions of the Department
of Defense (DOD). The recommended provision would provide the
Department with greater flexibility in conducting prize
competitions to enhance the performance of the Department's
military missions.
The provision would expand the types of prizes that can be
awarded in prize competitions. Under current law, only cash
prizes may be awarded. The provision would remove this
limitation, thereby allowing the Department to provide
appropriate non-cash prizes. For example, appropriate non-cash
prizes could include trophies, medals, plaques, and similar
decorations for achievements in prize competitions. Other
appropriate prizes could include personal property reasonably
related to the purpose of the prize competition, such as a
desktop or tablet computer or cellular phone. By providing the
Department with the authority to award non-cash prizes, prize
competition managers will have increased flexibility to design
prize competitions that provide appropriate awards to recognize
outstanding achievements that have potential application to the
Department's mission.
The provision would also authorize the Department to accept
funds from the private sector to help fund prize awards and
reduce the overall cost of prize competitions. In doing so, the
provision would require that the Department not give any
special consideration to a private entity in return for its
donation. The added prohibition on giving special consideration
to a private entity in consideration for its donation is
intended to maintain public trust in the integrity of defense
programs and personnel.
Expansion of definition of competitive procedures to include
competitive selection for award of research and development
proposals (sec. 215)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2302 of title 10, United State Code, to expand the
definition of competitive procedures to include research and
development proposals. The recommended provision would enable
broad agency announcements to be used not only for soliciting
science and technology (budget activities 1-3) but also other
types of research and development, including test and
evaluation (budget activities 4-7).
The recommended provision would continue an effort to
streamline and expedite acquisition in accordance with the
Department's Better Buying Power 3.0 program. The authority
that would be provided shall help to prepare research and
development projects for solicitation and award of follow-on
contracts for budget line items (or programs) funded across the
future years defense program.
Use of broad agency announcements across the entire
spectrum of research and development will expedite the
acquisition process, thereby decreasing the timelines required
to make awards and enabling funding to reach those innovating,
researching, and developing with increased efficiency,
particularly small businesses.
Inclusion of modeling and simulation in test and evaluation activities
for purposes of planning and budget certification (sec. 216)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 196 of title 10, United States Code, to include
modeling and simulation activities in the test and evaluation
strategic plan and proposed test and evaluation budgets.
The committee is concerned with the continued increasing
costs of Department of Defense major weapon systems
acquisitions. The committee believes that advanced modeling and
simulation (M&S) can moderate the rising costs associated with
test and evaluation of complex weapon systems.
In the annual reviews of the test and evaluation
infrastructure, undertaken by the committee, there has been no
indication that the Department's test and evaluation
organizations are involved in any organized effort to reduce
the cost of test and evaluation through coordinated modeling
and simulation efforts. The committee realizes that significant
investments have been made by program offices for their
particular weapon systems and training uses, but those models
are either proprietary or specifically designed for that weapon
system and cannot be easily integrated together in a complete
warfighting fashion. The committee is concerned primarily with
models being built with non-program-specific funds. The
committee recommends that the Department aggressively pursue
additional efforts to use modeling and simulation more
effectively in the development and operational test and
evaluation enterprises within the Department.
The committee notes that using modeling and simulation for
test and evaluation activities is a best practice for
commercial private sector firms and that such practices can
result in significant cost savings. In this regard, the
committee expects the Department to incorporate modeling and
simulation techniques with the primary goal of reducing overall
test and evaluation costs.
Differentiation of research and development activities from service
activities (sec. 217)
The committee recommends a provision that would
differentiate between research and development activities and
service activities through the establishment of clear
definitions for each activity. The recommended provision would
update the statute to account for the evolving nature of
research and development contracts and eliminate confusion as
to what types of contract actions should be included in
contract services reports.
Over the last couple decades, the main flow of federal
contracting has made a dramatic shift away from supply
purchases to the acquisition of services. Though supply
acquisitions once comprised the vast majority of federal
contracts and government employees performed most of the
services necessary to fulfill the government's mission,
acquisitions for a variety of support services contracts are
now the most common subject of federal contracts.
Unfortunately, no common definition of what constitutes a
``service'' exists in law or regulation. As statutes have been
passed and regulations written to address the myriad issues
associated with service contracting, a diverse, and often
conflicting, set of definitions has emerged that is creating
conflict within the U.S. Government. Nowhere is this more
apparent than in the handling of research and development (R&D)
activities. For example, in section 2330 of title 10, United
States Code, the definition of services specifically excludes
research and development, while in 37.101 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation and elsewhere, research and development
is mentioned in the list of potential activities that could
qualify as services.
At the most simplistic level, federal acquisition practice
facilitates the acquisition of supplies and services for the
direct benefit of the U.S. Government. Since the concept of
``supplies'' has a long history and is generally well-
understood as including all physical property except for land,
this analysis would then imply that if something is not an item
of ``supply,'' then it must be a ``service.'' This conclusion
fails to take into account the other possible choices if
something is not a supply and fails to consider the
government's implied position on what a service is that can be
gleaned from a thorough reading of the statutes and
regulations. Once these other sources are examined, it is clear
that the guidance and direction on how to acquire services and
manage services contracts is almost exclusively focused on
service contractors who provide well-defined services directly
to agencies to assist those agencies in the internal activities
central to their missions. These types of services can include
efforts such as maintenance and repair, housekeeping, security,
communications, transportation, and advisory and assistance
services. The sheer size, complexity, and value of these
service contracts have generated a host of oversight activities
dedicated to understanding and monitoring award frequency and
adequacy of program oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars
are being properly spent and that inherently governmental
functions are not being contracted out.
Research and development activities are an entirely
different type of endeavor. The government does not contract
with research and development performers to support the
government's internal mission but instead treats them akin to
program performance efforts. Unlike service contracts, research
and development efforts will end with the provision of a
physical deliverable. While a typical performance effort would
have a physical product that is delivered, research and
development deliverables can run the gamut of reports or
studies to prototype projects.
Unlike a service contract, where the U.S. Government is
effectively buying people's time to perform a defined function,
research and development programs are concerned with the
outcome of the research effort and the knowledge that is
learned. Service contracts also tend to be quite detailed in
the tasks to be performed and what constitutes the acceptable
quality level of performance. In contrast, research and
development efforts generally have a much more broad work
statement, with the area of research and proposed approach
outlined but subject to adjustment and evolution as the effort
continues.
Including research and development activities in the same
category as services can subject such projects to the metrics,
reports, and oversight responsibilities intended to give the
Department a better picture of how much is being spent on
internal support contractors. Including research and
development contracts and their dollar value with service
contract numbers severely skews those metrics and, in fact,
makes it harder to achieve the Department's goal. While most
defense research and development agencies have successfully
argued that such work should not be included in these metrics
and reports in the service context, it is an annual battle that
consumes valuable agency time and resources with no value
added. The simple solution to this problem is to clearly
distinguish between research and development activities and
services as being separate and distinct efforts, to create
uniform definitions of research and development and services,
and to include the clear definition of ``services'' in statute.
Designation of additional Department of Defense science and technology
reinvention laboratories (sec. 218)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
list of labs that are authorized to execute the special hiring,
infrastructure recapitalization, technology transfer and
industry partnership, research, and other authorities that have
been previously authorized by Congress and by the Department of
Defense. The committee notes that these authorities are
intended to be executed by lab directors at the local lab
level, so as to be better used to address local management and
bureaucratic challenges and avoid the inefficiency and slowness
of centralized control over organizations whose missions
require agility and innovation. The committee expects that all
authorities designed to ease bureaucratic burdens on the labs
will be delegated to local lab directors and used, consistent
with congressional intent, to the maximum extent practicable to
support research efforts.
Department of Defense directed energy weapon system prototyping and
demonstration program (sec. 219)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering as
the official with principal responsibility for development and
demonstration of directed energy weapons, pursuant to section
219(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328). The recommended provision would
also establish an initiative within the Department of Defense
to accelerate the fielding of directed energy weapon systems
that would help counter technological advance of potential
adversaries of the United States.
The committee remains supportive of directed energy weapon
systems and believes that directed energy can fundamentally
change warfare, much like precision-guided weapons did. The
committee notes that, since 1960, the Department of Defense has
invested more than $6.0 billion in directed energy science and
technology initiatives but has limited operational systems to
date. While the committee commends the Department for
recognizing the potential of directed energy weapon systems by
budgeting for the rapid procurement of five high-energy laser
weapon systems to be deployed in an operational environment, it
continues to urge the Department to resource directed energy
initiatives at levels necessary to transition them to full-
scale acquisition programs.
The committee realizes that directed energy weapons systems
will not replace kinetic weapon systems nor are they an all-
purpose solution to every warfighting scenario. However, there
are specific scenarios today in which directed energy weapon
systems can, and should, provide our military with tactical and
strategic advantages. Counter-Rockets, Artillery, and Mortar
(C-RAM) and Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) are specific
missions in which directed energy could provide solutions to
capability gaps of the military.
A number of directed energy weapon systems have been
developed but are awaiting funds in the out-years for testing
and demonstration. While additional improvements can be made in
the areas of size, weight, and power, the committee believes
that many of the systems are fully capable now of providing our
military with game-changing capabilities.
The recommended provision would authorize $200.0 million
for the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering to be used
exclusively for high energy laser and high power microwave
prototyping and demonstrations. As the senior official with
principal responsibility for directed energy weapons, the Under
Secretary for Research and Engineering would be entrusted with
issuing guidelines for the operation of the program based on
specific criteria limited to advanced technology development,
prototyping, and demonstrations. The committee urges the Under
Secretary to place increased priority on funding directed
energy programs identified as unfunded priorities by the
Services.
The provision would also withhold 50 percent of the
authorized funds until the Under Secretary develops the
strategic plan required by section 219(a)(2)(A) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) and submits the strategic plan to the
congressional defense committees.
Finally, the committee expects the Department to maintain
management of the technical baseline with a primary emphasis on
technology transition and evaluating military utility to
enhance the likelihood that particular directed energy weapon
systems will meet the Department end user's need. The committee
encourages the Department, under the program, to develop the
tactics, techniques, and procedures for the weapon systems and
engage the warfighter in the use of operational systems and
produce military utility assessments.
The committee expects that the Under Secretary will keep
the congressional defense committees regularly updated on the
progress of activities regarding directed energy weapon systems
prototyping and demonstration.
Authority for the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering to promote innovation in the Department of Defense
(sec. 220)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
establishment of a process under which the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering would review and modify
Department of Defense regulations that would adversely affect
the innovative capacity of the DOD. The committee notes that
the position of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering is charged with nurturing the technological
innovative capacities of the Department and that often this
capacity is crippled by bureaucratic processes and red tape
promulgated by decision makers in organizations in the
technology and innovation arena.
Limitation on availability of funds for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Follow-On Modernization (sec. 221)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
funds available for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Follow-On
Modernization program until the Secretary of Defense submits
the final report containing the basic elements of an
acquisition program baseline for Block 4 Modernization as
required by section 224 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
The committee strongly supports the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program and recognizes the urgent need to provide our
warfighters with the planned capabilities of the Block 4
modernization. However, the committee remains concerned about
the executability and affordability of the Department of
Defense's plan for Block 4. The country can ill afford a repeat
of the substantial cost overruns and schedule slippages that
have plagued this program since its inception.
The committee believes the elements of the required
report--including cost estimates for development, production,
and modifications; projected key schedule dates; technical
performance parameters; technology readiness levels; and annual
funding profiles--are vital to establishing the transparency,
accountability, and oversight necessary for a program as large
and as important as Block 4 modernization. Proceeding without
those attributes would risk future congressional support of the
program and increase the likelihood of repeating past mistakes.
Improvement of update process for populating mission data files used in
advanced combat aircraft (sec. 222)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to refine the process of updating mission
data files used in advanced combat aircraft so that they may be
updated more quickly.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Competitive acquisition plan for low probability of detection data link
networks (sec. 231)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics (or any successor to this position) and the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide written
documentation and a briefing to the congressional defense
committees, no later than February 15, 2018, on a plan for a
competitive acquisition process to procure a secure, low
probability of detection data link network capability, with the
ability to effectively operate in hostile jamming environments
while preserving the low observability characteristics of the
relevant platforms, between existing and planned:
(1) Fifth-generation combat aircraft;
(2) Fifth-generation and fourth-generation combat
aircraft;
(3) Fifth-generation and fourth-generation combat
aircraft and appropriate support aircraft and other
network nodes for command, control, communications,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
purposes; and
(4) Fifth-generation and fourth-generation combat
aircraft and their associated network-enabled precision
weapons.
The provision would also require the plan to include:
(1) A non-proprietary and open systems approach
compatible with the Rapid Capabilities Office Open
Mission Systems initiative of the Air Force and the
Future Airborne Capability Environment initiative of
the Navy;
(2) A competitive acquisition process, to include
comparative flight demonstrations in realistic airborne
environments; and
(3) Low risk and affordable solutions with minimal
impact or changes to existing host platforms and
minimal overall integration costs.
Finally, the provision would also limit the obligation or
expenditure to not more than 85 percent of fiscal year 2018
funds for operations and maintenance for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff until 15 days after the Under Secretary
and Vice Chairman submit the plan required in the provision.
The committee remains concerned with the adequacy of the
Department of Defense's focus on this issue and is disappointed
by the failure to provide a sufficient plan for an advanced
airborne data link capability as directed by section 239 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92). Meanwhile, Air Force and Navy data link
development initiatives have shown limited technical progress,
while potential adversary threat capabilities continue to
increase. The committee believes a robust low probability of
detection and jamming resistant data link network capability
will be key to comprehensive situational awareness, cooperative
electronic warfare, and cooperative fire control in contested
and degraded operations environments.
Clarification of selection dates for pilot program for the enhancement
of the research, development, test, and evaluation centers of
the Department of Defense (sec. 232)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
clarifications and edits to the laboratory management
demonstration program established in section 233 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328). The provision would clarify the date limitations
for consideration of an application to join the pilot program,
and it would also clarify that any proposals pursuant to the
pilot program shall be submitted to the appropriate assistant
secretary. The recommended provision would remove any further
technical or legal obstacles to successful implementation of
the underlying provision.
Requirement for a plan to build a prototype for a new ground combat
vehicle for the Army (sec. 233)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees detailing the Army's plan to build a
prototype for a ground combat vehicle. The committee directs
the Army to submit this report within 90 days of the enactment
of this Act.
The committee is concerned that the Army is operating a
family of armored combat vehicles designed over 40 years ago.
The committee is also concerned that the Army does not have a
major armored combat vehicle currently under design.
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts between the Tank
Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC)
and the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia
to identify requirements and existing enabling component
technologies. The committee is also aware of the Army's
progress in integrating existing active protection systems
(APS) on existing combat platforms such as the M1A2 Abrams, the
M2A3 Bradley, and the STRYKER.
The committee is interested in how the Army intends to
exploit the latest enabling component technologies that have
the potential to dramatically change basic combat vehicle
design and improve lethality, protection, mobility, range, and
sustainment. This should include an analysis of capabilities of
the most advanced foreign ground combat vehicles and whether
any have characteristics that should inform the development of
the Army's prototype vehicle, including whether any U.S. allies
or partners have advanced capabilities that could be directly
incorporated in the prototype. Such technologies would include
APS with hard and soft kill capabilities, reactive armor,
composite armor, thermal signature reduction, noise reduction,
fuel cell propulsion, opposed-piston engines, 32 speed
transmissions, suspension, power generation, voltage
management, 3rd generation forward looking infrared sights,
integrated hostile fire detection, manned-unmanned teaming,
automatic loaders, munitions, and cannons.
The committee is interested in the schedule, cost, key
milestones, and leadership plan to rapidly design and build a
prototype ground combat vehicle. The committee understands that
TARDEC can develop concepts to meet emerging requirements, test
developmental concepts with soldier involvement, model designs,
virtually test and modify designs, integrate new technologies,
manufacture prototypes, test prototypes, and demonstrate
prototypes. The committee assesses that if TARDEC is employed
to its potential, it may accelerate future efforts in
acquisition and reduce developmental costs.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to use
all acquisition authorities available to the fullest extent
possible to plan to build a prototype for a new ground combat
vehicle. In particular, the Secretary should aggressively use
the latest authorities granted to him in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328).
The committee acknowledges that an aggressive plan to build
a prototype is not without risks. The committee fully supports
this effort to exploit all available resources to expedite the
construction of a combat vehicle prototype incorporating the
latest technologies. The committee believes this effort will
increase knowledge of available technologies, reduce risk to
performance and cost, and set conditions for an accelerated
development of a highly lethal and survivable vehicle that will
ensure battlefield overmatch against potential adversaries.
Plan for successfully fielding the Integrated Air and Missile Defense
Battle Command System (sec. 234)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to report to the congressional defense
committees a plan on how the Army will successfully field a
suitable, survivable, and effective Integrated Air and Missile
Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) program. The committee
directs the Secretary to submit this plan within 180 days of
the enactment of this Act. The provision would prohibit the
Secretary from obligating any funds available in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, for the Army Integrated
Air and Missile Defense and the Integrated Air and Missile
Defense Battle Command System until the submission of this
plan.
The committee is concerned this developmental program is
not meeting schedule and performance objectives after having
become a program of record over 7 years ago. The committee is
aware the Army has delayed a Milestone C decision for limited
production, originally scheduled for the 4th quarter of fiscal
year 2016, to the 1st quarter of fiscal year 2020. Like the
Army's Warfighter Information Network-Tactical and the Air
Force's Air Operations Center 10.2, this program is
experiencing difficulty with immature software and software
integration.
Given that the Army has already expended over $1.2 billion
on this program with the expected requirement to spend much
more, the committee is concerned current software will soon
become obsolete before a functional IBCS is fielded. Further,
having experienced at least two re-baselinings, the committee
is concerned this program is headed toward a critical change
order.
Sense of the Congress on hypersonic weapons (sec. 235)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should
expedite testing, evaluation, and acquisition of hypersonic
weapon systems to meet the stated needs of the warfighter; that
the United States cannot afford to lose its advantage over
foreign countries in developing hypersonic weapons; and that
the Department of Defense should focus on the next generation
of weapon systems such as hypersonics. The recommended
provision would also make a number of findings regarding the
status of hypersonic technology in the Department of Defense
and the potential for such weapons to change warfare and
provide solutions to strategic problems.
Budget Items
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Unfunded Requirements List
The budget request included $82.7 billion for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
submitted extensive Unfunded Requirements Lists totaling $33.1
billion. The committee believes that since the passage of the
Budget Control Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by
artificial constraints rather than the realities of the global
strategic environment. This reality has continued for the
fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an
arbitrary number determined six years ago in the Budget Control
Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained
high operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation
in our military readiness in the near term, and the threat that
we will fall behind our adversaries in the long-term. For the
last several years military leaders have highlighted these
problems in great detail.
In order to address the degraded state of our military and
to stop the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee
believes that the budget should be based on requirements,
rather than arbitrary budget caps. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.1 billion to Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation for items identified in the Unfunded Requirements
List. Some increases include acceleration for Cyber and Space
capabilities. Greater details of each increase can be found in
the tables in Division D.
Army
Defense research sciences
The budget request included $263.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 61102A, for defense
research sciences. 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. Basic
research activities 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.
The committee also notes that this particular program
builds fundamental scientific knowledge contributing to the
sustainment of U.S. Army scientific and technological
superiority in land warfighting capability and to solving
military problems related to long-term national security needs.
It also investigates new concepts and technologies for the
Army's future force and provides the means to exploit
scientific breakthroughs and avoid technological surprises.
To further bolster basic research funding, the committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 61102A for a
total of $273.6 million. The committee directs that these funds
be awarded through well-established and competitive processes.
University and industry research centers
The budget request included $87.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 61104A, for
university and industry research centers. 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. Basic research activities 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.
The committee also notes that this particular program
fosters university and industry based research to provide a
scientific foundation for enabling technologies for future
force capabilities. In particular, this program funds
collaborative technology alliances, which leverage large
investments by the commercial sector in basic research areas
that are of great importance interest to the Army.
To further bolster basic research funding, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 61104A for a total
of $92.4 million. The committee directs that these funds be
awarded through well-established and competitive processes.
Army basic research
The budget request included $430.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for basic research
(budget activity 1). The committee recommends an increase of
$10.0 million in basic research for a total of $440.0 million
to support efforts at modernizing Army capabilities and
supporting Third Offset strategies.
Strategic materials
The budget request included $29.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 62105A, for
materials technology research. The committee notes that in
order to improve and accelerate the development of new
materials, including more sophisticated and productive use of
materials by design, and to address modern military needs in
materials processing, additive manufacturing, and energy
coupling to materials, the Army Research Laboratory has
launched its Open Campus Initiative to improve collaboration
with research universities and companies. There is a recognized
need for targeted materials research and development to advance
knowledge and design in materials processing, science and
engineering, focused on transforming the affordability,
performance, adaptability, and environmental sustainability of
materials. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in PE 62105A for a total of $39.6 million to support
these efforts.
Aviation technology
The budget request included $65.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 62211A, for
aviation technology. The committee notes that several of the
programs contained within this program element, such as rotors
and vehicle management technology, engine and drives
technologies, and platform design and structures technologies,
involve research activities that may overlap with aviation
research being performed elsewhere in the Department of
Defense. Given this potential for redundant work, the committee
believes that the level of funds requested for this program
element is not entirely justified. Therefore, the committee
recommends a general program decrease of $5.0 million in PE
62211A for a total of $60.9 million and recommends that the
Army look for opportunities to increase collaboration and
coordination with other services and research programs on
aviation technology.
Command, control, communications technology
The budget request included $33.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 62782A, for
command, control, and communications technology. The committee
encourages the Secretary of the Army to support the development
and advancement of technologies that address the increasing
gaps in position, navigation, and timing architectural and
technological development that address GPS vulnerabilities and
combatting navigation warfare. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase for position, navigation, and timing
technologies of $5.0 million for these efforts in PE 62782A for
a total of $38.1 million.
Army applied research
The budget request included $889.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for applied research
(budget activity 2). The committee recommends an increase of
$15.0 million in applied research for a total of $904.2 million
to support efforts at modernizing Army capabilities and
supporting Third Offset strategies.
Aviation advanced technology
The budget request included $160.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 63003A, for
aviation advanced technology. The committee notes that of this
amount, over $120.0 million is requested for platform design
and structures system, which represents a more than doubling of
this project's budget from fiscal year 2017. While the
committee supports the continued air vehicle demonstration of
critical new technologies, the committee is concerned that the
large increase in funds is not justified by the project plans.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease for platform
design and structures system of $20.0 million in PE 63003A for
a total of $140.7 million.
High performance computing modernization program
The budget request included $182.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 63461A, for the
high performance computing modernization program. The committee
notes that this program is a Department-wide asset used by all
of the Services and combat support agencies. Additional funding
for this program would keep the research and development budget
at a similar level to that appropriated in fiscal year 2017.
The committee notes that research and development initiatives
under this program support Defense supercomputing resource
centers, the Defense Research and Engineering Network, and
software applications. The U.S. government has spent over $7
billion to develop and implement this unique, world-class
national computing asset for DOD, which delivers approximately
3.2 billion processor hours and over 3.5 quadrillion floating
point operations per second, available and configured to
support the Department's most challenging problems and analysis
of massive and complex datasets. Therefore, the committee
recommends a program increase of $40.0 million in PE 63461A for
a total of $222.3 million.
Military engineering advanced technology
The budget request included $32.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, PE 63734A, for
advanced military engineering advanced technology. The
committee notes that of this amount, $9.6 million is requested
for map-based planning services under the combat engineering
systems project line. This request represents a more than five-
fold increase of this effort's budget over the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2017. The committee is concerned
about the ability to absorb such a large increase in funding
and believes the request level is an unjustified increase.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease for map-based
planning services of $5.0 million in PE 63734A for a total of
$27.4 million.
Army advanced technology development
The budget request included $1,071.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for advanced
technology development (budget activity 3). The committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million in advanced technology
development for a total of $1,091.0 million to support efforts
at modernizing Army capabilities and supporting Third Offset
strategies.
Army armored systems modernization advanced development of advanced
fuel cell prototypes
The budget request included $9.4 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $32.7
million was for the PE 63645A Armored System Modernization
Advanced Development.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to expedite critical capabilities through rapid
prototyping to meet the needs of combatant commanders. The
committee believes that advanced fuel cell vehicles could
provide to the Army considerable operational benefits,
including reduced logistics burden, reduced acoustic and
thermal signatures, and increased availability of mobile power
for deployed forces. However, a robust program of prototyping
and experimentation is required in order to field such tactical
systems. The committee notes that the Army's Tank Automotive
Research Development and Engineering Center has done
significant work with the commercial automotive industry to
develop and experiment with advanced fuel cell vehicle
technologies and systems. The committee further believes that
these activities are best executed through cross functional
teams consisting of technology developers, operational users,
testers, and commercial sector partners.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $70.0
million, for a total of $102.7 million, in RDT&E Army, PE
63645A, for the Armored System Modernization Advanced
Development to prototype and test advanced fuel cell vehicles
to support Army missions.
Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems--Active Protection System (APS)
The budget request included $98.6 million in PE 64852A of
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Army, for
Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems--Active Protection System
(APS). The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in
RDT&E Army for PE 64852A for a total of $118.6 million.
Army Contract Writing System
The budget request included $20.3 million in Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Army for PE 65047A for
Army Contract Writing System. The committee is concerned about
duplication among the military services in contract writing
systems. The committee recommends a decrease of $20.3 million
in RDT&E, Army for PE 65047A for a total of $0.0 million.
Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD)
The budget request included $336.4 million in PE 65457A of
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Army, for
Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense. The committee notes an
early to need requirement in the budget for fiscal year 2018.
The committee recommends a decrease of $200.0 million in PE
65457A for a total of $136.4 million.
Accelerated development of the Hercules recovery vehicle
The budget request included $343.2 million in PE 23735A of
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for Combat
Vehicle Improvement Programs. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million in PE 23735A for a total of $347.2
million for accelerating the development of the M88A2E1
Hercules recovery vehicle. This item is on the Army unfunded
priority list.
Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs
The budget request included $343.2 million in PE 23735A,
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army (RDTEA), for
Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs.
The Committee is concerned with the Army's repeated
decision to ignore the articulated requirement for a vehicle
laser warning system as part of the Abrams 1B and the Bradley
2B ECP improvements. The laser warning system provides critical
protection and enhances current operational capabilities
utilized by forward deployed units. Any additional delay in
fielding will only continue to undermine effectiveness and
prolong an increased risk to the Army's ground combat vehicles.
The committee recommends that the Army realign its
procurement plans and integrate the laser warning system onto
the M1 Abrams Tank and any other forward deploying ground
combat vehicles. The committee encourages the Army to
concentrate on survivability and incorporate a laser warning
sensor suite system to adequately address the growing threat of
anti-tank guided missiles and laser beam riding guidance
systems.
The committee believes that by focusing on mature, field-
tested protective technology, the APS will provide a balanced
framework that both increases lethality and protection for the
warfighter. Therefore, as the Army transitions active
protection systems (APS) onto ground combat vehicles through
the Vehicle Protection System, the committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million in PE 23735A, RDTEA, for a total of
(including other budget increases elsewhere in this Act) $351.2
million, for the incorporation of a laser warning sensor suite
onto the system.
Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program
The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 23801A of
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for Missile/
Air Defense Product Improvement Program. The committee
recommends an increase of $26.0 million in PE 23801A for a
total of $37.2 million. Stinger Product Improvement Program is
on the Army unfunded priority list.
Distributed Common Ground/Surface System
The budget request included $24.7 million in PE 35208A of
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Army, for
Distributed Common Ground/Surface System. The committee notes
changing tactical requirements. The committee recommends a
decrease of $20.0 million in PE 35208A for a total of $4.7
million.
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 2-Initial Networking
(WIN-T Inc. 2)
The budget request included $4.7 million in PE 0310349A of
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Army, for
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 2-Initial
Networking. The committee notes changing tactical requirements.
The committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million in PE
0310349A.
Navy
University research initiatives
The budget request included $118.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 61103N, for
university research initiatives. 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.
Basic research activities 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 further bolster basic research funding, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 61103N for a total
of $123.1 million. The committee directs that these funds be
awarded through well-established and competitive processes.
Ocean warfighting environmental applied research
The budget request included $42.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 62435N, for ocean
warfighting environment applied research. The committee notes
that large research vessels, such as the AGOR-23 class, are
vitally important to the U.S. oceanographic research effort due
to their range payload, duration, and ability to effectively
conduct scientific operations in remote areas and high-sea
states. As the size and capability of the university-laboratory
oceanographic laboratory system fleet have generally declined
in recent years, the demand for research vessels like those in
the AGOR-23 class has increased and has made that class among
the highly-subscribed vessels in the fleet. These vessels and
the research they conduct are critical to our national security
and central to the Navy's anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare
work, and operational warcraft efforts. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 62435N
for a total of $57.2 million.
Undersea warfare applied research
The budget request included $56.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 62747N, for
undersea warfare applied research. The committee notes that the
Navy has been researching the capacity of the shipyards that
build our nation's nuclear submarine forces to maintain higher
production rates for the Virginia-class submarines while also
designing and then beginning construction of the first of the
Columbia-class submarines in fiscal year 2021.
The committee encourages the Navy to align their efforts
with qualified higher education partners focusing on undersea
vehicle applications related to several key fabrication and
manufacturing process technologies including composites,
metals, and electronics. In addition, investments should
address the overall affordability challenge faced by current
and future submarine and undersea vehicle programs, including
fabrication process innovation and the ability to introduce
continuous technology improvements at the Navy's existing
undersea shipyard industrial base.
The committee directs the Navy to closely coordinate this
effort with its industrial base partners to ensure that funded
research projects are relevant to specific engineering and
manufacturing needs, as well as defined systems capabilities.
Partnerships with academia should focus on specific, well-
defined short- and long-term submarine and autonomous undersea
vehicle research needs and accelerated technology transition,
and they should include a strong workforce development
component. To bolster this effort, the committee recommends an
aggregate increase of $25.0 million in PE 62747N for a total of
$81.1 million.
Innovative naval prototypes applied research
The budget request included $171.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 62792N, for
innovative naval prototypes applied research. The committee
notes that this program element is tasked with developing leap
ahead technologies in game-changing areas such as cyber,
directed energy, electromagnetic warfare, and autonomous
systems. While the committee supports efforts in all of these
research fields and believes that they are important to
maintaining our military technological superiority, the
committee notes that the other Services are also focusing
research in all of these areas. As such, the committee believes
that research costs can be reduced through better coordination
and collaboration among the Services. Therefore, the committee
recommends an aggregate decrease of $10.0 million in PE 62792N
for a total of $161.1 million.
United States Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration
The budget request included $154.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 63640M, for United
States Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration. The
committee notes that of this amount, $59.7 million is requested
for the futures directorate, an organization tasked with
identifying future challenges and opportunities, developing
warfighting concepts, and comprehensively exploring options to
inform the combat development process to meet the challenges of
the future operating environment. This request represents more
than a 25 percent increase over the appropriations for this
project in fiscal year 2017. The committee is concerned that
such an increase is unjustified and cannot be absorbed through
the work identified in the project description. Therefore, the
committee recommends an aggregate decrease of $5.0 million for
the futures directorate in PE 63640M for a total of $149.4
million.
Future naval capabilities advanced technology developments
The budget request included $231.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, PE 63673N, for
future naval capabilities advanced technology developments. The
activities listed under this program element include capable
manpower and enterprise and platform enablers. The committee
believes that the work plans for fiscal year 2018 overlap
significantly with activities and research in other services
and in the commercial sector. The committee encourages the Navy
to coordinate these research areas more closely with these
other entities and, to the extent possible, take advantage of
commercial off-the-shelf technologies to achieve these
objectives. Therefore, the committee recommends an aggregate
decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63673N for a total of $226.8
million to be distributed appropriately from capable manpower
and enterprise and platform enablers.
Mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology
The budget request included $116.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 63782N, for mine
and expeditionary warfare advanced technology. The committee
notes that a Navy demonstration for a maritime enhanced sensor
would provide the Navy with the capability to assess a full
range of anti-surface unit warfare and anti-submarine warfare
capabilities, as well as to gather needed intelligence against
threats in the United States Pacific Command strategic
environment. United States Pacific Command has previously
identified a number of mission gaps an enhanced sensor can
satisfy, and the Navy has the opportunity to leverage the Air
Force's maritime target detection investments and long range
imaging solution in a demonstration program to reduce
procurement costs and expedite fielding. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for these
efforts in PE 63782N for a total of $131.0 million for maritime
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technology.
Innovative naval prototypes advanced technology developments
The budget request included $108.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, Evaluation, Navy, PE 63801N, for innovative
naval prototypes advanced technology developments. The
committee notes that undersea warfare capabilities are a key
component of Navy modernization plans. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $15.0 million for underwater unmanned
vehicle prototypes in PE 63801N for a total of $123.3 million.
Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures
The budget request contained $154.1 million in PE 63502N
for surface and shallow water mine countermeasures (MCM).
The committee notes that, in the fiscal year 2017 budget
request, the Barracuda MCM program was planned to be employed
from an aircraft and was included in PE 64373N (Airborne Mine
Countermeasures). In the fiscal year 2018 budget request,
Barracuda was realigned to PE 63502N for employment from the
MCM unmanned surface vessel and potentially other surface
platforms. The committee lacks sufficient information on this
fundamental change in Barracuda employment to support the
budget request. The committee therefore recommends a decrease
of $16.0 million in Barracuda product development (project
2989).
The committee further notes PE 63502N includes the
Snakehead large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle in project
2094. Compared to last year's budget request, Snakehead
experienced a 1-year delay from fiscal year 2018 to 2019 for
the Critical Design Review and planned fabrication start. The
committee therefore recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in
Snakehead product development (project 2094).
The committee also notes this program included no funding
for Persistent Littoral Undersea Surveillance (PLUS) product
development, support, or fleet experimentation. The committee
understands that the Office of Naval Research could conduct
additional experimentation with an existing government-owned
REMUS 1000 unmanned underwater vehicle. The committee supports
utilizing this existing proven system for continued risk
reduction, technology maturation, and concept development. The
committee therefore recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
continued REMUS 1000 activities (project 2094).
Accordingly, the committee recommends an overall decrease
of $26.0 million for a total of $128.1 million.
Aircraft carrier preliminary design
The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63564N for
ship preliminary design and feasibility studies.
The committee notes that all three future fleet platform
architecture studies required by section 1067 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) recommended the Navy pursue a class of aircraft carriers
smaller than the Ford-class. The committee concurs and believes
smaller aircraft carriers would both increase capacity and
provide a more efficient means to conduct a range of missions
with lower sortie requirements, including amphibious
operations.
The committee believes the Navy should leverage the fleet
architecture studies, as well as the report on alternative
aircraft carrier options required by section 128 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92), to complete preliminary design of a smaller
aircraft carrier. The committee further believes that
completing preliminary design would provide Department leaders
with an option to supplement Nimitz- and Ford-class aircraft
carriers.
The committee understands that when the USS Midway (CV-41)
was decommissioned in 1992, the ship was conventionally-
powered; weighed between 60,000 and 70,000 tons; and contained
2 catapults and arresting gear to support up to 65 fixed wing
aircraft. Based on the committee's review of relevant studies
and reports, the committee views these attributes as desirable
for a class of smaller aircraft carriers and believes more than
one United States shipyard should be capable of building
aircraft carriers.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0
million, for a total of $42.0 million, in PE 63564N and directs
the Secretary of the Navy to complete preliminary design of a
smaller aircraft carrier. The Secretary shall submit the
preliminary design to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives not later September 30,
2019.
Littoral Combat Ship
The budget request contained $41.0 million in PE 63581N for
Littoral Combat Ships.
The committee notes the Littoral Combat Ship project (3096)
included no product development and a reduced level of test and
evaluation activity.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $7.0
million, for a total of $34.0 million, to align support costs
with program activity.
Marine Corps Rapid Capabilities Office
The budget request included $17.8 billion for Research,
Development, Test, Evaluation, Navy, of which $7.1 million was
for PE 64320M for Rapid Technology Capability Prototype.
The committee notes the importance of the Marine Corps
Rapid Capabilities Office (MCRCO) as part of the larger
defense-wide acquisition system reform. The MCRCO will be
housed inside the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and should
continue to improve the Corps' rapid prototyping capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million for PE 64320M for Rapid Technology Capability Prototype
for a total of $17.1 million.
Extra large unmanned undersea vehicles
The budget request included $66.5 million in PE 64536N for
research, development, test, and evaluation of advanced
undersea prototyping.
The committee notes the budget request for this program
element provides for the prototyping and testing of extra large
unmanned undersea vehicles (XLUUV), including procurement of up
to five vehicles and the lease of one vehicle, in project 3394.
The committee further notes the contract for fabrication of up
to five XLUUVs, battery energy sections, and mine warfare
payloads is scheduled to be awarded in fiscal year 2019 with
XLUUV deliveries to begin in fiscal year 2020.
The committee is concerned with the Navy's concurrent
approach to design, technology development, and integration, as
well as the feasibility of the XLUUV concept of employment for
envisioned missions.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $52.9
million for project 3394, for a total of $13.6 million, due to
fabrication funding being ahead of need and insufficient detail
on program milestones necessary to deliver a system capable of
achieving desired mission objectives.
Air Crew Systems Development
The budget request included $13.2 million in PE 64264N of
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN) for
air crew systems development.
The committee is concerned by repeated incidents of
physiological episodes occurring in a number of Navy aircraft,
particularly the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet, EA-18G
Growler, and T-45 Goshawk. Despite being Naval Aviation's
number one safety priority and the existence of a physiological
episode team since 2010, determining root causes and
establishing adequate mitigations remain elusive. The committee
is encouraged by the level of attention senior Navy leadership
has shown towards this issue, but it believes more must be done
to solve this danger to our Naval Aviators and Naval Flight
Officers.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million, including $10.0 million to establish a prize
competition designed to accelerate identification of the root
cause or causes of physiological episodes, in PE 64264N of
RDTEN for a total of $33.2 million.
F-35 System Design and Demonstration--Marine Corps
The budget request included $152.9 million in PE 64800M,
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), for
the Marine Corps contribution to F-35 System Design and
Demonstration (SDD).
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
is not budgeting the resources necessary to ensure that the SDD
phase is completed in a timely, efficient, and effective
manner. The committee believes that it is essential the program
efficiently and effectively completes the SDD phase to ensure
that the warfighter receives the required capabilities and that
the program is established on a solid foundation, with minimal
outstanding deficiencies that need to be corrected in later
modifications. The committee further believes post-SDD software
updates and testing resources will be necessary prior to
introduction of the first increment of Block 4 Follow-on
Modernization to correct any deficiencies either left over from
SDD or discovered in Initial Operational Test & Evaluation. The
committee does not believe these efforts are being properly
resourced.
The country can ill afford further delays to the F-35's
necessary capabilities. However, it is equally essential to
ensure the minimal number of deficiencies are deferred beyond
SDD, both to deliver the necessary warfighting capabilities and
to avoid further costly modifications later.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $91.2
million, for a total of $244.1 million, in PE 64800M, RDTEN,
for F-35 SDD. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends
additional funding increases for F-35 SDD to aid in the
development of this vitally important program.
F-35 System Design and Demonstration--Navy
The budget request included $109.0 million in PE 64800N,
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), for
the Navy contribution to F-35 System Design and Demonstration
(SDD).
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
is not budgeting the resources necessary to ensure that the SDD
phase is completed in a timely, efficient, and effective
manner. The committee believes that it is essential the program
efficiently and effectively completes the SDD phase to ensure
that the warfighter receives the required capabilities and that
the program is established on a solid foundation, with minimal
outstanding deficiencies that need to be corrected in later
modifications. The committee further believes post-SDD software
updates and testing resources will be necessary prior to
introduction of the first increment of Block 4 Follow-on
Modernization to correct any deficiencies either left over from
SDD or discovered in Initial Operational Test and Evaluation.
The committee does not believe these efforts are being properly
resourced.
The country can ill afford further delays to the F-35's
necessary capabilities. However, it is equally essential to
ensure the minimal number of deficiencies are deferred beyond
SDD, both to deliver the necessary warfighting capabilities and
to avoid further costly modifications later.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $66.7
million, for a total of $175.6 million, in PE 64800N, RDTEN,
for F-35 SDD. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends
additional funding increases for F-35 SDD to aid in the
development of this vitally important program.
Navy eProcurement (Navy ePS)
The budget request included $11.2 million in Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy for PE 65013N for
Navy eProcurement in Information Technology Development. The
committee is concerned about duplication among the military
services in contract writing systems. The committee recommends
a decrease of $11.2 million in RDT&E Navy for PE 65013N for a
total of $0.0 million.
Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS)
The budget request included $23.9 million in Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy for PE 65013N for
Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System in Information
Technology Development. The committee is concerned about
duplication among the military services in integrated personnel
and pay systems. The committee recommends a decrease of $23.9
million in RDT&E, Navy for PE 65013N for a total of $0.0
million.
DDG-1000
The budget request included $140.5 million in PE 24202N for
the DDG-1000 program.
The committee notes the budget request for this program
element contains $121.2 million in cost growth in fiscal year
2018 and $222.3 million in cost growth over the fiscal year
2018 to 2020 period, as compared to the fiscal year 2017 budget
request. The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to take
further measures to regain cost control.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0
million in PE 24202N for the DDG-1000 program for a total of
$90.5 million.
Management, technical, and international support
The budget request included $94.6 million in PE 65853N of
research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy for
management, technical, and international support.
The committee notes the following projects contain
unjustified growth: 2221 ($4.0 million) and 3027 ($1.5
million).
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.5
million for a total of $89.1 million.
Classified project
The budget request included $1.5 billion in PE 99999N of
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy for
classified programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million, for
a total of $1.7 billion, for project 0428.
Air Force
Hypersonic wind tunnels
The budget request included $124.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 62201F, for
aerospace vehicle technologies. The committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 62201F to enhance efforts on
advanced hypersonic wind tunnel experimentation and applied
research for a total of $129.7 million. The committee notes
that hypersonic technologies are a key component of Third
Offset strategies but is concerned that investment has been
insufficient to support test infrastructure, advanced testing
techniques, and the testing workforce. Without these
investments, it is unlikely that hypersonic systems will
achieve operational status.
Human effectiveness applied research
The budget request included $108.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 62202F, for
human effectives applied research. The committee notes that the
Air Force Research Laboratory started a multi-year Secure Live-
Virtual-Constructive Advanced Training Environment Advance
Technology Demonstrator to develop and demonstrate a mixed
live-and-synthetic air combat environment to train pilots for
missions involving current and future anti-access/area denial
and asymmetric threats at an affordable cost. Such training
systems are higher fidelity, more realistic, and threat-
representative training. The introduction of these exercises
will offer combat pilots substantially improved battlefield
realism, and the committee urges the military services to apply
the necessary focus and resources to support LVC training for
combat pilots in the near-term.
The committee notes that the demonstration needs additional
funding for development activities which include ensuring
multiple independent levels of security, encryption
certification, development of a fifth generation advanced
training waveform, and support for additional platform types.
The lack of full funding puts at risk the ability to bridge the
developmental effort into a program of record. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 62202F
for a total of $133.8 million to support research on advanced
training environments.
Aerospace propulsion
The budget request included $192.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 62203F, for
aerospace propulsion. The committee notes that the Air Force
must continue development of critical next-generation engine
programs that require both significant research and development
funding and long-lead times for propulsion-system development.
Advanced propulsion research is critical to meeting the
requirement of advanced weapon systems concepts.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million in PE 62203F for a total of $200.7 million.
Electronic combat technology
The budget request included $60.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 63270F, for
electronic combat technologies. In order to support
collaboration between the Defense Digital Service and the Air
Force Research Laboratory to improve Air Force software
engineering capabilities and to address high priority technical
issues plaguing Air Force information technology acquisition
programs and deployed systems, the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63270F for a total of $65.5
million.
Commercial Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Consortia/Testbed
The committee is concerned about the increasingly contested
environment in space and believes that commercial solutions, in
some cases, are available to rapidly fill critical operational
gaps and mitigate emerging threats.
Therefore, the committee supports the funding of the Air
Force's unfunded requirement of $15.0 million to establish a
commercial Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Consortia/Testbed
to help the Air Force field ``best of breed'' commercial space
situational awareness and Battle Management Command and Control
(BMC2) software. In an effort to normalize and better
understand the many SSA investments underway or planned, the
committee requests the Air Force provide a report itemizing the
amounts the Air Force has requested on development, operations,
and sustainment in the fiscal year 2018 budget request for each
of the following three components, as well as funding requested
in the unfunded requirements process: surveillance sensor
systems, SSA software for operations centers, and BMC2 software
for operations centers. In the report the Air Force should
appropriately delineate investments in commercial capabilities
versus Air Force research and development efforts and include a
description for each including a discussion of how and where it
plans to leverage commercial space situational awareness
capabilities. The committee directs the Air Force to provide
this information to the congressional defense committees within
30 days.
Air Force Contracting Information Technology System
The budget request included $15.9 million in Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force for PE 91410F
for Air Force Contracting Information Technology System. The
committee is concerned about duplication among the military
services in contract writing systems. The committee recommends
a decrease of $15.9 million in RDT&E, Air Force for PE 91410F
for a total of $0.0 million.
F-35 System Design and Demonstration--Air Force
The budget request included $293.0 million in PE 64800F of
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF)
for the Air Force contribution to F-35 System Design and
Demonstration (SDD).
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
is not budgeting the resources necessary to ensure that the SDD
phase is completed in a timely, efficient, and effective
manner. The committee believes that it is essential that the
program efficiently and effectively completes the SDD phase to
ensure that the warfighter receives the required capabilities
and that the program is established on a solid foundation, with
minimal outstanding deficiencies that need to be corrected in
later modifications. The committee further believes post-SDD
software updates and testing resources will be necessary prior
to introduction of the first increment of Block 4 Follow-on
Modernization to correct any deficiencies either left over from
SDD or discovered in Initial Operational Test and Evaluation.
The committee does not believe these efforts are being properly
resourced.
The country can ill afford further delays to the F-35's
necessary capabilities. However, it is equally essential to
ensure the minimal number of deficiencies are deferred beyond
SDD, both to deliver the necessary warfighting capabilities and
to avoid further costly modifications later.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $172.2
million, for a total of $465.2 million, in PE 64800F, for F-35
SDD. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends additional
funding increases for F-35 SDD to aid in the development of
this vitally important program.
Restructure of Air and Space Operations Center--Weapons System upgrade
program
The budget request contained $119.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE
65458F, for the Air and Space Operations Center--Weapons System
10.2 upgrade program.
The committee is concerned with the length and cost of the
Air and Space Operations Center Weapons System 10.2 upgrade
program, especially after the program experienced a critical
change in March 2016, where the Milestone C fielding decision
was delayed for an additional 3 years and the cost for the
development phase was estimated to double over the original
estimate, increasing from $374.0 million to $745.0 million.
This program, while complex in nature and complicated by
emerging cyber assurance requirements, was originally
established in fiscal year 2007. For such a core Air Force
requirement in a system intended to enable its Combined Forces
Air Component Commanders to effectively plan and execute air
and space campaigns in support of combatant commander
warfighting requirements, a 13-year program from inception to
fielding is unacceptable.
The committee is also concerned that the treatment of
Department of Defense software production and sustainment
activities in the same manner as traditional acquisition
programs is an impediment to the faster delivery of required
capabilities. Software production should be treated primarily
as advisory and assistance services under indefinite delivery/
indefinite quantity contract structures, with specific contract
lines to deliver increments of information technology from
appropriate experts in a more rapid fashion. In today's rapidly
changing technology environment, software production and
sustainment activities represent a continuous and ongoing
effort that do not conform well with current acquisition
program cycles and milestones.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force, in
the pursuit of restructuring how information systems are
developed and sustained, to use a pathfinder approach on this
program to:
(1) Establish an Air Force Life Cycle Management
Center (AFLCMC)/Defense Innovation Unit--Experimental
(DIUx) modernization team;
(2) Establish a change management initiative to
empower AFLCMC to run a multi-phase pathfinder pilot;
(3) Deliver the initial capability of the pathfinder
pilot within 8 to 12 months;
(4) Transition software management capability,
contracting vehicles, and hiring authority from DIUx to
the Air and Space Operations Center Program Management
Office over the next 24 to 36 months;
(5) Demonstrate how executive leadership will
facilitate agile software production processes; and
(6) Distribute lessons learned for incorporation into
other Department of Defense business information and
national security system software production efforts.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $104.8
million in RDTEAF, PE 65458F, for the Air and Space Operations
Center--Weapons System 10.2 upgrade program, for a total of
$15.0 million, which is sufficient authorization of funds for
residual contract liabilities.
Advanced weapons systems testing capabilities
The budget request included $82.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64759F, for major
test and evaluation investment. The committee notes that this
bill supports and accelerates the Department's efforts to
modernize military capabilities to meet the threats of the
future, especially in advanced weapons systems, such as
hypersonic missiles and directed energy. The committee notes
that the successful development and deployment of the systems
depends on robust testing capabilities including open air
ranges with modern instrumentation and highly skilled technical
workforce.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $15.0
million in PE 64759F to improve open air range testing
capabilities to support development of Third Offset advanced
weapons systems, for a total of $97.9M.
Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System (AF-IPPS)
The budget request included $21.9 million in Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force for PE 65018F
for Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System (AF-IPPS).
The committee is concerned about duplication among the military
services in integrated personnel and pay systems. The committee
recommends a decrease of $21.9 million in RDT&E, Air Force for
PE 65018F for a total of $0.0 million.
Minuteman III Squadrons
The budget request included $210.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 11213F, for
Minuteman III Squadrons, of which $20.0 million was incorrectly
loaded across the related programs during the budget process.
The committee supports the request by the Air Force to transfer
funds between these subprograms and therefore recommends a
decrease of $10.0 million in Minuteman Ground and Communication
Equipment from $119.4 million to $109.4 million, a decrease of
$10.0 million in Minuteman Support Equipment from $31.6 million
to $21.6 million, and an increase of $20.0 million in ICBM
Cryptography Upgrade II from no funding to $20.0 million, with
the aggregate funding for Minuteman III Squadrons remaining at
$210.9 million.
Pulsed solid rocket motor technology
The budget request contained $35.0 million in Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) for PE
27161F for Tactical AIM Missiles.
The committee is aware that substantial advances are being
made in the development of pulsed solid rocket motor
technologies that could significantly increase the range and
probability of kill for existing air-to-air and air-to-surface
missiles. With the increasing capabilities of potential
adversary air-to-air and air-to-surface munitions, successful
transition of such technologies could be rapidly fielded into
existing U.S. munitions inventories to maintain technological
overmatch in air dominance against potential adversaries.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million in RDTEAF, for PE 27161F, for a total of $55.0 million,
to support the development of pulsed rocket motor technologies
for air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles.
Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network
The budget request included $48.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 33131F, for
the Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network (MEECN),
of which $10.0 million was requested for Global Aircrew
Strategic Network Terminal (ASNT) Increment 1; $22.5 million
was for Common VLF/LF Receiver (CVR) Increment 2; and $15.4
million was for Global ASNT Increment 2. The committee notes
that program delays in Global ASNT Increment 1 have further
delayed Increment 2. The committee supports the Air Force's
request to transfer funds between these subprograms and
therefore recommends that CVR Increment 2 be decreased by $12.3
million for a total of $10.3 million; Global ASNT Increment 2
be reduced by $8.8 million for a total of $6.5 million; and
Global ASNT Increment 1 be increased by $21.1 million for a
total of $31.1 million, in order to support timely completion
of Increment 1, with the aggregate funding for MEECN remaining
at $48.8 million.
C-130J
The budget request included $26.8 million in PE 41132F,
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF)
for the C-130J program.
The committee recommends a decrease of $6.4 million in PE
41132F for RDTEAF, for a total of $20.4 million, for the C-130J
program due to the availability of prior year funds that are
excess to program needs.
Defense Wide
National defense education program
The budget request included $74.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 61120D8Z,
for the national defense education program. The committee notes
that that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) authorized a program the
Department of Defense to engage in innovative and evidence-
based efforts to improve science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) educational opportunities for military
children. The committee notes that by this fall, 215 military-
connected high schools will be engaged in the program. The
committee also notes that this program is yielding significant
dividends and tangible results. For example, using the highly
rigorous Advanced Placement exam qualifying score (3 or better
on a 5-point scale) as the benchmark, program schools have seen
an average of a 152 percent increase in successful math and
science examinations after 3 years in the program. To support
these efforts, the committee recommends an additional $5.0
million in PE 61120D8Z for a total of $79.3 million to support
evidence-based military child STEM education.
Manufacturing Engineering Education Program
The budget request included $74.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 61120D8Z,
for the National Defense Education Program. Improving the
quality and availability of manufacturing engineering education
is critically important to sustaining and advancing the
manufacturing industrial base of the United States, which is
vital for the economic and national security of the country,
and specifically the Defense Industrial Base, on which the
Department of Defense directly depends for its warfighting
capabilities. Manufacturing engineering education suffered in
proportion to the collapse of manufacturing employment in the
last decade, and needs to be revitalized. The committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million for the Manufacturing
Engineering Education Program established under section
2196(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code in PE 61120D8Z for a
total of $94.3 million.
Support for minority women in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics fields at historically black colleges and
universities
The budget request includes $25.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 61228D8Z,
for research activities at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs). The committee is aware of the need to
increase participation of all American citizens in defense and
related national security efforts. Students at HBCUs represent
a largely untapped pool of U.S. citizens who have technical
training and can obtain the security clearances needed to work
on high priority national security challenges. The committee
notes that the HBCU program at the Department of Defense has
worked both to fund high priority university research,
especially through the establishment of centers of excellence
in key disciplines and activities, and to strengthen the
pipeline of talent from HBCUs into technical positions within
the Department. The committee urges the Department to engage
HBCUs to support the training and education of minority women
in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
fields that are of interest to the military, particularly
through research funding, fellowships, and internships and
cooperative work experiences at Defense laboratories. The
committee recommends that the Department considering increasing
investments in these kinds of activities in future budgets to
support Administration initiatives on HBCUs. Consistent with
the spirit and findings of the INSPIRE Women Act (Public Law
115-7), the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act (Public Law
115-6), and Executive Orders promoting excellence and
innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(E.O. 13532 and E.O. 13779), the committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million to support merit-based and competitive
awards to HBCUs in PE 61228D8Z for a total of $27.9 million.
Tactical technology
The budget request included $343.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, PE
62702E, for tactical technology, of which $33.5 million was
requested for the multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round
engagement system. The committee notes that this system, while
potentially capable, faces an uncertain transition future due
to the complexity involved with installation deployment,
combined with practical limitations on its use. In addition,
the committee notes that the Navy has not yet signed on as a
transition partner despite the potential application to naval
warfare.
The committee also notes that a number of efforts in this
program element are proposed for significant growth, at a time
when similar activities in the Services and the Strategic
Capabilities Office are also growing. At the same time, the
committee is concerned that the agency appears to be
undertaking some of these efforts without sufficient
coordination with the defense research community. Accordingly,
the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in PE
62702E for a total of $328.8 million and recommends that a
portion of the decrease be applied to multi-azimuth defense
fast intercept round engagement system.
Electronics technology
The budget request included $295.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, PE
62176E, for electronics technology. The committee notes that
the request represents an increase of over 33 percent above the
amount enacted for fiscal year 2017, which itself was 25
percent above the amount enacted for fiscal year 2016. The
committee notes that the completed projects in this program
element did not for the most part transition to programs of
records. As a result, the committee recommends a general
program decrease of $10.0 million in PE 62176E for a total of
$285.4 million.
Analytic assessments
The budget request included $13.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, PE
63288D8Z, for science and technology analytic assessments. The
committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in PE 63288D8Z
for a total of $8.2 million, reflecting an interest in
supporting higher priority technology development activities.
The committee also urges the Department to make use of a
broader set of analytic capabilities, including those at not-
for-profit research organizations and think tanks,
universities, and in-house laboratories to support these types
of analyses.
Enhancement of Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership to
Department of Defense
The budget request included $136.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63680D8Z
for Manufacturing Science and Technology Program. The National
Institute for Standards and technology (NIST) conducts a
nation-wide Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) to
support small manufacturing companies to reduce costs, increase
productivity, improve management, enhance their supply chains,
and discover and adapt to new market and supply chain
opportunities. The MEP already supports a large fraction of the
small manufacturers in the Defense Industrial Base, and has
already formed relationships with the Manufacturing USA
Institutes established by the Department of Defense over the
last five years. With additional funding, the MEP could provide
services to a larger fraction of the small businesses already
serving or seeking to become part of the Defense Industrial
Base. In addition, the MEP could play a pivotal role in
ensuring the success of the Manufacturing Institutes by using
its dense network of small business relationships to promote
exposure, networking, and collaboration between small
manufacturers, the MEP centers (as defined in section 25(a) of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15
U.S.C. 278k(a)), and the regional institutes of Manufacturing
USA.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0
million in program element PE 63680D8Z for a total of $171.2
million. Of this increase, $20.0 million would be to extend the
support of the MEP to improve the productivity of the Defense
Industrial Base, and $15.0 million would be to establish
partnerships between MEP centers and the Manufacturing USA
Institutes to enhance participation by small manufacturers,
disseminate technology and know-how to small businesses, and
enhance the supply chains of the Institutes' corporate members.
Sustaining Investment in Manufacturing USA Institutes
The budget request included $136.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63680D8Z
for the Manufacturing Science and Technology Program. Over the
last five years, the Department of Defense (DOD) established
eight manufacturing technology institutes under the
Manufacturing USA Initiative. The institutes are public-private
partnerships between the government, industry, and academia to
mature new, advanced manufacturing technology (technology
readiness levels 3-7) in focused areas that are key to future
economic growth and national security. After five years of
government co-investment, the institutes must be self-
sustaining. Fiscal year 2017 is the fifth and final year of
government funding for the original institute, America Makes,
which is focused on additive manufacturing and 3D printing. In
the next several years, Department of Defense seed funding for
the institutes will cease. The committee agrees that the
institutes should be self-sustaining, but believes that the
institutes represent a valuable research and development
resource that the Department should be using to advance its
manufacturing technology agenda. The committee recommends and
increase of $20.0 million in PE 63680D8Z for a total of $156.2
million for the Department to enter into contracts with the
institutes to address specific Defense manufacturing technology
challenges and opportunities.
The committee notes that there are tensions between
elements of the institutes' designs and goals. The institutes
bring together companies for collaborative purposes and common
interests, but these companies compete with each other and are
naturally cautious about exposing ideas about technical
solutions that they believe could provide a competitive
advantage. The Department of Defense, as a matter of policy,
emphasizes the importance of open access among all institute
members to intellectual property developed at the institute,
but this can discourage companies from working at the
institutes with their vertically aligned supply chains to
create proprietary technological advances. More generally, the
institutes are intended to mature manufacturing technology
while at the same time remaining at the ``pre-competitive''
phase of maturation.
These constraints deter the institutes from generating
distinctive intellectual property or solutions to address
specific manufacturing technology requirements. This in turn
could limit the value of the institutes' work to the military
services and the corporate members that support the institutes
financially. This could handicap the institutes within DOD,
because the metric used to evaluate manufacturing technology
programs is the successful transition of technology directly to
legacy or new programs.
The committee recommends that the Joint Defense
Manufacturing Technology Panel become an active participant in
guiding the Department's work and engagement with the
institutes and the metrics that are developed to assess them,
to ensure greater insights into the military services' actual
defense/supply chain needs. The committee urges the Department
to encourage institutes to support institute members desiring
to work at the institutes with supply chain partners on
proprietary advances. It is vital for the Department to ensure
that the companies that financially support the institutes
realize measurable returns on their investment. The committee
further encourages exploration of new collaborative institute
models being explored by the services outside the Manufacturing
USA framework, such as the Army Research Laboratory's new
Center for Agile Materials Manufacturing Science.
SERDP and ESTCP increases
The budget request included $20.4 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Defense-wide, of
which $71.8 million was for the PE 63716D8Z Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and
$54.5 million for the PE 63851D8Z Environmental Security
Technology Certification Program (ESTCP).
The committee notes that both SERDP and ESTCP demonstrate
and validate the most promising innovative technologies that
can meet the Department's most urgent environmental
requirements, provide a return on investment, and are executed
through a free and open competition.
The committee remains very concerned with the rising number
of military installations across the country that have tested
positive for contaminated drinking water with the presence of
per- and polyfluoroakyl substances, which have a lifetime
health advisory of 70 parts per trillion according to the
Environmental Protection Agency. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, PE 63716D8Z,
for SERDP, and an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, PE
63851D8Z, for ESTCP, for totals of $81.8 million and $64.5
million respectively.
Lastly, the committee directs the Department to use the
increases in SERDP and ESTCP to address the following urgent
concerns: (1) The safety and welfare of the servicemembers and
their dependents by eliminating or reducing the generation of
pollution and use of hazardous materials and reducing the cost
of remedial actions and compliance with environmental laws and
regulations, specifically as it relates to per- and
polyfluoroakyl substances; (2) Improved munitions response and
unexploded ordnance mitigation and removal; and (3) Long-term
threats to sustain training and testing ranges.
Microelectronics technology development and support
The budget request included $219.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63720S for
microelectronics technology development and support. The
committee remains concerned about manufacturing supply chain
assurance against counterfeit parts and ensuring ready access
to trusted microelectronics. The committee notes its desire for
a long-term strategy for the development of trusted
microelectronics that can withstand any future problems with an
international supply chain. To support efforts in
microelectronics technology development and support, the
committee recommends an increase of $80.0 million in PE 63720S
for a total of $299.8 million.
Operational energy capability improvement
The budget request included $20.4 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $38.4 million was for the PE 64055D8Z Operational Energy
Capability Improvement Fund (OECIF).
The committee recognizes the urgent requirement to
constantly innovate and improve combat capability and
operational effectiveness for the warfighter, via targeted and
competitive operational energy science and technology
investments.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $48.4 million, in RDT&E, PE 64055D8Z,
for OECIF.
Specifically, the committee directs the Department to use
the OECIF and increase in funding to address the following
urgent concerns: deployable technologies that can harvest water
from air, tactical microgrids, hybrid energy storage modules,
waste to energy technologies given the continual challenge of
open-air burn pits, joint infantry company prototypes, long-
endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, and other technologies
deemed appropriate.
Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Program
The budget request included $105.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 603913C,
for Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Programs. The committee
recommends an increase of $268.5 million in PE 603913C, for a
total of $373.8 million, to reduce development risk and
continue the modernization of Israeli's multi-tiered missile
defense systems. The additional funding shall be apportioned as
follows: $28.1 million for the Arrow-3 Upper Tier system;
$105.0 million to conduct flight tests of the Arrow-3 Upper
Tier system at a U.S. test range; $71.5 million for the Arrow
System Improvement program; and $63.9 million for the David's
Sling program. The committee urges the Government of Israel to
avoid any additional, unnecessary costs in further tests of the
Arrow-3 program and to leverage these and any other U.S. funds
already appropriated to plan for such future tests.
Corrosion control and prevention funding increase
The budget request included $20.4 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $3.8 million was for PE 64016D8Z Department of Defense
(DOD) Corrosion Program.
The committee continues to be concerned that the Department
has consistently underfunded the DOD Corrosion Program since
fiscal year 2011. The DOD estimates that the negative effects
of corrosion cost approximately $22.9 billion annually to
prevent and mitigate corrosion of its assets, including
military equipment, weapons, facilities, and other
infrastructure.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $13.8 million, in RDT&E Defense-wide,
PE 64016D8Z, for the DOD Corrosion Program.
Defense technology offset
The budget request included $0.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64342D8Z
for defense technology offset. The committee notes that
insufficient funds have been put towards directed energy,
inconsistent with the intent of Congress to bolster directed
energy technologies. In addition, a provision elsewhere in this
Act establishes a directed energy weapon system prototype and
demonstration initiative and authorizes $200 million for these
efforts. The committee underscores that directed energy systems
are still critical areas of work in need of greater support and
attention. The committee believes that the Department needs to
focus in particular on the transition from lab development to
deployment and fielding. Consequently, the committee recommends
a general increase of $200.0 million in PE 64342D8Z for a total
of $200.0 million to be used only for the purposes of directed
energy weapon systems prototyping and demonstration in
conjunction with the new program established elsewhere in this
Act. Of this increase, the committee recommends that an
appropriate amount be made available for the Joint Directed
Energy Transition Office to carry out additional authorities
and responsibilities, including the development of the
strategic plan, pursuant to section 219 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
The committee notes that this increase builds on the efforts in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92), which established a new technology offset
program that included a strong focus on directed energy
technologies.
Ground-Launched Intermediate-Range Missile
The budget request included no funding for a Ground-
Launched Intermediate-Range Missile in Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide. The committee recommends an
increase of $65.0 million for this initiative. A provision
related to the authorization for the use of such funds is
included in title XVI of this Act.
Government-unique Tracking and Reporting Tool
The budget request included $21.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 65027D8Z,
for IT Development Initiatives including $2.0 million for a
Financial Management and Certification Tracking and Reporting
Tool. Given that colleges and universities exist, and nearly
every federal agency, and every company has some kind of
mandatory training program for employees, the tracking of
certification and reporting for training initiatives is a
solved technical problem in the commercial market. The
Department does not need to award a contract to develop a new
system from scratch, and instead should develop an approach
that considers modernizing the existing system to optimize its
performance using expertise resident in the Department, or
ordering an off-the shelf solution from the commercial market
and configuring it. Therefore the committee recommends a
reduction of $2.0 million from this account.
Defense-Wide Electronic Procurement Capabilities
The budget request included $11.9 million in Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide (RDT&E DW), for PE
65210D8Z for Defense-Wide Electronic Procurement Capabilities.
The committee is concerned about duplication among the military
services in contract writing systems. The committee recommends
a decrease of $11.9 million in RDT&E DW for PE 65210D8Z for a
total of $0.0 million.
Software developmental testing
The budget request include $20.6 million in PE65804D8Z for
Development Test and Evaluation in Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
improve capabilities for the agile testing of software to
support more efficient development of advanced information
technologies and systems.
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
The budget request included $37.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), PE
1105219BB, for the development, integration, and testing of
special operations-unique mission kits for the Medium Altitude
Long Endurance Tactical (MALET) MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible
for the rapid development and acquisition of special operations
capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out
operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral
damage.
The committee understands that the budget request only
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $13.0 million in RDTEDW for the MQ-9 UAV for a total
of $50.9 million.
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 5 years to enhance these efforts and understands that
SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new
capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target
location and tracking, image resolution, and video transmission
during that time. The committee expects SOCOM to update the
committee periodically on its development efforts under the
MALET MQ-9 UAV program.
Items of Special Interest
Active electronically scanned array radar improvements
The committee notes that Air Force and Navy fighter
aircraft are equipped with active electronically scanned array
(AESA) types of radars, and all services are actively pursuing
retrofit of these types of radars on legacy aircraft. The Air
Force has identified threats from adversaries operating at
frequencies where AESA radar's capability can be further
improved, and has tasked the Air Force Research Laboratory to
lead the development of technologies that address these
capability gaps, in order to develop hardware that can be used
across the services to address spectrum threats to radars,
weapons, missile seekers, and other airborne platforms. The
Committee encourages the Air Force to continue these efforts
and provide resources as needed to develop newer, more capable
arrays which will provide significant performance advantages.
Advanced airlift airship technology
The committee has continuing interest in advanced lighter-
than-air (LTA) logistic airship technology and remains eager to
see practicability, operating utility, and cost benefits
proven, believing that advanced technology in this area can
provide a transformational logistic capability for the
Department of Defense by adding particular value to a range of
airlift missions. Advanced airships have the potential to
effect significant changes in atmospheric flight; however,
fostering government involvement and leadership remains the
vital catalyst to help advanced airships emerge.
To this end, the Senate report accompanying S. 2943 (S.
Rept. 114-255) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 directed the Secretary of Defense to stand up
leadership responsibility for an advanced airship initiative.
The goal was to encourage the successful development of outsize
airlift technology that could release revolutionary capability
for defense logistics, particularly with respect to long range
``point of need delivery'' and outsize or extreme weight
airlift to facilitate humanitarian assistance, disaster relief,
and non-combatant evacuation operations.
Airship efforts during the past 20 years or more have
failed to make a breakthrough as viable cargo carriers. The
committee has determined that a more deliberate approach to the
development of future airship technology is evidently required.
The transformational potential for outsize cargo airlift is not
in doubt: the committee notes that the United States
Transportation Command has stated previously that airships
possess the key to a substantial strengthening of military air
mobility. However, effective developmental execution has been
missing.
The committee believes that this can be changed and the
technology successfully matured through robust engagement by
the Defense Department. Simple ``blimp'' technology is not the
basis of a successful program. The goal must be an advanced air
vehicle that is consistent with 21st century military
transportation needs. The demand for structured experimentation
and development leading to demonstration appears best suited to
be undertaken by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
where there is a history of advanced airship work, notably, the
heavy-lift Walrus program.
The introduction of a system of integrated advanced airship
lift technologies is the key to addressing the hard issues of
in-flight buoyancy control, vertical take-off and landing
capability, and ballast generation. In this way, airships
operating with extreme outsize payloads can achieve the
operating standards that are typical of modern air
transportation. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
working with the military, industry, and commercial sector, is
uniquely agile and fitted to manage this type of approach.
The Department must take the lead to explore advanced
airship outsize cross-modal airlift to meet the emerging needs
of the Air Force, United States Transportation Command, and the
other combatant commands. In this regard, the committee directs
that, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall:
(1) Identify a senior leader to reaffirm defense
leadership and responsibilities for airship technical
initiatives;
(2) Provide an outline for a future Department of
Defense airship technology strategy that takes
ownership of maturation efforts consistent with
military outsize airlift capability to identify:
(a) Critical technology challenges and
demonstrations required to provide proof of
viability;
(b) Development risks and important lessons
learned; and
(c) Impediments to successful demonstration,
including gaps in Department of Defense
understanding of airship technology; and
(3) Lay out notional estimates for time, costs, and
other necessary resources to conduct an incremental
demonstration for technical viability with suitable
decision points and off-ramps.
Aircraft battery cost-savings technology improvements
The committee believes all proven and relevant technologies
should be investigated for application to existing platforms if
such an application would greatly reduce the cost to the
government. In particular, lithium-ion battery technology, a
proven commercial technology, would bring better, more
efficient power storage capability to military aircraft.
Because all military aircraft rely on effective batteries
for systems starting and emergency power, a durable and
reliable battery is a key component to an effective fighting
asset. Any power-density increases or battery life improvements
lead directly to cost savings through reductions in maintenance
cycles, purchasing costs, and space and weight requirements.
Estimates show that leading lithium-ion batteries can offer 2
to 3 times the service life of traditional nickel-cadmium
aircraft batteries at 50 percent of the weight.
Given these circumstances surrounding the latest battery
technology improvements, the committee recommends all service
aviation program research offices review available battery
solutions for cost savings through alternate battery sourcing
options, capitalizing on available lithium-ion battery
technologies for longer battery life and reduced costs.
Botulinum Toxin Type A countermeasures
The committee notes that the Department of Defense and more
specifically DTRA is managing efforts to develop a vaccine to
counter botulinum toxin types A and B. There is evidence and
discussion in the scientific community stating that the use of
the BoNT/A vaccine which the department is pursuing can limit
future medical treatments for military personnel in that it
would prevent immunized warfighters and veterans from receiving
the benefit of the rapidly growing number of important medical
uses of botulinum toxin type A. Several of these medical uses
are critically important to the military veteran population,
including treatments for PTSD-associated migraine and
amputation pain.
Within 60 days of enactment of this act, DTRA shall brief
the congressional defense committees on their research and
development plans to counter botulinum toxin type A. This would
include any projected impact and/or potential drawbacks in
using the BoNT/A vaccine.
Briefings on autonomy, robotics, and artificial intelligence
The committee recognizes the importance of technologies
such as autonomy, robotics, and artificial intelligence for the
future of military capabilities. Accordingly, the committee
requests that the secretary of each military service and
offices of the Department of Defense as selected by the
Secretary of Defense provide briefings to the Committees on
Armed Services of the House and the Senate on planned and
potential research, development, testing, and evaluation of
such technologies. The briefings should discuss what entities
within the service or office have responsibility for robotics,
autonomy, and artificial intelligence issues and existing plans
for research, development, testing, and engineering of these
technologies as well as plans to incorporate these technologies
into doctrine and strategy.
Clarification of definition of small business for purposes of prototype
project authority
The committee notes that Other Transactions authority has
proven to be successful in helping the Department of Defense
attract nontraditional performers, including small businesses.
These performers carry out prototype projects that enhance the
mission effectiveness of military personnel. The committee
encourages and supports the Department of Defense to expand its
use of Other Transactions authority for funding agreements
under the Small Business Innovative Research program and Small
Business Technology Transfer program.
The mission of these two small business programs is to
support scientific excellence and technological innovation
through the investment of federal research funds in critical
American priorities to build a strong national economy.
Encouraging and supporting the Department of Defense to use
proven innovative procurement processes such as Other
Transactions authority for funding agreements under the small
business programs will both enhance the mission effectiveness
of the Department of Defense and help accomplish the mission of
the programs.
Common data environment for modeling and simulation
Modeling, training, and simulation efforts require
significant amounts and different types of data in order to
adequately simulate the operational environment. Each community
and military service within the Department of Defense currently
independently develops data for modeling and simulation
purposes to support their own training, operations, analysis,
test and development. The committee believes that this approach
is not optimal, with independent data solutions increasing
costs and inhibiting interoperability across the Department.
The committee recognizes that some investment has been made to
create capability to improve data sharing, reduce costs, and
eliminate duplicative data collection and processing efforts.
The committee further recognizes that additional investment and
coordinated strategy may be needed to maintain and advance
better use of data by the modeling and simulation community.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to take actions
to identify and address data collection, analysis, and sharing
issues that are limiting development of more robust modeling
and simulation capabilities.
Comptroller General review of Next Generation Air Dominance
The Navy and Air Force are both in the process of analyzing
alternative system concepts to address future capability gaps
described in the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Initial
Capabilities Document. The NGAD analysis of alternatives is
expected to be completed in fiscal year 2018. At that time, the
Services will have identified their preferred system concept(s)
and will likely begin significantly increasing investments to
mature critical technologies, begin early design work, and
refine system requirements with the expectation of fielding an
NGAD system capable of penetrating anti-access/area-denial
operating environments by the 2030 timeframe. Both services are
considering a family of systems approach with the potential
acquisition of a new advanced fighter aircraft for replacing F/
A-18, EA-18, F-15C, and F-22 as a major element of their NGAD
investment plans. Given the likely size of the potential future
investment for this capability, the complexity and risk
inherent in the family of systems approach, and the strategic
importance of successfully acquiring next generation air
dominance capabilities, independent perspective and oversight
will be vital to achieving a successful effort.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States, on an annual basis until the Milestone C or
full rate production decision for any resulting program of
record, to review the Department's NGAD investment plans and
associated acquisition program(s) and to provide periodic
briefings to the congressional defense committees on the
findings of the reviews. The Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) initial review should include an assessment of the
Department's NGAD requirements, concept alternatives, and risk
reduction efforts. Future reviews should also include an
assessment of the relevant NGAD acquisition programs': (1)
acquisition strategies; (2) technology, design, and production
readiness; (3) development, testing, and fielding progress; and
(4) overall cost, schedule, and technical performance.
The committee believes that in order to support the GAO's
efforts, it is necessary to ensure timely access to program
information including, but not limited to, cost and budget
information, detailed schedules, contractor data, program
management reports, decision briefings, risk and technology
readiness assessments, and technical performance measures.
Given the classified nature of some of the information, the GAO
is directed to advise the committee of any assistance GAO
personnel will need to secure access to information related to
this review.
Executive agent for printed circuit board technology
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts through the
Department of Defense Executive Agent for Printed Circuit Board
Technology (PrCB EA) to develop and execute a strategy to
address the declining printed circuit board industrial base and
gaps identified in the 2015 Department of Defense Executive
Agent for Printed Circuit Board and Interconnect Technology
Roadmap. According to a PrCB EA industrial base capability
assessment, between 1980 and 2014, the printed circuit board
manufacturing base declined 86 percent from over 2,000
manufacturers to just 280. The committee is concerned that what
remains of the U.S. printed circuit board industrial base is
becoming less capable of sustaining the superiority of
Department of Defense systems and growing increasingly
dependent on foreign suppliers, particularly China. This poses
a risk to the Defense supply chain in terms of the quality and
trustworthiness of the products it acquires. The committee
supports continued execution of PrCB EA functions addressing
trust, supply chain, organic capability, and research
activities, including the continued development of a network of
trusted suppliers and leveraging the DoD Trusted Supplier
Program to include PrCB designers, manufacturers, and
electronic assemblers.
Facility leasing authority for Department of Defense science and
technology laboratories and test and evaluation centers
The committee notes that a lack of modern and adequate
facilities and infrastructure is likely the single biggest
challenge facing Department of Defense science and technology
laboratories and test and evaluation centers. Being forced to
work in old, outdated, and potentially dangerous laboratories
and facilities not only affects the pace and output of
scientific achievement, but it also harms morale and retention
among a highly-skilled group of government employees. In
addition, aging facilities often present serious safety
considerations that further impact the ability of the
laboratories and centers to carry out their missions. All of
these issues hamper the productivity and efficiency of the
defense research, development, test, and evaluation enterprise
and ultimately hurt the development of technology for our Armed
Forces.
The committee further notes that section 2812 of title 10,
United States Code, authorizes the secretary of a military
service or the Secretary of Defense to enter into lease
agreements for a wide range of facilities. However, this
authority has seldom been used for defense laboratories and
test centers, despite the obvious need for newer and more
modern laboratory facilities.
In recognition of the existing needs and authorities, the
committee directs the secretary of each military service to
delegate down the authority to enter into lease agreements to
the respective director of each Department of Defense science
and technology laboratory and test and evaluation center. By
delegating this authority, the committee expects that the
directors of laboratories and centers would have the authority
to enter into lease agreements with private contractors for
certain kinds of facilities, pursuant to section 2812 of title
10, United States Code. The committee further expects that use
of the authority by respective directors would significantly
expedite the usage of modern and safe facilities.
Human simulation
The Committee recognizes a foundational research effort
that couples applied research in human simulation with physics-
based survivability analysis models will lead to substantial
information and insight that lowers costs to enhance warfighter
mobility, survivability, welfare and training. The committee
believes that funding for research and integration of physics-
based human simulation with existing government models of
survivability/lethality analysis and human performance to
create a holistic model will support: (1) the research and
development of more realistic avatars that can ``feel'' the
forces of the environment, have strength, can exhibit fatigue,
and have natural behavior like their human counterparts; (2)
integration of the models; and (3) model verification and
validation.
Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP)
The committee commends the Army for moving forward with
research and development of the Improved Turbine Engine Program
(ITEP), the service's stated top aviation modernization
program. The Army is further commended for its efforts in
exploring initial ways to accelerate development and fielding
of this critical program that is intended to develop a more
fuel efficient and powerful engine for the current UH-60 and
AH-64 helicopter fleets. This new engine will substantially
increase operational capabilities in high or hot environments,
increase range, and improve fuel efficiency while reducing the
logistics footprint, resulting in dramatically reduced
operating and support costs. Given the positive progress of
this key program, the Committee fully funds ITEP in fiscal year
2018 and encourages the Army to ensure ITEP is robustly funded
in future years.
Improving aerospace materials performance
The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts
to develop new capabilities to improve structural metallic
materials used in high priority aerospace and other defense
missions. The committee notes that advanced materials
processing and characterization techniques, available in
industry, academia, and government labs, including using high-
energy X-rays and other techniques, can help design engineers
better understand which materials are best suited for stressing
military performance requirements and develop optimal and
efficient manufacturing processes for these unique materials.
It is critical that Department of Defense scientists engage in
hands-on experiential learning to train a new generation of
materials scientists and engineers in these new capabilities,
including the creation and implementation of high-fidelity
simulations and advanced data-science methods to support
development of next generation weapons systems. The committee
recommends that the Department encourage and establish
partnerships with industry and academic centers of technical
expertise, as well as leveraging unique, world-class research
infrastructure best suited to support Department of Defense
technology goals.
Joint directed energy test center
The committee notes that next generation weapon systems are
being developed by the Department of Defense and industry, but
the nation's infrastructure for testing those weapon systems is
antiquated and in need of modernization. The Department of
Defense established the nation's first High Energy Laser System
Test Facility (HELSTF) in 1975, but the technology has seen
significant advancements over the course of four decades. As
directed energy weapon systems mature, the need to validate
their performance becomes increasingly important.
The committee applauds the Air Force for proposing a Joint
Directed Energy Test Center, which could potentially
concentrate government expertise and reduce duplication of
effort across the Department of Defense in order to support
more rapid and cost effective testing and fielding of directed
energy weapon systems. The committee believes that doing so
could also allow the broad, standardized collection and
evaluation of data to establish test references and support
policy decisions in a more reliable fashion.
The committee is aware that the Test Resource Management
Center and the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office
produced a report in 2009 recommending funding over the future
years defense program to develop and maintain adequate
personnel, resources, and facilities to test current and future
high energy laser systems. Despite these recommendations, the
Department has submitted budget requests that have resulted in
a 75 percent cut in budget and personnel at HELSTF. With this
in mind, the committee directs the Director of Operational
Testing and Evaluation to review and update the 2009 report and
to identify infrastructure and personnel needs at HELSTF to
accommodate the growth and maturity of directed energy weapon
systems across the military services. The Director should
consult with the services and reference the Air Force Directed
Energy Flight Plan when updating the report. The committee
directs the Department to submit and brief the updated to the
defense committees on the updated report within 90 days.
Live, Virtual, and Constructive Training
The ability of the services to effectively and efficiently
train to real world threats in realistic environments is being
increasingly challenged by a variety of factors, including
security concerns, airspace limitations, and a lack of
representative threats. As the gap widens between what our
forces would likely face in a conflict with a near-peer
adversary and what they can train to, U.S. combat effectiveness
will atrophy. However, advances in technology for simulator
systems, including fidelity, synthetic inputs, and other
technologies, have allowed the services to expand opportunities
for realistic and effective training. The migration to more
live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) training has the
potential to fill training gaps and enhance the services'
overall training programs. While strongly supportive of the
services' efforts to develop LVC capabilities, the committee is
concerned the services are executing the various development
programs to deliver training solutions that are insufficiently
integrated and interoperable, inhibiting the potential for
taking full advantage of these systems for invaluable joint
force training.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the Air
Force, Army, and Navy, not later than March 1, 2018, to provide
to the congressional defense committees a report on their
respective plans for LVC training. The reports should include:
(1) a description of the warfighter requirement(s) that LVC
training programs are meant to fulfill; (2) a description of
programs for fielding LVC training; (3) an identification of
costs associated with each of the LVC programs; (4) an estimate
of the projected timelines for fielding the LVC training
systems; (5) a discussion of any challenges to development,
integration, and fielding of LVC capabilities; (6) a
description of the extent to which interoperability with the
LVC architectures of the other services has been included in
the requirements, development, integration, and fielding of
their respective LVC programs; and (7) an identification of who
in the services' organization is responsible for ensuring the
interoperability of their LVC capabilities with the other
services. The required report shall be unclassified, but may
include a classified annex.
Low cost unmanned aerospace systems development
Future anticipated military threats and tighter defense
budgets combine to drive the need for new and innovative
solutions towards the development of future low cost unmanned
aerospace systems (UAS). As manned aircraft costs have
continued to escalate, so has the need for UAS concepts that
offer dramatic reductions in cost in order to bring ``mass'' to
the engagement and to achieve a cost imposing effect on future
adversaries, has grown. UAS performance, design life
reliability and maintainability drive the cost of today's
systems, and need to be traded to achieve the optimum
capability and cost effects. Thus, the committee believes the
development of an attritable UAS, with fighter like capability,
whereby virtue of its cost, loss of aircraft could be
tolerated, is necessary in order to change the cost curve of
war. This concept should provide long range, runway independent
launch and recovery, transonic, strike capability in remote,
contested regions where forward basing is difficult or
prohibited. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of
Defense to further research and development activities into
fighter-like, low-cost, attritable UAS with the intent of
creating a program of record and encourages the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council to consider this capability when
updating UAS related requirements.
Machine learning for national security
The committee commends the Department's focus on machine
learning in its Third Offset Strategy as a means of enhancing
the safety of our men and women in uniform, lowering costs,
streamlining processes, and informing strategic decision
making. The committee is aware that the exponential growth in
data available for collection globally as well as the evolving
machine learning techniques and growing computational resources
are both an opportunity and a necessity. Countries that make
effective use of these data and tools will have strategic and
tactical advantages over those that do not. As such, the
committee urges the Department to continue to expand its
exploration of commercial machine learning offerings and, in
particular, to consider the promise of machine learning applied
to non-traditional data sets, including financial markets, the
Internet of things, and global supply chains. These and other
like data sets encapsulate the actions and decisions of wide
swaths of the world's population and thus may provide enhanced
situational awareness as well as anticipatory signals of future
events.
Management innovation at Department of Defense labs and test ranges
On May 3, 2017, the committee received testimony indicating
that bureaucratic processes, procedures, regulations, and other
internal hurdles are stifling the innovative capacity of the
Department of Defense laboratories and test centers. Former
officials from all three service research enterprises, as well
as from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, indicated that
these challenges were pervasive in their services and
organizations. The committee was frustrated to learn not only
that innovation is being stifled but also that authorities
granted by this committee in previous years have not yet been
utilized.
This situation both drives up costs and slows the
development of advanced technologies and systems to support
operational needs. The committee is concerned that Department
general counsels and other management officials are narrowly
interpreting authorized flexibilities and policies that would
streamline bureaucratic processes and increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of labs and test ranges.
Furthermore, the committee notes that some organizations, such
as the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Strategic
Capabilities Office, have been given special management
attention to overcome bureaucratic barriers and support their
mission execution.
The committee expects the Department to create incentives
for its workforce. The committee highlights that authorities to
increase local control of management processes at its
laboratories and test ranges, identify and eliminate burdensome
processes and policies, and streamline internal business
practices to support innovation missions have already been
granted in section 233 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328). As such, the
committee reiterates its expectation that these authorities
will be implemented this fiscal year.
The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to pay
similar attention to the needs of the vast majority of the
Department's innovation workforce, namely the personnel at the
labs and test ranges, and provide them with similar support and
relief from bureaucratic barriers. Further, the committee
expects the Secretary to develop a set of awards and other
incentives for personnel or teams who identify bureaucratic
issues in the Department's innovation organizations and develop
solutions to address them.
Marine Corps nano-sized vertical takeoff and landing small unmanned
aircraft
The committee supports the United States Marine Corps
(USMC) Requirements Oversight Council's (MROC) nano-sized and
Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) Small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (SUAS) approved program, and the MROC's determination
that nano-sized VTOL SUAS are critical at the squad level to
help Marines in small units enhance situational awareness. This
capability has received the support of the Commandant of the
Marine Corps and was further supported in the 2017 USMC Land
Systems Investment Plan. The committee is also supportive of
the USMC $14.2 million unfunded request in fiscal year 2017 for
this effort. For squad level missions, pocket-sized sensors
provide soldiers with improved intelligence, situational
awareness, and enhanced targeting capability. The committee
understands that this technology has been successfully
demonstrated by allies during operations and believes it holds
promising potential for USMC operations.
The committee urges the Commandant of the Marine Corps to
advance development and implementation of nano-sized VTOL SUAS
capability at the squad level. The committee directs the
Commandant of the Marine Corps to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by December 15, 2017 providing
the status of the nano-sized and Vertical Takeoff and Landing
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems program, a detailed discussion
of the technologies being reviewed, and the acquisition plan
for implementing this capability into the standard USMC squad
inventory.
Maritime barriers
The Secretary of the Navy provided a report on May 10, 2016
in response to the Senate report accompanying S. 1376 (S. Rept.
114-49) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016. The Navy concluded that a commercial-off-the-shelf
maritime security barrier ``has the potential to provide
greater operational capability compared to the current port
security barriers against current and projected threats.'' The
business case analysis showed a significant decrease in
sustainment cost for a commercial system.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Navy to continue development, testing, and evaluation of next
generation water barriers.
Minerva special interest area on information operations
The committee notes that the Minerva Research Initiative
provides the Department of Defense with valuable research that
enhances the Department's understanding of the social forces
shaping national security challenges. The committee also notes
that the Department's understanding of information operations,
such as those detailed in the Director of National
Intelligence's report titled, ``Assessing Russian Activities
and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,'' would benefit from
additional research and findings. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to provide the Minerva
Research Initiative with additional support to preform greater
research on information operations, including ways to identify
and counter fake media, identify automated misinformation
spreading techniques, and other technical aspects to include
short-term factors. The committee directs the Secretary to
provide a report on the status of this new research area to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act.
Next Generation Jammer
The committee believes the Navy's Next Generation Jammer
(NGJ) is a critical element of Airborne Electronic Attack that
is required to meet both current and emerging electronic
warfare gaps. The committee understands that the Navy will
field NGJ capabilities in three increments covering different
radio frequency bands. Each increment will be designed as
separate podded systems and each system will cover a different
segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. Increment 1 focuses on
the mid-band threat and Increment 2 will cover low-end
frequency ranges to counter emerging threats from ``low band''
radar systems. While the Increment 1 program is well underway,
the Navy's request for fiscal year 2018 includes $66.7 million
for Increment 2 (low band). The FY18 funding will be used to
collect data from technology demonstrations to confirm
assertions of technical maturity that may be used in the
Increment 2 podded solution in order to support potential
program entry at Milestone B.
While the committee supports the Navy's plan to thoroughly
examine options early in the program, the committee believes
the Navy should investigate whether Increment 1 hardware could
be leveraged to reduce the overall cost of Increment 2 and
reduce schedule risk.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Navy to consider leveraging Increment 1 investments and design
elements for Increment 2. The committee believes that, if it
were possible to do so, leveraging proven technology may allow
unique Increment 2 development efforts to focus on items
specific to the low band jamming capability, such as antenna
development and other discriminating technology.
Radiation detection technology
The committee remains concerned that shortfalls in fielding
the most current radiation detection devices, specifically
personal dosimeters, continue to exist, and most notably within
the Active Army force structure. To ensure our troops and
domestic first responders are provided with the best possible
protection to monitor against nuclear exposure, the committee
strongly encourages the Department to expedite and complete the
fielding of modern radiation detection equipment, specifically
personal dosimeters, across the force.
Report on defense manufacturing and technology supply chain
The committee is concerned that the domestic manufacturing
and industrial base has weakened to the point that it may no
longer be able to support the needs of the Department of
Defense, especially in delivering low cost goods and systems to
operational forces, responding to demands for surge production,
and manufacturing next generation military technologies. The
committee notes that the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental
and the Pentagon's Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base
Policy have both begun analyses on coordinated foreign
investment strategies in U.S. defense manufacturing sectors and
in those U.S. companies developing military-relevant emerging
technologies. Combined with the United States' own lack of
strategies, industrial policies, and funded programs to address
existing and developing weaknesses in the domestic
technological and industrial base, this situation presents a
clear threat to the national security interests of the United
States.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to prepare a report examining the extent to which large-
scale outsourcing of manufacturing activities to China, Chinese
investments in manufacturing capabilities, and Chinese
investments in emerging technologies are leading to the
hollowing out of the U.S. defense industrial and technology
base. This report should also detail the national security
implications of a diminished domestic industrial base,
including assessing any impact on U.S. military readiness,
compromised U.S. military supply chains, and reduced capability
to manufacture and develop new state-of-the-art military
systems and equipment. The committee directs the Comptroller
General to submit this report to the congressional defense
committees no later than 1 year after the enactment of this
Act.
Review of policies on use of directed energy weapon systems
The committee notes that Department of Defense policies
exist that limit the use of high energy lasers (HEL) and high
power microwaves (HPM) in testing and in combat. While it is
necessary to examine unintended consequences of potential
weapon systems, current restrictions and approval processes for
directed energy weapon systems may be overly burdensome and
prevent the deployment and usage of those systems. The
committee therefore directs the Department of Defense to
identify policies that may hinder the approval process and
usage of directed energy weapon systems, intentional and
unintentional, and to propose possible remedies. The committee
encourages the Department to place an emphasis on risk
mitigation measures as opposed to risk avoidance when proposing
solutions, similar to other weapon systems, and to brief the
congressional defense committees on its findings.
Small engine technologies
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
adequately resource efforts to identify low-cost, efficient,
small engine technologies capable of powering missiles and
unmanned aerial vehicles, and directs the Secretary of Defense,
or an appropriate subordinate in the Department of Defense, to
provide a briefing to the defense committees on current
research and development efforts and the industrial base that
supports this technology not later than 180 days after
enactment of this Act.
Streamlined acquisition practices to support innovation at Department
of Defense laboratories
The committee notes that expert witnesses during a
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities hearing on
May 3, 2017, identified a number of acquisition management and
bureaucratic burdens that both slowed the process of
incorporating new technologies into Department of Defense
systems and drove up costs of development and adoption.
Similarly, the leadership of the Defense Innovation Board has
indicated that the Department does not have ``an innovation
problem'' but rather ``an innovation adoption problem.''
The committee is concerned that acquisition processes
hinder the ability of the defense laboratories to invest in
leading edge research and technology development efforts at
small business and commercial companies and also to execute the
contracting transactions necessary to run the laboratories
themselves in the most efficient manner. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, working through the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the
Laboratory Quality Enhancement Panel, to develop a set of
recommendations for a pilot program on streamlined acquisition
that could be executed by the defense laboratories. The pilot
could include waivers of processes, regulations, and
directives, as well as recommendations on relief from statutory
restrictions and requirements. The committee directs that these
recommendations be delivered to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no
later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.
Ultra Low Power Deployable Radar
The Committee is aware of efforts undertaken by U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to develop an ultra-low
power, rapidly deployable radar to enhance surveillance and
reconnaissance missions and to provide small team force
protection in austere locations such as mountainous, foliage,
and riverine environments. The Committee understands that
requirements for such a capability may be finalized in the near
future and looks forward to the results of SOCOM's
deliberations.
University science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs
with the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps
The committee is aware that many Junior Reserve Officer
Training Corps (JROTC) programs have developed summer
leadership camps focusing on science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM). These residential programs offer a
unique exposure to and hands on experience in technology
focused fields for many students in school districts with
limited STEM education. The committee understands that
partnerships with local universities have been critical to
provide the infrastructure, curriculum, and connections with
industry and STEM educators needed for these programs to be a
success. The committee strongly supports the continuation of
the JROTC STEM leadership camps and other STEM learning
opportunities that promote STEM education experiences that
prioritize hands-on learning to increase student engagement and
achievement. Furthermore, the services are encouraged to
develop ways to share best practices for STEM curriculum across
the JROTC regions.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at
the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this
Act.
Subtitle B--Logistics and Sustainment
Sentinel Landscapes Partnership (sec. 311)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense to participate in Sentinel
Landscapes. The committee encourages the Department of Defense,
Departments of Agriculture, and the Department of Interior to
work together to align resources and implement a comprehensive,
multiple-tool approach to promoting and sustaining compatible
land uses in a manner that protects nearby military test and
training needs and can benefit landowners and partners.
Increased percentage of sustainment funds authorized for realignment to
restoration and modernization at each installation (sec. 312)
The committee recommends a provision that would grant
temporary permissive authority to the Secretary of Defense to
authorize an installation commander to realign up to 7.5
percent of that installation's sustainment funds to restoration
and modernization. The committee notes that this authority
would expire on September 30, 2022.
Subtitle C--Reports
Plan for modernized, dedicated Department of the Navy adversary air
training enterprise (sec. 321)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps to
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, not later than March 1, 2018, a
resource ready and executable plan for developing and emplacing
a modernized dedicated adversary air training enterprise to
support the full spectrum air combat readiness of the United
States Navy and Marine Corps.
The committee believes the threat that our combat air
forces face is steadily increasing, both in capacity and
advanced capability. Potential foes have made rapid
technological advances, increased the size of their air forces,
and postured those forces more aggressively. As a result, air
superiority is no longer a given for U.S. forces, renewing the
urgency for high-end adversary air training. However, the
committee is concerned the Navy and Marine Corps are not
currently positioned to provide the necessary training in
either an effective or efficient manner. While the Navy Fleet
Fighter Composite and Marine Fighter Training Squadrons provide
invaluable training to the fleet, they are limited in capacity
and their aircraft are old, limiting their ability to replicate
high-end threat representations that our forces are likely to
encounter in any conflict with a near-peer adversary. Indeed,
the 2017 Marine Aviation Plan states the adversary capacity gap
is growing and the F-5s flown by the adversary squadrons do not
meet the requirements for F/A-18 and F-35 aircraft. The
training gap will only increase as the Navy and Marine Corps
transition to the F-35, increasing the need for high-end threat
representations.
To meet training requirements, Navy and Marine Corps
squadrons are forced to rely on organic adversary (or ``red'')
air, using up valuable hours on operational aircraft and
providing limited training for pilots who are already receiving
insufficient flight hours. While the committee believes that
advances in Live, Virtual, and Constructive training will help
alleviate some of the training gaps, no amount of constructive
or simulated training can match actual flying against real
world airborne threats with advanced sensors, electronic
warfare, and advanced performance parameters.
The Department of the Navy needs to develop a comprehensive
plan to provide our aviators the advanced adversary air
training they need to ensure the United States' ability to
control the air when and where it chooses.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Defense Siting Clearinghouse (sec. 331)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, to ensure the proper
assessment of energy projects by the Department of Defense's
Siting Clearinghouse.
Temporary installation reutilization authority for arsenals, depots,
and plants (sec. 332)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
pilot program to grant permissive authority to the Secretary of
the Army to authorize leases and contracts up to 25 years under
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, if the Secretary
determines that a lease or contract will promote the national
defense to maintain the viability of an arsenal, depot, plant,
or military installation on which such facility is located. The
committee further notes that any lease is subject to a 90-day
hold period for the purposes of review by the Army real
property manager. The committee finally notes that this
authority would expire on September 30, 2020.
Pilot program for operation and maintenance budget presentation (sec.
333)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
3-year pilot program for the operating tempo, flying hour,
depot maintenance, and base operating support subactivity
groups for each service to be submitted as an annex or annexes
in conjunction with the President's budget requests beginning
with fiscal year 2019 and ending with the submission for fiscal
year 2021. The committee believes that the operation and
maintenance budget, which comprises about 40 percent of the
Department of Defense's annual budget submissions, requires
additional transparency.
Servicewomen's commemorative partnerships (sec. 334)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to provide not more than $5.0 million
for the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of exhibits,
facilities, historical displays, and programs at military
service memorials and museums that highlight the role of women
in the military.
Authority for agreements to reimburse states for costs of suppressing
wildfires on State lands caused by Department of Defense
activities under leases and other grants of access to state
lands (sec. 335)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2691 of title 10, United States Code, to grant
permissive authority to the Secretary of Defense to reimburse a
state for reasonable costs when that state incurs costs to
suppress wildland fires that were caused by the activities of
the Department of Defense.
Repurposing and reuse of surplus Army firearms (sec. 336)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to transfer all excess firearms, related
spare parts and components, small arms ammunition, and
ammunition components currently stored at Defense Distribution
Depot, Anniston, Alabama that are no longer actively issued for
military service and not commercially available to Rock Island
Arsenal for melting and to be reforged into new firearms and
force protection barriers.
The committee notes that M-1 Garand rifles, caliber .45
M1911/M1911A1 pistols, and caliber .22 rimfire rifles are
exempt.
Department of the Navy marksmanship awards (sec. 337)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 40728 of title 36, United States Code, to grant
permissive authority to the Secretary of the Navy to transfer
to the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice &
Firearms Safety M-1 Garand and caliber .22 rimfire rifles
within the inventories of the Navy and Marine Corps stores at
Defense Distribution Depot, Anniston or Naval Surface Warfare
Center, Crane for the sole purpose as awards for competitors in
marksmanship competitions held by the Navy or Marine Corps. The
committee notes these awards cannot be resold.
Subtitle E--Energy and Environment
Authority to carry out environmental restoration activities at National
Guard and Reserve locations (sec. 341)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2701(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
the secretary to carry out environmental restoration activities
at the National Guard and Reserve locations, in light of the
cleanup challenges with respect to perfluorooctane sulfonate
and perfluorooctanoic acid.
Special considerations for energy performance goals (sec. 342)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2911(c) of title 10, United States Code, to include
goals to reduce the future demand and the requirements for the
use of energy, to enhance energy resilience to ensure the
Department has the ability to prepare for and recover from
energy disruptions that impact mission assurance on military
installations, and leverage third-party financing to address
installation energy needs.
Centers for Disease Control study on health implications of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in drinking water
(sec. 343)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the
Department of Defense to conduct a human health study through
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the
human health effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in
sources of drinking water.
Environmental oversight and remediation at Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage
Facility (sec. 344)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
sense of Congress that the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility
is a national strategic asset.
Budget Items
Army support reduction
The budget request included $38.9 billion in Operation &
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.0 billion was for SAG 435
Other Service Support.
Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office,
the committee understands this subactivity group has
historically under executed its appropriated funding.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $45.0
million in OMA to SAG 435 Other Service Support.
Navy information technology reduction
The budget request included $45.4 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $914. million was for SAG
BSIT Enterprise Information.
Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office,
the committee understands this subactivity group has
historically under executed its appropriated funding.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $32.0
million to SAG BSIT Enterprise Information due to low execution
in prior years.
Naval History and Heritage Command reduction
The budget request included $45.4 billion in Operation &
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.9 billion was for SAG BSM1
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization.
The committee understands that within this request was
$29.0 million for an increase to the Naval History and Heritage
Command. The committee believes these funds can be better
aligned for other sustainment, restoration, and modernization
priorities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.0
million in OMN to SAG BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration and
Modernization.
Air and Space Operations Center--Weapons System
The budget request included $39.4 billion in Operation &
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.3 billion was for
SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces.
The committee recommends an increase of $104.8 million in
OMAF, SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, for a total of $1.4
billion, for the purpose of software production and sustainment
activities for rapid incremental improvements to the Air and
Space Operations Center--Weapons System.
Air National Guard advertising reduction
The budget request included $6.9 billion in Operation &
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $97.2 million
was for SAG 042J Recruiting and Advertising.
The committee understands that within the Recruiting and
Advertising request was an increase of $60.5 million to fund
additional marketing and advertising efforts. The committee
notes this request would nearly triple the Air National Guard's
advertising budget. The committee believes these funds can be
better aligned for other readiness priorities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $45.0
million in OMANG to SAG 042J Recruiting and Advertising.
Defense Acquisition University
The budget request included $42.4 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $145.0 million was
for SAG 3EV2 for the Defense Acquisition University (DAU).
The committee notes that of this request, $7.9 million is
requested for curriculum development. This amount is almost
$5.0 million lower than the reported estimate for fiscal year
2017, which is $12.5 million. In light of the committee's
recent acquisition reforms and the reforms included in this
Act, the committee believes it is important that DAU have the
resources necessary to engage with ongoing efforts to improve
the acquisition system, culture, and workforce and to be better
equipped to manage the reforms in this Act. Specifically there
are provisions in this Act that task DAU with creating or
collaborating on new curricula related to Other Transaction
Authority and procurement of commercial items.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMDW
of $5.0 million to SAG 3EV2 Defense Acquisition University.
STARBASE increase
The budget request included $34.7 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $183.0 million was
for SAG 4GT3 Civil Military Programs.
The committee notes the STARBASE Program is a highly
effective program that improves the knowledge and skills of
students in kindergarten through 12th grades in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for
SAG 4GT3 Civil Military Programs for the STARBASE program.
Funding for impact aid
The budget request included $2.7 billion in the Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTJ) for the operations of the
Department of Defense Education Activity. The amount authorized
to be appropriated for OMDW includes the following changes from
the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in
funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of
this committee report.
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Impact aid for schools with military dependent +25.0
students.............................................
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities...... +10.0
Total............................................. +35.0
Defense environmental international cooperation program
The budget request included $34.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW) 030, of which $960,000 was for
the Defense Environmental International Cooperation (DEIC)
program.
The committee notes that the Army National Guard and other
military units are frequently called upon to respond to
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) crises
around the world. The DEIC enables the Army National Guard to
share best practices and lessons learned from its own HA/DR
missions and promote the sustainment of mission capability
among our allies, in order to develop and enhance their own
self-sufficient HA/DR capabilities with a limited amount of
funding.
For example, given the ongoing readiness challenges of the
United States Southern Command and its limited resources to
conduct its HA/DR mission, the Army National Guard has used the
DEIC to provide training and capability development to
countries within the region so that they can remove debris and
otherwise respond in the event of an earthquake or hurricane.
Accordingly, in order to continue the enhancement of the
Department's readiness and HA/DR capabilities, including those
of the Army National Guard, the committee recommends an
increase of $1.0 million in OMDW for the DEIC program.
Studies on aircraft inventories for the Air Force
The budget request included $1.6 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW) for SAG 4GTN Administration
and Service-wide Activities.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision
that would direct the Secretary of Defense to commission three
studies to be submitted to the congressional defense committees
on potential future aircraft inventories and capability
mixtures no later than March 1, 2019. These studies would
provide competing visions and alternatives for a future set of
choices regarding Air Force aircraft capabilities and
capacities. One study would be performed by the Department of
the Air Force, with the participation of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Office of Net Assessment. 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 selected by
the Secretary of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Administration and Service-wide
Activities for the performance of these studies, for a total of
$1.6 billion.
CDC study increase
The budget request included $34.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $1.6 billion was for
SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Office of the Secretary of Defense to conduct a Center for
Disease Control (CDC) nationwide health study on PFAS for
contamination in drinking water.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million in OMDW to SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense
for the CDC study.
Bulk fuel savings
The budget request included $38.9 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $45.4 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.9 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $39.4 billion for Operation
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $69.2 billion for
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW).
The committee understands that as of May 2017, the
Department has overstated its projected bulk fuel costs for
fiscal year 2018.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed
decrease of $396.3 million for excess projections in fuel
costs.
Foreign currency fluctuations
The budget request included $38.9 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $45.4 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.9 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $39.4 billion for Operation
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $34.7 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 2017, the Department
does not plan to transfer in any prior year unobligated
balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2017. GAO
analysis projects that the Department will experience a net
gain in fiscal year 2018 due to favorable foreign exchange
rates.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed
decrease of $313.3 million for FCF.
Operation and Maintenance Unfunded Requirements List
The budget request included $223.3 billion for Operation
and Maintenance.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
submitted extensive Unfunded Requirements Lists totaling $33.1
billion. The committee believes that since the passage of the
Budget Control Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by
artificial constraints rather than the realities of the global
strategic environment. This reality has continued for the
fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an
arbitrary number determined 6 years ago in the Budget Control
Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained
high operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation
in our military readiness in the near term, and the threat that
we will fall behind our adversaries in the long-term. For the
last several years military leaders have highlighted these
problems in great detail.
In order to address the degraded state of our military and
to stop the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee
believes that the budget should be based on requirements,
rather than arbitrary budget caps. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.8 billion to Operation and Maintenance for items
identified in the Unfunded Requirements List. Some increases
include funding greater home station training and depot
maintenance. Greater details of each increase can be found in
the tables in Division D.
Items of Special Interest
Availability and Readiness of Special Operations Forces to Support
Geographic Combatant Commander Requirements
The Department of Defense (DOD) continues to rely heavily
upon U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) in the effort to
counter violent extremist groups including ISIS and al Qaeda.
According to testimony by General Raymond Thomas, Commander of
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), there are
approximately 8,000 SOF forces deployed across over 80
countries at any given time, the majority of whom are deployed
to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility.
General Thomas also testified that most SOF units are employed
to their sustainable limit and reiterated the importance of
preserving SOF's high state of full-spectrum readiness to
support a range of missions.
The high rate of deployments has raised concerns regarding
the readiness and availability of SOF to conduct operations
other than those focused on counterterrorism and in support of
Geographic Combatant Commands (GCC) other than CENTCOM.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to evaluate the following issues:
1. What challenges, if any, has DOD faced in
providing SOF to meet the requirements of the
Geographic Combatant Commands?
2. To what extent does DOD consider operational tempo
in prioritizing and tasking SOF deployments in support
of CENTCOM operations, including determining tradeoffs
between conventional and SOF capabilities and the
requirements of other GCCs?
3. What challenges, if any, has DOD faced in
providing deployed SOF forces with key enablers
including, but not limited to, airlift, medical
evacuation, intelligence, expeditionary base operating
support, logistics, and airfield operations?
4. To what extent has DOD assessed the impact of SOF
mission and deployment rates on unit readiness and the
availability of SOF forces to conduct other missions
and support the requirements of other GCCs?
5. To what extent has the reliance on Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funding impacted the
readiness of SOF and how will it continue to impact SOF
if funding isn't shifted to the base defense budget in
future years?
6. Any other issues the Comptroller General
determines appropriate.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
not later than November 1, 2017, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings and submit a final report to the
congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the
time of the briefing.
Basic Expeditionary Airmen Skills Training and Base Camp Integration
Lab
The committee remains encouraged by efforts of the Air
Force and Army Research Laboratories, and is strongly
supportive of their commitment to improving combat capabilities
for the warfighter through projects like the Basic
Expeditionary Airman Skills Training (BEAST) site at Joint Base
San Antonio-Lackland in Texas, and the Basic Camp Integration
Lab (BCIL) and Force Provider at Fort Devens and Natick Soldier
Systems Center in Massachusetts. Notably, the BEAST site in
Texas allows roughly 39,000 recruits per year to train and
experience the program, while Natick scientists continue to
demonstrate and evaluate new advanced, energy-efficient
shelters and shelter components. Efforts like BEAST and BCIL
leverage existing and openly competed technologies to
demonstrate the ``FOB of the future'', to improve combat
capabilities with items like deployable and secure microgrids,
smart power controllers, advanced batteries, better shelter
insulation, light emitting diode lighting systems, and others.
The committee notes that these kinds of advanced technologies
when combined into a deployable package can lead to proven
increases in capability as well as cost decreased, not only in
combat zones, but in support of humanitarian assistance and
disaster response missions, such as when the Army deployed to
Africa during its Ebola response mission.
Consequently, the committee strongly encourages the
Department to continue the progress made towards improving
combat capabilities through its investments in FOB efficiencies
that reduce logistical burdens on the warfighter, like BEAST
and BCIL.
Cyber-secure microgrids and energy resilience for installations
The committee remains concerned regarding the
vulnerabilities of cyber-attacks, physical attacks, and severe
weather, which threaten the Department of Defense's (DOD)
ability to recover from multi-day utility disruptions on its
installations. Improving energy resilience helps decrease
utility disruptions and grid outages that negatively impact
operations and compromise readiness.
Accordingly, the committee believes the Department could
better utilize and integrate existing authorities such as
military construction, facilities sustainment restoration and
modernization accounts, energy savings performance contracts
(ESPCs), power purchase agreements (PPAs), and utility energy
saving contracts (UESCs) to ensure installations have
resilient, reliable, and continuous power during disruptions to
the electrical supply though deployment of cyber-secure
technologies like microgrids. Notably, microgrids are fuel
agnostic, so they can operate on fossil fuels, fuel cells,
batteries, combined heat and power, and renewables. When
distributed energy generation is combined with control systems
like cyber-secure microgrids, DOD has a significant opportunity
to maintain readiness.
In pursuing such actions and investments the Department
should recognize and factor in the current costs of achieving
energy assurance. In assessing a microgrid's cost
effectiveness, the Department should view the life cycle costs
of stand-alone backup generators that could produce equivalent
energy resilience and assurance as an avoided cost and thus
available for financing third party investments through ESPCs,
PPAs, or UESCs. For example, recent analysis has shown that
replacing standalone generators with a microgrid could save
$8.0 to $20.0 million over the life cycle, depending on
location. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a summary of actions taken to pursue
microgrid deployments through third party financing in the
Department's next Annual Energy Management Report.
Additionally, the committee notes that DOD continues to
experience multiple utility grid outages every year. The
committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to consider
the appropriate use of the Department's existing exemption from
section 591 of title 40, United States Code to address frequent
utility outages and negative impacts to readiness, especially
as it relates to the use of cyber-secure microgrids and
advanced infrastructure controls.
Cybersecurity risk to Department of Defense facilities
The committee remains concerned that as Department of
Defense facilities are transitioning to smart buildings
increasingly utilizing wireless controls for heating,
ventilation and air conditioning, security systems, lighting,
electrical power, fire alarms, elevators, visitor controls,
cellular communications, Wi-Fi networks, first responder
communications, and other systems are increasing interconnected
and online. This higher connectivity has increased the threat
and vulnerability to cyber attacks, particularly in ways
existing DOD regulations were not designed to consider.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to deliver to the congressional defense committees a
report, as was specified in the Senate report on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 that: (1)
Delineates the structural risks inherent in control systems and
networks, and the potential consequences associated with a
system compromise through a cyber event; (2) Assesses the
current vulnerabilities to cyber attack initiated through
Industrial Control Systems (ICS) at Department of Defense
installations worldwide, for the purpose of determining risk
mitigation actions for current and future implementation; (3)
Proposes a common, Department-wide implementation plan to
upgrade and improve the security of control systems and
networks to mitigate identified risks; (4) Assesses the extent
to which existing Department of Defense military construction
directives, regulations, and instructions require the
consideration of cybersecurity vulnerabilities and cyber risk
in preconstruction design processes and requirements
development processes for military construction projects; and
(5) the capabilities of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, the Air Force Civil Engineer
Center, and other construction agents, as well as participating
stakeholders, to identify and mitigate full-spectrum cyber-
enabled risk to new facilities and major renovations.
For the purposes of this legislation, ICS include, but are
not limited to, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
Systems, Building Automation Systems Utility Monitoring, and
Energy Management and Control Systems. Such report shall
include an estimated budget for the implementation plan.
Defense Media Activity IP Streaming
The committee notes the pilot program by Defense Media
Activity (DMA) to transition from an antiquated satellite-based
media delivery system to an Internet-based ``IP streaming''
platform. The committee is supportive of this enhanced
distribution of media and the associated delivery of expanded
programming and reduction of the costs associated with
delivering this content. The committee encourages DMA to
utilize private sector methods to track the outcomes (e.g.,
viewership) associated with this pilot, and the rest of its
programming, to better understand the Department's demand for
programming and to be responsive to this feedback.
Defense threat assessment and master plan for climate
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
must be able to execute its missions effectively and
efficiently by adapting to the full spectrum of current and
future threats. Secretary Mattis stated to the committee,
``where climate change contributes to regional instability, the
Department of Defense must be aware of any potential adverse
impacts'', ``climate change is impacting stability in areas of
the world where our troops are operating today'' and ``the
Department should be prepared to mitigate any consequences of a
changing climate, including ensuring that our shipyards and
installations will continue to function as required.''
The committee notes that a series of climate-related events
have cost DOD significant resources, measured in funding and
negative impacts on readiness. Specifically, the committee
notes that in January, a tornado caused over $320.0 million in
damages at Marine Corps Depot at Albany, Georgia. At Lackland
Air Force Base in Texas, there were 81 black flag training days
in 2012, and 226 in 2016. In Alaska, three locations of early
warning radar infrastructure have been damaged and moved due to
coastal erosion that was not expected to occur until 2030.
Wildfires postponed the launch of a satellite in California and
led to training range closures for multiple months in North
Carolina, South Carolina, Idaho, Florida, and New Mexico.
Researchers at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln found that
wildfires have tripled between 1985 and 2014, growing from 33
to 117 per year. At Laughlin Air Force Base, a hail storm
damaged 39 pilot training aircraft, costing roughly $80.0
million in repairs which won't be completed until June of 2018.
Warehouses containing hazardous materials flood 24 inches on a
regular basis in Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. In South
Carolina, private citizens near Fort Jackson have filed seven
lawsuits seeking $20.0 million in damages, alleging the Army
failed to maintain a dam that ruptured during historic rainfall
and flooding. In Louisiana, the railroad system at Fort Polk's
Joint Regional Training Center requires major repairs due to
``epic rains.'' In Virginia, high water flooding creates
``significant damage'' to pier infrastructure at Norfolk Naval
Shipyard creating reliability and safety issues. Warming Arctic
temperatures at Thule Air Force Base in Greenland have caused
extensive airfield pavement repairs at over $30.0 million,
which is roughly the cost of one Army Combat Training Center
rotation. In Arizona, a heat wave caused over 40 flights to be
canceled, with clear implications that DOD aircraft, ships, and
vehicles must be able to continue to operate in extreme hot and
cold temperatures. The Congressional Budget Office has
concluded ``costs associated with hurricane damage will
increase more rapidly than the economy will grow'' resulting in
$39.0 billion annually by 2075. Lastly, the Government
Accountability Office found that ``weather effects associated
with climate change pose operational and budgetary risks'' to
DOD.
Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a comprehensive threat
assessment and implementation master plan no later than March
1, 2018 on the risks and vulnerabilities to DOD missions and
infrastructure associated with climate-related events. The
assessment and master adaptation plan shall include: (1)
Effects and mission impacts of a changing climate, if any, on
DOD operations, testing and training ranges, readiness, basing,
acquisition, contingency basing, command and control, supply
chain, logistics, stockpiles, and the associated costs; (2)
Plans and procedures to continue missions in the event of loss
or damage to critical energy and water infrastructure; (3)
Guidance for combatant commanders to address regional-specific
theater campaign plan impacts in order to mitigate climate-
related events that contribute to instability; (4) Anticipated
impacts from increased global operations tempo as a result of
greater numbers of humanitarian assistance and disaster
response events; (5) Guidance for the military services and
Joint Staff to integrate climate impact scenarios and long-term
projections into planning; (6) Adaptation plans and procedures
to ensure military investments with taxpayer dollars are
constructed to better withstand flooding and extreme weather
events; (7) Updates to built and natural infrastructure design,
changes to military construction standards, Unified Facilities
Code, and encroachment procedures; (8) Improved modeling
techniques and data sources to better predict future erosion,
flooding, and other extreme weather events; (9) Opportunities
to pursue public-private partnerships under existing
authorities with any non-DOD entity in order to mitigate
climate-related impacts; (10) Adaptation progress metrics and
recommendations for further research and development; (11)
Strategies and recommendations to alleviate climate
vulnerabilities, including timelines and resource requirements;
and (12) Any other aspects deemed appropriate.
The threat assessment and implementation master plan may
include a classified annex, if necessary.
Defense-wide Working Capital Fund cash management practices
The committee notes that recent analysis of the Defense-
wide Working Capital Fund (DWWCF) cash management practices
conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found
that the Department of Defense needs to improve its cash
management practices. Notably, the DWWCF monthly cash balances
were outside the upper and lower cash requirements as defined
by the Department's Financial Management Regulation for 87 of
120 months during fiscal years 2007 through 2016 and for more
than a year on 3 separate occasions.
The committee commends the Department for taking actions
outside the normal budget process during the 10-year period to
bring the monthly cash balances within the cash requirements
such as cash transfers and fuel price adjustments. However,
these actions were not sufficient to bring the monthly cash
balances within the cash requirements. The GAO found this
occurred because the Department's Financial Management
Regulation did not contain guidance on when managers should use
available cash management tools.
Accordingly, no later than October 1, 2017, the committee
directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to provide
guidance in the Department's Financial Management Regulation on
the timing of when managers should use available cash
management tools and provide the congressional defense
committees with the guidance once it is developed.
Department of Defense and Department of Energy collaboration to improve
energy resilience
Earlier this year, the Secretary of Defense told the
committee during combat operations in Iraq ``our efforts to
resupply the force with fuel made us vulnerable in ways that
were exploited by the enemy.'' The Secretary also stated the
importance of ``relieving the dependence of deployed forces on
vulnerable fuel supplies''' and ``the purpose of such efforts
should be to increase the readiness and reach of our forces.''
Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE)
to continue to exercise the existing Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) signed by both parties in 2010 by
partnering to enhance DOD's energy resilience. The partnership
between DOD and DOE has successfully driven the research and
development of technologies that have improved DOD's energy
resilience posture at military installations. For example,
under a research agreement the Army, an aerospace laboratory,
and the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory developed
the Consolidated Utility Base Energy (CUBE) system.
The CUBE system is an integrated power distribution
platform that delivers power for a solar-battery-diesel hybrid
system to reduce the use of diesel-fueled generators at forward
operating bases (FOBs). Roughly 40 percent of a FOB'S total
energy demand is typically powered by diesel generators.
The committee notes the CUBE system has demonstrated to
decrease fuel use by 31 percent and diesel generator run time
by 42 percent when compared to diesel-only, while maintaining
reliable and high-quality power output. When combined with
other advanced and efficient FOB technologies like rigid wall
and net zero shelters, solar roofs, and solar-powered targeting
systems for fire control missions, the potential to save fuel
consumption adds up to another 50 percent in reduced demand.
Notably, the CUBE system is suitable for off-the-grid
operations in remote areas, like FOBs, as well as humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief operations in Africa and
elsewhere around the world.
The committee strongly encourages the DOD to continue the
development and fielding of technologies like the CUBE system
which can help reduce the risk of lives lost transporting
fueling a combat zone, enhance combat capability, all with the
added benefit of reducing costs to the taxpayer.
Eastern Gulf Test and Training Range
The committee notes that the Air Force Development Test
Center's mission is to plan, conduct, and evaluate testing of
U.S. and allied non-nuclear munitions, electronic combat,
target acquisition, weapon delivery, base intrusion protection,
and supporting systems. That mission is executed at Eglin Air
Force Base in Florida, whose land test areas encompass 463,000
acres and water test areas, including the Eastern Gulf Test and
Training Range (EGTTR), which cover 86,500 square miles in the
Gulf of Mexico, making it the Department of Defense's (DOD)
largest test and training area in the world.
The committee is concerned that the open-air range test-
data gathering instrumentation infrastructure on EGTTR is not
keeping pace with the advanced capabilities of modern weapons
systems and munitions. The committee is further concerned that,
with a growing volume of test and training requirements, more
instrumentation throughout the EGTTR is required for efficient
use of air, surface, and subsurface test areas to reduce the
competition for range space between operational readiness
priorities and fielding new system capabilities.
The committee understands that emerging technologies such
as hypersonics, autonomous systems, and advanced sub-surface
systems could require enlarged testing and training footprints.
The committee further understands that the potential
development of energy projects have the potential to encroach
and negatively impact military training and operations. The
committee also supports the Department's view that ``national
security and energy security are inextricably linked and the
DOD fully supports the development of our nation's domestic
energy resources in a manner that is compatible with military
testing, training, and operations.'' The committee is also
aware of the Department's current position that ``[t]he
moratorium on oil and gas `leasing, preleasing, and other
related activities' ensures that these vital military readiness
activities may by conducted without interference and is
critical to their continuation.''
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to modernize and expand open-air range test
capabilities operation and maintenance in the EGTTR and
continue to work with the other Departments to ensure that the
test and training missions conducted in EGTTR are protected
from activities incompatible with successful mission
completion.
Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training program
The committee is aware that readiness challenges continue
to face the Armed Forces due to budgetary constraints. The
committee continues to recognize the value of the Innovative
Readiness Training (IRT) program, which allows Military
Services realistic, joint training opportunities for National
Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty members.
The committee values the IRT program for its low cost and
high benefit to achieving measurable military readiness. The
committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to
continue utilizing IRT programs to provide mission-essential
training, prioritizing programs that directly support Active-
Duty missions.
Examples of IRT activities include, but are not limited to,
constructing rural roads and airplane runways, small building
and warehouse construction in remote areas, transportation of
medical supplies, and military readiness training in the areas
of engineering, health care and transportation for under-served
communities.
The committee understands the IRT program offers complex
and challenging training opportunities for domestic and
international crises. The committee is also aware that states
that utilize the IRT program include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Wyoming, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense
to continue to fully utilize IRT programs that provide hands-on
and mission-essential training and that are available to
active, reserve, and National Guard forces.
Energy assurance on military installations
In order to assess the current statutory authorities and
their appropriateness and flexibility to support energy
resilience on military installations, the Secretary of Defense
is directed to report to the defense committees within 180 days
of enactment of this Act the following: (1) authorities used in
award of energy resilience projects during fiscal years 2015-
2017 and (2) challenges experienced during fiscal years 2015-
2017 in the execution of energy resilience projects due to
limitations in existing statutory authorities.
Energy efficient military shelters
The committee is aware of requirements that the Department
of Defense has to leverage current technologies that will
deliver energy efficient returns on investments. The committee
believes that such efficient technologies will reduce the
tactical demand on the warfighter while also make current
billeting structures more energy efficient. Additionally, these
efficiencies mean greater reduction in fuel consumption, and
can ultimately lead to improved quality of life conditions for
our warfighters.
The committee also understands that these efficient
technologies can lead to a 35 percent reduction in demand for
heating ventilation and air conditioning requirements, in order
to maintain 70 degree interior temperatures in extreme cold and
hot environments. The committee notes that by ensuring that our
deployed warfighters have adequate living conditions, the
Department also ensures that our forces are more combat
effective, more prepared on the battlefield, and better able to
perform their mission.
The committee further encourages the Department of the Air
Force to leverage currently available energy-saving
supplemental insulation technologies that will lead to reduced
environmental control units in a deployed environment, further
leading to cost savings with respect to total cost of ownership
of billeting and shelters in the Basic Expeditionary Airfield
Resources (BEAR) Base program. Accordingly, the committee
recommends the Department continue to support and allocate the
appropriate resources for energy efficient insulation systems,
solar protection, and more efficient medium shelters procured
through the BEAR Base program.
Energy savings performance contracts and combined heat and power
The committee notes the importance for the Department of
Defense (DOD) to enhance installation readiness and resilience
through energy infrastructure improvements. The committee
recognizes the efforts by the DOD to use third-party financing,
such as Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC), to provide
cost-effective efficiency improvements to military
installations.
The committee is strongly supportive of these efforts by
the DOD and strongly encourages the use of these contracts and
other third-party financing methods to improve energy
infrastructure, resilience, and facilities important to the
mission on military installations.
For example, the committee is very supportive of the ESPC
task order which will build a site-wide and secure microgrid
integrating 10 megawatts of new onsite power generation and
battery storage at Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) Parris
Island, South Carolina. The committee is encouraged that the
ESPC will reduce MCRD's energy demand by 79 percent and water
consumption by 27 percent through infrastructure upgrades that
will improve installation resilience, and provide the ability
to operate in island-mode during the event of a commercial grid
outage, or simply reduce utility purchases during peak demand
periods. The ESPC upgrades at 121 buildings on Parris Island
will also reduce operation and sustainment costs, address
potentially cost-intensive military construction requirements,
include a solar carport array, a battery storage system, and
replace the currently end-of-life steam plant with a new fully
automated natural gas-fueled combined heat and power (CHP)
plant.
More broadly, the committee is also strongly supportive of
the Army's goal to double the amount of energy production from
combined heat and power (CHP) facilities on its installations
in the next two years to 200 MW, and to triple it by the end of
2020 to 300 MW. The committee looks forward to the forthcoming
development and release of the Army's overarching CHP
deployment strategy that appropriately considers CHP and other
ESPC methods as a key element of the Army's energy and
sustainability strategy. Similarly, the committee strongly
encourages the Department of the Navy to exceed its current
inventory of nine CHP projects at roughly 90 MW and for the Air
Force to exceed its roughly 15-20 MW of CHP.
Energy savings performance contracts assessment
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
an assessment to the congressional defense committees no later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. The
assessment shall include but not be limited to: (1)
recommendations on the use of energy savings performance
contracts (ESPCs) for savings achieved through training
improvements; (2) identification of potential savings that
could be achieved through improvements to training; (3) pros
and cons of using those savings as part of a long term ESPC;
(4) any new authorities that would be needed if a decision was
made to use savings as part of additional ESPC; and (5) any
other recommendations deemed appropriate.
Fabric and membrane technology
The committee expresses its ongoing support for Department
of Defense research and testing of cutting-edge fabric and
membrane technologies to improve service members' comfort,
effectiveness and mission readiness. The Senate report
accompanying S. 1376 (S. Rpt. 114-49) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 included a requirement
for the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
committee on fabric-based respiratory protective equipment,
including evaluations of emerging technologies to minimize
service member exposure to inhalation of particulate and
pollutants. Additionally, in the Senate report accompanying S.
2943 (S. Rpt. 114-255) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee further directed the
Secretary of the Army to report similarly on footwear
technologies that incorporate new polytetrafluoroethylene
(ePTFE) and other membrane technologies. In light of these
directives, the committee understands that the Army is
currently evaluating the referenced technologies and that the
evaluations are yielding positive results.
Recognizing the importance of these technologies to
warfighter readiness, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, no later
December 15, 2017, on the suitability of the above-mentioned
technologies to military applications. Specifically, the report
should provide an evaluation of the fabric-based respiratory
protective equipment technologies reviewed under the
requirement in Senate Report 114-49, identification of specific
applications for integration of the technology, and a plan for
transitioning the technology into such applications and
programs. In line with the Army's review of footwear
technologies as required in Senate Report 114-255, the report
should provide a detailed evaluation of new ePTFE membranes,
laminates, and other membrane technologies. Additionally, the
report should include suggested revisions to current
requirements and product descriptions that could be implemented
to expand access to these membrane technology advancements.
Finally, the report should include a plan for transitioning
membrane technologies into military applications, including the
Army Boot Modernization Programs such as the jungle combat boot
program, the cold weather and extreme cold weather boot
programs, and future cold weather clothing systems.
Foreign language training
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
continue placing a high priority on foreign language
proficiency programs to ensure warfighters and national
security professionals receive the language and culture
training needed to complete their missions effectively, to
include partnerships with K-12 schools and universities.
The committee is also aware of efforts already underway
across the Department of Defense (DOD) and the intelligence
community to review language training platforms in an effort to
develop a more streamlined, efficient, customizable, and
economic way to provide foreign language training DOD-wide. In
order to achieve these goals, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with agency directors and
the intelligence community to review current language training
platforms and explore options to jointly develop a single
language training platform to increase efficiency and cost
savings.
Implementation of Defense Science Board Task Force on energy systems
for forward/remote operating bases
The committee notes the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task
Force on Energy Systems for Forward/Remote Operating Bases
recently identified a number of recommendations to help the
Department ``meet this challenge of providing reliable,
abundant, and continuous energy.''
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
and the military departments to implement a number of the DSB's
recommendations: (1) Conduct a gap analysis of energy
requirements for future capabilities; (2) In conjunction with
the Joint Staff, ensure that future operational energy
requirements are an explicit part of the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council process and Defense Acquisition Board
process; (3) Ensure operational units are involved in
developing and managing energy requirements and standards for
their mission in order that requirements and standards are both
realistic and meaningful for improved operations; (4) Ensure
the Combatant Commands include in their future requirements the
need for abundant, reliable, and efficient energy technologies
to enable future capabilities; (5) Incentivize the military
services to collaboratively develop future considerations for
remote and forward operating bases and expeditionary forces
that address energy demands and the alternative sources to meet
demand, reduce risk, and improve efficiency; (6) Establish
metrics to evaluate effectiveness to improve efficiency of
current deployable energy systems and drive efficiencies for
future deployable energy systems through standards and
integration, contracting, measuring data, training, and
operating behavior; (7) Establish evaluation criteria to
determine an enduring or non-enduring base; (8) Invest in
research, development, test, and evaluation of alternative
energy technologies with the potential to offer improved combat
capabilities in remote and forward areas--in particular--
technologies should be measured in terms of reduced logistics
and reduced tactical signature during operations, reduced
health and safety risk to warfighters, reliability and cost;
(9) Establish a policy requiring all wargames, major unit field
training, and joint exercises to include fuel and fuel
logistics; (10) The DOD shall work with the DOE's Office of
Nuclear Energy to engage in research, development,
demonstration, and deployment of micro-reactor concepts, also
known as very small reactor concepts, with electric power
generation of 10 megawatts or less, for meeting the strategic
needs of the DOD, including, where appropriate, powering remote
bases and forward operating bases, and for commercial
applications in remote areas. In conjunction with the DOE's
Office of Nuclear Energy, the DOD should produce a
manufacturability feasibility report within 24 months, and
should focus efforts to enable the deployment of a functioning
prototype reactor within 7 years; and (11) Any other
recommendations deemed relevant and appropriate.
The committee further directs the Department to update the
committee no later than February 1, 2018, on the status of
implementing these DSB recommendations.
Implementation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup
Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reported that the Department of Defense (DOD) has
improved its reporting on the cost of environmental cleanup for
installations closed under the Base Realignment and Closure
process, but recommended that DOD include estimates of cleaning
emerging contaminants in future reports to Congress and develop
a process for collecting and sharing lessons learned on
environmental cleanup.
The committee is encouraged that DOD concurred with both
recommendations and identified specific actions the Department
will take to implement the recommendations. The committee looks
forward to receiving the more detailed environmental
remediation cost estimates that will include remediation cost
for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances compounds and other
emerging contaminants to help ensure that adequate resources
are being devoted to this important initiative.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to implement the GAO's recommendation to share lessons
learned from environmental remediation among the military
services to promote the redevelopment of closed military bases.
Increasing contracting efficiency through commercial off-the-shelf
solutions for personal protective equipment
The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for
continuing efforts to make acquisition and procurement of
personal protective equipment (PPE) and organizational clothing
and individual equipment (OCIE) more efficient. Programs such
as the Army's Rapid Equipping Force (REF) and Soldier
Enhancement Program result in shorter procurement processes to
field critical items of PPE and OCIE faster and more
effectively. Approved items such as ballistic eye protection,
armor plate carriers, load carriage, footwear, helmets,
clothing items, and replacement parts and supplies are often
readily available as commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions.
The committee is concerned that PPE and OCIE procurements
continue to be slower than necessary due to administrative
delays and burdensome requirements processes. Therefore, the
committee believes that DOD and the military departments, as
part of the broader acquisition reform effort, should
accelerate the use of COTS solutions to meet the evolving PPE
and OCIE needs of our servicemembers.
Individual soldier equipment acquisition strategy
The committee is aware and supportive of recent
determinations by the Secretary of Defense have opened all
combat positions to female warfighters. This significant change
to Department policy creates several opportunities to better
serve the needs of both female and male warfighters.
For many years, the Department of Defense has acquired
individual equipment for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines
in a piecemeal manner, purchasing equipment such as boots,
helmets, combat clothing, and body armor with insufficient
focus on the seamless integration of these essential,
lifesaving products. The committee is concerned that currently
available items of personal protective equipment (PPE) and
organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE) do not
meet the specific and unique requirements for female
warfighters and further improvements could be made to reduce
the weight of PPE and OCIE.
The committee believes that the new Department of Defense
policy presents an opportunity for the military departments to
focus on the ``Warfighter as a System'' and properly address
the unique needs of our female warfighters through a holistic
acquisition strategy. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to produce a report delivered to the
Senate Armed Services Committee no later than 90 days after the
enactment of this Act outlining plans to provide innovative,
lifesaving PPE and OCIE developed specifically for female
warfighters. The report should include plans for budgeting,
requirements, and procurement of female-specific equipment
including helmets, combat uniforms, body armor, footwear, and
other critical equipment categories. The report should include
detailed plans on integrating the latest commercially available
materials and advanced product design to lighten the load for
all warfighters.
Item unique identification implementation and verification
The committee remains very concerned that the Department of
Defense (DOD) has failed to enforce its own policy and strategy
for improving asset tracking and in-transit visibility.
Furthermore, the committee remains concerned that the DOD has
failed to deliver its required report to the committee on the
Defense Contract Management Agency's (DCMA) plan to foster the
adoption, implementation, and verification of the Department's
revised item unique identification (IUID) policy across the
Department and the defense industrial base.
The committee continues to support the DOD's goal of
enhancing asset visibility with IUID, automatic identification
technology, and automatic identification and data capture
processes.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to certify to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives no later than September 1,
2018, that the DCMA is complying with its own new policies,
timelines, procedures, staff training, and equipment issuance
to ensure contract compliance with the IUID policy for all
items that require unique item level traceability at any time
in their life cycle, to support counterfeit material risk
reduction, and to provide for systematic assessment and
accuracy of IUID marks as set forth by DOD Instruction 8320.04.
KC-46A aerial refueling tanker emergent requirements
The KC-46A will serve as the backbone of the Air Force's
critical aerial refueling mission for the next several decades,
replacing the aging 1950s-era KC-135 Stratotanker fleet. The
committee is aware that the Air Force has provided funding for
numerous military construction projects at installations across
the country to prepare for the delivery and bed down of the
aircraft.
However, the committee is concerned that as the KC-46A
program matures and requirements become better defined,
additional military construction and facilities, sustainment,
restoration and modernization (FSRM) funding is necessary to
properly support the fielding of the aircraft, house additional
personnel, and meet unforeseen requirements of the tanker
mission. The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to
review and validate new and emergent requirements and prepare
to provide additional military construction and FSRM funding in
its budget request for fiscal year 2019.
Lithium-ion powered devices
The committee commends the Navy's steps to limit the
possession, use, and stowage of certain devices containing
lithium-ion batteries aboard ships, submarines, aircraft,
boats, craft, and heavy equipment. This policy change is in
response to reports of lithium-ion batteries overheating and
igniting--causing dangerous explosions that lead to physical
harm and material damage. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to extend the Navy's policy, which
prohibits the possession, use, and stowage of certain lithium-
ion powered devices aboard ships, submarines, aircraft, boats,
craft, and heavy equipment, across the services to include
other relevant weapon systems to ensure servicemembers' and
equipment are protected from unnecessary harm. The committee
recommends that the Department establish similar policies for
other potentially damaging lithium-ion powered devices that may
threaten readiness.
Marine Corps cold-weather and high altitude training
The committee understands the United States Marine Corps
has a nearly 70-year history with cold-weather and mountain
warfare training at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training
Center (MCMWTC) at Bridgeport, California. The committee
further understands that the MCMWTC--which spans 46,000 acres
in the Toiyabe National Forest--provides U.S. servicemembers
and allied partners with the critical training and basic skills
needed to conduct combat operations as a component of a Marine
Air Ground Task Force or other task force in mountainous, high
altitude, and cold weather environments. The committee notes
that in a first of its kind operation in January of 2017, the
Marine Corps deployed approximately 300 Marines to Norway to,
among other things, improve their ability to fight in the
Arctic cold.
Following a visit in July of 2016 by General Robert Neller,
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the committee is aware that
the Marine Corps is now examining the rotational deployment of
up to a battalion of U.S. Marines to Alaska for similar cold-
weather, high-altitude, and mountainous training. The committee
is aware that the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC)
has 2,490 square miles of land space, 65,000 square miles of
available airspace, and 1.5 million acres of maneuver land. The
committee is further aware that the JPARC allows for robust
ground training including Air Assault, Deploy/Redeploy,
Electronic Warfare, Full Spectrum, Individual and Small Unit,
Large-Scale Joint Force, Live Fire, and Mounted and Dismounted
Maneuver operations, among many others. The committee
recognizes that Alaska's unique strategic location and its
existing aerial ports of debarkation/seaports of debarkation
provide deployed and stationed forces with power projection and
rapid contingency response capabilities into three geographic
combatant commands--U.S. Northern Command, U.S. European
Command, and U.S. Pacific Command.
The committee, recognizing the unique training
opportunities offered in the JPARC, applauds this effort by the
Marine Corps to augment and diversify its existing cold-
weather, high-altitude, and mountainous training.
Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Marine
Corps to complete its examination of the deployment of Marines
to Alaska and directs the Marine Corps to brief the
congressional defense committees upon completion of its
examination.
Master plan and investment strategy for the modernization of public
shipyards under jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy
The committee notes that in April 2013, the Department of
the Navy submitted a report to Congress pursuant to the
requirements in section 2865 of the Fiscal Year 2012 National
Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 112-81) with an
investment plan to address the facilities and infrastructure
requirements at each public shipyard under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Navy.
The report included analysis that the $3.5 billion total
maintenance backlog consisted of over 1,000 buildings at the
four public shipyards. Of those, 53 mission-essential
facilities were in poor condition and consisted of $1.2 billion
of the total value, with an additional 30 mission-essential
facilities on the verge of being rated as in poor condition.
The committee also notes that the $3.5 billion facility
maintenance backlog does not include the cost of modernizing
shipyard utilities, which have been experiencing unplanned
outages that can disrupt aircraft carrier and submarine
availability schedules.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy is
investing in existing facilities that may not be ideally
designed, placed, sized, or configured to support the current
work processes, leading to inefficiencies in ship repair
functions. The 2013 Navy report states that, ``Much of the
naval shipyard infrastructure was designed for World War II-era
ship construction rather than modern nuclear-powered ship
repair processes, which reduce their efficiency in repairing
today's ships.'' Yet, 27 of the 29 projects listed for the
Naval shipyards are repairs of existing, inefficient
facilities. More than half are simple repairs that address only
one component of a building without addressing overall
renovations to improve the mission effectiveness of the
facility. In order for resources to be expended prudently for
maximum benefit for shipyard operations, the Department must
first review industrial processes, logistics streams, and
workload distribution to develop a facilities plan, which
consolidates and optimizes ship repair processes.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit a report by February 1, 2018, on an engineering
master plan for the optimal placement and consolidation of
facilities and major equipment to support ship repair functions
at each shipyard and an investment strategy to address the
facilities, major equipment, and infrastructure requirements at
each public shipyard under the jurisdiction of the Department
of the Navy. The report shall include, but not be limited to,
the following elements: (1) A review of current and projected
workload requirements for ship repairs to assess efficiencies
in the use of existing facilities including consideration of
new ship characteristics, obsolescence of facilities, siting of
facilities and equipment, and various constrained process
flows; (2) An analysis of life-cycle costs to repair and
modernize existing mission-essential facilities versus the cost
to consolidate functions into modern, right-sized waterfront
facilities to meet current and programmed future mission
requirements; (3) A review of the progress made in prioritizing
and funding projects that facilitate implementation of the hub
concept for ship repair in order to improve process
efficiencies, consolidate, and contribute to availability cost
and schedule reductions; (4) A master plan for each shipyard
incorporating the results of a review of industrial processes,
logistics streams and workload distribution required to support
ship repairs at each shipyard and the facilities requirements
to support optimized processes; and (5) An updated investment
strategy planned for each public shipyard, including timelines
to complete the master plan for each shipyard, a list of
projects and brief scopes of work, and cost estimates necessary
to complete projects for mission essential facilities.
Military training for operations in densely populated urban terrain
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the congressional defense committees a report no later than
March 1, 2018 on plans and initiatives to enhance existing
urban training concepts, capabilities, and facilities that
could provide for new training opportunities that would more
closely resemble large, dense, heavily populated urban
environments. The report shall include specific plans and
efforts to provide for a realistic environment for the training
of large units with joint assets and recently fielded
technologies to exercise new tactics, techniques, and
procedures, including consideration of anticipated urban
military operations in or near the littoral environment and any
relevant cyber vulnerabilities.
The report shall also include consideration of multiple
training facility options and the costs and benefits associated
therewith, including non-traditional options, such as leased
facilities and National Guard facilities or other facilities
owned or operated by a state government. The committee notes
that there has been sustained congressional interest in
improving joint urban training strategies and capabilities for
more than two decades and encourages the Department to draw
upon the results of past studies on this matter.
The report shall be submitted in unclassified form but may
include a classified annex.
Navy dry dock capacity
No later than September 30, 2018, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees that assesses depot-level ship maintenance
capacity in the public shipyards. The report should capture any
projected capacity shortfall and evaluate potential strategies
to match the industrial capacity of the public shipyards to
future fleet maintenance requirements. Further, the report
should recommend courses of action that include timeframes and
funding requirements.
Organic depot capacity and interoperability
The committee remains concerned that significant
maintenance backlogs exist in the organic industrial base,
particularly in the case of the F/A-18 Hornet A-D legacy
models. The committee believes that additional capacity for
such backlogs could be achieved through the expansion of cross-
service depot maintenance operations.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to assess the feasibility of expanding cross-service depot
maintenance within the organic industrial base to avoid future
backlogs, particularly in the case of the F/A-18 Super Hornet
E-F models. The committee recommends the Department to consider
using the F/A-18 Hornet A-D legacy models as a test case for
this assessment, along with any other platforms the Department
deems appropriate.
Paint training programs
The committee believes that maximum efficiency is critical
for more than 350 military paint facilities that perform
painting and coating operations, including corrosion prevention
and control, radar absorption, and camouflage. The committee
understands that the Department's operations require stringent
specifications for the coating of each piece of equipment.
The committee understands paint training programs provide
training for military painters and coating operations. The
committee notes paint training programs can save the Department
time and funding resources by using advanced technology and
equipment along with hands-on training to effectively apply
coatings and reduce waste. Additionally, increasing coating
transfer efficiency and preventing corrosion and rework can
improve asset readiness. Furthermore, the committee understands
that paint training programs consistently update to the latest
advancements in coatings, application equipment, and
technology. Lastly, the committee notes that the paint training
programs have trained hundreds of military and contract
painters, serving all of the military departments.
Processes for translating strategy into force structure and readiness
decisions
The committee notes that the Defense Planning Guidance
(DPG) outlines the Department of Defense's (DOD) priority
missions, force-sizing construct, major force planning
assumptions, and key capabilities to help size and shape the
future joint force to meet the National Military Strategy. The
DPG's main objectives are to ensure that sufficient
capabilities essential to the success of future operations are
being developed by the components and reflected in the
President's budget request.
In 2010, DOD began bundling scenarios into Integrated
Security Constructs (ISCs), which were intended to allow the
services to make trade-off decisions when faced with competing
demands. The 2015 National Military Strategy suggested that DOD
has consumed readiness as quickly as it has been generated for
nearly a generation and that DOD is taking action to better
balance achieving immediate operational goals with improving
readiness for future operations. Over time, DOD has varied the
way it applies plans and scenarios to determine readiness
requirements. These different approaches to making force
structure and readiness decisions can directly affect, among
other things, the funding for weapons systems, maintenance,
personnel, and training that are needed.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States not later than May 1, 2018 to evaluate the
extent to which DOD is translating strategy into guidance and
force structure from a joint versus service-specific approach.
The Government Accountability Office review should assess: (1)
In the absence of approved ISCs and scenarios, what approaches
are the military services using for force structure planning
and sizing; (2) How are the military services applying plans
and scenarios to determine readiness requirements and what are
the associated assumptions and business rules; (3) To what
extent do DOD and the Joint Staff have visibility over the
services' approaches for making force structure and readiness
decisions in order to weigh potential tradeoffs, mitigate
risks, and become more efficient across the joint force; and
(4) How the DPG gives guidance on doctrine, required
capabilities and shortfalls, force structure, and training to
ensure the service secretaries are meeting their title 10
responsibilities of man, train, and equip.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to brief the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and House of Representatives, not later than March 1, 2018, on
its preliminary findings.
Report on F-35 Joint Strike Fighter sustainment affordability and
transparency
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense's
(DOD) sustainment strategy for the Joint Strike Fighter is not
linked closely to the military services' budgets that provide
the necessary funding for the projected $1.0 trillion in
operating and support costs of the program, thus contributing
to the lack of transparency and misalignment of responsibility
and accountability that has plagued the program from its
inception. In 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported that while DOD has begun some cost-savings efforts and
established sustainment affordability targets for the F-35
program, DOD did not use the military services' budgets to set
these targets. Therefore, these targets may not be
representative of what the services can realistically afford
and do not provide a clear benchmark for DOD's cost-savings
efforts. While the committee is encouraged by the Department's
attention on cost reduction efforts, until the budgets of the
services actually inform the affordability targets the
Department is trying to achieve, there is no way to ensure that
any cost savings will actually result in a sustainment strategy
that will be affordable. The current strategy lacks the
transparency necessary for an efficient and effective use of
taxpayer dollars by the services that are actually operating
and funding sustainment. Continuing the current practice of
having the F-35 Joint Program Office handing a bill to the
services during execution fails to incorporate the services'
budgetary input to guide sustainment decisions, prioritize
requirements, and identify potential areas for savings.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives, not later than March 1, 2018, a
report on the Department's plan for improving the transparency
and affordability of the sustainment strategy for the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter. The required report shall include the
following elements: (1) a description of affordability
constraints linked to, and informed by, military service
budgets to help guide sustainment decisions, prioritize
requirements, and identify additional areas of savings; (2) an
explanation of the processes in place and steps taken to ensure
that the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air
Force have full transparency of the F-35 sustainment costs that
they are funding, and the corresponding capabilities provided,
in order to support their own affordability initiatives; and
(3) any other matter deemed relevant by the Secretary of
Defense.
Report on required training capabilities of the Fallon Range Training
Complex
The committee recognizes the undeniably vital contribution
the Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC) makes to the readiness
of our nation's forces, especially our Naval Strike Warfare and
Naval Special Warfare units. As the only location where an
entire carrier air wing can train together as they fight, the
Fallon ranges are irreplaceable for Naval Aviation. However,
current land and airspace restrictions limit the realism of the
training environment. The Navy is in the early stages of
developing a plan to address the looming 2021 expiration of the
current Fallon Range land withdrawal. During this transition,
the committee believes that it is necessary to modernize the
FRTC, particularly the expansion of usable land and airspace.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval
Operations to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, by February 1, 2018, describing the required
training capabilities of the Fallon Range Training Complex. The
required report should include: (1) an overview of current
training capabilities of the FRTC; (2) the training
requirements that need to be met by the FRTC; (3) proposed
improvements to the land and airspace of the FRTC; (4) proposed
capability upgrades for the FRTC; and (5) the impacts of not
modernizing the FRTC, in terms of both space and capabilities.
The required report shall be unclassified, but may contain a
classified annex.
Report on small arms industrial base
In 2010, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2011 repealed section 2473 of title 10, United
States Code, which had required the Department of Defense to
only procure certain small arms repair parts and components
from a limited number of industry sources that the Department
had identified as comprising the small arms production
industrial base (SAPIB).
In 2015, the committee included directive report language
entitled ``Small Arms Production Industrial Base'' within the
report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). This directed the
Secretary of Defense in coordination with the senior military
services acquisition executives, to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services on the current state of the SAPIB,
as well as on the effect the repeal is having on the current
SAPIB.
The committee believes the briefing provided by the Army
was insufficient. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with senior military
services acquisition executives, to submit a report to the
Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than January 15, 2018, on the state of
the SAPIB. At a minimum, this report shall: (1) identify
critical small arms systems and items; (2) describe the
department's strategy for preserving a stable SAPIB in the
areas of development, production, maintenance and competitive
contracting; (3) describe the use of science and technology,
small business programs, and organic depot activities to
improve and enhance quality, delivery, competition, engineering
and capability.
Review of corrosion control and prevention in the Department of Defense
The committee notes that the negative effects of corrosion
continue to cost the Department of Defense (DOD) over $22.0
billion annually. The committee is concerned that the military
departments have not adequately funded their corrosion control
and prevention activities nor have all the military services
placed the appropriate emphasis on their corrosion executives.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate the: (1) Results of resourcing
efforts for corrosion executives in the military departments;
(2) Corrosion prevention office and the corrosion control and
prevention executives' oversight roles in implementing
corrosion prevention and control planning on acquisition and
sustainment programs; (3) Extent of interagency working groups
to include DOD that are focused on the potential application
and implementation of infrastructure corrosion prevention and
mitigation technologies government-wide.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to brief the committee not later than March 1, 2018, on
its preliminary findings.
Review of minimum capital investment for certain depots
The committee notes that section 2476 of title 10, United
States Code, requires that each fiscal year, the Secretary of a
military department shall invest in the capital budgets of the
covered depots of that military department a total amount equal
to not less than 6 percent of the average total combined
maintenance, repair, and overhaul workload funded at all the
depots of that military department for the preceding three
fiscal years. Under the statute, the capital budget of a depot
includes investment funds spent to modernize or improve the
efficiency of depot facilities, equipment, work environment, or
processes in direct support of depot operations, but does not
include funds spent for sustainment of existing facilities,
infrastructure, or equipment.
However, exactly how the military departments determine the
funds available for both investment and sustainment is unclear
to the committee. If they are, for example, using the capital
budget on sustainment, the military services may be
substantially underfunding both their investment and
sustainment requirements at the depots. The committee notes
that the military depots should be receiving not less than 6
percent of their total workload funding for investment actions
alone; and funding for sustainment actions should be budgeted
separately.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate to what extent the military
departments are complying with the requirement in section 2476
of title 10, United States Code, to invest in the capital
budgets of covered depots a total amount equal to not less than
6 percent of the average total combined maintenance, repair,
and overhaul workload funded at all the depots for a military
department for the preceding three fiscal years; and the extent
to which the amounts identified for capital budget activities
by the military departments were spent on sustainment of
existing facilities, infrastructure, or equipment. The
Comptroller General may also include other related matters as
appropriate.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to brief the committee not later than March 30, 2018, on
its findings.
Review of training for commanders that consult and interact with
federally recognized tribes
The committee recognizes the significant effort and
institutional knowledge required to maintain healthy working
relationships between many domestic Department of Defense
installations and the federally recognized tribes in the
communities in which these installations are based.
The committee recommends that the Department review the
preparation given to Command Select List Designees,
Installation Commanders, Garrison Commanders, and General
Officers with assignment at installations that regularly engage
with at least one geographically proximate federally recognized
tribe.
Specifically, the committee recommends that the Department
review the pre-command course training provided to these
leaders, specifically the training pertaining to the cultural
history of any relevant federally recognized tribes to the
installation, the treaty rights, if any, of such tribes and the
legal implications for the installation, and the history of
military and United States Government engagement with such
tribes, and best practice communication and engagement
strategies used for maintaining healthy working relationships
with these tribes.
Ship and submarine depot maintenance
The committee is concerned by challenges with maintaining
the current Navy fleet of 276 ships. For example, the committee
notes the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) availability was
scheduled for an eight-month availability that required 13
months in 2016; USS Albany (SSN-753) took over 48 months to
complete its 22-month maintenance availability and missed a
deployment as a result; and the USS Boise (SSN-764) was
originally scheduled for a 2016 public shipyard availability
that was recently shifted to a 2019 private shipyard
availability. In addition to the USS Boise, the Navy has also
recently shifted the USS Montpelier (SSN-765) and USS Columbus
(SSN-762) availabilities from public shipyards to private
shipyards.
The committee understands insufficient public shipyard
capacity has led to cost inefficiency and delay, and the
rescheduling of some submarine maintenance availabilities to
private shipyards. The committee further understands the Navy
does not anticipate eliminating the current maintenance backlog
of 5.5 million man-days at public shipyards until 2023. The
committee notes the latest Navy shipbuilding plan indicates the
fleet will grow by 33 ships to 309 ships in 2023. The committee
is concerned by the task of accomplishing the increased
maintenance requirements while simultaneously eliminating a
maintenance backlog that has continued to grow since 2011.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives a detailed plan to accomplish surface
ship and submarine maintenance through fiscal year 2023. For
this period, by fiscal year, this plan shall include: the
planned maintenance workload by ship class, public and private
shipyard workforce capacity based on recent demonstrated
performance (i.e., performance factor), comparison of workload
to workforce (adjusted for performance) for public and private
shipyards by ship class, plans to shift maintenance from public
to private shipyards, estimated costs, and budgeted costs in
the fiscal year 2018 budget request. This plan shall be
submitted with the fiscal year 2019 budget request.
Technology roadmap and comprehensive water strategy
The committee remains concerned that the Department will
continue to face long-term challenges related to its water
requirements, coupled with the increased potential for security
risks and destabilization impacts requiring the Department's
response around the globe. While there has been much attention
placed on the cyber vulnerabilities of energy use and the
fragility of the electric grid, the committee believes a secure
and reliable supply of water is essential to the Department's
ability to perform its critical missions on its installations
and in support of operational deployments.
The Department has repeatedly informed the committee that
roughly 80 percent of a logistical resupply convoy's weight
consists of water and fuel in support of combat operations. On
military installations, water demand can compete with the
economies of local communities, especially in rural areas that
experience drought and increased risk of wildfires. The
Department needs to ensure it fully understands local water
rights and access to sources of water.
The committee strongly encourages the Department to develop
the advanced technologies necessary to meet its requirements
for water production, treatment, and purification, as well as
capitalize on commercially available capabilities. For example,
the Army has been able to reduce installation water use by
roughly 4.4 billion gallons, save $11.0 million per year, and
reduce total water requirements by roughly one-third through
utilities privatization programs at 23 locations.
Notably, university researchers at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology were recently able to develop a small
device that harvests an individual's daily drinking water
requirement from the atmosphere in arid environments, with no
energy input other than natural sunlight. The committee
strongly encourages the Department to pursue and field these
types of advanced technologies to meet its water requirements.
Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense shall, in
coordination with the military departments and combatant
commands, submit a technology roadmap to address capability
gaps for water production, treatment, and purification and a
comprehensive water strategy addressing research, acquisition,
training, and organizational issues to the committee not later
than May 1, 2018.
The roadmap and strategy shall include but not be limited
to identifying: (1) The projected global security impacts the
Department will face in 2025 and beyond due to diminishing
amounts of potable water; (2) Technologies and capabilities to
produce, purify, and treat water on site from groundwater,
surface water, or recycling used water, in order to reduce or
eliminate demand for water resupply and distribution; (3)
Technologies and capabilities for water production,
purification, and treatment that are compact, portable, and use
a low energy demand, to the maximum extent possible; (4)
Technologies and capabilities that have the ability to readily
provide potable water for distributed operations in remote
areas and in the event of humanitarian assistance and disaster
response (HA/DR) missions; (5) Holistic approaches to maximize
water efficiencies on military installations and forward
operating bases through the use of advanced technologies and
capabilities; (6) The expanded use of third party financing and
utilities privatization to sustain and recapitalize aging water
infrastructure; (7) Lessons learned from previous utilities
privatization contracts that will be used in future contract
negotiations to ensure long-term water rights, security,
conservation, and market opportunities; (8) Metrics to track
water use and quantify savings to include the expanded use of
water meters; (9) Risk mitigations to address the testing,
identification, and remediation requirements for emerging
contaminants and other water source vulnerabilities to ensure
human health and safety standards are met; (10) Ways to
incorporate lessons learned and best practices drawn from the
past 15 years of combat operations and HA/DR missions; (11)
Cooperation and collaboration opportunities with other
agencies, non-government entities, academia, local communities,
and foreign nations; (12) Infrastructure and other development
funding requirements; (13) Policies and methods to monitor
water market trends and how water market mechanisms are
evolving over time to minimize the fully burdened cost of water
to the Department; (14) Opportunities to acquire more subject
matter expertise on water issues to identify future threats to
mission performance; and (15) Any necessary legislative or
policy change recommendations.
The comprehensive strategy may also include a classified
annex, if deemed appropriate.
Textile decisions
As the Department of Defense continues its work to
streamline military uniforms, both combat and dress uniforms,
the committee recognizes the significant importance of a stable
and domestic textile industrial base to produce garments for
the country's warfighters.
Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Department
to take into consideration such an impact upon the industrial
base and its suppliers, including the small businesses that
provide critical contributions, while making such decisions.
Third-party financed energy projects
The committee continues to be strongly supportive of the
Department's efforts to use third party financing mechanisms
and other appropriate authorities for energy projects that
improve installation resilience, increase the readiness and
ability of the military services to deploy, and balance the
stewardship of taxpayer funding since third-party financed
projects have little upfront cost to the Department.
Accordingly, the committee continues to strongly encourage
DOD to continue to use third party financing mechanisms and
other appropriate authorities to take full advantage of private
sector financing for renewable and distributed energy projects
that improve installation resilience, increase readiness and
mission assurance, and offer cost savings. Lastly, the
committee continues to strongly encourage DOD to prioritize
resilience in its pursuit of projects and to leverage payment
in kind options for black start capability in the event of grid
outages whether through technologies like cyber-secure
microgrids, additional feeder lines, islanded operations, or
other appropriate assets.
Use of proximate airfields to support undergraduate pilot training
installations
The committee is aware that Air Force Undergraduate Pilot
Training (UPT) installations utilize nearby civilian airfields
to accomplish parts of their training syllabus and as emergency
landing sites. Partnerships with organizations operating
civilian airfields already increase training opportunities and
overall pilot training capacity. However, the committee
believes there may be additional opportunities to improve
cooperation and partnership covering proximate civilian
airfields that could be beneficial to both Air Force and local
communities.
Therefore, not later than 90 days after the enactment of
this act, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a study on the feasibility of
obtaining increased access to proximate civilian aviation
facilities to: (1) expand Undergraduate Pilot Training capacity
at civilian aviation facilities where cooperation agreements
already are being used to meet throughput requirements; (2) to
create additional surge capacity at such facilities; and (3)
extend such agreements to additional proximate civilian
aviation facilities.
Wargame for operations in the Arctic
The committee supports the Department of Defense's (DOD)
2016 Arctic Strategy, including the desired end-state for a
``secure and stable region where U.S. national interests are
safeguarded, the U.S. homeland is defended, and nations work
cooperatively to address challenges.'' Given the continued
involvement and expanding footprint of Russia and other
nations, including U.S. allies in the Arctic, harsh weather
conditions, and the potential for increased oil and gas
exploration, the committee remains concerned that the rapidly
changing strategic waterway is a potential driver of
instability, requiring the Department to be prepared to
incorporate any changes in the comprehensive domain awareness
in DOD planning.
Additionally, the committee is concerned that a lack of
icebreaker ships and the challenges of constructing other
permanent infrastructure in the Arctic may limit DOD's ability
to operate and ensure regional access given the evolving
security threats, icebreaker capabilities of Russia and other
nations, and the evolving physical environment.
The committee believes that DOD, other U.S. federal
agencies, and U.S. allies and partners need to ensure they can
operate with sustainable proficiency in the high latitudes of
the Arctic region, just as they prepare for operations in every
other region around the world. The committee is also concerned
that coastal erosion rates that were projected by the Air Force
not to occur until 2030 and 2040 have already been observed,
which threatens DOD's existing early warning radar
infrastructure.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct an Arctic wargame to assess the strategy,
assumptions, and capabilities of the United States Northern
Command to secure, stabilize, and assure access to all
international waters, airspace, and homeland approaches in the
Arctic. The wargame and appropriate tabletop exercises shall
include, but not be limited to: (1) Necessary infrastructure
and regional-specific capabilities for DOD operations in the
Arctic, to include icebreakers and communications improvements;
(2) Potential mechanical and maintenance constraints of the
current class of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships, submarines,
ground vehicles, equipment, and aircraft, to include unmanned
systems, operating in the Arctic, given the temperatures,
weather, and opening of new transportation routes; (3) Regional
implications of American icebreakers and other allied and
partner forces operating in the region in the event of new
commercial ship traffic transiting the Arctic during 30 to 60
days of free water access; and (4) Necessary updates to
concepts of operations, tactics, techniques, and procedures,
rules of engagement, protections for regional-specific
indigenous communities, potential new navigation routes, and
search and rescue requirements.
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall convey to the congressional
defense committees the findings of the Arctic wargame.
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 2018, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Change from
FY 2017 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2018 FY 2017
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.......................................... 476,000 476,000 481,000 +5,000 +5,000
Navy.......................................... 323,900 327,900 327,900 0 +4,000
Marine Corps.................................. 185,000 185,000 186,000 +1,000 +1,000
Air Force..................................... 321,000 325,100 325,100 0 +4,100
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 1,305,900 1,314,000 1,320,000 +6,000 +14,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2018, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 Change from
FY 2017 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2018 FY 2017
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 343,000 343,000 343,500 +500 +500
Army Reserve.................................. 199,000 199,000 199,500 +500 +500
Navy Reserve.................................. 58,000 59,000 59,000 0 +1,000
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 38,500 38,500 38,500 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 105,700 106,600 106,600 0 +900
Air Force Reserve............................. 69,000 69,800 69,800 0 +800
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 813,200 815,900 816,900 +1,000 +3,700
Coast Guard Reserve........................... 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves
(sec. 412)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2018, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Change from
FY 2017 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2018 FY 2017
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 30,155 30,155 30,155 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 9,955 10,101 10,101 0 +146
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 14,764 16,260 16,260 0 +1496
Air Force Reserve............................. 2,955 3,588 3,588 0 +633
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 76,351 78,626 78,626 0 +2275
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components
of the Army and Air Force for fiscal year 2018, at the
following levels: Army National Guard: 22,294; Army Reserve:
6,492; Air National Guard: 19,135; and Air Force Reserve:
8,880. These authorizations reflect the conversion of 12.6
percent of the technician population, as requested in the
fiscal year 2018 budget request, to civilian employees under
section 3101 of title 5, United States Code, or section 1601 of
title 10, United States Code as authorized elsewhere in this
Act to reflect the requirements of section 1084 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328).
The committee notes that the same number of personnel are
available for full-time support of the reserve components of
the Army and the Air Force through the combination of military
technicians (dual status) and employees under section 3101 of
title 5, United States Code, or section 1601 of title 10,
United States Code. The budgetary authorization for full-time
support remains the same. Further, the committee has not
reduced either the overall Selected Reserve end strength or
budgetary authority for civilian personnel relative to this
conversion.
Fiscal year 2018 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians
(sec. 414)
The committee recommends a provision that would set the
limit on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2018,
at zero to reflect the requirements of section 1084 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) converting non-dual status technicians to civilian
employees under section 3101 of title 5, United States Code, or
section 1601 of title 10, United States Code, by no later than
October 1, 2017.
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, 2018, as
shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Change from
FY 2017 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2018 FY 2017
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of members of the National Guard on full-time duty in support of
the reserves within the National Guard Bureau (sec. 416)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
number of personnel authorized to be on full-time duty in
support of the reserves within the National Guard Bureau to not
exceed the number equal to six percent of the number authorized
by section 412 of this Act.
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..................... -1083.37
Public-Private partnership on military spousal +1.0
employment...........................................
Defense Innovation Board software development review.. +1.0
Total............................................. -1,081.37
The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military
Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $1,081.37 million. This
amount includes: (1) A reduction of $1083.37 million to reflect
the Government Accountability Office's most recent assessment
of the average annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) An increase
of $1.0 million to support a pilot program for a public-private
partnership venture on military spousal employment overseas;
and (3) An increase of $1.0 million for the Defense Innovation
Board to conduct an analysis of software development and
acquisition regulations for the Department of Defense.
Military Personnel Unfunded Priorities List
The budget request included $141.7 billion for Military
Personnel.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
submitted extensive Unfunded Requirements Lists totaling $33.1
billion. The committee believes that since the passage of the
Budget Control Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by
artificial constraints rather than the realities of the global
strategic environment. This reality has continued for the
fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an
arbitrary number determined six years ago in the Budget Control
Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained
high operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation
in our military readiness in the near term, and the threat that
we will fall behind our adversaries in the long-term. For the
last several years military leaders have highlighted these
problems in great detail.
In order to address the degraded state of our military and
to stop the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee
believes that the budget should be based on requirements,
rather than arbitrary budget caps. The committee recommends an
increase of $627.8 million to Military Personnel for items
identified in the Unfunded Requirements List. Increases include
growing the Army by 6,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by
1,000 Marines. Greater details of each increase can be found in
the tables in Division D.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Clarification of baselines for authorized numbers of general and flag
officers on active duty and in joint duty assignments (sec.
501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 526 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
Active-Duty and joint-duty assignment baselines for general and
flag officers.
Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of particular merit
be placed at the top of the promotion list (sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 616 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize an
officer promotion board to recommend Active-Duty officers of
particular merit be placed at the top of the promotion list to
better incentivize talent by recognizing top performing
officers with promotion timing based on merit rather than based
solely on seniority.
Clarification to exception for removal of officers from list of
officers recommended for promotion after 18 months without
appointment (sec. 503)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 629 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
the requirement to remove officers from a list of officers
recommended for promotion after 18 months without appointment
does not apply when the military department concerned is not
able to obtain and provide to the Senate the information the
Senate requires to give its advice and consent to the
appointment concerned because that information is under the
control of a department or agency of the Federal Government
other than the Department of Defense.
Flexibility in promotion of officers to positions of Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps and Deputy Judge
Advocate General of the Navy (sec. 504)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 5046 and 5149 of title 10, United States Code, to
retain prior flexibility in the promotion of officers to
positions of Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the
Marine Corps and Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy.
Repeal of requirement for specification of number of officers who may
be recommended for early retirement by a Selective Early
Retirement Board (sec. 505)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 638a of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the
requirement that Service secretaries specify the number of
officers who may be recommended for early retirement. This
change would allow more effective management of retirement-
eligible senior officers who are not competitive for future
promotion. Officers who have been passed over for promotion or
who have at least 2 years time-in-grade and whose names are not
on a list of officers recommended for promotion would be
eligible for selective early retirement.
The committee intends this authority to be used to ensure a
high-quality senior officer population. Selective retirement
authority allows the military services to create vacancies in
the control grades of O-5 and O-6, thereby allowing high-
performing younger officers to promote more quickly in specific
cases where the needs of the service dictate such authority to
be used.
Extension of service-in-grade waiver authority for voluntary retirement
of certain general and flag officers for purposes of enhanced
flexibility in officer personnel management (sec. 506)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1370 of title 10, United States Code, to extend to 2025
the authority to waive the time-in-grade requirement for
certain general and flag officers for voluntary early
retirement without reduction in grade of up to 10 percent of
the authorized Active-Duty strength for officers in those
grades for purposes of enhanced flexibility in officer
personnel management.
Inclusion of Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics among
officers subject to repeal of statutory specification of
general officer grade (sec. 507)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3016 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the
requirement that the Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics shall be a lieutenant general.
Clarification of effect of repeal of statutory specification of general
or flag officer grade for various positions in the Armed Forces
(sec. 508)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to clarify that the grade
of an officer serving as of the date of the enactment of that
Act in a position whose statutory grade is affected by an
amendment made by section 502 may not be reduced after that
date by reason of such amendment as long as the officer remains
in continuous service in such position after that date.
The committee also recommends a provision that would amend
section 3084 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the
requirement that an officer appointed as Chief of the
Veterinary Corps of the Army who holds a lower grade shall be
appointed in the grade of brigadier general.
Grandfathering of retired grade of Assistant Judge Advocates General of
the Navy as of repeal of statutory specification of general and
flag officers grades in the Armed Forces (sec. 509)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that officers holding certain positions as of December 23,
2016, whose statutory grade is affected by amendments made by
section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) may be retired in such
grade with the retired pay of such grade, unless entitled to
higher pay under another provision of law.
Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced education upon
original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 510)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 12207 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
service secretaries to credit any person receiving an original
appointment as a reserve commissioned officer with a period of
constructive service. Constructive service would be credited to
an individual for special experience or training in a
particular cyberspace-related field or for any period of
advanced education in a cyberspace-related field beyond the
baccalaureate degree level. Constructive service credit can not
exceed one year for each year of special experience, training,
or advanced education, and not more than three years total
constructive service may be credited. This authority is
intended to allow the Defense Department to better recruit
individuals with cyberspace-related skills into vacant critical
cyberspace positions.
Authority for officers to opt-out of promotion board consideration
(sec. 510A)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
service secretaries to provide that an active and reserve
component officer may, upon the officer's request, be excluded
from consideration by a promotion selection board. The
committee intends this authority be used to enable an officer
to complete a desirable career broadening assignment or to
develop additional technical expertise without harming future
promotion potential.
Reauthorization of authority to order retired members to active duty in
high-demand, low-density assignments (sec. 510B)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 688a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
service secretaries to order retired military service members
to active duty on a voluntary basis to meet critical manning
needs. The period of active duty would be in accordance with an
agreement between the member and the Secretary concerned.
Activation under this authority is limited to 1,000 members.
The authority to use section 688a of title 10, United States
Code, expired on December 31, 2011. This authority would be
reinstated for a 5-year period and would expire on December 31,
2022. The committee expects that this authority will be used to
address the pilot shortage.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Consolidation of authorities to order members of the reserve components
of the Armed Forces to perform duty (sec. 511)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 515 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to require the Secretary
of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives by April 30, 2019,
legislative proposals designed to implement alternative
approaches to reducing the number of statutory authorities by
which members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces may
be ordered to perform duty to not more than eight statutory
authorities grouped into four duty categories to which specific
pay and benefits may be aligned.
Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within the National
Guard Bureau (sec. 512)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 1101 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the
Office of Complex Investigations within the National Guard
Bureau under the authority, direction, and control of the Chief
of the National Guard Bureau. The office would be organized,
trained, equipped, and managed to conduct administrative
investigations in order to assist the States in the
organization maintenance, and operation of the National Guard
for the following types of investigations: (1) allegations of
sexual assault involving members of the National Guard; (2)
circumstances involving members of the National Guard in which
other law enforcement agencies within the Department of Defense
do not have jurisdiction or authority to investigate; and (3)
other circumstances as the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
may direct.
The committee remains highly concerned that the Office of
Complex Investigations, as it currently operates, has a high
level of investigative staff turn-over that exceeds 50 percent
of its full-time support manning requirements on an annual
basis. Therefore, it is the intent and expectation of the
committee that the Office of Complex Investigations should be
staffed in a manner that allows for multi-year tours for
members of the National Guard on active duty or full-time
National Guard duty for the purposes of service with the Office
of Complex Investigations. The committee directs the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, no
later than April 1, 2018, a status report on the official
establishment of the Office of Complex Investigations that lays
out the manning documents and turn-over rates for such office.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Report on policies for regular and reserve officer career management
(sec. 516)
The committee recommends a provision that would require 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, 2018, with recommendations for
mechanisms that would: (1) Increase the ability of officers to
repeatedly transition between Active-Duty and Reserve active-
status throughout the course of their military careers; (2)
Provide additional flexibility in managing the populations of
officers in the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and
colonel and Navy grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and
captain; (3) Utilize the modernized retirement system provided
by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) to encourage officers to pursue careers of
lengths that vary from the traditional 20-year military career;
(4) Create alternative career tracks for officers that
encourage and facilitate the recruitment and retention of
officers with technical expertise; (5) Develop a career and
promotion path for officers in cyber-related officer
specialties; (6) Ensure the officer corps does not become
disproportionately weighted in the field grade officer ranks;
and (7) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate
to improve the effective recruitment, management, and retention
of regular and reserve officers of the Armed Forces.
This report is the committee's first step in a
comprehensive review of the military officer personnel system
for both the active and reserve components. The committee
recognizes that military officer careers today are largely
managed according to regulations, laws, and traditions
established many decades ago, which may no longer be effective
in recruiting and retaining the high-quality talent required to
succeed against future threats. The Defense Officer Personnel
Management Act (DOPMA) of 1980 (Public Law 96--513) and the
Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) of 1995
codified Active-Duty and Reserve officer management based on
fixed career- and promotion-time parameters that inhibit
flexibility and the adoption of modern talent management
principles. DOPMA and ROPMA mandate predetermined promotion
timelines and statutory limits on the number of officers
serving in field grade ranks. This results in an up-or-out
promotion structure and an, oftentimes, one-size-fits-all
officer career.
Additionally, the committee notes that DOPMA and ROPMA
advanced important reforms that helped to build an officer
corps that remains exceedingly capable. These statutes imparted
crucial discipline into the management of field grade officers,
which ensures the officer corps does not become
disproportionately represented by senior ranking officers.
DOPMA had the laudable goal of simplifying and standardizing
officer promotion practices across all military departments,
while also ensuring adequate and competitive opportunities for
continued officer advancement. These goals remain important,
but as the nature of military service has evolved, particularly
over the last 16 years of extended overseas engagement, the
committee believes the policies dictated by DOPMA and ROPMA
should be carefully reviewed to ensure that they do not
unnecessarily complicate officer career management and dissuade
some highly talented officers from joining or continuing their
military service.
In particular, as a result of maintaining separate active
and reserve officer management statutes, the committee notes
the challenge of creating a truly integrated active and reserve
total force. Under DOPMA and ROPMA, separate, oftentimes
duplicative, personnel bureaucracies manage two distinct
populations of officers (active and reserve) who are
increasingly likely to serve alongside each other when deployed
to a combat zone or when training for future conflicts. The
committee plans to assess whether a more integrated approach
would better serve the entire officer population and encourage
a continuum of service among those officers who wish to
continue to wear the uniform on Active Duty or in the reserves.
The newly implemented blended retirement system presents an
important opportunity for the military departments to
reevaluate their personnel needs and supporting policies. As
nearly every service member will now leave the military with
some form of retirement benefit, the military should evaluate
the necessity of the more-traditional 20-year military career.
It is possible that the military would benefit from some
officer careers extending far beyond 20-years while others
should be much shorter. One of the key concerns of Congress in
passing DOPMA was ensuring that those officers not selected for
promotion, but close to the 20 years of service required for a
military pension, be generally allowed to remain on Active Duty
in their current grade. This resulted in some officers being
retained on Active Duty beyond the military's requirement,
solely so they could receive retirement benefits. The new
blended retirement system allays that concern, as now nearly
all new officers will receive some form of retirement benefit.
The requirement to stand for promotion according to
predetermined timelines is one of the hallmarks of DOPMA and
ROPMA. To be competitive for promotion, officers frequently
must serve in a variety of assignments for relatively short
periods of time. This produces officers with great breadth of
experience but who sometimes lack important depth. In some
career fields, like aviation, cyber, and acquisition it may be
more desirable for officers to develop their technical skills
rather than sprinting to gain the required breadth of
experience required to be competitive for promotion. New career
tracks dedicated to producing officers with great technical
expertise could be an important recruiting and retention tool
for those personnel who possess valuable skills but are not
well-suited to more traditional DOPMA-driven officer career
paths.
One of the principle features of DOPMA and ROPMA is the
creation of strict quotas for the number of officers allowed to
serve in the field grade ranks of major, lieutenant colonel,
and colonel (lieutenant commander, commander, and captain for
the Navy). These quotas ensure the military departments
maintain a healthy balance of experienced and junior officers.
However, to achieve the DOPMA-required field grade quotas and
to make room for younger officers to continue to advance, some
officers may be forced out of the military prematurely. This
dynamic could be particularly damaging to more technically
oriented career fields like cyber, acquisition, or aviation.
Imparting some degree of flexibility in managing the field
grade officer population could allow the military departments
to retain both valuable experienced officers and promote
deserving younger officers.
The committee recognizes that the enduring success of the
U.S. military, an all-volunteer force with a global mission,
depends on its ability to harness the dynamism of American
society to meet evolving strategic threats. As the United
States confronts an increasingly challenging security
environment, the military cannot afford to rely upon an overly
prescriptive officer personnel system designed for a bygone
era. The threats facing the nation are too unpredictable and
complex to rely on one-size-fits-all officer management
policies designed to win the Cold War.
Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for standards and
qualifications for military specialties within the Armed Forces
(sec. 517)
The Committee recommends a provision that would vest in the
Chief of Staff of each of the Armed Forces the responsibility
for establishing, approving, and modifying the criteria,
standards, and qualifications for military specialty codes
within that Armed Force. The Secretary of Defense will still
retain oversight authority.
Confidential review of characterization of terms of discharge of
members of the Armed Forces who are survivors of sexual assault
(sec. 518)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 79 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a new
section 1554b that would codify section 547 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) that required
service secretaries to establish a confidential process by
which an individual who was the victim of a sex-related offense
during military service may challenge, through boards for the
correction of military records, the terms or characterization
of the discharge or separation of the individual from the
military on the grounds that the terms or characterization were
adversely affected by the individual being the victim of such
an offense. The provision also changes the terminology of the
provision by substituting ``survivor'' for ``victim''
throughout.
Improvements to certain authorities and procedures of discharge review
boards (sec. 519)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the 15-
year statute of limitations on filing claims for review of a
discharge or dismissal by service discharge review boards. The
provision would also authorize presentation of evidence to the
boards by telephone or video conference, to the extent
reasonable and technically feasible.
Public availability of information related to disposition of claims
regarding discharge or release of members of the Armed Forces
when claims involve sexual assault (sec. 520)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1552 and 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to
require boards for the correction of military records and
discharge review boards to make publicly available on an
internet website the number and disposition of decided claims
in which sexual assault is alleged to have contributed in whole
or in part to the characterization of a claimant's discharge or
release from the military.
Subtitle D--Military Justice Matters
Revision to Manual for Courts-Martial with respect to dissemination of
visual depictions of private areas or sexually explicit conduct
without the consent of the person depicted (sec. 521)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President, not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, to amend part IV of the Manual for
Courts-Martial to include as an enumerated offense under
section 934 of title 10, United States Code (article 134 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice), the distribution of a visual
depiction of the private area of a person or of sexually
explicit conduct involving a person that was (1) Photographed,
videotaped, filmed, or recorded by any means with the consent
of such person; and (2) Distributed by another person who knew
or should have known that the depicted person did not consent
to such distribution.
Technical and conforming amendments in connection with reform of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 522)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical and conforming amendments in connection with the
reform of the Uniform Code of Military Justice contained in
division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
Priority of review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces of
decisions of Courts of Criminal Appeals on petitions for
enforcement of victims' rights (sec. 523)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 806b of title 10, United States Code (article 6b(e)(3)
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), to prioritize the
review of a decision on a petition for a writ of mandamus in
the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, as determined under
the rules of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Assistance of defense counsel in additional post-trial matters for
accused convicted by court-martial (sec. 524)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 838 of title 10, United States Code (article 38 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), to clarify that in
any court-martial proceeding resulting in a conviction, the
defense counsel may assist the accused in the submission of any
matter under section 860, 860a, or 860b of title 10 (article
60, 60a, or 60b, UCMJ).
Enumeration of additional limitations on acceptance of plea agreements
by military judges of general or special courts-martial (sec.
525)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 853a of title 10, United States Code (article 53a of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice), as added by section 5237
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328), to enumerate additional limitations on
the acceptance of plea agreements by military judges of general
or special courts-martial.
Additional proceedings by Courts of Criminal Appeals by order of United
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 526)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 866 of title 10, United States Code (article 66 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice), as amended by section 5330
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328), to require the Court of Criminal Appeals
to order a hearing or other proceeding if the Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces determines that additional proceedings are
warranted.
Clarification of applicability and effective dates for statute of
limitations amendments in connection with Uniform Code of
Military Justice reform (sec. 527)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
applicability and effective dates for statute of limitations
amendments in connection with the reform of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice contained in division E of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328).
Modification of year of initial review by Military Justice Review Panel
of Uniform Code of Military Justice reform amendments (sec.
528)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 946 of title 10, United States Code (article 146 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice), as amended by section 5521
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328), to modify the year of initial review by
the Military Justice Review Panel of Uniform Code of Military
Justice reform amendments.
Clarification of applicability of certain provisions of law to civilian
judges of the United States Court of Military Commission Review
(sec. 529)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 950f of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
civilian judges appointed to the United States Court of
Military Commission Review are authorized to engage in outside
business activities, including the practice of law, when not
performing the duties of a judge on the court.
Enhancement of effective prosecution and defense in courts-martial and
related matters (sec. 530)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 542 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to include an additional
element in the program for effective prosecution and defense in
courts-martial in order to ensure adequate supervision and
oversight of trial and defense counsel. The provision would
authorize assignment of civilian employees to provide such
supervision. The provision would also require service
secretaries to assess the feasibility of a military justice
career track for judge advocates that leads to judge advocates
with military justice expertise in the grade of colonel, or
Navy captain. This pilot program would also include the use of
skill identifiers to identify judge advocates for the program
and guidance for promotion boards to ensure that judge
advocates in the program have the same opportunity for
promotion as other judge advocates being considered by such
boards.
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces jurisdiction to review
interlocutory appeals of decisions on certain petitions for
writs of mandamus (sec. 531)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 806b of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review for legal error
a grant or denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus by a
service Court of Criminal Appeals.
Punitive article on wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate
visual images or visual images of sexually explicit conduct
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 532)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to
establish a new punitive article in the Uniform Code of
Military Justice that would prohibit the wrongful broadcast or
distribution of intimate visual images of another person or
visual images of sexually explicit conduct involving a person.
Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, Transition, and Resilience
Ready, Relevant Learning initiative of the Navy (sec. 541)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
certification, not later than October 1, 2017, and each year
thereafter, regarding the Navy's Ready, Relevant Learning (RRL)
initiative.
The committee understands the Navy's RRL initiative, which
will alter training for 76 of 87 Navy enlisted ratings,
consists of three stages. The first stage, ``Block Learning,''
is intended to reorganize current Navy training and delivery
methods into blocks that will be delivered closer to the time
of actual use in a sailor's career. The second stage,
``Enhanced, Accessible Learning,'' will modernize training
content to deliver new content and media methods. The third
stage, ``Anytime, Anywhere Learning,'' will align processes,
standards and resources, as well as provide rapid, responsive
training content.
While recognizing the potential of the RRL initiative, the
committee is concerned with the associated fiscal year 2017
through 2021 savings of $1.3 billion, which is achieved through
a reduction in student billets and results in 6,000 fewer
student billets in fiscal year 2021. The committee understands
the savings are largely attributable to a 30 percent reduction
in time spent at ``A'' schools (i.e. initial rating training)
and a 70 percent reduction in time spent at ``C'' schools (i.e.
advanced rating training). The committee further understands
that more than $1.0 billion of this reduction is being shifted
to the Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) account to
procure modernized delivery material.
The committee views Navy's RRL initiative as a fundamental
transformation in training, based on more than 87 percent of
Navy enlisted ratings being affected and the shift of more than
$1.0 billion from traditional training billets to developmental
software-based training applications (i.e. modernized
delivery).
Accordingly, the committee recommends the Secretary of the
Navy provide an annual certification attesting that the
transition to modernized delivery methods is complying with
best practices, as well as meeting or exceeding the existing
training delivery approach for all associated training
requirements.
Element in preseparation counseling for members of the Armed Forces on
assistance and support services for caregivers of certain
veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 542)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1142(b) of title 10, United States Code, to include an
element in servicemembers' preseparation counseling describing
the assistance and support services for family caregivers of
eligible veterans under the program conducted by the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs pursuant to section 1720G of title 38,
United States Code. Additionally, the provision would require
the service secretaries, within 180 days of the date of the
enactment of this Act, to permit a caregiver, at the election
of the servicemember who may require caregiver services, to
participate in appropriate sessions of the servicemember's
preseparation counseling to become informed of assistance and
support services available to caregivers and to understand
better how the servicemember's transition to civilian life may
impact the caregiver.
Discharge in the Selected Reserve of the commissioned service
obligation of military service academy graduates who
participate in professional athletics (sec. 543)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4348(a), section 6959(a), and section 9348(a) of title
10, United States Code, to provide for a graduate of a military
service academy who is selected to participate in professional
athletics to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer as
a member of the Selected Reserve until completion of the
commissioned service obligation.
Pilot programs on appointment in the excepted service in the Department
of Defense of physically disqualified former cadets and
midshipmen (sec. 544)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the secretary of each military department to carry out a pilot
program for the purpose of evaluating the feasibility and
advisability of allowing eligible individuals who cannot accept
a commission or complete a period of Active Duty due to
physical disqualification to fulfill an Active Duty service
obligation through service as Department of Defense civilian
employees in the excepted service. This pilot authority would
sunset 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Limitation on availability of funds for attendance of Air Force
enlisted personnel at Air Force officer professional military
education in-residence courses (sec. 545)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of funds for the purpose of Air
Force enlisted personnel attending Air Force officer
professional military education courses until the later of: (1)
The date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits 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 on the attendance of such personnel at such
courses; (2) The date on which the Comptroller General of the
United States submits to such committees a report setting forth
an assessment of such report; or (3) 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
The committee is aware that the first group of enlisted
airmen, four Chief Master Sergeants, graduated in Academic Year
2016-2017 from the Air University's Air War College in-
residence program at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The Air
War College is the United States Air Force's premier officer
professional military education program. The Air Force
justifies its decision to allow in-residence attendance by
senior enlisted personnel at officer professional military
education courses by rationalizing a need for these enlisted
personnel to attend a ``strategic-level school'' to get
exposure to the same learning environment as officers. However,
the committee has learned the four graduated Chief Master
Sergeants are all being assigned to wing-level command chief
positions rather than to strategic-level staff or agency
positions.
The committee understands that Chief Master Sergeants
already gain ``strategic-level'' knowledge at the Chief's
Leadership Course. By allowing senior enlisted personnel to
attend officer professional education courses in-residence, the
Air Force effectively reduces in-residence advanced
professional military education opportunities for deserving
officers.
The committee is disappointed that even with the Congress'
historically deep interest in professional military education,
the Air Force failed to consult or even notify the
congressional defense committees prior to directing the
inclusion of enlisted members at a senior officer professional
military education course. In addition, the committee
understands the commandant of Air War College recently
announced the attendance of 16 Chief Master Sergeants for the
Academic Year 2017-2018 Air War College class; notification for
which has also not yet been provided to the defense committees.
Pilot program on integration of Department of Defense and non-Federal
efforts for civilian employment of members of the Armed Forces
following transition from Active Duty to civilian life (sec.
546)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, of 2 years
duration, to assess the feasibility and advisability of
assisting certain members of the Armed Forces transitioning
from Active Duty to civilian life by accelerating and improving
their access to employment through coordination, integration,
and leveraging existing programs and authorities of the
Department of Defense with programs and resources of state and
local agencies, higher education institutions, employers, and
other public, private, and nonprofit entities.
Two-year extension of suicide prevention and resilience program for the
National Guard and Reserves (sec. 547)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 10219(g) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the
authority for suicide prevention and resilience programs for
the National Guard and Reserves until October 1, 2020.
Sexual assault prevention and response training for all individuals
enlisted in the Armed Forces under a delayed entry program
(sec. 548)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
service secretaries, insofar as practicable, to provide
training on sexual assault prevention and response to enlistees
in a delayed entry program before they begin basic training or
initial active duty for training in the Armed Forces.
Use of assistance under Department of Defense Tuition Assistance
Program for non-traditional education to develop cybersecurity
and computer coding skills (sec. 549)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
briefing by the Secretary of Defense, no later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the feasibility and advisability of the
enactment into law of using the Department of Defense Tuition
Assistance Program for courses or programs of education in
cybersecurity skills or related skills and computer coding
skills or related skills.
Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness
Matters
Part I--Defense Dependents' Education Matters
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 551)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$10.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
impact aid payments for children with disabilities (as enacted
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-77; 20 U.S.C. 7703a)
using the formula set forth in section 363 of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-398), for continuation of Department of Defense
assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible
dependents with severe disabilities. Subsection (b) of the
provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to use $5.0
million, of the total amount authorized, for payments to local
educational agencies with higher concentrations of military
children with severe disabilities, at his discretion and
without regard to the formula set forth in section 363 of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398).
The committee directs the Secretary to develop a plan for
the distribution of the funds authorized under subsection (b)
of the provision and to provide to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on that plan by no later than December 31, 2017. The
report shall identify those local educational agencies that
would receive funding under that subsection along with a
description of the unmet need of military children with severe
disabilities in those locations, accounting for any funding
such local educational agencies receive pursuant to the formula
set forth in section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398).
Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 552)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance
program to local educational agencies impacted by enrollment of
dependent children of military members and DOD civilian
employees.
One-year extension of authorities relating to the transition and
support of military dependent students to local educational
agencies (sec. 553)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 574(c)(3) of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364 (20
U.S.C. 7703b note)) to extend the authorities relating to
transition and support of military dependent students to local
educational agencies from September 30, 2017, to September 30,
2018.
Part II--Military Family Readiness Matters
Housing treatment for certain members of the Armed Forces, and their
spouses and other dependents, undergoing a permanent change of
station within the United States (sec. 556)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 7 of title 37, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations that permit
certain servicemembers undergoing permanent change of station
relocations within the United States to request special housing
treatment for spouses and dependents. Under this provision,
certain spouses and dependents would be: (1) Eligible to
continue living in government-owned or government-leased
housing; and (2) Eligible for early housing in government-owned
or government-leased housing. This provision would also
authorize a servicemember to be eligible, on a space-available
basis, either for temporary use of government-owned or
government-leased housing or an equitable basic allowance for
housing if a spouse or other dependent relocates at a different
time from the member. This provision would be effective on
October 1, 2018.
Direct hire authority for Department of Defense for childcare services
providers for Department child development centers (sec. 557)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Secretary of Defense with direct hire authority to recruit and
appoint qualified childcare services providers to positions
within the Department of Defense Child Development Centers. The
Secretary shall prescribe the regulations required and commence
implementation of such direct hire authority no later than May
1, 2018.
Report on expanding and contracting for childcare services of the
Department of Defense (sec. 558)
The committee recommends a provision that would require 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, 2018, on the feasibility and
advisability of the following: (1) Expanding the operating
hours of childcare facilities of the Department of Defense in
order to meet childcare services requirements for swing-shift,
night-shift, and weekend workers; (2) Using contracts with
private-sector childcare services providers to expand the
availability of childcare services; (3) Contracting with
private-sector childcare service providers to operate childcare
facilities of the Department on military installations; and (4)
Expanding childcare services to members of the National Guard
and Reserves if such expansion does not substantially increase
costs of childcare services for the military departments or
conflict with others who have higher priority for space in
childcare services programs.
Report on review of General Schedule pay grades of childcare services
providers of the Department of Defense (sec. 559)
The committee recommends a provision that would require 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, 2018, on a review of the General
Schedule pay grades for childcare services provider positions
within the Department of Defense. The committee remains
concerned with the propensity of individuals to serve as
childcare providers at Department of Defense facilities.
Conducting a review of the General Schedule pay grades is
required to ensure that the Department is offering a fair and
competitive wage for these important force-enabling civilian
positions.
Pilot program on public-private partnerships for telework facilities on
military installations outside the United States (sec. 560)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to assess the
feasibility and advisability of providing telework facilities
for military spouses on military installations outside the
United States to the extent that space is available for such
facilities. The provision would require the pilot program be
conducted at no less than two military installations outside
the United States selected by the Secretary for up to 3 years
in duration, in consultation with the host nation. The pilot
program shall be conducted as one or more public-private
partnerships between the Department of Defense and a private
corporation or partnership of private corporations with up to
$1.0 million authorized to be available to carry out the pilot
program. The committee expects the pilot programs to be
conducted consistent with existing status of forces agreements
with host nations or pursuant to appropriate modifications of
such agreements.
Report on mechanisms to facilitate the obtaining by military spouses of
professional licenses or credentials in other States (sec. 561)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct 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, 2018, on the feasibility and
advisability of the following: (1) The development and
maintenance of a joint federal-state clearing house to process
the professional license and credential information of military
spouses; (2) The establishment of a joint federal-state
taskforce dedicated to the elimination of unnecessary or
duplicative professional licensure and credentialing
requirements among the states; (3) The development and
maintenance of an Internet website that serves as a one-stop
resource on professional licenses and credentials for military
spouses that sets forth license and credential requirements for
common professionals in the states and provides assistance and
other resources for military spouses seeking to obtain
professional licenses or credentials in other States.
Additional military childcare matters (sec. 562)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to set and maintain the hours of
operation of childcare development centers in a manner that
considers the demands and circumstances of military service. In
addition, the provision would require service secretaries to
provide childcare coordinators at each military installation
where significant numbers of servicemembers with accompanying
dependent children are stationed.
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards
Authority of Secretary of the Army to award the Personnel Protection
Equipment award of the Army to former members of the Army (sec.
571)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to award the Personnel Protection
Equipment award of the Army to former members of the Army.
Authorization for award of Distinguished Service Cross to Specialist
Frank M. Crary for acts of valor in Vietnam (sec. 572)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the President to award the Distinguished Service Cross to
Specialist Frank M. Crary for acts of valor while serving in
Vietnam with Company D, 1st Battalion (Airborne), 12th Cavalry
Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division on April 7, 1966.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Modification of submittal date of Comptroller General of the United
States report on integrity of the Department of Defense
whistleblower program (sec. 581)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 536 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to revise the due date
for the report required of the Comptroller General of the
United States in that section concerning the Department of
Defense whistleblower program to December 31, 2018.
Report to Congress on accompanied and unaccompanied tours of duty in
remote locations with high family support costs (sec. 582)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to initiate a comprehensive review of the
policies for determining which posts are accompanied, which are
unaccompanied, and the extent to which the costs to the
taxpayers and security risks to family members are considered.
The committee is concerned with the significant costs
associated with maintaining accompanied tours at remote
locations. The proposed new 52 family housing units on
Kwajalein would cost over $1.3 million each. The proposed
$250.0 million replacement hospital at Guantanamo Bay would
cost $50.0 million per bed. Costs for school construction and
support are also significantly higher at these remote locations
than they are in the United States, which is a primary reason
why locations such as Diego Garcia are unaccompanied.
A report would be due to the congressional defense
committees no later than 1 year after the enactment of this
Act.
Items of Special Interest
Addressing challenges in remotely piloted aircraft community
The committee has repeatedly expressed concern in the past
regarding the projected shortfalls of pilots and sensor
operators for remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). The committee
notes that the Air Force provides the majority of RPA pilots
and commends the Air Force for working aggressively to address
this need.
Department of Defense policy states personnel cannot be
deployed at a ratio of more than one to one, deploy-to-dwell,
without explicit approval by the Secretary of Defense. The
policy also establishes a goal of a one-to-two deploy-to-dwell
ratio when possible. Most RPA crew personnel are not considered
``deployed'' under the current definition, yet they effectively
fight in combat every day. Establishing a ``combat-to-dwell''
ratio for the RPA community has consistently been cited as a
key means to reduce stress and create career opportunities for
RPA personnel.
Similarly, the committee is concerned about the promotion
rates of RPA officers. The Government Accountability Office's
2014 report, Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of
Unmanned Aerial System Pilots, showed that RPA pilots were
promoted at below average rates from 2006-2013 on most boards
and on only 3 of the 24 boards were RPA pilots ``promoted in
the top 50 percent of the career fields that competed.''
The committee reiterates its commitment to ensuring the Air
Force continues implementing initiatives identified by the RPA
Culture and Process Improvement Program (CPIP). Therefore, not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a
briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on the implementation of CPIP
initiatives, progress toward meeting the 10:1 crew-to-combat
line ratio and the 1:0.5 combat-to-dwell ratio, as well as
future plans to ensure access to mental health professionals,
childcare, housing, and other services at RPA bases meets the
needs of the airmen stationed there.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to provide an update, with a report to follow, to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the promotion rates of RPA pilots and sensor
operators since its 2014 study. The update should determine if
promotion rates have improved, factors leading to any current
disparities in promotion rates of RPA officers, and
recommendations to alleviate any disparity. Specifically, the
update should include recommendations for how to increase (a)
the selection of RPA officers for intermediate developmental
education programs, and (b) the number of billets assigned to
RPA pilots and sensor operators in the Rated Staff Allocation
Plan (RSAP) to proportions comparable to that of fighter pilots
and other fields.
DANTES program for members of the Armed Forces applying for tuition
assistance
The committee remains supportive of the Department of
Defense's Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education
Support (DANTES) program. For servicemembers utilizing DANTES,
there is a demonstrated record of success. DANTES provides
servicemembers and their families access to additional
financial aid resources and helps them obtain education
support. The program also identifies credit-by-examination and
entrance examination education programs for higher education.
Most importantly, servicemembers using tuition assistance in
combination with DANTES have a higher completion rate than
those who are either unaware of the DANTES program or choose
not to use it. The committee strongly encourages the Department
to ensure that servicemembers who apply for tuition assistance
receive information about this program during the tuition
assistance application process.
Department of Defense collaboration with educational institutions on
cybersecurity education and training
The committee remains concerned about the pipeline for
cybersecurity professionals who can assist the Nation with
cyber deterrence and operations. The committee strongly urges
the Department of Defense to consider developing plans for a
pilot program for the educational support offices at
installations to partner with liberal arts institutions to
provide transitioning military personnel cybersecurity degrees
that focus on ethics, character, leadership, national security
law, and communication. Additionally, the committee encourages
the institutions within this network to work with the service
academies to continue the curriculum development in
cybersecurity to insure that current demands are met.
Department of Defense review of overseas assignment policy for civilian
and contractor personnel in support of Department of Defense
operations
The committee remains highly concerned with the
inconsistent overseas assignment policies that exist among the
military, civilian, and contractor employee populations.
Servicemembers assigned to accompany overseas tours must
complete medical evaluations and obtain certifications that
they and their dependents can live and work in environments
where many specialized medical capabilities may not exist to
meet their needs. Under current policy, however, there is no
requirement for civilian and contractor employees to undergo
the same medical screening policy. This inconsistency in policy
overburdens the Department of Defense's finite medical,
educational, and other family support resources when civilian
and contractor personnel and their dependents with exceptional
needs transfer overseas. This practice of inconsistent
assignment policies strains the defense budget and impacts
readiness.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
review of overseas assignment policies pertaining to civilian
and contractor personnel in support of Department of Defense
operations and to provide a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no
later than March 1, 2018, with the following information: (1)
Policy changes the Secretary has made to align and clarify
overseas assignment policies to ensure the medical screening
requirements are the same for military members, civilian
employees, contractors, and dependents of each category of
employees; (2) Legislative changes necessary to match the
policies pertaining to the medical screening of civilian and
contractor personnel and their dependents to those pertaining
to military personnel and their dependents; and (3) Any other
information the Secretary determines to be relevant to medical
screening of Department of Defense employees and dependents
prior to overseas assignments.
Encouraging more flexibility in changes of station
The committee remains concerned about the impact that
frequent permanent changes of station can have on
servicemembers and their families. The committee believes these
moves--often tied to promotion criteria for servicemembers--can
pose great challenges for military families. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department to consider measures that
would allow servicemembers who seek them to lengthen tours of
duty and lessen the frequency of their permanent change of
station moves without harming their promotion prospects to
enhance military readiness and benefit retention of
servicemembers.
Ensuring military borrowers receive appropriate benefits
The committee notes that service members are exempt from
paying interest on their federal student loans for the length
of time served in an area of hostilities. Unfortunately, since
2008, eligible service members have avoidably overpaid $100
million dollars in federal student loan interest payments due
to a lack of communication between the Department of Education,
Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and
federal student loan servicers. Additionally, the committee
notes that in accordance with the Higher Education Relief
Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, service members
enrolled in an income-driven repayment programs are eligible
for a waiver from annual recertification obligations of their
income. Service members with federal Perkins Loans are also
eligible for a cancellation of a percentage of their debt,
based on qualifying years of military service, in accordance
with Section 465 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of
2008. Again, in both of these instances, too many eligible
service members have not taken advantage of these benefits due
to a lack of communication between the Department of Education,
Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and
federal student loan servicers.
The committee also notes that in recent years, the
Departments of Defense and Education have proven that through
additional coordination and information sharing with student
loan servicers, the federal government can automate the
benefits for which servicer members are eligible under the
Servicemember Civil Relief Act and dramatically increase the
number of service members who receive the benefits Congress
intended them to receive--as demonstrated by the recent
automation of the six percent rate cap for servicemembers.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of Education (including its
student loan servicers), and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
to make every practical effort to automate the application of
student loan benefits available to eligible servicemembers
using information in existing federal databases at the
Departments of Education and Defense in a timely manner so
service members can receive the benefits due under the law. The
committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the
Senate Committee on Armed Services on the plan of action for
implementing this automation process by December 1, 2017.
Greater discretion to garrisons for Family, Morale, Wellness, and
Recreation programs
The committee is concerned about the process by which
Family, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (FMWR) programs are
being selected for termination, particularly in the Army, as it
relates to the needs of remote and isolated installations.
Installation commanders should play a greater role in
identifying programs and facilities worthy of MWR investment or
sustainment. The committee urges the Installation Management
Command (IMCOM) to provide greater discretion and to consult to
the maximum extent practicable with garrison commanders,
especially those at remote and isolated installations, to
ensure that servicemembers and dependents stationed at such
installations have access to appropriate FMWR programs and
facilities. The committee urges IMCOM to consider adopting a
funding model that accounts for revenue earned at an
installation versus the performance of its individual
enterprises to allow services critical to the long-term well-
being of remote and isolated installations to continue
operating as long as the aggregate revenue remains a net
positive. The committee acknowledges that identifying savings
is important, especially in budget-constrained times, but they
should not come at the expense of programs that are most
important to garrison commanders at the local level.
Leadership training
The committee continues to recognize the importance of
protecting the rights of conscience of members of the Armed
Forces, consistent with the maintenance of good order and
discipline. The Congress has expressed this view in title 42,
United States Code, section 2000bb, et seq. and in 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). Complying with this law requires an intentional strategy
for developing and implementing a comprehensive training
program on religious liberty issues for military leadership and
commanders. The committee urges the Department, in consultation
with commanders, chaplains, and judge advocates, to ensure that
appropriate training on religious liberty is conducted at all
levels of command on the requirements of the law, and to that
end the committee directs the Secretary, in consultation with
the Chief of Chaplains for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to
develop curriculum and implement training concerning religious
liberty in accordance with the law. Recipients of this training
should include commanders, chaplains, and judge advocates.
Quality of instruction in schools of the Department of Defense
Education Activity
The committee has received disturbing anecdotal reports
from military parents of poor quality instruction in certain
overseas schools of the Department of Defense Education
Activity (DODEA). As a result, the committee requested data
from DODEA to understand better the quality of instruction
provided by DODEA's teachers, but the Department of Defense
failed to provide such data. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide the following data to the
committee by no later than August 1, 2017: (1) A de-identified
list of teachers, by school location, who were placed under
performance improvement plans (PIP) over the last 5 years; (2)
Course subjects taught by each such teacher, duration of the
PIP for each such teacher, outcome of the PIP for each such
teacher, and course subject qualifications of substitute
teachers hired to back-fill teachers under PIPs; and (3) An
assessment of the impact of the instructional ability of such
teachers on students' educational outcome measures.
Report on credentialing program utilization
In order to evaluate the current progress of past and
ongoing military credentialing improvement efforts and
opportunities, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives by no later than December
1, 2017, on the utilization of the program to assist members in
obtaining professional credentials authorized by section 2015
of title 10, United States Code, by each military service,
including the types of credentials obtained and the cost to the
Government, as of the date of enactment of June 1, 2017, along
with any recommendations for regulatory or statutory change the
Secretary considers appropriate to ensure members are able to
obtain such credentials relating to their military training and
skills from appropriately qualified entities.
Report on joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
suicide prevention
Suicide continues to plague the military Services, and the
problem is exacerbated as servicemembers separate from the
Department of Defense and enter a new system of care provided
by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The committee encourages
the Secretary of Defense to work with the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to assess the feasibility of establishing a joint
office to house an interagency task force on suicide
prevention. This office would facilitate the sharing of best
practices between the agencies' respective suicide prevention
offices and collaborate and share resources where appropriate,
such as with the joint use of the Suicide Crisis Hotline. The
Secretary of Defense shall report the results of its assessment
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives within 180 days of this report.
Report on measures to prevent retaliation against survivors of sexual
assault and harassment in the performance evaluation process
Professional reprisal against servicemembers who report
sexual assault or harassment undermines readiness, depresses
recruitment and retention, and erodes unit cohesion. The
Department of Defense has made some progress in addressing
retaliation in recent years. In February 2016, the Judicial
Proceedings Panel (JPP)--established by section 576 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239)--published recommendations to reduce retaliation
related to sexual assault offenses. On April 28, 2016, the
Secretary of Defense announced the Department of Defense
Retaliation Prevention and Response Strategy Regarding Sexual
Assault and Harassment, as required by section 539 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92). The committee commends the Department on these
efforts, and encourages it to continue to incorporate the JPP
and other expert recommendations into its global strategy.
Nevertheless, one-third of female servicemembers who report
unwanted sexual contact indicated experiencing a negative
outcome they perceived to be professional reprisal. One form of
professional reprisal is retaliation in performance reports.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives not later than 180 days after enactment a
report on measures undertaken to:
(1) Monitor the performance evaluations, duty
assignments, receipt of awards, and progression toward
promotion of complainants who make unrestricted reports
for signs of retaliation;
(2) Ensure that evaluators subject to a recent
complaint of sexual misconduct do not conduct
performance appraisals of the complainant;
(3) Provide guidance to unit leaders and others on
the potential effects of sexual harassment and assault
on performance after a servicemember in their unit
makes an unrestricted report; and
(4) Instruct those who investigate retaliation
complaints to consider the totality of the
circumstances, including, but not limited to, the
survivor's performance, assessments, or feedback from
peers or third parties of his or her own performance,
and language, however subtle, that may indicate
decreased enthusiasm for the survivor's work or career
progression.
The committee further recognizes the Air Force policy
granting servicemembers, including survivors, the option to
authorize a non-rated performance period. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of this policy,
including its effects on career progression, and include its
findings and the potential for replication across the service
branches in the required report.
Review of United States Marine Corps recruit training policies
The committee recognizes the importance of integrated
training for building unit cohesion, improving readiness, and
cementing trust and respect among service members; in short,
the Committee accepts the maxim that the military services
should train as they fight. The committee is also aware of the
long-standing practice within the Marine Corps to keep certain
parts of initial recruit training gender-specific, while the
majority of initial recruit training is fully integrated with
male and female marines training side-by-side. The committee
directs the Commandant of the Marine Corps to review Marine
Corps policies concerning the integration of male and female
marines during recruit training and the effects that the
current training structure has on individual performance, unit
cohesion, and furthering the goal of fostering an environment
of respect among fellow marines and to report to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives
the results of this review by no later than October 1, 2017.
ROTC Cyber Institute
There remains a nationwide shortage of 500,000 cyber
professionals and correspondingly a universal need for an
increase in cybersecurity education and training. The Army
Cyber Branch created in 2015 and formed 41 total Cyber Mission
Force teams, as well as 21 United States Army Reserve and Army
National Guard Cyber Protection Teams. The first 33 teams began
deploying once reaching minimum competency. There remains an
urgent need to commission lieutenants into cyber branch and
there is significant competition for talent with the private
sector.
A program to establish ROTC Cyber Institutes for purposes
of accelerating the development of foundational expertise in
critical cyber operational skills for future military and
civilian leaders of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
of the United States including such leaders of the Reserve
Components could help address these shortfalls. Ideal programs
should include: instruction and practical experiences that lead
to accredited cyber certifications in the field; targeted
strategic foreign language proficiency training for such future
leaders designed to significantly enhance critical cyber
operational capabilities; mathematical foundations of
cryptography and courses in cryptographic theory, and; programs
to expand the pool of qualified cyber instructors necessary to
support cyber education.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
feasibility study of establishing ROTC Cyber Institutes,
including an assessment of the suitability of one or more
Senior Military Colleges hosting such an institute, for the
purposes of accelerating the development of foundational
expertise in critical cyber operational skills for future
military and civilian leaders of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense of the United States including such
leaders of the Reserve Components. This study should include an
assessment of existing partnerships at the colleges or
universities under consideration, and if or at what level they
meet the above program recommendations, a description of
current curriculum that advances cyber competency, additional
authorities needed, costs associated with implementing new
partnerships and any existing plans to establish such
institutes. This study should be submitted to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by no
later than December 1, 2017.
Service-specific history courses as a core curriculum requirement of
the military service academies
The committee is concerned that the United States military
service academies may be overemphasizing core academic
curriculum course requirements that mirror civilian
universities, rather than educating cadets on the unique
culture and history of their individual services, with such
emphasis as the original rationale for establishing separate
service academies. It is vital to the strength of joint force
operations that American military officers from each branch of
the Armed Services understand and comprehend the history,
doctrine, and capabilities of their respective Services to
better provide options for the optimal execution of joint force
operations in support of meeting U.S. national security
objectives.
``Jointness'' means that among the four United States
military Services, a separately developed and highly
specialized array of capabilities is provided through service
or functional components to a joint force commander--with the
commander's responsibility to assemble a plan from among this
``menu'' of capabilities, applying the appropriate ones for the
contingency at hand. What is often misunderstood about joint
operations is that its strength resides in the separateness of
the service components.
Joint force operations create synergies because they
capitalize on each Services' core functions--skill sets that
requires lengthy time, effort, and focus to cultivate. It can
take as many as twenty years to develop a competent division,
Surface Action Group, Marine Expeditionary Force, or Aerospace
Expeditionary Force commander. The committee believes these
skill sets require a strong foundation in Service history.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, no later than March 1, 2018,
a report detailing the core academic and military curriculum
requirements of each United States military service academy, to
include a detailed description and length of core history and
military studies courses that specifically cover the
principles, founders, formative events, organization,
capabilities, and major engagements of their respective Service
in their support and execution of America's national security
objectives.
Shortfall of United States Air Force aircraft maintenance personnel
The committee remains concerned with the current aircraft
maintenance personnel shortfall in the United States Air Force.
The Air Force has indicated as many as 4,000 additional
aircraft maintenance personnel are required to achieve the
necessary manning level and that rebuilding this critical
workforce is a long-term project due to the extensive training
required. The committee notes the significant value that the
Department of Defense achieves through the use of Air Force
Community Partnerships and recommends the Air Force examine
additional public-private options to help alleviate this
critical shortfall. The committee encourages the Air Force to
pursue partnerships with local and regional educational
institutions utilizing existing authorities contained in title
10, United States Code. The Air Force should explore creative
options, such as creating an aircraft maintainer training
program pipeline, to help achieve the required level of
aircraft maintenance personnel at United States Air Force
installations.
Transition Assistance Program challenges for the National Guard and
Reserves
The committee is concerned about uneven participation rates
by eligible members of the National Guard and Reserves in the
Department of Defense's Transition Assistance Program (TAP). To
help ensure greater participation of eligible servicemembers in
TAP, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to collect information on any
challenges facing demobilizing members of the National Guard
and Reserves regarding the timing and location of TAP courses.
Additionally, the Secretary should consider the addition of
related questions to the TAP online assessment tool, which are
specific to members of the National Guard and Reserves.
Transition Assistance Program information for unit commanders
The Department of Defense's Transition Assistance Program
(TAP) provides information, tools, and training to ensure
servicemembers and their spouses are well-prepared to
transition into civilian life. To ensure servicemembers'
completion of TAP, the committee encourages the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to require that all
Services provide military commanders information on the TAP
participation levels of servicemembers under their commands.
The Services may use such information to hold commanders
accountable for ensuring that servicemembers complete TAP.
Use of Post-9/11 GI Bill for technical schools and institutes
The committee notes that many transitioning servicemembers
desire a career in technical and mechanical fields to build
upon the skills and knowledge attained during service rather
than pursuing a traditional degree-granting academic program.
The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to
ensure that information on technical schools and institutes be
offered to transitioning servicemembers during the transition
counseling provided by the Department of Defense so that
servicemembers are aware of all options for which they can
apply their Post-9/11 GI bill.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Fiscal year 2018 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
pay raise of 2.1 percent for all members of the uniformed
services effective January 1, 2018.
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of Basic
Allowance for Housing under certain circumstances (sec. 602)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily
increase the rate of the Basic Allowance for Housing in areas
impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx
of personnel.
Adjustment to Basic Allowance for Housing at with-dependents rate of
certain members of the uniformed services (sec. 603)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 403 of title 37, United States Code, to eliminate the
with-dependents rate for the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
in the case of married members of the uniformed services who
are collocated and who have dependents. Under current law, one
such member is eligible for the with-dependents rate, while the
other must receive the without-dependents rate. A recent audit
report from the United States Army Audit Agency (USAAA) found
that BAH entitlements paid to married servicemembers collocated
in the same military housing area significantly exceeded the
local housing costs for these servicemembers. For fiscal year
2014, USAAA estimated that 13,220 collocated married
servicemember couples received about $471.8 million in combined
BAH payments. However, local housing costs for these
servicemember couples were about $267.0 million, a difference
of about $204.8 million. This occurred because Department of
Defense policy, specifically the Joint Travel Regulation,
allows collocated married servicemembers to receive two
separate BAH payments despite occupying a single residence in
the same military housing area. The USAAA found that reducing
BAH for the 13,220 couples who receive the with-dependents rate
to the without-dependents rate would bring housing allowance
entitlements more in line with their actual costs of housing.
While it would not entirely eliminate the disparity between the
benefit paid and the cost of housing, the adjustment would save
the Department an estimated $52.0 million annually and $311.8
million over the next 5 years. The provision further includes a
preservation of current BAH for members with uninterrupted
eligibility for such BAH.
Modification of authority of President to determine alternative pay
adjustment in annual basic pay of members of the uniformed
services (sec. 604)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to remove the
justification of serious economic conditions affecting the
general welfare from the waiver authority of the President to
make an alternative pay adjustment.
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.
Aviation bonus matters (sec. 616)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 334 of title 37, United States Code, to require the
Department of Defense and the military services to justify
aviation bonus levels through a business case analysis for such
levels, establish a tiered limitation on maximum amounts of
aviation bonuses, and require additional budget justification
materials to accompany the President's fiscal year budget
submission to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31,
United States Code. Such justification shall include the
following elements: (1) The amount requested for the payment of
aviation bonuses using amount authorized to be appropriated for
the fiscal year concerned by aircraft type category; (2) The
business case analysis supporting the amount so requested by
aircraft type category; (3) Whether or not the amount requested
for each aircraft type category will permit the payment of the
maximum amount of the aviation bonus authorized; and (4) A
description of any plans the secretary concerned has to address
manning shortfall by non-monetary means. The tiered limitation
on maximum amounts of aviation bonuses shall vary by
anticipated manning shortfalls for each fiscal year by aircraft
type category. In no event may all the agreements entered into
during a fiscal year by a secretary concerned provide for the
maximum amount payable.
Special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for enlisted
members who pilot remotely piloted aircraft (sec. 617)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, to create a new
authority to pay aviation incentive pay and bonuses to enlisted
member remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) pilots with statutory
caps of $1,000 per month for aviation incentive pay and $35,000
per year for aviation bonus pay, which is equivalent to the
current caps under section 334 of title 37, United States Code,
for pilots who are officers. This authority will also include
the same business case analysis requirement for setting bonuses
that is required under section 334 of title 37, United States
Code, for pilots who are officers. The committee intends this
authority to be a companion to the efforts precipitated by this
committee to begin the training pipeline for enlisted RPA
pilots in the United States Air Force. This authority would
also be available for enlisted pilots in the other services,
such as the Army, where enlisted pilots are already utilized in
the unmanned aerial vehicle community.
Technical and clerical amendments relating to 2008 consolidation of
certain special pay authorities (sec. 618)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical and clerical corrections to titles 10, 14, 24, 26,
37, and 42, United States Code, as part of the Department of
Defense transition to the consolidated authorities authorized
in section 661 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), which provided eight
consolidated statutory special and incentive pay authorities
for future use to replace those currently in use.
Subtitle C--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits
Part I--Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay Reform
Adjustment to the Survivor Benefit Plan for members electing lump sum
payments of retired pay under the modernized retirement system
for members of the uniformed services (sec. 631)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 1447 of title 10, United States Code, and section 1452
of title 10, United States Code, to ensure equitable treatment
under the Survivor Benefit Plan of members of the uniformed
services covered by the modernized retirement system who elect
to receive a lump sum of retired pay, as authorized under
section 1415 of title 10, United States Code.
Technical correction regarding election to participate in modernized
retirement system for non-regular component members
experiencing a break in service (sec. 632)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that the election period for the modernized retirement system
authorized by section 631 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) is extended for up
to 30 days in the case of regular component members returning
to service after a break in service that occurs during the
election period.
Part II--Other Matters
Authority for the Secretaries of the military departments to provide
for care of remains of those who die on Active Duty and are
interred in a foreign cemetery (sec. 636)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1482(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
service secretary to provide for the enduring care of the
remains of Active-Duty servicemembers interred in foreign
cemeteries if the burial location was designated by the
secretary concerned.
Technical corrections for use of member's current pay grade and years
of service in a division of property involving disposable
retired pay (sec. 637)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 1408(a)(4) of title 10, United States code, to allow
the Department of Defense to implement section 641 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) by clarifying that the division of property is to
be calculated based on the date of the divorce decree,
dissolution, annulment, or legal separation.
Permanent extension and cost-of-living adjustments of Special Survivor
Indemnity Allowances under the survivor benefit plan (sec. 638)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1450 of title 10, United States Code, to permanently
extend the authority to pay the Special Survivor Indemnity
Allowance and would require inflation adjustments to that
Allowance by the amount of the military retired pay cost-of-
living adjustment for each calendar year beginning in 2019.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Construction of domestic source requirement for footwear furnished to
enlisted members of the Armed Forces on initial entry into the
Armed Forces (sec. 651)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
requirements to furnish footwear to enlisted members of the
Armed Forces on initial entry if the Secretary of Defense
determines that there would be only a sole certified source of
supply. The Secretary of Defense would also be required to
ensure that all procurement of athletic footwear to which this
subsection applies are made using firm fixed price contracts.
Consistent with section 418 of title 37, United States Code,
the committee directs the Secretary to establish practices and
take all necessary steps to protect service members in initial
entry training from unnecessary injuries.
Inclusion of Department of Agriculture in Transition Assistance Program
(sec. 652)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (a) of section 1144 of title 10, United States Code,
to require inclusion of information provided by the Department
of Agriculture in the Transition Assistance Program.
Review and update of regulations governing debt collectors interactions
with unit commanders (sec. 653)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, no later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, to review and update Department of
Defense Instruction 1344.09 and any associated regulations to
ensure that such regulations comply with Federal consumer
protection laws with respect to the collection of debt.
Items of Special Interest
Report on base pay of senior enlisted members performing special
advisory duties
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than March 1, 2018, analyzing whether
senior enlisted positions in advisory roles with
responsibilities equivalent to those identified in footnote
four of the military basic pay tables should receive an
increase in basic pay under footnote four of the military pay
tables as a result of their special advisory and representation
duties.
United States Air Force civilian pay budgeting process
The Inspector General for the Department of Defense
released a report (DODIG-2017-039) on January 5, 2017, finding
that that the Air Force civilian pay requirements in the
Operations and Maintenance appropriation did not capture the
funding needed to pay Air Force civilian personnel because the
Air Force did not have written procedures that described the
process and course data to use for developing its civilian pay
requirements. The Air Force had incorrectly calculated pay for
civilian positions based on positions filled (end-strength)
rather than full-time equivalents (FTEs) as required by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance for calculating
civilian work-year cost. The Inspector General also found that
the Air Force based its programming decision on flawed civilian
work-year cost data. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to issue a report no later than
February 1, 2018, to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives with the following
information: (1) Written procedures for the Air Force civilian
pay budget process; (2) A certification that the written
procedures comply with the guidance on civilian FTEs as
prescribed by OMB Circular A-11, ``Preparation, Submission, and
Execution of the Budget''; (3) A certification that all budget
calculations and decisions will be documented and maintained by
the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management
and Comptroller); and (4) An explanation of steps the Air Force
has taken to correct budget deficiencies in civilian pay
stemming from the fiscal year 2016 Budget Estimate Submission,
which led to a $212.0 million reprogramming request from
Congress to correct the budget shortfall created by the Air
Force.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits
TRICARE Advantage demonstration program (sec. 701)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, to establish a demonstration
program, not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, to enable eligible beneficiaries to enroll in
Medicare Advantage plans. The Secretary would carry out the
demonstration program for a minimum of 5 years. In conducting
the demonstration program, the Secretary would competitively
select, in market areas with large concentrations of
beneficiaries eligible for TRICARE for Life, one or more
Medicare Advantage plans from which the Secretary of Health and
Human Services has waived or modified requirements under
section 1857(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
27(i)). The Secretary would use risk-bearing, capitated
contracts with Medicare Advantage organizations to administer
the demonstration program, and only those Medicare Advantage
plans with minimum quality star ratings of four or higher could
participate in the program.
Under the demonstration program, the Secretary may include
medical services provided by military medical treatment
facilities and pharmaceutical agents provided by the TRICARE
Pharmacy benefits program as additional services provided by
the Department. The provision would require enrollment of all
applicable eligible individuals located in an area
participating in the demonstration program, but individuals
could opt out of the program if desired. The provision would
require the Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to determine jointly the appropriate distribution of
costs and potential savings that result from the demonstration
program. Finally, the provision would require the Secretary to
submit: (1) An initial report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, within
1 year of the date of the enactment of this Act, on
implementation of the demonstration program; and (2) A final
report to the same committees not later than 4 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Upon becoming eligible for Medicare, TRICARE beneficiaries
gain Medicare wrap-around coverage through the Department's
TRICARE for Life (TFL) program. Currently, there are over 2
million beneficiaries enrolled in the TFL program. Estimated
federal spending on health care services for this population
totaled about $16.0 billion last year with Medicare paying
about $12.0 billion and TFL paying about $4.0 billion. The
committee believes that a TRICARE Advantage demonstration
program, customized for the TFL population, would result in
better health outcomes for TFL beneficiaries with costly
chronic health conditions and help to prevent utilization of
high-cost, unnecessary health care services. Additionally, a
TRICARE Advantage demonstration program should improve the
experience of care while reducing government spending in both
the Medicare and TRICARE programs.
Continued access to medical care at facilities of the uniformed
services for certain members of the reserve components (sec.
702)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1076d(f) and 1076e of title 10, United States Code, to
clarify the eligibility for medical services for beneficiaries
enrolled in TRICARE Reserve Select and TRICARE Retired Reserve.
Modification of eligibility for TRICARE Reserve Select and TRICARE
Retired Reserve of certain members of the reserve components
(sec. 703)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1076d(a) and 1076e(a) of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize enrollment in TRICARE Reserve Select or TRICARE
Retired Reserve of a servicemember who is enrolled, or is
eligible to enroll, in a health benefits plan under chapter 89
of title 5, United States Code.
Expedited evaluation and treatment for prenatal surgery under the
TRICARE program (sec. 704)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to implement processes and procedures to
ensure a covered beneficiary under the TRICARE program, whose
pregnancy is complicated with a fetal condition or suspected
fetal condition, receives at the discretion of the covered
beneficiary, expedited evaluation, non-directive counseling,
and treatment from a perinatal or pediatric specialist capable
of providing surgical management and intervention in utero.
Specification that individuals under the age of 21 are eligible for
hospice care services under the TRICARE program (sec. 705)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1079(a)(15) of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize hospice care services for eligible beneficiaries
under the age of 21.
Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the TRICARE Pharmacy
Benefits Program and treatment of certain pharmaceutical agents
(sec. 706)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
paragraph 6 of 1074g(a) of title 10, United States Code, to
modify cost-sharing amounts for the TRICARE pharmacy benefits
program for years 2018 through 2026. After 2026, the Department
could establish cost-sharing amounts equal to the cost-sharing
amounts for the previous year adjusted by an amount, if any, to
reflect increases in costs of pharmaceutical agents and
pharmacy dispensing fees. With this provision, beneficiaries
would continue to receive pharmaceuticals at no cost in
military medical treatment facilities. For years 2018 through
2020, the cost-share amount for up to a 90-day supply of a
generic pharmaceutical agent dispensed through the mail order
pharmacy would be $10, which would partially cover the
Department's administrative costs for the drug and would result
in a consistent drug cost-share with generic drugs dispensed in
retail pharmacies. Under this provision, there would be no
changes to cost-sharing amounts for survivors of members who
died on Active Duty or for disabled retirees and their family
members.
To encourage use of pharmaceutical agents that provide the
greatest value to beneficiaries and the Department, the
provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense, upon
recommendation from the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee and
review by the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, to
exclude from the pharmacy benefits program any pharmaceutical
agent that the Secretary determines provides little or no value
to covered beneficiaries and the Department. Additionally, the
Secretary would give preferential status to any non-generic
pharmaceutical agent on the uniform formulary by treating it,
for the purposes of cost-sharing, as a generic product under
the TRICARE retail pharmacy and mail order programs. Finally,
the provision would amend section 1079 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary to adopt special
reimbursement methods, amounts, and procedures in medical
contracts to encourage physicians to use high-value
pharmaceutical agents and to discourage use of low-value
agents.
Consolidation of cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE Select and
TRICARE Prime (sec. 707)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1075 of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate
cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE Prime and Select. This
provision would eliminate the grandfathering of cost-sharing
requirements for beneficiaries enrolled in the TRICARE program
prior to January 1, 2018, as authorized in section 701 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328). The amendments under this provision would take
effect on January 1, 2018.
TRICARE technical amendments (sec. 708)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
several technical amendments to statutory language regarding
the TRICARE program.
Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE program (sec. 709)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1074d of title 10, United States Code, to require
coverage of contraception services for all female covered
beneficiaries under the TRICARE program. The provision would
prohibit cost-sharing for certain contraception services,
including all methods of contraception approved by the Food and
Drug Administration, contraceptive care, sterilization
procedures, and education and counseling, provided to
beneficiaries covered by TRICARE.
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration
Modification of priority for evaluation and treatment of individuals at
military treatment facilities (sec. 721)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 717(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to waive the priority of covered
beneficiaries to receive evaluation and treatment at military
treatment facilities in order to provide evaluation and
treatment for the following individuals: (1) Persons severely
wounded or injured by acts of terror in the United States; or
(2) Residents of the United States severely wounded or injured
by acts of terror outside the United States.
Selection of directors of military treatment facilities and tours of
duty of such directors (sec. 722)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, not later than January 1, 2019, to
develop common qualifications and core competencies required
for selection of directors of military medical treatment
facilities. The provision would also establish a minimum length
of 3 years for tours of duty, with limited exceptions, for
those directors to ensure greater stability in health system
executive management at each facility and throughout the
military health system.
Clarification of administration of military medical treatment
facilities (sec. 723)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1073c(a) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
that the individual responsible for ensuring readiness of the
members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of a
military medical treatment facility and for furnishing the
health care and medical treatment at that facility can be
either a military or civilian director under the authority,
direction, and control of the Defense Health Agency.
Additionally, the provision would authorize, if the Secretary
of Defense determines it appropriate, that a military director
(or other senior military officer or officers) of a military
medical treatment facility (MTF) may be a commanding officer
for purposes of Chapter 47 of this title (the Uniformed Code of
Military Justice) with respect to military personnel assigned
to the MTF.
Modification of execution of TRICARE contracting responsibilities (sec.
724)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (b) of section 705 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to
clarify the execution of contracting responsibility for
acquisition of managed care support contracts under the TRICARE
program initiated after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Under this provision, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment would serve as the acquisition
decision authority and be responsible for approving the
acquisition strategy and conducting pre-solicitation, pre-
award, and post-award acquisition reviews.
Pilot program on establishment of integrated health care delivery
systems (sec. 725)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, within 1 year of the date of the
enactment of this Act, to conduct a pilot program of not less
than 5 years duration to establish integrated health care
delivery systems among the military health system, other
federal health systems, and private sector integrated health
systems. In consultation with the Secretaries of Veterans
Affairs and Health and Human Services, the Secretary would
establish a multi-disciplinary task force to develop a plan to
implement the pilot program. Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the task force would submit
an implementation plan for the pilot program to the Secretary
that would: (1) Create high-value integrated health systems;
(2) Empower health care providers with real-time advanced
information technology solutions; (3) Empower patients with
transparent information on health care costs, quality outcomes,
and safety within health care provider networks; and (4)
Provide incentives to patients and health care providers to
prevent overuse of low-value health care services. The
provision would require the Secretary to submit a report on the
implementation plan to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 270 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act. Finally, the
Secretary would submit a final report on the pilot program to
the same committees not later than 4 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 731)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for the joint Department of Defense-Department of
Veterans Affairs Demonstration Fund from September 30, 2018, to
September 30, 2019.
Additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce deaths and
severity of injuries caused by agents of war (sec. 732)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1107a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to approve the emergency use of medical
products, outside the United States, in situations in which an
emergency use of an unapproved product or an emergency
unapproved use of an approved product cannot be authorized
under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) because the emergency does not involve an
actual or threatened attack with a biological, chemical,
radiological, or nuclear agent.
The committee understands that hemorrhage is a leading
cause of survivable death from battlefield wounds, and complex
blood components, when used in a battlefield environment, can
quickly control hemorrhage and save lives. Traditional pathways
to the Food and Drug Administration's approval and licensure of
critical medical products, like freeze dried plasma, for
battlefield use are too slow to allow for rapid insertion and
use of these products on the battlefield. The committee
believes this provision could lead to even higher survival
rates from severe battlefield wounds suffered by
servicemembers.
Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and development
projects (sec. 733)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense and each service secretary from
funding or conducting a medical research and development
project unless the secretary concerned submits a written
certification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives that the project is directly
designed to protect, enhance, or restore the health and safety
of members of the Armed Forces. Additionally, the secretary
concerned could not initiate the funding or conduct of any such
project until 90 days after submission of written certification
to the committees.
Modification of determination of average wait times at urgent care
clinics and pharmacies at military medical treatment facilities
under pilot program (sec. 734)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsections 744(c)(2) and 744(d)(2) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to
require the Secretary of Defense to utilize a formula derived
from health care industry best practices in determining the
average wait times to display under such paragraphs.
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 a
report setting forth a plan of the Department to improve
pediatric care and related services for children of members of
the Armed Forces.
Inclusion of gambling disorder in health assessments and related
research efforts of the Department of Defense (sec. 736)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to incorporate medical screening questions
specific to gambling disorder into the Annual Periodic Health
Assessment (DD Form 3024) conducted by the Department for
members of the Armed Forces. Additionally, the provision would
require the Secretary to incorporate questions on gambling
disorder into its ongoing research survey efforts.
Items of Special Interest
Aircraft medical kits on rotary aircraft responding to mass casualty
incidents
The committee recognizes that rotary wing aircraft are the
most common platforms to respond first to mass casualty
incidents even if they are not fully capable medical evacuation
aircraft. Updating aircrew equipment and helicopter medical
kits to the latest standards will enhance patient and aircrew
survivability. The committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that survival medical equipment on these
aircraft is consistent with the most current standards for U.S.
military tactical combat casualty care for all casualty
evacuation capable platforms.
Assessment of ability of Department of Defense to use modeling and
simulation capabilities to address medical training
requirements
The committee recognizes the importance of technological
developments that allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to use
modeling and simulation capabilities to improve medical
training requirements. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under
which the National Academies assess the ability of DOD to use
modeling and simulation capabilities to address medical
training requirements of the Department.
In conducting the assessment, the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall assess, but not be
limited to: (1) The modeling and simulation technology
available to the Federal Government and the private sector; (2)
Research and development programs that the Department could
undertake to enhance the modeling and simulation technology
available to the Department; (3) Programs to transition
modeling and simulation technology into operational use by the
Department; (4) The advantages and disadvantages of using
modeling and simulation, including fiscal and educational
advantages and disadvantages; and (5) Any other aspects deemed
relevant and appropriate.
The assessment shall also include recommendations to the
Secretary on: (1) Improvements to policies and programs of the
Department to increase the use of modeling and simulation
technology; (2) Research and development priorities of the
Department that will enhance modeling and simulation
capabilities; (3) The development of specific technical metrics
to improve modeling and simulation training; and (4) Any other
recommendations deemed relevant and appropriate. The committee
further directs that the assessment shall be delivered not
later than June 1, 2018.
Comptroller General report on Department of Defense measures to
maintain critical wartime medical readiness skills and core
competencies of health care providers
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report, not later than 90 days after the
Secretary of Defense submits the report required by section
721(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
that contains: (1) An assessment of the methodology used by the
Secretary of Defense, under section 721 of the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2017, to define and determine the medical and dental
personnel requirements necessary to meet operational medical
force readiness requirements; (2) A determination of whether
the list of medical and dental personnel requirements necessary
to meet operational medical force readiness requirements,
submitted in the report by the Secretary, reflects the
methodology described above; (3) A determination of whether the
Secretary has developed and implemented measures described in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of section 725 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328); and (4) An assessment of the methodology used by the
Secretary in developing and implementing measures described in
section 725 to maintain the critical wartime medical readiness
skills and core competencies of health care providers within
the Armed Forces.
Comptroller General review of the Department of Defense's recruitment
and retention programs for military dentists
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
(DOD) experiences challenges in the recruitment and retention
of certain dental specialists due in part to an increasingly
competitive civilian dental health care job market and
projected future nationwide shortages of dentists as the demand
for dental care in the United States exceeds supply. To address
these challenges, the Services offer a variety of recruitment
and retention programs to encourage dentists to serve,
including accession bonuses, scholarship programs, special
pays, loan repayment programs, retention bonuses, and advanced
training and education programs. The extent to which the DOD's
approach to identify military dental requirements and to
achieve recruitment and retention goals for military dentists
is unclear to the committee. Therefore, the committee directs
the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a
review of DOD's approach to recruit and retain military
dentists and to provide a briefing on preliminary observations
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives not later than January 24, 2018. At that
time, a date for the final product will be determined. The
review shall address, at a minimum, the following:
(1) What are the Services' processes for developing
the military health system's requirements for dentists
and to what extent are the Services' authorizations
filled to meet requirements?
(2) To what extent has DOD examined the effectiveness
of its programs for recruiting and retaining dentists?
(3) To what extent have the Services developed plans
to address any identified gaps in military dental corps
officer specialties?
Comptroller General review of workforce mix within the military health
system
The Department of Defense (DOD) has estimated that an
inefficient medical workforce mix--the combination of military
personnel, federal civilian employees, and contractors--costs
the department about $3 billion over the future years defense
program. In addition, a recent study sponsored by DOD found
that the complete cost to the taxpayer of military medical
personnel far exceeds the cost of civilian health care
providers with comparable skills. Due to concerns about these
and other inefficiencies within the military health system,
Congress enacted a series of reforms in the National Defense
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328),
including a provision authorizing conversions of military
health care provider positions to civilian or contractor
positions. Given DOD's potential for realizing substantial
financial benefits by implementing such conversions and for
optimizing its mix of medical personnel, DOD's careful
attention toward medical workforce management will be important
as it moves forward with health system reforms.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of DOD's approach to
assess and determine its workforce mix within the military
health system and to provide preliminary observations to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by the end of February 2018. At that time, a
final product date will be determined. The review shall
address, at a minimum, the extent to which: (1) The military
departments have policies and procedures in place for
periodically evaluating their health care workforces to ensure
efficient and effective use of personnel resources; (2) The
composition of healthcare workforces within each of the
military departments is based on analyses of alternative
populations--including active and reserve military personnel,
civilians, contractors, and a mix thereof--and their related
costs and benefits; and (3) The military departments have
developed long-range strategies and workforce plans for
ensuring that an appropriate number and mix of personnel are
maintained within their healthcare workforces.
Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense electronic health
record interoperability
The committee applauds the decision by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to adopt the electronic health record
(EHR) of the Department of Defense (DOD), MHS Genesis, which
consists of a commercial off-the-shelf EHR system, Cerner
Millennium. The Secretary's bold decision will ensure seamless
transition of real-time medical records information between
healthcare providers of the DOD and the VA. The committee
encourages the VA to work closely with DOD to leverage the
platform, architecture, tools, and processes established for
MHS Genesis to ensure successful implementation of its new EHR
throughout VA's hospitals and clinics. Additionally, the
committee expects both DOD and VA to work collaboratively to
establish seamless interoperability among MHS Genesis, the VA's
EHR, and private sector EHRs.
Epidemiological study on the association between certain cancers and
military aircraft operations
The committee is aware of anecdotes of potentially
increased occurrences of certain cancers in military personnel
associated with military aircraft operations. For example,
acute myeloid leukemia may occur at higher rates for personnel
involved in military aircraft operations, such as U.S. Air
Force F-15 pilots, than for the general U.S. population because
of long-term exposure to microwave radiation. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
retrospective epidemiological study on personnel involved in
military aircraft operations: (1) To measure the frequency and
assess the distribution of certain cancers in this population;
and (2) To determine if there is a correlation between
environmental exposures associated with military aircraft
operations and the development of certain cancers in this
population.
Impact of medical care referrals on servicemembers assigned to remote
and isolated military installations in the United States
The committee notes with concern that military operational
capabilities may be degraded when military medical treatment
facilities refer Active-Duty servicemembers and their families,
assigned to remote and isolated military installations in the
United States, for specialty care services provided only in
large metropolitan areas. For example, the minimum travel time
to and from a specialty care referral appointment can be 5
hours or more in remote locations like Cannon Air Force Base.
Excess travel times for medical appointments remove
servicemembers from their duty locations for lengthy periods,
which degrades operational capabilities and ultimately harms
readiness. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to
explore additional opportunities to develop military-civilian
integrated health systems near remote and isolated military
installations in the United States to provide a comprehensive
range of primary and specialty medical care services for
servicemembers and their families where they live and work.
Improper medical claims payments
Section 725 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) required the Comptroller
General of the United States to examine the similarities and
differences between TRICARE and Medicare regarding how each
program identifies and recovers improper medical claims
payments. In a February 2015 report, the Comptroller General
found that the Department of Defense uses a less comprehensive
methodology than the methodology Medicare uses to measure
improper payments. The Department's methodology fails to
examine the medical records documentation underlying medical
claims, an important process step that can help determine
whether claims were improperly paid. As a result of the
findings and recommendations of the Comptroller General, the
committee directs the Department to implement a robust
methodology to monitor medical claims for improper payments.
Licensed mental health counselors
The committee is aware of varying standards within the
Department of Defense regarding the practice authorities of
licensed mental health counselors. Therefore, the committee
directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs
to review existing policies and guidance regarding licensed
mental health counselors throughout the military health system
and make recommendations regarding the establishment of a
uniform Department-wide standard regarding privileging and
independent practice authority.
Licensing of federally owned medical inventions
The committee directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to
exercise its rights under sections 209(d)(1) or 203 of title
35, United States Code, to authorize third parties to use
inventions that benefited from DOD funding whenever the price
of a drug, vaccine, or other medical technology is higher in
the United States than the median price charged in the seven
largest economies that have a per capita income at least half
the per capita income of the United States.
Military dental research
The Military Dental Research Program (MDRP) focuses on
developing successful procedures and technology to reconstruct
and restore function of craniofacial (face and skull) tissues
and structures of severely wounded warfighters. No other
federal dental program duplicates this research. Craniofacial
injuries cause significant physical and emotional challenges
for servicemembers and often result in difficulty breathing,
eating, and speaking.
Additionally, research at the MDRP seeks to develop
improved methods to contain and eliminate antibiotic-resistant
infections resulting from severe burns. The MDRP also maintains
its traditional focus on troop readiness by conducting research
to target preventive efforts to reduce the incidence of dental
disease, thereby, improving overall combat effectiveness. The
committee believes that the MDRP deserves greater priority
within the Department of Defense's efforts to advance combat
trauma research.
Novel drug therapies for PTSD
The committee has long supported the development of new
therapies for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). The committee urges the Department to prioritize the
development and approval of novel drug therapies for the
treatment of PTSD. To accomplish this task, the committee
encourages the Department to consider the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) Breakthrough Therapy Designation
program. This program is one of four FDA programs intended to
help ensure rapid approval and availability of beneficial
therapies for serious medical conditions. The Committee directs
the Department to consider carefully any guidance that the
FDA's Breakthrough Therapy program may provide for the
identification, development, and approval of novel therapies
for the treatment of PTSD.
Report on action to address mental health of remotely piloted aircraft
community
The Air Force is pursuing efforts to improve the quality of
life and quality of service of the remotely piloted aircraft
(RPA) community. This plan seeks to address the burden on RPA
crews due to significant demand for persistent intelligence,
surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike capabilities. The
committee is concerned about the potentially unique impacts on
RPA pilots and airmen who are stationed in the United States
while operating aircraft engaged in combat abroad.
Section 1712A of title 38, United States Code, provides for
counseling and mental health services for a veteran or member
of the Armed Forces who engaged in combat by ``remotely
controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle, notwithstanding whether
the physical location of such veteran or member during such
combat was within such theatre of combat operations or area.''
A 2011 School of Aerospace Medicine report titled
``Psychological Health Screening of Remotely Piloted Aircraft
Operators and Supporting Units,'' found ``there is a high
incidence of emotional exhaustion/fatigue among RPA operators
as a group in comparison to noncombatant airmen'' and that
``efforts to reduce occupational burnout should focus on
operational stressors and be equally devoted to weapon- and
non-weapon-deploying RPA operators.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives on steps the Air
Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard are taking to
address the mental health of RPA pilots and airmen supporting
RPA operations, particularly those stationed in the United
States flying missions with aircraft assigned operationally to
Combatant Commands. This report should also include detailed
efforts the Air Force is taking to retain these pilots, given
the potential for exhaustion and occupational stress.
Traumatic brain injury research
Servicemembers and veterans can experience immediate and
latent symptoms of traumatic brain injury (TBI), including
headaches, mental confusion, memory loss, impulsivity, and
depression. The committee commends the Department's efforts to
promote research addressing symptoms of TBI in the acute stages
after injury and the prevention of such injuries. Key
challenges facing the Department of Defense, however, are: (1)
Understanding how to reverse neurodegeneration in the brain to
restore lost brain function; and (2) Understanding the short
and long-term effects of mild TBI on the brain to develop
therapies that improve the function of those regions of the
brain that may have escaped damage. The committee encourages
the Department to continue its collaboration with public and
private partners to accelerate the development of
pharmaceutical therapies to reverse the latent and delayed-
onset effects of TBI and to support clinical grade research of
directly reprogrammed autologous neural precursor cells.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Implementation of acquisition reforms
The committee notes that with the passage of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92), the Department of Defense has been
provided with the most expansive legislative reform agenda on
acquisition in a generation. While such reforms will take time
to fully implement, the committee is disappointed with the
Department's slow rate of implementation and apparent
unwillingness to embrace meaningful change in order to improve
its acquisition outcomes.
The Department of Defense has suffered under a cumbersome
acquisition bureaucracy for the majority of its existence.
However, over the course of its history, the Department has
still been able to increase the United States' military
technical advantage over the nation's adversaries and
competitors. In recent years, however, the Department has
presided over a diminution of military technical advantage due
to an inability to adapt to the global proliferation of
technology, particularly in the commercial sector. The self-
imposed and congressionally driven bureaucratic processes that
have slowed the acquisition system have provided current and
potential adversaries an opportunity to challenge our military
today and in the future. The Department's current acquisition
challenge, and the threats that it enables, therefore, goes
beyond important traditional concerns of efficiency and
financial stewardship.
All elements of the Department of Defense's acquisition
enterprise must innovate in order to increase the United
States' military technical advantage. This innovation cannot be
limited to the kinds of technology the Department seeks to
acquire. The methods by which such technologies are acquired
are of equal significance in providing our Armed Forces with a
timely technical edge. It is the responsibility of all elements
of the Department's acquisition system to drive such innovation
and to recognize that different types of innovation are
required for an office such as the Under Secretary of Defense
for Research and Engineering than for the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.
It is the intent of the committee that the Department of
Defense pursue military technical advantage through multiple
pathways. Basic research, experimentation, prototyping, rapid
acquisition, acquisition and adaptation of commercial items,
middle tier acquisition, and major defense acquisition programs
all play vital roles in developing and fielding the capability
required by our Armed Forces. These pathways require different
approaches to risk management, requirements development,
contracting, and governance. The committee therefore expects to
see the Department align acquisition methods with the nature of
the capability being acquired. This will require, for example,
making use of flexible tools like Other Transaction Authorities
to speed early research and prototyping efforts to transition
into production while using firm-fixed price contracts to
manage costs of large-scale acquisition of systems with lower
technical risk.
Allowing for more nuanced approaches to supporting multiple
acquisition pathways requires a workforce that is well-
educated, trained, and provided with incentives to apply
judgement in tailoring acquisition approaches while
appropriately managing risk. The committee notes the success of
the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund in allowing
the Department to recruit, educate, and retain the talent it
needs. Provisions elsewhere in this Act seek to raise awareness
of additional acquisition methods, such as the use of Federal
Acquisition Regulation Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Items,
Other Transaction Authorities, and Agile Acquisition while also
supporting the development of tools to enable easier tailoring
of the acquisition process.
The committee is particularly concerned about the
Department's approach to developing, acquiring, and managing
software and software-intensive systems. The Department's
acquisition processes are too cumbersome to develop traditional
military hardware effectively, let alone modern software
systems. Accordingly, this Act directs the Department to
commence pilot activities to restructure struggling software-
intensive programs and start new programs in a more effective
manner. The committee will provide strong oversight on
software-intensive acquisitions to ensure that the Department
of Defense adopts effective methods of developing and managing
its software.
In conclusion, this Act clarifies and reinforces the
reforms of previous years. It is the intent of the committee to
provide the Department of Defense with as much flexibility as
possible to develop its own processes, organizational
structures, and initiatives to improve its acquisition view and
culture. The committee expects, and will support to the maximum
extent possible, innovative initiatives from the Department
that improve acquisition outcomes. In the meantime, the
committee will continue to perform oversight over the
Department's efforts to reform and improve its acquisition
culture and practices, and hold senior leaders responsible and
accountable for those efforts and their success.
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management
Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private competitions for
conversion of Department of Defense functions to performance by
contractors (sec. 801)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 325 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2253), one year
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Technical and conforming amendments related to program management
provisions (sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical and conforming amendments related to program
management provisions from the National Defense Authorization
Act of 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
Should-cost management (sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, to amend the Defense Supplement to the
Federal Acquisition Regulation to provide for the appropriate
use of the should-cost review process in a manner that is
transparent, objective, and provides for the efficiency of the
systems acquisition process in the Department of Defense. The
committee remains concerned that the current process utilized
by the Department of Defense does not meet basic elements of
transparency or define objective criteria by which should-cost
determinations are made. Further, the committee expects that
the Department will incorporate elements that prioritize
efficiency into the regulations required by this provision.
The regulations required should incorporate, at a minimum,
the following elements: (1) a description of the feature
distinguishing a should-cost review and the analysis of program
direct and indirect costs; (2) establishment of a process for
communicating with the contractor the elements of a proposed
should-cost review; (3) a method for ensuring that identified
should-cost savings opportunities are based on accurate,
complete, and current information and are associated with
specific engineering or business changes that can be quantified
and tracked; (4) a description of the training, skills, and
experience, including cross functional experience, that
Department of Defense and contractor officials carrying out a
should-cost review should process; (5) a method for ensuring
appropriate collaboration with the contractor throughout the
review process; (6) establishment of review process
requirements that provide for sufficient analysis and minimize
any impact on program schedule; and (7) a requirement that any
separate audit or review carried out in connection with the
should-cost review be provided to the prime contractor under
the program.
Clarification of purpose of Defense acquisition (sec. 804)
The committee recommends a provision that would create
consistency between the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
and current Department of Defense policies and instructions
with respect to the purpose of the defense acquisition system.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is
constantly forced to balance equities related to the near and
far term defense needs as well as defense and national security
goals and broader national and public policy goals. The
Department also struggles to align goals relative to improving
the speed and response to threats with public transparency and
fiscal stewardship and in executing a growing set of missions
within a defined budget. The committee remains concerned that
these balances and goals sometimes drive the Department into
practices that drive up costs, slow down the acquisition
process, and result in sub-optimal capabilities being developed
and deployed to operational forces.
Defense policy advisory committee on technology (sec. 805)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a committee of senior
executives from U.S. firms in the national technology and
industrial base who would meet with the Secretary, the
secretaries of the military departments, and members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee would meet annually with
the Department of Defense from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 to
discuss technology threats to the national security of the
United States and emerging technologies that could be used to
counter such threats. This committee would be exempt from the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) due to the
sensitive and, at times, classified nature of its work.
Report on extension of development, acquisition, and sustainment
authorities of the military departments to the United States
Special Operations Command (sec. 806)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a review of the acquisition
authorities available to the secretaries of the military
departments and the acquisition executives of the military
departments to determine the feasibility and advisability of
providing such authorities to the Commander of the United
States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the acquisition
executive of the Command for the development, acquisition, and
sustainment of special operations-peculiar technology,
equipment, and services. The provision would further require
the Secretary, not later than 120 days after the enactment of
this Act, to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the
required review, including the results of the review, an
identification of the authorities the Secretary recommends be
extended to SOCOM, recommendations for any modifications of
such authorities the Secretary considers appropriate for SOCOM,
recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the
Secretary considers appropriate for the specified authorities,
and any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.
The committee notes that under section 167 of title 10,
United States Code, the Commander of SOCOM and the acquisition
executive of the Command have responsibility for the
development and acquisition of special operations-peculiar
equipment and the acquisition of special operations-peculiar
material, supplies, and services in support of Special
Operations forces, which have been commonly referred to as
SOCOM's ``service-like'' responsibilities. However, the
committee understands that there is a lack of clarity about the
applicability of acquisition and sustainment authorities
provided to the secretaries and acquisition executives of the
military departments to the Commander and acquisition executive
of SOCOM, which could result in unnecessary bureaucratic burden
and delays to SOCOM's rapid research and development,
prototyping, and fielding of technology, equipment, and
services that are critical to ensure the success of the Command
in carrying out its missions. As such, the committee believes
that to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary should
provide to the Commander and the acquisition executive of SOCOM
acquisition and sustainment authorities that are equivalent to
those provided to the secretaries and acquisition executives of
the military departments for such purposes.
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Waiver authority for purposes of expanding competition (sec. 811)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
subsection to section 2304 of title 10, United States Code,
that would grant discretionary authority to the Secretary of
Defense to expand competition for Department of Defense (DOD)
contracts where there is only one responsible bidder for any
provision of law other than subsection 2304(c) of title 10,
United States Code. The committee notes that this provision is
not intended to affect the authorities of current set aside
programs including those under the Small Disadvantage Business
(8(a)) program, the Ability One program, the Berry amendment,
and small business programs. It is intended to enhance
opportunities for competition in traditional solicitations for
DOD goods and services.
Increased simplified acquisition threshold applicable to Department of
Defense procurements (sec. 812)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to set the
simplified acquisition threshold at $250,000 for the Department
of Defense in order to reflect a modest increase in inflation
due to the erosion of purchasing power under the current
threshold. This will expand opportunities for Small
Disadvantaged Businesses, Women-Owned Small Businesses, Service
Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, and businesses in
Historically Underutilized Business Zones to contract with the
Department of Defense to provide innovation and rapid solutions
and services to the Department.
Increased threshold for cost or pricing data and truth in negotiations
requirements (sec. 813)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, to increase the
threshold for certified cost or pricing data and truth in
negotiation requirements to $1.0 million. Section 824 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) sets goals for the Secretary of Defense to follow
in reducing reimbursable costs pertaining to bid and proposal
submissions. This provision would aid the Department of Defense
in realizing that goal.
Contract authority for advanced development of initial or additional
prototype units (sec. 814)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, and would add a
new section related to the contract authority allowed for
advanced development of initial or additional prototype units.
Treatment of independent research and development costs on certain
contracts (sec. 815)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2372 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the
requirements for the Secretary of Defense to create an Advisory
Panel Related to the Goal for Reimbursable Bid and Proposal
Costs. The panel should be established if the amount of
reimbursable bid and proposal costs paid by the Department of
Defense for a fiscal year exceeds 0.75 percent of the total
aggregate industry sales to the Department for the fiscal year
and it should be created by the Secretary within 180 days of
exceeding such threshold.
Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 816)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2302(9) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
definition of a non-traditional contractor to better align with
the definition of an entity, which was intended to be
interpreted as allowing specific business units within a
corporation to be considered as non-traditional contractors.
Repeal of domestic source restriction related to wearable electronics
(sec. 817)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that the domestic source restrictions authorized under the
Berry Amendment do not apply to wearable electronics. The
committee notes that these technologies will provide advanced
communications, sensing, and medical diagnostics capabilities
to operational forces.
Use of outcome-based and performance-based requirements for services
contracts (sec. 818)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
justification requirement for use of personnel and labor hours
for the procurement of services valued in excess of $10.0
million based on specific descriptive personnel and labor hour
requirements unless the program manager and contracting officer
first submit to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Sustainment a written justification including the reasons
for basing the contract on those requirements instead of
outcome- or performance-based requirements. This authority
would sunset at the close of September 20, 2022.
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States should
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a report on justifications submitted
pursuant to this provision. The report should review the
adequacy of the justifications and identify any recurring
obstacles to the use of outcome- and performance-based
requirements instead of specified personnel and labor hour
requirements for purposes of awarding services contracts.
Pilot program for longer term multiyear service contracts (sec. 819)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to use the existing authority under
subsection (a) of section 2306c of title 10, United States
Code, to enter into up to 5 contracts for periods of not more
than 10 years for services described in subsection (b) of such
section, which may be extended for up to 5 additional 1-year
terms. This authority would be subject to a reporting
requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit a progress
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act. The provision would also require
a review by the Comptroller General of the United States, who
would be required to submit a report of to the congressional
defense committees not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The Secretary of Defense would also be required to enter
into an agreement no later than 90 days after enactment of this
Act with an independent organization with relevant expertise to
study best practices and lessons learned from using services
contracts for periods longer than 5 years by commercial
companies, foreign governments, and state governments, as well
as service contracts for periods longer than 5 years used by
the Federal Government, such as Energy Savings Performance
Contracts. Such Energy Savings Performance Contracts provide an
existing example of longer term multiyear service contracts and
are an alternative financing mechanism designed to accelerate
investment in cost effective energy conservation measures in
existing federal buildings.
Identification of commercial services (sec. 820)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 876 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-283) to require the Secretary
of Defense to identify those industry subcategories in
facilities-related services, knowledge-based services
(excluding engineering services), construction services,
medical services, or transportation services in which there are
significant numbers of commercial services providers able to
meet the requirements of the Department of Defense.
Government Accountability Office bid protest reforms (sec. 821)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to require
contractors who file bid protests with the Government
Accountability Office on a contract with the Department of
Defense to pay to the Department of Defense costs incurred for
processing a protest at the Government Accountability Office
and the Department of Defense when such a protest is filed by a
party with revenues in excess of $100.0 million during the
previous year where all of the elements of such protest are
denied in an opinion by the Government Accountability Office.
The provision would also require contractors who file a
protest on a contract on which they are the incumbent to have
all payments above incurred costs withheld on any bridge
contracts or temporary contract extensions awarded to the
contractor as a result of a delay in award resulting from the
filing of such protest. Such withheld funds should be released
to a protesting incumbent contractor if: (1) the solicitation
that is the subject of the protest is cancelled and no
subsequent request for proposal is released or planned for
release; or (2) the Government Accountability Office issues an
opinion that upholds any of the protest grounds filed under the
protest. If the protested contract for which payments are
withheld is not awarded to a contractor, the withheld payments
should be released to the Department of Defense and deposited
into an account that can be used by the Department to offset
costs associated with Government Accountability Office bid
protests.
Enhanced post-award debriefing rights (sec. 822)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, no later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, to revise the Department of Defense
Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to require
that all mandatory post-award debriefings must provide details
and comprehensive statements of the agency's rating for each
evaluation criterion and of the agency's overall award
decision. The revision would encourage the release of all
information that would otherwise be releasable in the course of
a bid protest challenge to an award to protect the confidential
and proprietary information of other offerors. This provision
would allow for the opportunity for follow-up questions for a
disappointed offeror within 2 business days of receiving a
post-award debriefing to be answered in writing by the agency
within 5 business days.
Limitation on unilateral definitization (sec. 823)
The committee recommends a provision that would apply
limitations and a notice and wait period to all undefinitized
contractual actions of $50.0 million or greater. Such
limitations would require that if an agreement is not reached
on contractual terms, specifications, and price by a date
certain, the contracting officer may not unilaterally
definitize those terms, specifications, and price over the
objection of the contractor until the head of the agency
approves the definitization in writing, the contracting office
provides the written approval to the contractor, and the head
of the agency notifies the congressional defense committees of
the approval. The contract modification unilaterally
definitizing the action should not take effect until 60
calendar days after the congressional defense committees have
been notified.
Restriction on use of reverse auctions and lowest price technically
acceptable contracting methods for safety equipment (sec. 824)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 814 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) in order to restrict the
Department of Defense (DOD) from the use of reverse auctions
and lowest price technically acceptable contracting methods
when procuring critical safety equipment.
Use of lowest price technically acceptable source selection process
(sec. 825)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) in order to ensure that
the Department of Defense is acquiring goods that are providing
valuable solutions and technology and not just offering
contracts to bidders with the lowest cost.
Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototype and rapid fielding (sec.
826)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 804(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114--92) to eliminate the cost-
sharing requirement for the rapid prototyping and fielding for
middle tier acquisition programs.
Elimination of cost underruns as factor in calculation of penalties for
cost overruns (sec. 827)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 828(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 10 U.S.C. 2430 note) to
remove the use of cost underruns to offset cost overruns and
avoid the cost overrun penalty, beginning in fiscal year 2018.
Contract closeout authority (sec. 828)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 836(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to extend contract
closeout authority to those contracts entered into at least 17
years before the current fiscal year.
Service contracts of the Department of Defense (sec. 829)
The committee recommends a provision to require the
Department of Defense to include certain information on
services contracts in annual future years defense programs. The
amendment prohibits initiation of public-private (A-76)
competitions until this information is provided or until the
Secretary of Defense certifies that a plan to provide such
information by the next fiscal year has been developed.
Department of Defense contractor workplace safety and accountability
(sec. 830)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
contracting officers, prior to awarding or renewing covered
contacts, to consider any identified violations of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 or equivalent State
laws by the offeror or covered subcontractors using publicly
available information. Contractors would have the right to
protest bids and appeal actions taken pursuant to this
provision.
The Comptroller General of the United States would also be
required to submit a report not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act to the Department of Defense and
the congressional defense committees on the following elements:
(a) A description of the Department of Defense's existing
procedures to evaluate the safety and health records of current
and prospective contractors; (b) An evaluation of the
Department's adherence to those procedures; (c) An assessment
of the current incidence of health and safety violations by
Department Contractors; (d) An assessment of whether the
Department of Labor has the resources to investigate and
identify safety and health violations by Department of Defense
contractors; and (e) An assessment of whether the Department of
Labor should consider assuming an expanded investigatory role
or a targeted enforcement program for ensuring the safety and
health of workers under Department of Defense contracts.
Department of Defense promotion of contractor compliance with existing
law (sec. 831)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Congress that: (1) the Department of Defense
should aim to ensure that parties contracting with the Federal
Government abide by existing law, including worker protection
laws; (2) worker protection laws, including chapter 43 of title
38, United States Code and the American with Disabilities Act
of 1990 were enacted to ensure equitable workplace practices;
(3) identifying and helping to improve the compliance of
contractors with worker protection violations will help avoid
setbacks and delays stemming from contracting with non-
compliant contractors; and (4) the Secretary of Defense has the
authority to ensure contractors' compliance with existing laws
and should establish a goal to work with responsible
contractors who are in compliance with worker protection laws.
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs
Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition program (sec. 835)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 430(a) of title 10, United States Code, to prevent
programs formerly designated as major automated information
systems and programs currently designated as business systems
from being designated as major defense acquisition programs.
Prohibition on use of lowest price technically acceptable source
selection process for major defense acquisition programs (sec.
836)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new
section that would prohibit the use of a lowest price
technically acceptable source selection process for the
development contract of a major defense acquisition program
(MDAP), beginning with programs requested for fiscal year 2019.
The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit to the
congressional defense committees a notification of the source
selection process that the Department of Defense plans to use
for the development contract of an MDAP, with the budget for
which authority is requested for the development contract of an
MDAP, or within 30 days before release of the request for
proposals for the development contract.
Federal acquisition regulations provide for a best value
continuum where the relative importance of cost or price may
vary. Where the requirement is clearly definable, cost or price
may play a dominant role. The less definitive the requirement,
the more development work is required. The greater the
performance risk, the more technical or past performance may
play a dominant role. The lowest price technically acceptable
source selection approach is appropriate when best value is
expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable
proposal with the lowest evaluated price. By contrast, a trade-
off process is appropriate when best value is expected to
result in selecting other than the lowest price or other than
the highest technically rated proposal and when the process
allows the government to make trade-offs among cost or price
and non-cost factors.
The committee believes that a contract to develop a MDAP
does not lend itself to a strictly lowest price technically
acceptable source selection approach. The source selection
approach used for the development contract for the B-21 long-
range strike bomber, an MDAP, was not characterized by the
Department of Defense as a lowest price technically acceptable
process. However, the committee believes that the Department's
source selection approach more resembled a lowest price
technically acceptable process rather than a trade-off process.
Given the high degree of development work required for the
program and the high degree of performance risk for the vendor,
as evidenced by the fact that the Department awarded a cost
plus contract for this effort, the committee believes that a
source selection process that allowed the government to make
trade-offs among cost or price and non-cost factors was
warranted. Going forward, the committee expects the Department
to use a trade-off source selection process for the development
contract of a major defense acquisition program.
Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce
Training in commercial items procurement (sec. 841)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President of the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) to
establish a training program on part 12 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
The committee believes that since enactment of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), the Congress has
articulated a policy of favoring commercial procurements,
including commercial ``of a type'' items. However, 2 decades
after passage of the FASA, acquisition workforce training in
the use of FAR Part 12 remains deficient. One of the guiding
principles of the FAR is to ``maximize the use of commercial
products and services,'' and section 2377 of title 10, United
States Code, requires market research to determine what
commercial items or commercial items ``of a type'' are
available in the marketplace. FAR part 12 implements the
Federal Government's preference for the acquisition of
commercial items contained in sections 1906, 1907, and 3307 of
title 41, United States Code, and sections 2375-2377 of title
10, United States Code, by establishing acquisition policies
more closely resembling those of the commercial marketplace and
encouraging the acquisition of commercial items and components.
Despite this, the committee believes that DAU courses have
very little content involving the training of the acquisition
workforce in matters related to FAR part 12 and the procurement
of commercial items. The 2014 Defense Business Board report,
``Innovation: Attracting and Retaining the Best of the Private
Sector,'' noted that acquisition training by DAU was
``insufficient to meet the needs of the Department'' and ``an
example of training deficiency is the lack of training on
market research . . . [causing] acquisition and contracting
personnel [to] fall back on cost-based judgments for
contracting decisions.'' Accordingly, this provision would aim
to provide comprehensive training to the acquisition workforce
on the use of part 12.
Modification of definition of acquisition workforce to include
personnel engaged in the acquisition or development of
cybersecurity systems (sec. 842)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1705(h)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to
include personnel who are engaged in the acquisition of systems
related to cybersecurity to the list of personnel who may be
trained under the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund.
Training and support for programs pursuing agile acquisition methods
(sec. 843)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the President of the
Defense Acquisition University, to establish an in-resident
targeted training course at the Defense Acquisition University
on agile acquisition.
Credits to Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund
(sec. 844)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1705(d)(2)(D) of title 10, United States Code, to
clarify that the Secretary of Defense may adjust the amount for
a fiscal year to an amount that is more than $600.0 million or
less than $400.0 million if the Secretary determines that the
amount is greater or less than reasonably needed for the
purposes of the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund for such fiscal year to assist with
acquisition workforce planning and development.
Subtitle E--Provisions Related to Commercial Items
Modification to definition of commercial items (sec. 851)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2376 of title 10, United States Code, to amend the
definition of ``commercial item'' for minor modifications
ensure that government-unique systems and technologies are not
treated as commercial items.
Revision to definition of commercial item (sec. 852)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 103(8) of title 41, United States Code, to clarify that
nondevelopmental items are commercial items when the procuring
agency determines, in accordance with conditions in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, that the item was developed exclusively
at private expense and has been sold in substantial quantities
on a competitive basis to multiple local, state, or foreign
governments.
Commercial item determinations (sec. 853)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2380 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that a
contract or sub-contract relating to the prior acquisition of
an item using commercial item acquisition procedures under part
12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) should serve as
a prior commercial item determination under this section of
title 10.
Additionally, the committee notes that a significant
barrier to retaining commercial item determinations occurs when
a determination is made by a prime contractor as part of the
acquisition of a major weapons system. The Department of
Defense (DOD) contracting officers and Defense Contracting
Activity officials have recently not recognized prime
contractor commercial item determinations for sustainment
contracts, despite the fact that these items have been sold
under FAR part 12 to prime contractors for years. Accordingly,
this provision would also amend section 2306a(b)(4)(A) of title
10, United States Code, to clarify the current statute to
provide that previous commercial item determinations made by a
prime contractor in the acquisition of a commercial item for
DOD will be afforded the same presumption as if that
determination were made by a contracting officer.
Preference for acquisition of commercial items (sec. 854)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2377(b) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that
the acquisition of commercial items and nondevelopmental items
take priority over any small business set-aside program that
would result in a non-commercial offering but to clarify that
contracts for commercial items may be set aside for small
business.
Inapplicable laws and regulations (sec. 855)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review and, if necessary, revise the
Procedures by which the Department of Defense applies
government-unique regulations to the process by which it buys
commercial items. It further eliminates all regulations not
required by law that were promulgated after the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1996 (Public Law 103-355) that
create government-unique clauses in contracts or subcontracts
for the acquisition of commercial items and commercial off the
shelf (COTS) items, except for regulations that the Secretary
determines are vital to national security or required by law.
Subtitle F--Industrial Base Matters
Review regarding applicability of foreign ownership, control, or
influence requirements of national security industrial program
to national technology and industrial base companies (sec. 861)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to review whether companies whose
ownership is based in countries that are part of the national
technology and industrial base (as defined by section 2500 of
title 10, United States Code) should be exempted from the
foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) requirements of
the National Security Industrial Program. This provision would
also allow the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of
the Secretary of State, to maintain a list of companies whose
ownership is based in countries that are part of the national
technology and industrial base that are eligible for such an
exemption from FOCI.
Pilot program on strengthening manufacturing in defense industrial base
(sec. 862)
The committee recommends a provision that would create a
pilot program that would authorize the Department of Defense to
use existing authorities to support investments that enhance
the ability of the defense industrial base to meet military
needs. The committee notes that the Department of Defense
depends on a strong manufacturing and industrial base,
especially as it seeks to modernize weapons systems to address
global threats. This base is increasingly tied to the
commercial manufacturing and industrial base, and a growing
number of defense systems are dependent on dual-use commercial
technologies and systems.
The provision authorizes the Department to invest in the
manufacture of these kinds of technologies and systems,
especially through the use of contracts, loan guarantees,
direct loans, and purchases of equipment to support the startup
of needed production lines. Further, the provisions allows the
Department to engage with private sector financing and
investment instruments, including instruments that take equity
stakes in concerns--so as to support needed advanced
manufacturing capabilities. The committee believes that these
kinds of activities will improve the return on investment of
government research programs, as well as helping critical
defense suppliers maintain domestic manufacturing capabilities
in the face of global competition.
Sunset of certain provisions relating to the industrial base (sec. 863)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2534 of title 10, United States Code, to sunset the
miscellaneous limitation on the procurement of goods other than
United States goods at the close of September 30, 2018 relating
to photovoltaic devices.
Subtitle G--International Contracting Matters
Procurement exception relating to agreements with foreign governments
(sec. 865)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that
the requirement pertaining to procurement of items grown,
reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States does not
preclude the acquisition of items as part of a weapon system if
the acquisition is necessary in furtherance of an agreement
with a foreign government in which both governments agree to
remove barriers to purchases of supplies produced in the other
country or services performed by sources of the other country.
Applicability of cost and pricing data certification requirements (sec.
866)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2306a(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
that additional certification is not required for a foreign
military sale where there is already an existing U.S.
Government contract for the same or similar item or service for
which the U.S. Government has current cost and pricing data and
insights into the reasonableness of price.
Enhancing program licensing (sec. 867)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, to establish a structure implementing a revised program
export licensing framework in order to provide comprehensive
export licensing authorization to support large international
cooperative defense programs between multiple nations and
determine what, if any, regulatory authorities require
modification.
Subtitle H--Other Transactions
Use of Other Transaction Authority
The passage of section 815 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92)
created the authority to use Other Transaction Authority (OTA)
for prototyping and production purposes. The committee is
pleased to see new and longstanding users of other transactions
make additional use of this important and flexible contracting
method. However, the committee remains frustrated by an ongoing
lack of awareness and education regarding other transactions,
particularly among senior leaders, contracting professionals,
and lawyers. This lack of knowledge leads to an overly narrow
interpretation of when OTAs may be used, narrow delegations of
authority to make use of OTAs, a belief that OTAs are options
of last resort for when Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
based alternatives have been exhausted, and restrictive, risk
averse interpretations of how OTAs may be used. These behaviors
force innovative projects and programs into unnecessarily
restrictive contracting methods, needlessly adding bureaucracy,
cost, and time.
The statutory authority for other transactions as
delineated in section 2371 and 2371b of title 10, United States
Code, is written in an intentionally broad manner. The
Department of Defense (DOD) should interpret these authorities
accordingly, recognizing that it has authority to use OTAs with
the most flexible possible interpretation unless otherwise
specified in those particular sections. Making use of OTAs, and
their associated flexibility, may require senior leaders and
Congress to tolerate more risk. The committee is willing to
tolerate that risk, as long as it is well understood and
communicated to oversight officials, and when responsibility
for such risk is assigned to appropriate, accountable
officials. Such risks can, and should, be mitigated through
various means from oversight to program design and acquisition
strategies. Importantly, any such risk must be viewed as lesser
than the risks of stymieing innovation or slowing the
development and fielding of critical new capabilities.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee removes additional
barriers to the use of OTAs while also requiring DOD to
increase education and awareness of these authorities. The
committee does not wish to add further explicit authorities for
specific functions under section 2371 or section 2371b of title
10, United States Code, as doing so may lead to the incorrect
impression that all potential functions that may be executed
under OTAs must be stated in statute. However, two common
misinterpretations deserve clarification here.
First, it is necessary to clarify the definition of small
business for purposes of prototype project authority. The
committee notes that OTAs have proven to be successful in
helping the Department attract nontraditional performers,
including small businesses. These performers carry out
prototype projects that enhance the mission effectiveness of
military personnel. The committee encourages and supports DOD's
efforts to expand its use of OTA for funding agreements under
the Small Business Innovation Research program and Small
Business Technology Transfer program.
The mission of these two small business programs is to
support scientific excellence and technological innovation
through the investment of federal research funds in critical
American priorities to build a strong national economy.
Encouraging and supporting the Department of Defense to use
proven innovative procurement processes such as OTAs for
funding agreements under the small business programs will both
enhance the mission effectiveness of the Department and help
accomplish the mission of the programs.
Second, it is necessary to clarify the follow-on production
contracts using OTA. The committee notes that there has been
some uncertainty about the proper interpretation of the
requirements for follow-on production when using a consortium
OTA model. Paragraph (f)(2) of section 2371b of title 10,
United States Code, detailing the authority created in section
815, states that follow-on production ``may be awarded to the
participants in the transaction without the use of competitive
procedures . . . if
(A) competitive procedures were used for the
selection of parties for participation in the
transaction; and
(B) the participants in the transaction
successfully completed the prototype project
provided for in the transaction.''
``Competitive procedures'' refers to a competition for
award of an OTA to a consortium or a competition for a
particular project. Follow-on production contracts and
transactions entered into pursuant to this section should be
structured to maximize access to the participant's products, as
appropriate, from any organization within DOD. Accordingly,
contracting officers should use a variety of established
acquisition tools, including a modification to the original
consortium-based or individual prototype project award, a
separate OTA, or a FAR acquisition instrument. This will allow
for a swifter, seamless transition of cutting-edge technologies
to the warfighter throughout the acquisition process.
Other transaction authority (sec. 871)
The committee recommends a provision to streamline the
process by which authorized officials may enter in ``other
transaction agreements'' by removing the requirement for the
specific approval by senior acquisition officials for the use
of such agreements for large projects. This provision would
also amend this authority to allow for the required one-third
cost share to be supplied by third party private investment.
Education and training for transactions other than contracts and grants
(sec. 872)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (g) of section 2371 of title 10, United States Code,
to require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the
Department of Defense provides sufficient education and
training in the use of transactions other than contracts and
grants.
The committee is pleased with the successful use of Other
Transactions to support acquisition speed and innovation.
However, those seeking to make use of Other Transaction
Authorities are too frequently stymied in their efforts by an
acquisition workforce unfamiliar with the use of those
authorities. Accordingly, the committee directs the United
States Army Contracting Command, U.S. Navy Research Laboratory,
United States Air Force Office of Transformational Innovation,
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop,
in collaboration with the Defense Acquisition University, an
Other Transaction Authority curriculum of education, training,
and experiential learning for executives, program managers,
contracting officers, lawyers, and other relevant stakeholders.
This curriculum may be developed and executed using funds from
the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund.
Preference for use of other transactions and experimental authority
(sec. 873)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for using
transactions other than contracts, contracts, cooperative
agreements, and grants for science and technology, prototyping,
and experimental purposes pursuant to sections 2371, 2371b, and
2373 of title 10, United States Code. This preference should
include funds expended from 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and other
accounts used for the purposes of science and technology,
prototyping, and experimental purposes.
Methods for entering into research agreements (sec. 874)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2358 of title 10, United States Code, to explicitly
authorize the use of Other Transactions Authority and
Experimental Procurement Authority as methods for entering into
research agreements with industry, academia, and other
researchers and technology developers.
The committee supports Department efforts to improve the
pace of technological development of advanced military systems
to meet current and future threats, and it believes that these
types of research agreements can be effective in improving the
speed of development and operational use of technologies and
can reduce program costs. The committee believes that the use
of these approaches for research efforts is already authorized
and legal under existing law, but there is bureaucratic and
cultural resistance to using these methods that limits their
use by the bulk of the defense research and engineering
enterprise. The committee notes that this provision is intended
to provide more encouragement for the Department to use these
types of approaches as it seeks to speed the process of
technological innovation.
Subtitle I--Development and Acquisition of Software Intensive and
Digital Products and Services
Digitizing the Department of Defense business, enterprise, and
warfighting capabilities
The committee notes that the Department of Defense's
warfighting, business, and enterprise capabilities are
increasingly reliant on or driven by software and information
technology. The committee notes with concern that the
Department is behind other federal agencies and industry in
implementing best practices for acquisition of software and
information technology capabilities, to include agile and
incremental development methods and associated training, tools,
and infrastructure.
The committee notes that existing law and acquisition
regulation provide significant flexibility to the Department
and that the Department has explicitly provided for tailoring
in its acquisition directives and instructions. The committee
is concerned, however, that, despite the aforementioned, the
organizational culture and tradition of acquiring capabilities
using a hardware-dominant approach remains the status quo and
as such represents a significant impediment to effectively
tailoring acquisition approaches to incorporate agile and
incremental development methods suited to software-intensive
business, enterprise, and warfighting capabilities.
The committee contends that the implementation of such
methods--which represent best practices for both industry and
government--is absolutely vital to delivering capabilities. To
ensure the adoption of such practices, the committee expects
the Department to:
(1) Strengthen the Chief Information Officer's role
in software intensive and information technology
reliant business, enterprise, and warfighting
capabilities as described elsewhere in this Act, by
establishing and enforcing information technology
policies and standards, planning and programming, and
budget formulation and execution;
(2) Make use of existing flexibilities via, through
two pilot programs described elsewhere in this Act;
(3) Push forward in implementing agile development
methods via additional flexibilities in conducting a
third pilot described elsewhere in this Act; and
(4) Invest in tools and training through efforts
described elsewhere in this act to better support the
acquisition workforce.
Rights in technical data (sec. 881)
The committee recommends a provision what would amend
section 2302 of title 10, United States Code, to define
technical data with respect to software acquired by, and the
means by which that data is provided to, the Department of
Defense. The committee is concerned that the Department of
Defense does not have access to, or make use of, all the data
associated with software required to develop, configure, adapt,
or maintain its software assets.
The technical data required to effectively manage and
maintain software assets goes well beyond documentation to
include source code and also the data associated with the
development, configuration, and testing of that code. The
Department of Defense must ensure that it maintains access to
such data as a prerequisite for improving its software
practices and outcomes.
Defense Innovation Board analysis of software acquisition regulations
(sec. 882)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Defense Innovation Board to complete an analysis of software
development and acquisition regulations for the Department of
Defense. The committee is concerned about the state of software
development and acquisition within the Department of Defense
and is seeking recommendations on authorities and regulations
the committee might create or remove in order to better enable
the Department to improve its software outcomes. The committee
is particularly interested in the Defense Innovation Board's
recommendations on methods by which to enable the use of
industry best practices within the Department of Defense. The
Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Defense Innovation
Board has access to any information it requires to undertake
this analysis.
This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
report to the congressional defense committees on the
preliminary findings no later than 150 days after the enactment
of this Act. No later than 1 year after the Secretary tasks the
Defense Innovation Board with the study, the Board should
submit its report to the Secretary; no later than 30 days after
receipt, the Secretary should submit the final report, together
with such comments as the Secretary determines appropriate, to
the congressional defense committees. The committee has
authorized $1.0 million to be spent on personnel conducting
this review, as reflected in the military personnel budget
item.
Pilot to tailor software-intensive major programs to use agile methods
(sec. 883)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Department of Defense to identify one major program per service
and one major program acquired by a defense agency or other DOD
component and use tailoring to realign those programs into
smaller increments to deliver meaningfully useful capability
within 180 days of realignment.
To achieve this objective the Department shall use the
tools, resources, and expertise of digital and innovation
organizations, such as the Defense Innovation Board; Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental; Defense Science Board; Defense
Digital Service; federally funded research and development
centers, research laboratories, and other technical,
management, and acquisition experts; the General Services
Administration's Office of 18F; and the science, technology,
and innovation activities established pursuant to section 217
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92).
Review and realignment of defense business systems to emphasize agile
methods (sec. 884)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of
investments in business systems and use tailoring to realign
those programs to emphasize agile methods. The committee is
encouraged by the flexibility outlined in the Department of
Defense's (DOD) recent instruction DOD 5000.75 regarding
categorization, development, and acquisition of defense
business systems. Recognizing the Department's efforts to
challenge the limitations of traditional approaches to
developing and acquiring defense business systems, in executing
section 2222(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, via the
Department's new instruction, the committee encourages the
Department to act swiftly and boldly to implement tailoring of
existing investments to reflect best practices in software-
intensive programs and portfolio and category management of
such programs.
In conducting this review, the Secretary should use: the
tools, resources, and expertise of digital and innovation
organizations, including the Defense Innovation Board, Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental, Defense Science Board, Defense
Digital Service, federally funded research and development
centers, research laboratories, and other technical,
management, and acquisition experts; the General Services
Administration's Office of 18F; and the science, technology,
and innovation activities established pursuant to section 217
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92).
Software development pilot using agile best practices (sec. 885)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to identify between four and eight
software development activities within the Department of
Defense or military departments and pilot the use of modern
agile methods as well as oversight metrics appropriate for
agile development.
To achieve this objective the Secretary should: direct the
use of streamlined processes and available rapid solicitation
procedures (and not lowest price technically acceptable or cost
plus contracts); direct a vision and a road map; leverage the
Digital Services Playbook; direct the use of commercial best
practices for advanced computing systems; award within three
months of identification, delivery of functionality; direct
delivery of follow-on capability 2 weeks apart.
Personnel resourced toward these efforts should include a
program manager, product owner, engineering lead, design lead,
with certain qualifications best suited for agile development.
Data rights should obtain such that software is open source
and such that the copyright holder provides for it to be
publicly available or such that sufficient data rights enable
any third party to continue or to maintain it.
Certain restrictions regarding the use of funds and
contract types apply.
In conducting this review, the Secretary should use the
tools, resources, and expertise of digital and innovation
organizations, including the Defense Innovation Board, Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental, Defense Science Board, Defense
Digital Service, federally funded research and development
centers, research laboratories, and other technical,
management, and acquisition experts; the General Services
Administration's Office of 18F; and science, technology, and
innovation activities established pursuant to section 217 the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92).
The Secretary should report on commencement and completion
of the pilot activity under this section.
Use of open source software (sec. 886)
The committee recommends a provision to improve the
Department of Defense's management of the source code, and
other technical data, associated with its custom developed
computer software. This provision covers unclassified, non-
defense item software and does not apply to any items covered
by section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).
The provision directs the Secretary to update the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to ensure
that the Department negotiates access to its own code, manage
that code using open source licenses, and identify means by
which it can better manage the code base associated with its
legacy software. The Secretary of Defense is also directed to
consult with experts from the Defense Innovation Board, DARPA,
the NSA, and the Defense Digital Service when updating the
DFARS and drafting additional policy or instructions on the use
of open source software and to make use of existing Department
of Defense open source resources where possible. The provision
further directs the Department to make use of technology prize
competitions for improving, repurposing, or reusing software,
and to identify methods to reverse engineer Department of
Defense software for which source code is unavailable.
Subtitle J--Other Matters
Improved transparency and oversight over Department of Defense
research, development, test, and evaluation efforts and
procurement activities related to medical research (sec. 891)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract, grant,
or cooperative agreement for congressional special interest
medical research program under the Congressionally Directed
Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense unless
there is sufficient compliance with cost accounting standards
and other specified requirements.
Rights in technical data related to medical research (sec. 892)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
special interest medical research programs under the
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program of the
Department of Defense to include agreements that provide the
United States Government with the same rights to the technical
data that apply to items or processes developed under the
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement as applicable under
section 2320(a)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to items
and processes developed exclusively with federal funds.
Oversight, audit, and certification from the Defense Contract Audit
Agency for procurement activities related to medical research
(sec. 893)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Defense Contract Audit Agency to certify the adequacy of the
accounting systems and perform an incurred cost audit prior to
the obligation of funds for congressional special interest
medical research programs under the Congressionally Directed
Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense.
Requirements for Defense Contract Audit Agency report (sec. 894)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
standard definition for the Defense Contract Audit Agency's
(DCAA) reporting on its backlog. In future reporting, DCAA
should include any individual incurred cost audit that has not
been completed within 18 months after receipt of a qualified
proposal as part of the incurred cost audit backlog.
Prototype projects to digitize defense acquisition regulations,
policies, and guidance, and empower user tailoring of
acquisition process (sec. 895)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering, to develop prototypes to
digitize defense acquisition regulations, policies, and
guidance. The committee is concerned that the Department of
Defense lacks the tools to effectively tailor its acquisition
practices for specific projects. Acquisition policy itself
states that policies are tailorable, but such flexibilities are
rarely made use of in practice. The Department should therefore
leverage a digital support tool to facilitate such tailoring in
accordance with existing laws, regulations, and guidance.
Pilot program for adoption of acquisition strategy for Defense Base Act
insurance (sec. 896)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program for the
United States Army Corps of Engineers for purposes of adopting
an acquisition strategy for insurance required by the Defense
Base Act (32 U.S.C. 1651, et seq.) in order the minimize the
cost of such insurance to the Department of Defense. The
contract entered into under this authority would be effective
for at least 3 years, or as considered appropriate by the
Secretary. The committee notes that this provision is not
intended to change policies on support of workmen's
compensation or reduce compensation practices. The committee
believes that the provision should result in a more efficient
acquisition strategy that reduces costs to the Department of
Defense.
Phase III awards (sec. 897)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 9(r)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(r)(4)). The provision would clarify that the issuance of
Phase III awards should give preference to the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) award recipients who developed the technology.
This provision would also clarify that SBIR and STTR award
recipients should fulfill the competition requirements under
section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, for military
procurement.
Pilot program for streamlined technology transition from the SBIR and
STTR programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 898)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program for the
commercialization of products and services produced by covered
small business concerns developed through the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs. For this pilot program, the Secretary
of Defense should set up a multiple award contract for those
products and services. The pilot program would terminate on
September 30, 2023.
Annual report on limitation of subcontractor intellectual property
rights (sec. 899)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act and annually for 5 years afterwards, a report listing all
contracts entered into during the previous fiscal year using
procedures under part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation
where the prime contractor limited the intellectual property
rights of one or more subcontractors without being required to
do so by the United States Government.
Extension from 20 to 30 years of maximum total period for Department of
Defense contracts for storage, handling, or distribution of
liquid fuels and natural gas (sec. 899A)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2922(b) of title 10, United States Code, to raise the
maximum period of Department of Defense contracts for storage,
handling, or distribution of liquid fuels and natural gas from
20 to 30 years. The committee believes that the 20-year
limitation is outdated, since modern fuel storage
infrastructure is capable of operating for up to 30 years and
could produce substantial savings.
Exception for Department of Defense contracts from requirement that
business operations conducted under government contracts accept
and dispense $1 coins (sec. 899B)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5112(p)(1) of title 31, United States Code, to exempt
Department of Defense contracts from the requirements in order
to relieve the cost burden on the Department associated with
these regulations.
Investing in rural small businesses (sec. 899C)
The committee recommends a provision that expands the pool
of eligible communities for the Small Business Administration's
(SBA) Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone)
program and provides much-needed flexibility to rural small
businesses participating in the program. This provision allows
governors to directly petition SBA to designate additional
rural areas as HUBZones; reduces the number of a small firm's
employees required to live within a HUBZone from 35 to 33
percent; and requires SBA's HUBZone office to make a decision
on a governor's application within 60 days.
Items of Special Interest
Assess requirements in certain categories of business systems for
consolidation to pursue cost-effective solutions
The committee notes with concern that the military services
continue to separately procure business systems in categories
where requirements could be consolidated for efficiency and
cost-effectiveness, such as contract writing, personnel and
pay, and enterprise resource programs. Accordingly, the
committee has recommended reductions in the research and
development and procurement accounts for systems in these
categories.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
refocus its efforts toward common solutions in these
categories. As outlined under DOD Instruction 5000.75
pertaining to defense business systems, the Department should
take a portfolio approach to categories, should leverage the
use of fixed-price contracting, and pursue the use of
commercial-off-the-shelf solutions that minimize customization,
and more frequent delivery of increments. Leveraging the use of
fixed-price contracts entails that sufficient technical risk,
business process re-engineering, and software engineering work
has been done prior to contract award.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee has established a
pilot program for business systems that would encourage use of
commercial best practices in cost-effective agile development,
and the committee recommends that the systems separately
pursued by the military services in these categories be
considered for participation in that pilot.
Avoidance of specification of contractor facility locations in
solicitations and contract requirements
The committee notes with concern the use by the United
States Department of the Army organizations of contract
requirements that set specific criteria for locations of
contractor facilities. The committee notes that in some cases
these restrictive requirements are driven by law or policy, and
that in some cases the location of a contractor's facility may
be a legitimate factor in source selection designed to produce
the best value for warfighters and taxpayers. However, these
types of restrictions may also be used to unfairly limit
competitions to favor specific contractors. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to identify all
solicitations released in the past 2 years which specify
contractor location as a requirement for contract award. The
Secretary should then determine whether this requirement was
justified based on statutory, regulatory, or policy
requirements, or are legitimately a differentiator in
determining the best value to soldiers and to the taxpayer. The
committee directs the Secretary to report the results of this
review and analysis to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, no later than June 1,
2018.
Commercial off-the-shelf power supplies
The Committee understands the implementation of commercial
items in military systems offers significant opportunities for
reduced development time, faster insertion of new technology,
and lower life-cycle costs. Maximizing the use of commercially
mature technology provides the greatest opportunity to meet
program cost, schedule, and performance objectives and is
consistent with an evolutionary acquisition strategy to address
today's threats.
However, the committee is concerned that program managers
apply a broad brush stroke to the use of commercial items in an
effort to address these objectives, introducing unnecessary
risk to systems in the interest of a cost or schedule tradeoff.
The fact remains, commercially available power supplies remain
a primary failure mode of military systems. The cost and
schedule savings driven from the implementation of commercially
available power supplies in military aircraft, ground vehicles,
and ships is rarely worth the risk introduced to the system
based on the unreliable design of commercial power supplies.
Commercially available power supplies are not robustly designed
to account for military environments, including the threats
posed by electromagnetic interference, varying temperature and
humidity conditions, or the shock and vibration loads commonly
found on military platforms.
Today's industrial base does offer a range of robust power
supply products specifically designed for military
environments. These robust products consider design
specifications in line with the rugged environments in which
they'll by subjected to throughout their lifecycle. These
considerations lead to a highly reliable power supply that
significantly reduces this as a failure mode.
The committee encourages program managers and acquisition
professionals to pay particular attention to the intended
product use environment and understand the extent to which this
environment differs from the commercial use environment.
Further, the committee expects appropriate testing and
qualification of power supplies to ensure technical risk is
reduced.
Comptroller General evaluation of Contractor Business Systems
Improvement Program
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit to the congressional defense committees a
report evaluating the extent to which the Contractor Business
Systems Improvement Program established pursuant to section 893
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) has
improved the ability of the contractors to perform work on
Department programs and the ability of the Department of
Defense to manage and oversee contractor performance. This
report is due no later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act. The evaluation should cover the following topics:
(1) A description of how the program was implemented,
including scope, roles, and responsibilities; data
generated; and program activities;
(2) An accounting of program implementation costs to
the Department;
(3) An assessment of program implementation costs to
contractors, including an accounting of costs to
implement and how these costs compare to the value of
the contractor's total gross revenue allocated to
United States Government contracts;
(4) Identification of how the Contractor Business
Systems Improvement Program led to improvements in
contractor performance on programs or improved
Department management and Department oversight of the
programs, considering the various phase of the
acquisition process (acquisition planning, award,
administration, oversight, and closeout);
(5) An assessment of the relative value and role of
independent third party auditors and government
auditors in assessing a contractor's business systems;
(6) Identification of information that would be
useful to the Department and contractors in assessing
contractor business systems;
(7) Identification of improvements in management and
oversight in situations where contractors perform on
more than one Department program;
(8) Representative case studies; and
(9) A description of any other matters the
Comptroller General determines to be relevant.
Cybersecurity in modernizing the Department of Defense healthcare
management system
The Department of Defense Healthcare Management System
Modernization (DHMSM) program is designed to support a
continuum of medical care for military personnel and enable
healthcare personnel to easily access service members' medical
records worldwide. In fiscal year 2017, the Department
successfully fielded DHMSM to a small, outpatient-only hospital
at Fairchild Air Force Base. The committee notes that the
Program Executive Office DHMS has worked closely with both the
Department's medical community and the DHMSM contractor to re-
engineer the Department's medical business processes to adapt
to the contractor's existing, off-the-shelf medical business
software solution. The committee also notes that the
Department's swift deployment of capability to Fairchild
demonstrates the Department's progress in implementing best
practices for IT acquisition. The committee strongly approves
of these actions as they reduce risk and save time and money
for the Department.
The committee is encouraged by the recent decision that the
Department of Veterans Affairs will use Department of Defense's
Military Health System (MHS) Genesis as its future electronic
health record system, as this represents an opportunity for
significant efficiencies and to ease transition and
interoperability between service members' and veterans' records
who are entering the VA's medical system.
The committee notes that the program has funded extensive
cybersecurity testing and this is appropriate for a system that
will eventually store medical and financial information for
over 9 million DOD beneficiaries worldwide. However, the
committee is concerned that many of the cybersecurity problems
discovered to date have not yet been fixed. The committee is
concerned it would put the medical records of DOD personnel --
and, given the VA's recent decision to use MHS Genesis,
potentially veterans as well--at unnecessary risk, and
accordingly the committee strongly encourages the Department to
address cybersecurity vulnerabilities prior to additional
deployments.
Cybersecurity Regulation--Small Business Compliance Assistance
The committee supports efforts by the Department of Defense
to develop a new cyber security and incident reporting process
for defense contractors with access to controlled unclassified
information stored on or processed by contractor information
systems, as required by Section 914 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
The committee is aware, however, that the Department's
implementation of this requirement through the new contracting
clause on Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber
Incident Reporting in DFARS 252.204-7012 has been a cause of
concern and confusion from many in industry, including small
businesses and businesses for which defense revenue is a small
portion of their overall operations. The committee is aware of
the Department's efforts to assist industry with implementation
of this new guidance, but remains concerned by the degree to
which small businesses and other non-traditional defense
contractors are struggling to meet this requirement. Therefore,
the Committee urges the Department to collaborate with
universities or other organizations to provide low-cost
cybersecurity services to small businesses, as recommended by
the U.S. Small Businesses Administration Office of Advocacy in
a public comment published on February 29, 2016, and increase
outreach efforts to small businesses regarding their
obligations under the regulation.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
review industry compliance with the DFARS clause, including
particular compliance challenges among small businesses
producing commercial items with defense revenue as only a small
share of overall revenue. The review should also assess the
efficacy of the Department's efforts to assist industry with
implementation and should include input from affected
contractors, including both prime and subcontractors. Finally,
the review should consider and make a recommendation regarding
any delay or exception to the December 31, 2017 compliance
deadline and the associated impact on both the Department's
access to the industrial base and cyber and information
security standards. The Secretary shall brief the armed
services committees of the House and Senate on the results of
the review no later than October 15, 2017.
Defense Acquisition University research collaboration with academia
The committee notes that the Defense Acquisition University
performs some research on acquisition policy issues in order to
improve training of acquisition professionals and to support
development of innovative acquisition models and practices. The
committee believes that these activities should be expanded and
better connected with research efforts and expertise in
academia. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Defense Acquisition University to develop, maintain, and
promulgate a list of high priority academic research and
analysis topics on defense acquisition policy issues. The
intent of this list is to make academic and government-
affiliated researchers aware of the topics that are of
particular concern to the defense acquisition community and to
guide their research to areas that will have a higher
likelihood of impact. The committee notes that the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) provided specific authority for the Department of Defense
to use funds within the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Development Fund to support some of these types of research
activities and that section 217 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92)
authorized a program of science and technology activities that
were in part intended to leverage research capabilities to
improve acquisition policies and practices.
Defense Innovation Unit Experimental
The committee applauds the Defense Innovation Unit
Experimental (DIUx) for accelerating the adoption of private
sector innovations by the Department. The services DIUx offers
are important to accessing technological advances from
nontraditional defense contractors, for whom the speed of
defense contracting presents too great a hurdle to do business.
The committee encourages DIUx to continue to support
Department of Defense missions by providing flexible and
streamlined acquisition of new technologies. The committee
directs the Department to consider expanding the mission of the
Unit to include new physical locations at which DIUx may post
reservists as in the model piloted in Austin, Texas, with a
specific emphasis on evaluating locations that would allow a
close collaboration with Department of Defense laboratories.
Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review,
no later than January 1, 2018, the costs and benefits of
exempting purchases by the Department of Defense and the
National Nuclear Security Administration from the following
executive orders and presidential memorandum as necessary: (1)
Executive Order 13706 (Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal
Contractors); (2) Executive Order 13655 (Non-Retaliation of
Disclosure of Compensation Information) (3) Executive Order
13655 (Non-Retaliation for Disclosure of Compensation
Information); (4) Presidential Memorandum: Advancing Pay
Equality Through Compensation Data Collection; (5) Presidential
Memorandum: Updating and Modernizing Overtime Regulations; (6)
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
on Contractor Tax Delinquency; (7) Executive Order 13495
(Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts);
(8) Executive Order 13494 (Economy in Government Contracting);
(9) Executive Order 13496 (Notification of Employee Rights
Under Federal Labor Laws); and (10) Executive Order 13502 (Use
of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects).
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to recommend
exemptions or changes as necessary to best support efficient
and effective execution of Department of Defense missions.
Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals
Consistent with existing acquisition regulations and
committee initiatives, the committee believes that exchanges of
information among all interested parties, from the earliest
identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals,
should be highly encouraged. Any exchange of information must
be consistent with procurement integrity requirements so as to
avoid creating unfair advantages for potential proposers. The
committee believes that the purpose of exchanging information
is to improve the understanding of DOD requirements and
industry capabilities, thereby allowing potential offerors to
judge whether or how they can satisfy the DOD's requirements,
and increasing DOD's knowledge of what solutions industry could
offer to satisfy the requirement, enhancing the ability to
obtain quality supplies and services, at reasonable prices, and
increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal
evaluation, negotiation, and contract award.
Impact of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract
vehicles on small businesses and innovation
The committee is concerned about the effect of the
Department's use of the One Acquisition Solution for Integrated
Services (OASIS) multiple award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite
Quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicles on the small business
community and on innovation. The structure and the use of the
OASIS vehicles may be creating disincentives for small
businesses, reducing competition and negatively affecting
innovation.
The committee is concerned OASIS does not have a consistent
or transparent process for on boarding or off boarding
companies, nor does it have a consistent review of companies
currently on the vehicle. OASIS does not contain a pathway for
subcontractors to gain the experience necessary to compete to
on board as a prime contractor, and incumbent companies not
already on the vehicle are unable to compete for contracts they
currently hold. Finally, the committee is concerned OASIS
requirements may be too burdensome for some small businesses to
meet reasonably. Understanding IDIQ contract vehicles may offer
efficiencies to the Department; the committee believes these
efficiencies must be balanced with support for the small
business community and the innovation that community can offer.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to analyze
and submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the effect of Department's use of the OASIS IDIQ contract
vehicles on the small business community and on innovation.
Increase in licensing fees and the negative competitive impact on the
services sector
The committee is concerned with the recent surge in
licensing fees being charged to acquire necessary parts and
components used in the maintenance of the military's aging
aviation and ground fleet. This increase in licensing fees is
unnecessarily increasing costs to the government and having a
negative impact on competition within the services sector. The
committee strongly recommends that the government negotiate
data rights and intellectual property costs directly with the
original equipment manufacturers to encourage competition to
achieve the best value for the government.
Integrity of patented intellectual property in reverse engineering
programs
The committee supports the Defense Logistics Agency's
(DLA's) reverse engineering program but is concerned that small
business intellectual property is not being adequately
protected, especially in those cases where end items are
developed without federal funding and are patented. The
Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to conduct a review of DLA's application of reverse
engineering. The review will determine: if DLA has adequate
measures in place to protect small business intellectual
property; if DLA is providing patented materials to third-party
contractors; if Department of Defense Instruction 4140.57
requires modification to provide guidance to protect small
business intellectual property.
Notice of cost-free federal procurement technical assistance in
connection with registration of small business concerns in
procurement systems
The Director of the Defense Logistics Agency, in
consultation with the Administrator of General Services and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall
establish procedures to ensure that any notice or direct
communication regarding registration of a small business
concern in a procurement system contains information about
cost-free federal procurement technical assistance services
that are available through the Small Business Administration,
Procurement Technical Assistance Centers of the Defense
Logistics Agency, the Department of Commerce (including the
Minority Business Development Agency), and other Federal
agencies and programs.
Ongoing improvement to the management of the National Technology and
Industrial Base
The committee strongly supports international cooperative
defense agreements that serve to reduce barriers and enhance
collaboration between the United States and our strongest
allies. The committee is concerned, however, that even
following the conclusion of these agreements certain barriers
remain that restrict cooperation on an industrial level,
limiting the exchange of information, data, and technology
between domestic industry and our closest allied industrial
partners participating in the national technological and
industrial base. The committee believes that enabling such
collaboration would contribute significantly to the successful
development, production, and fielding of the highest-quality
systems at the most reasonable costs. Specifically, the
committee is concerned that certain barriers to cooperation may
be discouraging domestic industry from fully leveraging mature
systems and technology solutions already developed by our
allies that could benefit the U.S. and allied operating
community, resulting in unnecessary, costly, and redundant
development initiatives. These barriers also impact the ability
of those countries that are part of the U.S. national
technology and industrial base to modify U.S.-origin equipment,
preventing proper integration and uniformity across their armed
forces and discouraging them from purchasing equipment from the
United States.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is
currently undertaking a review, in consultation with
interagency partners, of various authorities, requirements, and
their implications, related to National Technology and
Industrial Base countries. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to brief the relevant congressional defense
committees no later than 30 days after completion of the review
or no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that this review addresses:
(1) The manner in which National Technology and
Industrial Base countries may transfer controlled
material within the National Technology and Industrial
Base, including once materials have been exported from
the United States to one of these countries;
(2) The mechanisms by which National Technology and
Industrial Base countries can raise and address
concerns in a multilateral forum; and
(3) The extent to which the authorities and
obligations of National Technology and Industrial Base
countries conflict with existing bilateral treaties.
Procurement Technical Assistance Center transitional cost share
The committee recognizes the valuable role of Procurement
Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs) in assisting small
businesses to compete in the defense marketplace. The
Procurement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP) was authorized
in 1985 and is administered by the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA). DLA provides funding through PTAP on a cost share basis.
The federal cost share is limited to no more than 50 percent,
unless a PTAC provides services in a distressed area, as
defined by regional unemployment rates, in which case the
government cost share is limited to no more than 75 percent.
The Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization provided
DLA discretion to fund up to 65 percent of program costs for
PTACs serving non-distressed service areas but DLA has not yet
used the discretion to do so.
The committee is concerned that for PTACs serving regions
transitioning from distressed to non-distressed status, a
reduction in government cost share from 75 percent to 50
percent would have a significant negative impact on PTAC
activities and undermine small business activity in regions
that are only beginning to experience reduction in
unemployment. This creates uncertainty for those PTACs which
may be required to reduce small business assistance which could
serve to increase unemployment in the impacted region. The
committee urges DLA to use existing authority to provide up to
a 65 percent cost share to PTACs serving non-distressed service
areas that within the prior three years served distressed
service areas, prioritizing applications that have the highest
likelihood of delivering best value to the Department of
Defense.
Program Management Report
The committee is interested in how the Department of
Defense can incorporate nationally accredited standards for
project, program, and portfolio management--as required by
Public Law 104-113 and Public Law 114-264--into its existing
project, program, and portfolio management policy, guidance,
and instruction, as well as how it may replace or revise
existing policy, guidance, and instruction related to project,
program, and portfolio management.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to deliver, not later than 90 days after enactment, a
report to Congress on the adoption of project, program, and
portfolio management standards within the Department of
Defense.
Report on Monopolistic Practices
The Defense Logistics Agency is responsible for achieving
fair and reasonable prices for noncompetitive spare parts
required for Department of Defense equipment. The committee is
concerned about allegations that, in some cases, the Defense
Logistics Agency is paying excessive prices for noncompetitive
spare parts without conducting thorough cost analyses. The
committee is also aware of allegations that some contractors
who provide spare parts to the government may be disguising
their cost structures from procurement officers, in effect
acting as hidden monopolists, decreasing competition and
increasing prices to the government.
The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a study of Department of Defense
and Defense Logistics Agency processes for purchasing
noncompetitive spare parts and make recommendations for how to
improve transparency and reporting in this area. The committee
further directs the Comptroller General to provide a final
report to the congressional defense committees by February 1,
2018, on the results of the study.
Strategic Capabilities Office Support
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
acquisition process has proven ineffective for on-time
procurement due to institutional reliance on military
development that does not capitalize on the private sector,
which is the driving force of innovation today and for the
future.
Furthermore, the committee recognizes that the Strategic
Capabilities Office (SCO) is demonstrating promising concepts
and systems with innovative programs that average completion in
three years using a comparatively small budget.
In order to enhance Department of Defense acquisition, the
committee encourages the transition of technology developed by
SCO for rapid fielding of new capabilities, the adoption of SCO
culture of both competition and failing without fear of
punishment, as well as the application of SCO lesson's learned
to improve the Department of Defense acquisitions process.
Supporting the Development and Commercialization of National Security
Technologies
The committee supports the efforts of the Department of
Defense's MD5 National Security Technology Accelerator Program
to build new partnerships to connect innovators and
entrepreneurs with the education, networks, and resources to
capitalize on Defense-inspired technologies to advance U.S.
security and economic priorities. The Committee recognizes the
national security imperative for developing a network of
innovators and entrepreneurs both inside and outside of the
Department of Defense equipped with the incentives, expertise,
know-how, and resources required to successfully develop,
commercialize, or apply technology relevant to the military.
The Committee recommends continued support of the MD5 National
Security Technology Accelerator's activities, further building
and scaling the necessary components to support civil military
partnerships in technology research and development.
Use of Commercial Services
The committee notes that for some services, like
transportation and communications, security and reliability
requirements of the Department of Defense are often more strict
than those of the commercial market. In May 2017, TRANSCOM
Commander General Darren McDew testified during a Senate Armed
Services Committee hearing on the distinct vulnerability
USTRANSCOM faces because the majority of the command's
transportation data resides and travels through the unsecure
commercial internet. In his testimony Commander McDew stated,
``I do not have the authority to compel a commercial industry
to bring their standards up to the level that we have inside.
Nor are we assured exactly what that standard is. We do know
that inside the Department of Defense, U.S. CYBERCOM and others
have established a standard that we believe that our networks
are protected. Outside, I guarantee you that every CEO thinks
that they have the level that they think they need. Reconciling
what they think and what reality is, is important.'' The
Committee urges the Department of Defense to carefully balance
requirements, risk, and cost when procuring commercial
services, especially in circumstances where the Department
requires higher standards than are generally available in the
commercial marketplace. While commercial service providers can
offer innovation, efficiencies, and cost savings, these
benefits should not be to the detriment of security or other
military unique standards.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related Matters
Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense (sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision clarifying and
expanding the responsibilities of the Chief Management Officer
of the Department of Defense. The committee notes the upcoming
establishment of the Chief Management Officer position as
required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328). Last year's legislation
established the role with the mission of managing the business
operations of the Department, through the establishment of
policies on, and supervision of, such operations. The Chief
Management Officer was also charged with serving as the
principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on specified
activities and programs, and given explicit authority to direct
the secretaries of the military departments and the heads of
all other elements of the Department with regard to business
operations.
The committee remains committed to an empowered and active
Chief Management Officer, exercising these authorities across
the Department to transform business operations of all
components. The committee recommends this provision to create
three areas of expanded authority for the Chief Management
Officer, including: (1) Oversight, direction and control of the
business-focused defense agencies and field activities; (2) The
assumption of some Chief Information Officer roles for the
purpose of federal statute and in business systems; and (3)
Coordination of enterprise governance and utilization of data
for management purposes.
The committee notes that defense agencies and field
activities require increased oversight in order to ensure
effective and efficient performance. The current structure of
assignment to staff principals within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense has led to insufficient oversight for the
agencies' performance and for their ability to support the
Department in core functions. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision that would assign to the Chief
Management Officer (upon establishment of the position) the
responsibility for oversight, direction and control of the
business-support Defense Agencies and Field Activities
identified by the Secretary of Defense by January 15, 2018. Of
course, principal staff assistants aligned to these
organizations would continue to be closely connected to their
operations. The Secretary of Defense shall make arrangements
for the transfer of these entities to be effected with minimal
disruption to their functioning and broader support of the
Department. The Secretary shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the specified elements of this
transfer. Within the provision, `Shared business services' is
meant to indicate those activities that constitute the business
operations of the Department of Defense, and not those
activities that are directly tied to specific technical
missions (e.g., intelligence, threat response).
The committee notes that the current Chief Information
Officer is expected to perform roles ranging from traditional
Chief Information Officer functions to warfighting capabilities
like offensive cyber and technical operations. However,
decisions related to business systems could be more effectively
handed by the entity coordinating business management and
reform across the Department. Therefore, the committee
recommends the shifting of several major Chief Information
Officer functions to the Chief Management Officer organization,
and consolidation of the rest in a Chief Information Warfare
Officer.
Further, the committee notes that true transformation of
the Department's business operations will require the
availability and use of large amounts of data from a number of
diverse systems across the Department. The committee directs
the Chief Management Officer to develop an enterprise-level
plan for data governance for the Department, with a particular
emphasis on the gathering and usage of data with clear
management implications. Subject to the authority, direction
and control of the Secretary of Defense, the Chief Management
Officer shall have the authority to direct all Department
elements to share their business operations and/or management-
related data in order to inform the business transformation
mission.
The committee's intent is not for the addition of large
internal bureaucracy to manage these new responsibilities, and
expects the Chief Management Officer to instead gather those
personnel currently fulfilling these roles within the Office of
the Secretary of Defense and the Chief Information Officer
organization. However, the committee acknowledges the
overriding importance of fundamental business transformation
across the Department, and expects the Department to use the
direct hiring authority for management experts referenced
elsewhere in this bill to encourage a robust capability aimed
at improving business management across the enterprise.
Realignment of responsibilities, duties, and powers of Chief
Information Officer of the Department of Defense (sec. 902)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 142 of title 10, United States Code, concerning the
Chief Information Officer (CIO), by elevating the role and
realigning its authorities and responsibilities to two other
officials. This provision would establish a Chief Information
Warfare Officer (CIWO) who would assume responsibility for
defense-wide information warfighting functions. The roles and
responsibilities of the current CIO concerning business systems
and statutory requirements not specified within the CIWO's
purview would fall to the Chief Management Officer (CMO) of the
Department of Defense.
The CIWO would be a presidentially appointed, Senate-
confirmed position that reports directly to the Secretary of
Defense and is responsible for all matters relating to the
information environment of the Department of Defense. The CIWO
would have the authority to establish policy for and direct the
secretaries of the military departments and the heads of all
other elements of the Department on matters concerning: (1)
Space and space launch systems; (2) Communications networks and
information technology (other than business systems); (3)
National Security Systems; (4) Information assurance and
cybersecurity; (5) Electronic warfare and cyber warfare; (6)
Nuclear command and control and senior leadership
communications systems; (7) Command and control systems and
networks; (8) The electromagnetic spectrum; (9) Positioning,
navigation, and timing; and (10) Any other matters assigned to
the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, not
relating to business systems or management, in section 2223 and
2224 of title 10, United States Code, sections 11315 of title
40, United States Code, and sections 3506 and 3544 of title 44,
United States Code.
The provision would also establish the CIWO with the
authority, direction, and control over the missions, programs,
and organizational elements pertaining to the Information
Assurance mission (formally the Information Directorate) of the
National Security Agency. The provision would assign the CIWO
with the authority, direction, and control over the Defense
Information Systems Agency and with responsibilities for
policy, oversight, guidance, and coordination for all
Department matters relating to electromagnetic spectrum.
The provision would specify that the authority of the CIWO
to direct the secretaries includes: (1) Playing a significant
and directive role in the decision processes for all annual and
multi-year planning, programming, budgeting, and execution
decisions, including the authority to realign relevant elements
of the budget requests of the military departments; (2)
Reviewing and approving any funding request or reprogramming
request; (3) Ensuring that the military departments comply with
Government and Department standards; (4) Reviewing and
approving the appointment of any other employee who functions
in the capacity of a Chief Information Officer or a Chief
Information Warfare Officer for any component within the
Department (except for the Chief Management Officer of the
Department of Defense); and (5) Participating in all relevant
meetings, management, and decision-making forums. The provision
would also assign to the CIWO the authority to require the
military departments to comply with U.S. Government and
Department standards.
The provision would establish the CIWO as the Principal
Cyber Advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Principal
Department of Defense Space Advisor. The provision would also
establish collaborative mechanisms with other relevant
Department entities for developing and overseeing the execution
of offensive and defensive information warfare strategies,
plans, programs, and operations.
The committee has concerns that the existing organizational
construct and resourcing authorities within the Department of
Defense for space, cyber, and information are not commensurate
with the organizational structure and resourcing required to
meet the demands of 21st century warfare. Information is
central to modern warfare, yet it is treated as an afterthought
in a Department postured to man, train, and equip forces to
operate in the land, air, and sea domains. As a result, the
space and cyberspace domains and the overall information
environment have failed to receive the dedicated focus and
prioritization required to meet the demands of a rapidly
changing battlefield centered on the transmittal, surety,
exploitation, and dominance of information.
Moreover, the committee believes that the existing
authorities of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) are
insufficient to address the multitude of management challenges
across the Department of Defense information environment.
Countless efforts across the Department of Defense are plagued
by poorly enforced standards and a CIO position whose policy
and guidance are largely considered as advisory by the
Services. As a result, each Service continues to pursue
disparate information technology and business systems efforts.
In some instances, such as the Joint Information Environment,
two of the Services have largely agreed to adopt standards for
implementation, yet the Navy has only agreed to support the
``spirit and intent'' of this foundational effort for
implementing a defendable Department-wide infrastructure.
The information environment challenges do not end with the
acquisition of information technology. Space and cyber are
equally under-prioritized and require an organizational
construct that recognizes information dominance as a critical
element of warfighting.
With respect to space, numerous studies over the past 2
decades have exposed issues with the programmatic decision-
making that is fragmented across more than 60 offices in the
Department of Defense. Funding for space programs within the
Air Force is also near 30-year lows, while the threats and our
reliance on space are at their highest and growing. The Air
Force was also unable to prioritize and fund $772.0 million
worth of space priorities in its fiscal year 2018 budget
request, opting instead to include those requirements on an
unfunded priorities list.
Similarly in cyber, the Cyber Mission Force is scheduled to
achieve Full Operational Capability for manning and training.
However, the funding necessary to equip that force has not been
fully budgeted for by the Services. As a result, the Department
of Defense is on the path to fielding a hollow cyber force:
6,200 trained personnel who lack the tools required to protect,
deter, and respond to malicious cyber behavior. The Services
failed to prioritize a combined $700.0 million in their fiscal
year 2018 budget requests, instead opting to shift those
burdens to the unfunded requirements list. Some of the Services
have also demonstrated an inability to manage their people
within the Cyber Mission Force, which is especially alarming to
the committee given the level of importance being placed on
building the force.
Until there is an official in the Department of Defense who
can prioritize these missions, the committee is concerned that
the priorities for space, cyber, and information will never
receive the resourcing and senior level attention necessary to
compete against the parochial interests of each individual
Service. The Services should be postured to achieve dominance
in their respective unique domains; however, tradeoffs should
be considered against Department-wide resourcing, not as a
subset forced to compete against the parochial tendencies of
each of the Services.
The committee believes the establishment of the CIWO should
require very few, if any, additional personnel. The committee
believes personnel should be resourced from offices and
personnel currently within the office of the CIO or among other
offices, such as that of the Principal Department of Defense
Space Advisor and Principal Cyber Advisor, currently scattered
across the Department in various existing stovepipes.
Clarification of the authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment with respect to service acquisition
programs for which the service acquisition executive is the
milestone decision authority (sec. 903)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 901 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the
authority of the future Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment (USD (A&S)) under section 133b(b)
of title 10, United States Code, with respect to service
acquisition programs for which the service acquisition
executive is the milestone decision authority.
Executive schedule matters relating to Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment (sec. 904)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
(A&S) as an Executive Level III position. When the committee
reorganized the office of Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering
(R&E) was established as an Executive Level II position, which
is one step below a cabinet official, in order to prioritize
innovation efforts which had become moribund in recent years.
The other Under Secretaries in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense are Executive Level III, which is appropriately one
step below the Deputy Secretary of Defense. This aligns the
Under Secretary of Defense for A&S with the level of the other
Under Secretaries.
Technical amendment (sec. 905)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 901(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) in order to repeal the
section regarding service of the incumbent Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology relative to the position
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.
Redesignation of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
as Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Health (sec.
906)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 136 of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Health and make
necessary conforming amendments.
Qualifications for appointment and additional duties and powers of
certain officials within the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) (sec. 907)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 135 of title 10, United States Code, to require
individuals appointed to the positions of Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) and Deputy Chief Financial Officer to
have significant financial management service, which includes
having previously served as the chief financial officer, deputy
chief financial officer, or an equivalent executive-level
position with direct authority for financial management in a
large public- or private-sector organization that received an
audit with an unqualified opinion on its financial statements.
Five-year period of relief from Active Duty as a commissioned officer
of a regular component of the Armed Forces for appointment to
Under Secretary of Defense positions (sec. 908)
The committee includes a provision that would establish the
requirement for a 5-year separation from Active Duty as a
commissioned officer before serving in a position of
Undersecretary of Defense. The current requirement currently
exists for three of the Under Secretaries (Research and
Engineering; Acquisition and Sustainment; and Policy).
Redesignation of Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense as
Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and related matters (sec.
909)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 137a of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate
all Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense as Deputy
Under Secretaries of Defense and would increase the authorized
number of Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense from five to six.
This amendment reflects the elimination of subordinate Deputy
Under Secretaries and reflects that these positions are the
immediate and senior subordinate to the Under Secretaries of
Defense.
Additionally, this provision would designate the newly
authorized Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment as two of the authorized positions,
consistent with the Office of the Secretary of Defense
reorganization provisions in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
Reduction of number and elimination of specific designations of
Assistant Secretaries of Defense (sec. 910)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 138(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to reduce
the total number of authorized Assistant Secretaries of Defense
from 14 to 13, and eliminate specific designation for all but
two.
Limitation of maximum number of Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense
(sec. 911)
The committee recommends a provision that would set the
maximum number of authorized Deputy Assistant Secretaries of
Defense to 46.
Modification of definition of OSD personnel for purposes of limitation
on number of Office of Secretary of Defense personnel (sec.
912)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 143(b) of title 10, United States Code, to include
contractor personnel working in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) in the total number of OSD personnel, for
purposes of adhering to the reduction in headquarters mandated
by section 903(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
Subtitle B--Organization of Other Department of Defense Offices and
Elements
Reduction in authorized number of Assistant Secretaries of the military
departments (sec. 921)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3016(a), section 5016(a), and section 8016(a) of title
10, United States Code, to reduce the number of authorized
Assistant Secretaries of each of the services by one.
Qualifications for appointment of Assistant Secretaries of the military
departments for financial management (sec. 922)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 3016, 5016, and 8016 of title 10, United States Code,
to require individuals appointed to the positions of Assistant
Secretary of the military departments for financial management
to have significant financial management service, which
includes having previously served as the chief financial
officer, deputy chief financial officer, or an equivalent
executive-level position with direct authority for financial
management in a large public- or private-sector organization
that received an audit with an unqualified opinion on its
financial statements.
Subtitle C--Organization and Management of the Department of Defense
Generally
Reduction in limitation of number of Department of Defense SES
positions (sec. 931)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1109(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to reduce the number
of Department of Defense Senior Executive Service positions
from 1,260 to 1,140.
Manner of carrying out reductions in major Department of Defense
headquarters activities (sec. 932)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to require that the
reductions to headquarters activities made pursuant to that
section be carried out after a consideration of current
manpower levels, historic manpower levels, mission
requirements, and anticipated staffing needs of such
headquarters activities necessary to meet national defense
objectives. The committee is concerned that the Department of
Defense will execute the reductions required by section 346 in
a uniform, or so-called ``salami-slice'' manner, divorced from
analysis and critical assessment of national defense
objectives, and the differing relative responsibilities between
headquarters, particularly the combatant commands. For example,
the committee is aware that manpower levels at Pacific Command
have actually decreased since 1975, even as the threats in that
region have grown, resulting in the President in 2011
identifying the need to intensify the U.S. presence there,
stating his goal that ``the United States will play a larger
and long-term role in shaping this region and its future.'' The
committee, consequently, believes it imperative that the
Department assess manpower requirements critically, and use the
headquarters reduction requirement of section 346 to
redistribute resources, rather than to mindlessly meet a
statutory requirement.
Certifications on cost savings achieved by reductions in major
Department of Defense headquarters activities (sec. 933)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to require that the
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation certify
mandated cost savings estimated for headquarters reductions.
Direct hire authority for the Department of Defense for personnel to
assist in business transformation and management innovation
(sec. 934)
The committee recommends a provision that would grant the
Secretary of Defense the authority to appoint a small group of
individuals to assist the Department in management innovation.
The provision specifies that the appointments covered in this
section must be completed on a term basis, specified at the
time of the appointment, and that each must have experience in
management and organizational change.
The committee strongly encourages that this authority be
used to create a small organization focused on business
transformation across the Department of Defense, outside of the
line management of defense agencies. The committee intends that
these personnel be used to recommend opportunities to eliminate
waste and inefficiency, reduce the cost of Department of
Defense operations, and consolidate functions where
appropriate.
The committee expects this provision to be used in
conjunction with section 913 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) and
section 1111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Data analytics capability for support of enhanced oversight and
management of the Defense Agencies and Department of Defense
Field Activities (sec. 935)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Deputy Chief Management Officer (and successor positions) to
establish and maintain a data analytics capability for
oversight and management of the defense agencies and field
activities. This capability would include an accurate
tabulation of the expenditures by each of these entities on
personnel, an accurate tabulation of personnel within each
entity, and a clear mapping of the functions being performed by
these agencies and the resources allocated against each. This
capability would be informed by data gathered from the defense
agencies and field activities, as well as elsewhere within the
Department of Defense. An interim report on the standup of this
capability would be required to be submitted to the
congressional defense committees, as well as a final report due
no later than December 31, 2020.
Enhanced use of data analytics to improve acquisition program outcomes
(sec. 936)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Chief
Management Officer (and successor positions), in coordination
with the Armed Forces and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (and successor
positions), to establish a set of activities that use data
analysis, measurement, and other evaluation-related methods to
improve the acquisition outcomes of the Department of Defense
and enhance organizational learning.
Pilot programs on data integration strategies for the Department of
Defense (sec. 937)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chief
Management Officer, to develop data integration strategies to
address high priority management challenges of the Department.
The committee notes that many of the challenges currently faced
by the Department are driven by the lack of shared information
and data governance for relevant actors. Challenges to address
would include data related to the budget, to logistics
management, and to personnel security and insider threat. The
Secretary would be responsible for submitting a report on the
outcomes of these pilot programs within 180 days of the
enactment of this act.
Broadly, the committee encourages the Department to
consider developing data strategies that cover all relevant
components, to ensure that sharing of information occurs and
that both collection and analysis of data are valued and
contribute toward management of the component.
Background and security investigations for Department of Defense
personnel (sec. 938)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to take actions to allow the Defense
Security Service to conduct before October 1, 2020 all
personnel background and security investigations adjudicated by
the Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Department of
Defense (DOD). This provision is based on the committee's
judgement that the current situation of massive clearance
delays has serious adverse effects on national security and
must be addressed in order to avoid any further damage to DOD's
readiness.
The background investigation process is broken. It is
composed of decades-old security practices, is grossly
inefficient, and has costs that have been rising steadily and
substantially for years. In addition, persistent mismanagement
and ill-considered changes to standards have resulted in a very
large and rapidly growing backlog. In sum, the current
situation has led to accumulation of huge indirect costs to
customers like DOD; operational risks, as personnel are idled
while waiting for clearances; and a degradation in workforce
quality, as high-performing personnel with the best
alternatives are unlikely to wait for many months to begin work
for the U.S. Government. The committee lacks confidence that
the current owner of the background investigation mission has
the will, culture, or capability to effect vital reforms in
current processes and practices.
Current practices are mired in outdated methods and non-
digital, non-automated technology. Expensive human
investigative resources are consumed with fact checking and
data collection functions (ripe candidates for automation) as
opposed to investigating substantive issues about the actions
and circumstances of prospective and current employees.
A better model has been clear to policymakers for at least
a decade: a ``continuous evaluation'' concept based on
automated access to a wide array of digital sources and
records. Constant access and reporting from these data sources
has been demonstrated to turn up greater volumes of more
serious issues than current practices; expensive human
resources would then be devoted to investigating concerns
arising from the continuous evaluation process. Derogatory
information that crossed adjustable thresholds of seriousness
would be automatically ``pushed,'' as alerts, to analysts for
action. For current employees, information from modern insider
threat programs would become an important component of the
continuous evaluation process, providing information from
counterintelligence, cybersecurity, human resources, physical
security, and law enforcement databases and investigations.
These continuous vetting techniques would eliminate the need
for infrequent but expensive ``periodic re-investigations''
(PRs) that are mandated today--though under the current system,
PRs are so infrequent that threats are missed for long periods.
The executive branch made policy decisions starting a
decade ago to shift to this continuous evaluation approach but
has achieved little actual progress. One factor contributing to
this inertia has been the position of the Security Executive
Agent, a function assigned to the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI). The Office of the DNI has supported the
continuous evaluation (CE) model but only as an add-on or
augmentation to existing practices: not as a substitute. While
CE promises to be more effective and efficient than current
practices, costs would soar if CE is conducted in addition to
what is done today instead of serving as a true replacement.
DOD is already paying over $1.0 billion annually for
background investigations; the backlog exceeds 650,000 cases
and is growing at a rate of 10,000-20,000 per month. The
Government is not going to truly address this backlog unless it
substitutes technology and smart risk-based decision-making for
labor-intensive activities of questionable relative value. The
committee is prepared to consider legislative change to
investigative requirements applicable to the Department of
Defense if the executive branch does not address this policy
problem swiftly on its own.
The committee believes that DOD must take back
responsibility for background investigations of its employees
and contractors and change how these investigations are
conducted. The committee believes that this is the best way to
ensure effective oversight by the congressional defense
committees of this troubled program. At the same time, the
committee believes it would be a grave mistake to import back
into DOD the existing OPM organization, culture, and practices.
A fresh start is needed that is built incrementally on existing
CE initiatives and encompasses a phased transition of
responsibility from OPM to DOD.
The committee also fully realizes that there is no quick
fix for the immense problems DOD faces and that the backlog and
the cost of doing business could get worse before they can get
better. The committee continues to have serious concerns about
the ability of DOD to manage the development of a robust CE
information technology (IT) capability. The committee also
continues to be at least equally concerned about DOD's ability
to orchestrate the creation of an integrated, automated,
enterprise-wide insider threat detection and analysis
capability. The committee's apprehension is that the
Department's leadership has not realized the level of resource
commitment and time that will be involved in creating digital
access and analysis capabilities to the data collected and held
by all the different functional organizations--
counterintelligence, personnel security, human resources,
physical security, cybersecurity, law enforcement,
intelligence, etc.--across the Services, combatant commands,
Joint Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and all
the defense agencies and field activities. This is an
organizational management challenge as well as a technical
challenge of the first order. The committee expects the
Department to take advantage of existing direct hiring
authorities in order to build up the necessary investigative
workforce to execute this mission. The committee also
recognizes that the Department may need to consider
establishing an appropriate funding mechanism to support this
mission. The reference to DOD usage of existing commercial data
within this provision is not meant to extend the Department's
authorities with regard to the handling and usage of personal
data.
The committee is committed to monitoring the Department's
progress in taking over this new mission and seeks to ensure
that DOD has a robust implementation plan with clear targets
for the standup of these interrelated capabilities. DOD should
also look, where possible, to take advantage of the work done
across government to modernize the background investigation
process.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Transfer of lead of Guam Oversight Council from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense to the Secretary of the Navy (sec. 951)
The committee includes a provision that would redesignate
the Secretary of the Navy as the lead for the Guam Oversight
Council. This would transfer the responsibility for the
activities involving the relocation of forces, primarily
Marines from Okinawa to Guam, from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense to the Secretary of the Navy.
Corrosion control and prevention executive matters (sec. 952)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 903(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to
clarify the qualifications and position of a corrosion control
and prevention executive (CCPE) of a military department.
The committee remains very concerned that the resources and
priorities given to corrosion control and prevention by the
military departments are lessened when the duties of the
corrosion executive are additive to that official's other
duties as assigned and performed. From an organizational
perspective, the Departments of the Navy and Air Force have
been most effective in corrosion control and prevention when
they have had individuals in place whose primary responsibility
was to perform the functions of the CCPE. The committee views
the Department of the Army's model of appointing a Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology as the CCPE and having action-officer level
individuals assist in those duties as ineffective. The
committee believes, however, that the CCPEs are most effective
when they are provided resources that enable them to perform
studies, analyses, inspections, and other duties as prescribed
in section 903 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
Items of Special Interest
Comptroller General of the United States report on Department of
Defense oversight of the defense agencies and Department of
Defense field activities
The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is
authorized to provide for the performance of a supply or
service activity that is common to more than one military
department by a single agency of the Department of Defense.
Further, the Secretary of Defense is required to provide
oversight of these agencies, known Defense Agencies and Field
Activities (DAFA), by reviewing the services and supplies
provided by the DAFA to ensure that there is a continuing need
for each such agency and activity. The Secretary is also
required to determine that the provision of those services and
supplies by each DAFA, rather than by the military departments,
is a more effective, economical, or efficient manner of
providing those services and supplies, among other things
(section 192 of title 10, United States Code). Several of these
agencies and activities have been established to support
business operations, including the Defense Media Activity,
Defense Human Resources Activity, and Defense Legal Services
Agency.
The committee is interested in understanding the scope and
impact of DOD's previous reviews of this fourth estate
community. The committee is also interested in how the results
of previous reviews were measured.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate: (1) The extent to which DOD
has examined the continuing need for its DAFAs as required
under section 192 of title 10, United States Code; (2)
Potential duplication or overlap of services and supplies
provided between the military departments and selected DAFAs;
and (3) Potential improvements to more effectively assess the
results of any reform initiatives within these DAFAs.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to brief the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate not later than April 15, 2018, on preliminary
findings of the evaluation with a final report to be due by
June 30, 2018.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Arctic
The committee notes that the strategic importance of the
Arctic continues to increase as the United States and other
countries recognize the military significance of the Arctic's
sea lanes, choke points, and its potential for power projection
into multiple regions. The committee also recognizes that the
Department of Defense's mission requirements in the Arctic are
expected to grow, as increases in human and maritime activity
bring heightened risk of maritime accidents, oil spills,
illegal fishing and harvesting of other natural resources in
the exclusive economic zone of the United States, and other
potential threats or challenges to United States sovereignty.
The committee notes that Russia has aggressively focused on
the development of Arctic capabilities and has made significant
investments in military infrastructure in the Arctic. The
committee remains concerned that the current Department of
Defense jurisdiction over the Arctic region presents
operational seams between three geographic combatant commands
and two functional combatant commands: U.S. Northern Command,
U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Strategic
Command, and U.S. Transportation Command, with U.S. European
Command holding the primary responsibility for the major
adversary in the region, U.S. Pacific Command retaining
operational control of U.S. forces located in Alaska, and U.S.
Northern Command assigned as the Department's advocate for
Arctic capabilities.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to designate a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
with primary responsibilities for the Arctic region, in order
to coordinate the formation of Arctic defense policy with
relevant Department of Defense entities. The Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for the Arctic Region would have the
responsibilities of: advocating for United States national
security interests in the Arctic region; mitigating operational
seams between relevant geographic and functional combatant
commands in order to improve unity of effort; identifying any
capability and resource gaps in the Arctic region and
formulating plans to mitigate these gaps; identifying the
actions by foreign nations which increase the threat to United
States interests in the Arctic region; formulating plans to
mitigate these actions; and planning military-to-military
cooperation with partner nations that have mutual security
interests in the Arctic region.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of
fiscal year 2018 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.
Calculations for payments into Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund using single level percentage of basic pay
determined on Armed Force-wide rather than Armed Forces-wide
basis (sec. 1002)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1465 of title 10, United States Code, to change the
calculation of the single level percentage applied to basic pay
with respect to the required monthly deposits into the Military
Retirement Fund by the military services to a single rate for
each military service, rather than the single aggregate normal
cost method now used, in order to increase budgetary
transparency with respect to the relative long-term costs
associated with changes in end strength and benefits among the
military services. The change in the method of calculation
would be effective for contributions to the Fund beginning in
fiscal year 2019.
Certifications on audit readiness of the Department of Defense and the
military departments, Defense Agencies, and other organizations
and elements of the Department of Defense (sec. 1003)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense, in addition to the military departments,
defense agencies, and other organizations and elements that are
subject to a financial audit, to certify its financial
statements as ready for audit by the September 30, 2017,
deadline established by the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), and annually each
fiscal year thereafter, until the Department, or the relevant
military department, defense agency, or other organization or
element, obtains a qualified audit opinion on its full
financial statements. The committee is concerned that almost 3
decades after the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public
Law 101-576) and with an estimated $7.4 billion invested in
audit, audit readiness, and ERP efforts since 2012, the
Department remains unable to obtain an opinion on its financial
statements. The committee defines audit ready/readiness as a
defense agency's, organization's, or military department's
having in place the critical audit capabilities and associated
infrastructure to successfully start and support a financial
audit of its financial statements. The committee directs that
the management assertion letters issued by the military
departments, defense agencies, and defense organizations that
receive audit opinions on their financial statements be used to
determine compliance with this provision. The committee fully
supports the Department's focus on audit going forward but
continues to believe in the importance of the Department
certifying that it has met the deadline for audit readiness to
account for the investment of taxpayer dollars in audit
readiness activities since 2008.
Failure to obtain audit opinion on fiscal year full financial
statements of the Department of Defense (sec. 1004)
The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the
annual rate of basic pay for calendar year 2020 and for each
year thereafter for each secretary of a military department who
does not obtain an audit opinion on their service's fiscal year
2018 financial statements. This requirement is consistent with
section 1003(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The committee does not
consider a disclaimer of opinion to comply with Congress'
intent because a disclaimer of opinion is issued when the
audited entity is unable to provide sufficient supporting
evidence to enable the auditor to express an opinion. This
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a team of private sector experts on financial audits
to assess the Department's progress and make recommendations
for improvements to its process for achieving an opinion on its
full financial statements.
Improper payment matters (sec. 1005)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to comply with recommendations made by
the Comptroller General of the United States that it improve
the method and procedures by which it estimates, identifies
susceptible programs, and reduces improper payments.
The committee is concerned, based on reports published by
the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) and the
committee's own research, that improper payments are currently
under-reported (for example, the DOD IG report estimates an 8
percent error rate as opposed to the 2-3 percent commonly
referenced by the Department). Both the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) and the DOD IG have reported that
the Department's methods for sampling and estimating improper
payments is inadequate. The committee is also concerned that
the Department only attempts to recover improper payments in
the small sample population used to estimate the scale of
improper payments--overpayments in the larger population are
essentially written off. For example, only $5.5 million of the
fiscal year 2014 travel overpayments were subject to recovery,
indicating that DFAS did not take any effort to recapture
around 99 percent of the overpayments from this program.
Financial operations dashboard for the Department of Defense (sec.
1006)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to establish a
searchable database that contains key indicators of the
financial performance of the Department of Defense, and is
accessible across the government. The committee recognizes the
value of transparency and the ability of information to drive
effective and accountable government. The committee also
recognizes that while the statutory language guiding the
Department in its financial improvement efforts is primarily
focused on the requirement for annual financial audits,
Congress' intent for requiring the Department to audit its
financial statements is to ensure not only that the Department
complies with its Constitutional and legal obligation to
account for all taxpayer funds received and expended but also
that Department leadership has available reliable financial
information with which to make better program management and
budgeting decisions. An auditable financial statement is simply
the means by which the accuracy of the financial data being
used in day-to-day and strategic decision making processes is
validated. More importantly, the financial controls required to
achieve and sustain a clean audit opinion reduce wasteful
spending resulting from inefficiencies. For example, as
evidence of quantifiable savings resulting from improved
financial controls and reduced payment inefficiencies, the
Marine Corps reported in 2008 that its efforts to achieve audit
readiness yielded real mission value by generating enough
savings to purchase either 1 additional Cobra attack
helicopter, 3 M1A1 tanks, or 70 million rounds of rifle
ammunition. Extrapolated across the entire Department of
Defense, this experience of 1-2 percent savings points to a
potential annual savings of billions of dollars available to
fund critical national defense requirements (assuming budget
top-line stability). Without the control environment that
underpins auditability, it costs more to achieve our desired
levels of military readiness.
To facilitate the adoption of better financial controls and
provide much-needed transparency on the cost of the
Department's financial operations, this dashboard would contain
key indicators of the financial performance of the Department
of Defense, to include outstanding accounts payable, abnormal
accounts payable, outstanding advances, unmatched
disbursements, abnormal undelivered orders, negative
unliquidated obligations, Anti-Deficiency Act violations,
interest penalty payments, improper payment amounts for each
budget account, total costs deriving from payment delays, and
actual savings realized through improvement initiatives. The
database should include these data elements for the military
departments, defense agencies, and all defense organizations
subject to a financial audit, and it should permit a user to
track financial performance over time for each defense
organization individually and the Department of Defense
cumulatively. The data elements should be reported monthly.
This provision would also require the Secretary of Defense
to report annually on a target savings and the actual mission
value realized as a result of improvements to financial
management and related cost-savings initiatives.
Comptroller General of the United States recommendations on audit
capabilities and infrastructure and related matters (sec. 1007)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to comply with recommendations made by
the Comptroller General of the United States that it establish
a consolidated corrective action plan (CAP) and a centralized
monitoring and reporting process whereby it reports bi-monthly
on the status of the CAPs of the military departments, defense
agencies, and other organizations and elements of the
Department.
Subtitle B--Counterdrug Activities
Extension and modification of authority to support a unified
counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec.
1011)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by
three years section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), as most recently amended by section 1013 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328). Additionally, the provision would modify existing
authorities to provide assistance to the Government of Colombia
to address the emergence of new threats to peace and stability.
The committee strongly supports the vital partnership
between the United States and Colombia and notes the remarkable
security gains the Government of Colombia has achieved over the
last 15 years and its contributions to regional security. The
committee believes that an enduring security relationship
between the United States and Colombia is essential to
sustaining and building on these gains as the peace process and
demobilization of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC) proceeds. The committee also notes with concern reports
of record yields of coca and the persistence and emergence of
other illegally armed groups, ranging from terrorist
organizations to drug trafficking organizations, that threaten
peace, stability, and security. Finally, the committee urges
the Secretary of Defense to continue to coordinate through
interagency process to ensure that the Department's security
cooperation programs and authorities reflect the evolving
security environment in Colombia and the region.
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Policy of the United States on minimum number of battle force ships
(sec. 1016)
The committee recommends a provision that would codify at
least a 355-ship Navy battle force as U.S. policy. The
committee notes the Navy's latest Force Structure Assessment
(FSA), completed in December 2016, increased the battle force
requirement from 308 ships to 355 ships. This requirement
includes inventory objectives by ship category, which the
committee views as the optimal mix of platforms for the
purposes of this provision.
The committee further notes the latest Navy FSA concluded,
``[The 355-ship requirement] reflects an in-depth assessment of
the Navy's force structure requirements--it also includes a
level of operational risk that we are willing to assume based
on the resource limitations under which the Navy must operate
... To fully resource [Combatant Commander demands,] enduring
missions, ongoing operations and setting the theater for prompt
warfighting response, [the] Navy would require a 653-ship
force.''
Recognizing this unconstrained demand for 653 ships and
recent testimony on the increasingly dangerous security
environment, the committee believes the Navy's requirement of
355 ships should be achieved and all options for doing so
should be reviewed as soon as possible.
The committee further believes that a clear policy
statement on achieving the 355-ship objective, which could take
at least 18 years according to an April 2017 Congressional
Budget Office report, is warranted because of the long-term
commitment required by current and future Congresses and
administrations.
Operational readiness of Littoral Combat Ships on extended deployment
(sec. 1017)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend title
10, United States Code and provide the Secretary of the Navy
with additional flexibility to maintain Littoral Combat Ships
(LCS) by allowing government or contractor personnel to conduct
maintenance on LCS vessels operating on deployment regardless
of ship locations.
This provision would codify the authorities successfully
employed in a pilot program authorized by section 1025 of the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
The pilot program was conducted to evaluate maintenance
options for LCS vessels on extended deployments from December
2014 to September 2016. The Navy's assessment of the pilot
program, which was submitted in a March 2017 report to Congress
found, ``Based on the pilot program results, cost savings are
expected to be notable. Even more importantly, the flexibility
to provide timely maintenance in support of schedule changes
and mission execution is crucial to long-term success of the
LCS Fleet . . .''
The committee concurs with the Navy's assessment of the
pilot program and recommends codifying the associated
authorities in title 10, United States Code.
Authority to purchase used vessels to recapitalize the Ready Reserve
Force and the Military Sealift Command surge fleet (sec. 1018)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2218 of title 10, United States Code, to provide the
Secretary of Defense with the authority to purchase used
vessels as part of a program to recapitalize the Ready Reserve
Force (RRF) and Military Sealift Command (MSC) surge fleet. In
addition, the provision would provide the U.S. Navy with
greater flexibility in using the National Defense Sealift Fund
(NDSF) for such recapitalization purposes.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
(DOD) has developed a recapitalization strategy for RRF and MSC
surge fleet vessels, consisting of building new construction
vessels, extending the service lives of certain vessels already
in the inventory, and acquiring used vessels, in order to
maintain capacity at an acceptable level of risk. The committee
further understands that such recapitalization is necessary
because the current vessels in the inventory are reaching the
limit of safe operation at an affordable cost.
The committee notes that this provision would permit the
Secretary of Defense to purchase vessels that have previously
served in the U.S. Maritime Security Fleet, which is a
component of the U.S. Maritime Security Program. The committee
further notes that the DOD has requested this authority.
The committee believes this provision is a prudent measure
to ensure continued access to adequate U.S. military surge
sealift. In addition, the committee recognizes that maintenance
for and activations of any vessels added to the RRF inventory
would be conducted in U.S. shipyards.
Surveying ships (sec. 1019)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chief of Naval Operations to conduct a force structure
assessment for the purpose of establishing a surveying ship
requirement and provide the results to the congressional
defense committees not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act. This assessment may be limited in scope
to identifying a force structure assessment requirement for
surveying ships.
The committee notes the U.S. Navy currently has six
surveying ships in service, but does not have a force structure
assessment requirement for this class of ships because it is
not included in the Navy battle force. The committee further
notes surveying ships perform critical missions in support of
fleet operations, including gathering much of the U.S.
military's ocean environment information.
The committee further believes a greater number of these
ships may be required as surveying ships continue to operate
around the world with an expanding mission set. For example, in
December 2016 a Chinese navy ship illegally seized a U.S. Navy
unmanned underwater vehicle, which was collecting oceanographic
data, while operating with the USNS Bowditch (T-AGS-62) in the
South China Sea. In addition, the newest surveying ship, USNS
Maury (T-AGS-66), includes an innovative moon pool for
deployment and retrieval of autonomous underwater vehicles.
Accordingly, the committee urges the Chief of Naval
Operations to review the full range of potential applications
for surveying ships in conducting this force structure
assessment.
Pilot program on funding for national defense sealift vessels (sec.
1020)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Navy to establish a pilot program related to
national defense sealift vessels for funds appropriated in
fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
This pilot program would allow obligations and expenditures
for the operation, maintenance, lease, or charter of national
defense sealift vessels to be made from the National Defense
Sealift Fund (NDSF) or Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN)
appropriation accounts.
This pilot program would also allow obligations and
expenditures for the research and development relating to
national defense sealift vessels to be made from the NDSF or
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN)
appropriation accounts.
In addition, the pilot program would allow funds
appropriated in the OMN or RDTEN appropriations for national
defense sealift purposes to not be required to be deposited
into the NDSF appropriation.
The committee notes the NDSF was created in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-
484) to address sealift funding issues. While recognizing the
importance of continuing to fund sealift requirements, the
Department of the Navy, in coordination with the U.S.
Transportation Command and the U.S. Maritime Administration,
has proposed a more efficient funding mechanism. This provision
would allow the Navy to conduct a pilot program to evaluate
this alternative mechanism, which would use the OMN and RDTEN
appropriations rather than the NDSF, to fund specified national
defense sealift activities.
The committee understands this pilot program is intended to
preserve funding for sealift requirements while providing the
Department of the Navy one fewer appropriations account to
manage, prepare financial statements for, and address for
financial auditability purposes. The committee further
understands this pilot program seeks to streamline the funding
flow by reducing reimbursable documents between Navy commands
when a national defense sealift vessel is activated.
The provision would require independent reports from the
Secretary of the Navy, Commander of the U.S. Transportation
Command, and Administrator of the U.S. Maritime Administration
to be submitted to the congressional defense committees within
120 days of completion of the pilot program.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to the United States (sec. 1031)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until December 31, 2018, the prohibition on the use of funds
provided to the Department of Defense to transfer or release
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to the United States.
Extension on prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify
facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred
from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec.
1032)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until December 31, 2018, the prohibition on the use of funds
provided to the Department of Defense to construct or modify
facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred
from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Extension on prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to
certain countries of individuals detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1033)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until December 31, 2018, the prohibition on the use of funds
provided to the Department of Defense to transfer or release
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment of forces at
or closure of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
(sec. 1034)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until December 31, 2021, the prohibition on the use of funds
provided to the Department of Defense to close or abandon
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo; to relinquish control
of Guantanamo Bay to the Republic of Cuba; or to implement a
material modification to the Treaty between the United States
of America and Cuba signed at Washington, D.C. on May 29, 1934,
that constructively closes United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay.
Authority to transfer individuals detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States temporarily
for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1035)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the temporary transfer of individuals detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States for
necessary medical treatment that is not available at
Guantanamo.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Matters relating to the submittal of future-years defense programs
(sec. 1041)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 221 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to publish an unclassified electronic
database on the Comptroller's U.S. government restricted
website for the future years defense program and, where
applicable, a separate classified annex to the congressional
defense committees, Congressional Budget Office, Congressional
Research Service, and Government Accountability Office. The
committee notes that this should be in accordance with existing
guidance as set forth by Department of Defense Financial
Management Regulation 7000.14-R to include that all electronic
files include the source extensible markup language (XML) files
to be embedded.
Department of Defense integration of information operations and cyber-
enabled information operations (sec. 1042)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a cross-functional task force
to integrate across organizations of the Department of Defense
responsible for information operations, military deception,
public affairs, electronic warfare, and cyber operations to
produce integrated strategy, planning, and budgeting to
counter, deter, and conduct strategic information operations
and cyber-enabled information operations. In carrying out the
requirements of subsection (b)(1), the committee directs that
the Secretary require the commander of each combatant command
to develop specific plans to conduct information operations
through cyberspace that could threaten those things, entities,
resources, assets, and systems that the leaders of adversary
countries value most highly, with the goal of establishing an
effective deterrent to information operations and cyber attacks
against the United States, its allies, and its interests. These
capabilities and plans should be tailored to specific potential
adversaries. Additionally, the provision would require the task
force to review the Department of Defense Strategy for
Operations in the Information Environment, dated June 2016, and
submit to the congressional defense committees an
implementation plan. Lastly, the provision would establish a
Defense Intelligence Officer for Information Operations and
Cyber Operations within the Department of Defense.
Prohibition on lobbying activities with respect to the Department of
Defense by certain officers of the Armed Forces and civilian
employees of the Department within two years of separation from
military service or employment with the Department (sec. 1043)
The committee recommends a provision that would apply a 2-
year limitation on certain officers and civilian employees of
the Department of Defense from engaging in any lobbying
activity with respect to issues involving the Department of
Defense.
Definition of ``unmanned aerial vehicle'' for the purposes of title 10,
United States Code (sec. 1044)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the definition of an unmanned aerial vehicle as an aerial
vehicle that is not controlled by a human being, but would not
include a vehicle that is remotely piloted.
Technical amendment relating to management of military technicians
(sec. 1045)
The committee recommends a provision that would make a
technical modification to section 1053 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 129
Stat. 981; 10 U.S.C. 10216 note) by striking 20 percent and
replacing it with 12.6 percent.
Extension of prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy
maritime mine countermeasures platforms (sec. 1046)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy maritime
mine countermeasures platforms to include fiscal year 2018.
The committee notes the Navy's current plan to reach an
initial operational capability of replacement mine
countermeasures systems is not scheduled to occur until fiscal
year 2020 at the earliest. However, the Navy's latest Annual
Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels calls for the
Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships to begin retiring in
fiscal year 2019.
The committee remains concerned a capability gap may result
if current mine countermeasures systems are not maintained
until operationally effective and suitable replacements are
fielded in sufficient quantities.
Sense of Congress on the basing of KC-46A aircraft outside the
continental United States (sec. 1047)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress regarding the basing of KC-46A tanker
aircraft outside of the continental United States.
Authorization to procure up to six polar-class icebreakers (sec. 1048)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, to
enter into a contract or contracts for the procurement of up to
six polar-class icebreakers, including both polar-class heavy
icebreakers and polar-class medium icebreakers. The committee
notes that section 3 of title 14, United States Code, states,
``the Coast Guard shall be a service in the Department of
Homeland Security.''
As codified in a May 19, 2017 Memorandum of Agreement
between the Department of the Navy and Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), the committee notes the Undersecretary of
Management in the DHS serves as the Acquisition Decision
Authority for the Polar Icebreaker Program and that this
program is governed in accordance with DHS Acquisition
Management Directive 102-01 and Instruction 102-01-001. The
committee believes maintaining authority, responsibility, and
accountability with the Acquisition Decision Authority is
essential to delivering icebreakers on cost and schedule.
Accordingly, the committee believes the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security should be the single official
provided with authorities, limitations, or other legislative
direction related to the Polar Icebreaker Program.
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports
Assessment of global force posture (sec. 1061)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, to conduct
an assessment of the global force posture of the Armed Forces.
The provision would also require the Secretary to submit a
report on the assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than the
earlier of 180 days after production of the 2018 National
Defense Strategy or December 31, 2018. The committee believes
that a number of factors have increased the importance of and
need for forward-based U.S. military forces and capabilities,
including the proliferation of new and more lethal anti-access/
area denial capabilities of peer and near-peer threats, and
increased vulnerability of air and sea lines of communication.
Forward-based forces could provide increased deterrence and
regional security and stability, and would have the capability
to respond to both overt military aggression and to adversarial
competition activities with tangible actions short of armed
conflict. The ability of U.S. Armed Forces to respond in a
timely manner and at an appropriate scale is increasingly
constrained by growing threats to air and sea lines of
communication, and likely requires a fundamental shift in the
calculus regarding forward basing of U.S. military capabilities
and force structure.
The use by adversaries of major short- or no-notice
military exercises as cover for military aggression, as well as
the daily persistence of threats in areas such as the South
China Sea, place a premium on having an adequate forward-based
force presence. As our forces experienced in the opening phases
of Operation Inherent Resolve, ad hoc creation of a
headquarters for major military operations can result in
confused and overly complicated command and control
relationships, and fundamentally undermining holistic joint,
combined, and multi-agency deliberate and contingency plans and
operations.
The committee believes the assessment must include a clear
concept for command and control of both peacetime operations
and wartime combat operations, whether through the use of
existing combatant command headquarters and their respective
component commands, or through the creation of stand-alone
Joint Task Force headquarters. It must also ensure appropriate
forward-based force structure and capabilities are in place and
in a sufficient state of readiness.
The committee expects the Department to assess and
recommend the appropriate ratio of U.S.-based to forward-based
forces, as well as apply the appropriate mix of forward-based
force structure capabilities and end strength growth to respond
to increased threats to the security of extended lines of
communication, the proliferation of anti-access/area denial
capabilities, and the emerging necessity to respond to
adversarial competition activities occurring below the
threshold of armed conflict.
Army modernization strategy (sec. 1062)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to develop a comprehensive modernization
strategy for the total Army. This strategy should explicitly
address the Army's vision, end-state, key objectives, war
fighting challenges, and risks. It should be sufficiently
descriptive to drive requirements, set priorities, identify
opportunity costs, and establish acquisition timelines. The
committee assesses that a comprehensive strategy would give
strategic purpose to existing acquisition programs. The
strategy should provide the congressional defense committees an
understanding of potential long-term costs beyond the future
year defense program (FYDP) and aid in the decision-making
process to terminate unneeded or underperforming programs. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit its
modernization strategy to the congressional defense committees
within 90 days after the enactment of this Act.
The strategy shall describe how the Army intends on
fighting and winning as part of a joint force engaged in combat
across all operational domains. It should account for current
trends and developments in weapons and equipment technologies.
It should also account for the rapid pace potential peer
adversaries are evolving new tactics and force design. Key is
an understanding of what the Army will need to maintain
command, control, communications, and sustainment of dispersed
combat and combat support units in the face of electronic and
cyber-attack.
The committee is concerned the Army is not modernized to
fight and win high-intensity combined arms, maneuver battle
against a peer adversary. The committee is aware of specific
capability gaps that would significantly affect Army maneuver
forces' freedom of action, mobility, lethality, and
sustainment.
The committee notes that the Army has published numerous
strategies for specific programs such as small arms, tracked
combat vehicles, wheeled vehicles, and aviation. Yet the Army
does not possess an all-encompassing modernization strategy
that provides purpose and priority to the above. Given the Army
expends tens of billions of dollars each year on procurement,
research, development, testing, and evaluation, the committee
views a comprehensive Army modernization strategy as essential.
The committee acknowledges the Army remains engaged in
active operations across the world and accordingly has made
readiness its first priority. However, the committee assesses
modernization as requirement for readiness in the very near
future.
Report on Army plan to improve operational unit readiness by reducing
the number of non-deployable soldiers assigned to operation
units (sec. 1063)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees detailing the Army's plan to improve
operational unit readiness by reducing the number of non-
deployable soldiers assigned to those units and replacing them
with soldiers capable of worldwide deployment. The committee is
concerned that 10 percent of soldiers in the Army's operational
units are currently non-deployable. This is resulting in units
that are deploying to operational theaters with far less than
90 percent of their authorized personnel.
The committee is also concerned that these levels of non-
deployable soldiers assigned to operational units are
negatively affecting training, training management
efficiencies, equipment maintenance, small unit cohesion, and
combat effectiveness. High levels of non-deployable soldiers
may be affecting other measurable aspects of unit readiness
such as training and maintenance of assigned equipment.
The committee understands readiness is the Army's first
priority given the current national security situation. The
committee assesses that, if the Army can improve the readiness
of individual soldiers so that they may deploy and participate
in all scheduled unit training, overall readiness rates will
improve.
Efforts to combat physiological episodes on certain Navy aircraft (sec.
1064)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to provide quarterly updates on the
progress of the Navy's Physiological Episode Team and their
efforts to combat physiological episodes in F/A-18 Hornets and
Super Hornets, EA-18 Growlers, and T-45 Goshawks.
The committee is concerned by the continued prevalence of
physiological episodes occurring in a number of Navy aircraft
including F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets, EA-18 Growlers, and
T-45 Goshawks. The problems affecting the Naval Aviators and
Naval Flight Officers flying these aircraft range in frequency
and severity, but are consistent in their degradation of Naval
Aviation safety and readiness. Physiological episodes, with
apparent root causes in the environmental control systems and
Onboard Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS), have been named Naval
Aviation's number one safety priority. While the committee
understands Navy senior leadership is focused on the issue and
a Physiological Episode Team (PET) has been in place since 2010
to try to solve the issues, the committee is concerned that no
solutions have been found at the same time that recent events
indicate the situation may be getting worse in legacy Hornets
and T-45s.
The committee is also concerned that while the Navy has
repeatedly stated that their efforts to solve the problems are
``resource unconstrained'', it is unclear how much money and
manpower is being expended on the effort. As funding for the
engineering analysis and mitigation efforts comes from a
variety of sources, it is difficult to get a clear picture of
the total effort, inhibiting proper oversight and limiting
analysis of where resources could potentially be added to
further the effort.
The committee is further concerned by the breakdown in
communications within the Naval Aviation Enterprise, most
especially between the engineers working the problem at Naval
Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and the aviators on the flight
line. While a lot of good work was being done and data being
created and analyzed, those efforts were not always being
effectively communicated down to the flightline, where the
dangers of physiological episodes are most acute. The committee
urges the Navy to consider designating a single individual for
each affected platform to act as the bridge between engineer
and operator to ensure that a positive and frequent
communication flow becomes a strength of the solution process.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide the committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives quarterly updates on the Department's
efforts to mitigate and solve Naval Aviation's number one
safety priority. The required updates shall contain, but may
not be limited to, activities of the Naval Aviation Enterprise
addressing physiological episodes over the course of the
previous quarter; identified funding expended in support of
such activities; any planned or executed changes to PET
structure or processes; and planned activities for the next two
upcoming quarters.
Studies on aircraft inventories for the Air Force (sec. 1065)
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 future aircraft inventories and
capability mixtures of Air Force aircraft no later than March
1, 2019. These studies would provide competing visions and
alternatives for a future set of choices regarding Air Force
aircraft capabilities and capacities. One study would be
performed by the Secretary of the Air Force with the
participation of the Director of the Office of Net Assessment
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 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 committee believes two enduring tenets of our national
security strategies over the years have served the United
States well: (1) the United States will maintain sufficient
military forces and capabilities to engage around the world to
encourage peace and stability; and (2) in the event we do need
to conduct military operations, the U.S. Armed Forces will do
so away from U.S. territory in a fashion that puts adversary
value structures at risk, as well as retain the ability to win
more than one major regional conflict simultaneously. To
accomplish both of these fundamental tenets, the committee
believes the Air Force needs a set of robust, capable, and
ready forces with a rotational base sufficient to sustain such
operations.
The committee also believes the Air Force currently lacks
an understandable and sufficient aircraft inventory force-
sizing rationale. Force structure is a direct determinant of
the extent to which the national security strategy of the
United States can be executed. Accordingly, the Air Force needs
a logical, understandable, and easily articulated force-sizing
approach that derives from the national defense strategy and
that establishes a clear ability to trace strategy to task.
Finally, the committee believes Air Force aircraft
inventories should be planned and procured at levels necessary
to support the fundamental tenets of our national security and
national defense strategies, as opposed to allowing arbitrary
budget restrictions to drive U.S. national security strategy.
The emergence and re-emergence of near-peer competitors with
advancing military technological capabilities and growing
capacity, as well as increasingly capable regional threats, are
steadily eroding the technological overmatch and military
dominance the United States has singularly enjoyed since the
end of the Cold War period.
Plan and recommendations for interagency vetting of foreign investments
with potential impacts on national defense and national
security (sec. 1066)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Treasury, to conduct an assessment
and develop and present to Congress a plan for the Department
of Defense and recommendations for other agencies for how
certain foreign investments can be better vetted. The committee
is concerned about the foreign use of investment tools and
methods that work around existing vetting processes to gain
access to critical technology or intellectual property. Such
methods may also be used to deny the Department of Defense
access to such technology once foreign control or influence has
been established. In considering recommendations for other
agencies, the Department may want to consider the following, in
addition to other options:
(1) Mandatory notification by foreign investors to
the appropriate departments and agencies of the United
States Government when making transactions in certain
areas that are more likely to impair the ability of the
Department to defend the Nation;
(2) Expanded authority to unilaterally initiate
reviews of such transactions;
(3) The ability to suspend certain transactions
during interagency vetting, if the transactions are
likely to impair the ability of the Department to
defend the Nation; and
(4) Mechanisms for outside sources to provide input,
as well as greater transparency in certain areas.
The Department of Defense should provide the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
an interim report within 90 days and a final report within 180
days of the enactment of this Act.
Report on authorities for the employment, use, and status of National
Guard and Reserve technicians (sec. 1067)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau, the Chief of the Army Reserve, the Chief
of the Air Force Reserve, and representatives of National Guard
and Reserve technicians to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by no later
than April 1, 2018, a report assessing the adequacy of current
authorities for the employment, use, and status of military
technicians, to include recommendations for statutory change.
The purpose of the report would be to define the mission and
requirements of military technicians, identify means to improve
their management and administration, and identify means to
enhance the capability of the Department of Defense to recruit
and retain technicians.
Conforming repeals and technical amendments in connection with reports
of the Department of Defense whose submittal to Congress has
previously been terminated by law (sec. 1068)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical and conforming amendments related to Department of
Defense reporting requirements that were terminated under
section 1080 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and section 1061 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328).
Annual reports on approval of employment or compensation of retired
general or flag Officers by foreign governments for Emoluments
Clause purposes (sec. 1069)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 908 of title 37, United States Code, to require the
service secretaries to submit to certain congressional
committees an annual report on approval of employment or
compensation of retired general or flag officers by foreign
governments for which the consent of Congress is required by
article I, section 9 (the emoluments clause) of the
Constitution.
Annual report on civilian casualties in connection with United States
military operations (sec. 1070)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on civilian casualties caused as a result
of United States military operations during the preceding year.
The report is to be delivered no later than May 1 of each year.
Report on large-scale, joint exercises involving the air and land
domains (Sec. 1071)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on large-scale, joint exercises involving
the air and land domains.
Department of Defense review of Navy capabilities in the Arctic region
(sec. 1072)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on the capabilities of
the Navy in the Arctic region to the congressional defense
committees not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactments of this Act.
Business case analysis on establishment of active duty association and
additional primary aircraft authorizations for the 168th Air
Refueling Wing (sec. 1073)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a business case analysis
on the establishment of an active or classic association with
the 168th Air Refueling Wing.
Report on Navy capacity to increase production of anti-submarine
warfare and search and rescue rotary wing aircraft in light of
increase in the size of the surface fleet to 355 ships. (Sec.
1074)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense
committees, no later than September 15, 2017, on the capacity
of the United States Navy to increase production of anti-
submarine warfare and combat search and rescue rotary wing
aircraft given the stated intent to increase the size of the
fleet to 355 ships.
The committee is aware that the Navy is currently
performing an assessment for the fleet. The committee is also
aware that much of the current fleet of MH-60 helicopters are
approaching the end of their planned service life and will have
to undergo a service life extension in the next few years which
will take roughly thirty aircraft out of service annually.
Given the anticipated growth of the fleet the committee
assesses there will be an increased requirement for combat
search and rescue and anti-submarine warfare helicopters. All
of these requirements place future demand on the naval
helicopter industrial base while the Navy's procurement plan is
imposing a gap in production between the ending of the latest
MH-60R contract and procurement to fulfill future aircraft
requirements. This gap will cause a loss of skilled labor and
extensively impact the broader supply chain, driving the cost
per airframe up significantly and unnecessarily.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare Command insignia
(sec. 1081)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section 7882 to title 10, United States Code, to prohibit a
person from using any covered Naval Special Warfare insignia in
connection with any promotion, good, service, or other
commercial activity when a particular use would be likely to
suggest a false affiliation, connection, or association with,
endorsement by, or approval of, the United States Government,
the Department of Defense, or the Department of the Navy, and
to authorize the Attorney General to initiate civil proceedings
to prevent unauthorized use of such insignia.
Collaborations between the Armed Forces and certain non-Federal
entities on support of Armed Forces missions abroad (sec. 1082)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on the contributions of qualified non-
Federal entities to the effectiveness of the mission of the
Department of Defense through the provision of private
humanitarian, economic, and other non-lethal assistance from
U.S. citizens in response to local needs identified by members
of the Armed Forces in areas in which the Armed Forces are
deployed abroad. Further, the provision would express the sense
of the Senate that U.S. military commanders should collaborate
with and, consistent with applicable laws and regulations,
provide transportation, lodging, and other logistical support
to qualified non-Federal entities to enhance missions of the
Armed Forces abroad. Additionally, the provision would require
the Secretary of Defense not later than 120 days after the date
of enactment of this Act to conduct a review of guidance within
the Department of Defense applicable to collaborations between
military commanders and qualified non-federal Entities and, if
determined as appropriate in light of the review, issue
additional guidance within 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
The committee is concerned that there is a lack of clarity
on what constitutes appropriate interaction between Department
of Defense personnel and qualified non-Federal entities. The
committee believes the lack of clear, consistent guidance
across the Armed Forces on such collaboration creates confusion
for military commanders and could impede the ability of
privately-funded qualified non-Federal entities to provide
private assistance that would directly benefit the
accomplishment of military objectives while also saving U.S.
taxpayer funds.
Federal charter for Spirit of America (sec. 1083)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend title
36, United States Code, to establish a federal charter for
Spirit of America.
Reconsideration of claims for disability compensation for veterans who
were the subjects of mustard gas or lewisite experiments during
World War II (sec. 1084)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, to reconsider all claims for compensation
under chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, that were
denied before the date of the enactment of this Act, and make a
disability determination in connection with full-body exposure
to mustard gas or Lewisite during active military, naval, or
air service during World War II. The provision would require
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Secretary of Defense
to presume that a veteran experienced full-body exposure to
mustard gas or Lewisite, unless proven otherwise, when
reconsidering a claim.
Prize competition to identify root cause of physiological episodes on
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force training and operational
aircraft (sec. 1085)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to establish a prize competition designed
to accelerate identification of the root cause or causes of
physiological episodes experienced in Navy, Marine Corps, and
Air Force training and operational aircraft.
Exception to the interdepartmental waiver doctrine for cleanup of
vehicle crashes (sec. 1086)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to expend funds to clean up vehicle
crashes on another Federal department or agency's property if
the crash was the result of a Department of Defense activity.
Transfer of surplus firearms to Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle
Practice and Firearms Safety (sec. 1087)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 40728(h) of title 36, United States Code, by directing
the Secretary of the Army to transfer no more than 10,000
surplus M1911 and M1911A1 pistols to the Civilian Marksmanship
Program. The committee notes that all sales shall be at fair
market value and all revenues from said sales, less transfer
and storage costs, shall be returned to the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Items of Special Interest
355 ship build-up review
The committee supports the Navy's Force Structure
Assessment requirement for 355 battle force ships. The
committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
John Richardson, published a white paper, The Future Navy,
which calls for the Navy to achieve the 355 ship objective in
the 2020s.
Furthermore, the committee is aware that achieving the FSA
battle fleet objective may require options other than solely
relying on new-construction shipbuilding. The committee
understands that the Navy is examining options to extend the
service life of ships currently in the fleet and reactivate
inactive ships. The committee believes it is important that
Congress fully understand the business case analysis for these
options and others which could grow the fleet.
Therefore, not later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
deliver a report to the congressional defense committees which
shows a detailed business case analysis for each option to grow
the battle fleet other than new construction. The report shall
include business case analyses for service life extension and
reactivation options.
Arctic domain awareness
The committee understands that current Department of
Defense and commercial satellite constellations do not provide
sufficient space coverage to offer consistent coverage of the
Arctic and Polar regions. The committee further understands
that the U.S. military currently faces significant challenges
in its ability to operate in the Arctic region given these
current communications, navigational, and domain awareness
shortfalls.
The committee notes that in December 2016, the Department
of Defense issued the Report to Congress on Strategy to Protect
United States National Security Interests in the Arctic Region,
a report required by this committee in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114-92). The
committee is encouraged that the Department intends to ``engage
public, private, and international partners to improve domain
awareness in the Arctic,'' but is concerned that, as the report
identifies, ``command and control of forces are challenged by
limited satellite and terrestrial communications above 65
degrees north.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
to identify possible partnerships with commercial industry to
meet immediate domain awareness and communications requirements
in the Arctic, to include improved satellite imagery and
communications, terrestrial communications, unmanned aerial
systems, and other urgent, identified needs of the Department.
Assessment of Navy capabilities to support U.S. Coast Guard and partner
nations' international maritime law enforcement activities
Elsewhere in this report, the committee has expressed
concern about the size of the Navy fleet and its effect on
warfighting capability, and about the ability of the Navy to
achieve the force derived from the Navy's latest Force
Structure Assessment.
In peacetime, the Navy also is tasked with supporting other
Government priorities, including law enforcement activities of
the U.S. Coast Guard or allied nations.
The committee is concerned that the Navy may not give
adequate consideration to supporting these priorities. This may
derive from having insufficient forces, but it could also be
affected by insufficiently trained personnel or inadequate
authorities.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy, in consultation with the Chief of Naval Operations, to
provide an assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March
1, 2018. The assessment should address the following elements:
(1) The Navy's current capabilities and capacity to
provide support to the U.S. Coast Guard or allied
nations and their maritime law enforcement activities,
including efforts to combat:
(a) human trafficking;
(b) illegal, unreported, and unregulated
fishing; and
(c) other illicit activity at sea.
(2) Technical coordination with partner nations and
non-governmental organization to improve tracking and
detection of vessels engaged in such activities;
(3) Unfilled demand from the U.S. Coast Guard and
allied nations for such support;
(4) Limitations on the Navy's ability to provide such
support; and
(5) Legislative proposals for mitigating these
limitations.
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity
Conflict
The committee notes that section 922 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) included a number of reforms designed to enhance the role
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) in providing for the
oversight and advocacy of special operations forces (SOF). The
Acting ASD SOLIC testified before the committee on May 4, 2017,
that ``In overseeing SOF acquisitions, technology, logistics,
personnel, readiness, and talent management functions, SOLIC
will be positioned to institutionalize these hard-learned
lessons of contemporary conflicts. The `Service secretary-like'
authorities in section 922 serve as a strategic linchpin,
ensuring that we lock in these hard-won gains.''
The committee believes the Department has made important
progress in implementing these reforms, including by taking
steps to emphasize the role of the ASD SOLIC in budgeting,
programming, and personnel matters in recent months. However,
the committee believes much more remains to be done to achieve
the full intent of the provision.
The committee remains mindful of the congressionally-
directed reductions to headquarters staff, but continues to
believe that the ``service secretary-like'' mission of the ASD
SOLIC should be more robustly resourced in order to rebalance
the ASD SOLIC's lines of effort and fulfill its mandate under
title 10, United States Code. The committee also supports the
ongoing review of the non-legally binding responsibilities
currently assigned to the ASD SOLIC under Department guidance
and looks forward to receiving recommendations for the
divesture of any such responsibilities. Additionally, the
committee strongly encourages the Department to consider
reforms to the organizational structure of the office that
would ensure a significantly increased emphasis on its
responsibility to exercise its ``service secretary-like''
responsibilities with respect to U.S. Special Operations
Command.
Audit progress
The committee is concerned that Department of Defense has
not obtained an audit opinion on its full financial statements
after over 20 years of working to do so, as required by law.
The Chief Financial Officer's Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576)
mandates the preparation of audited annual financial statements
for certain funds and accounts from executive agencies,
including the Department. The Department of Defense is the only
agency which has not received an unqualified (clean) audit
opinion on their annual financial statements, which means that
their statements were free of material misstatements and accord
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, acting through
the Defense Business Board, to study audit progress to date,
specifically focusing on the organizational and individual
incentives that could improve the Department's standing. The
committee hopes that this effort will produce actionable
recommendations for the Department and for Congress to
incentivize a clean audit across the Department of Defense.
Budget Control Act Repeal
The committee has ongoing concerns about the negative
impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) on the
Department of Defense and other agencies that contribute to our
national security and supports its unconditional repeal.
Comptroller General of the United States review of the U.S. Navy's
approach to nuclear-powered aircraft carrier dismantlement and
disposal
The committee notes the Department of the Navy's planning
for the dismantlement and disposal of the ex-USS Enterprise
includes options that have not been previously utilized for
nuclear-powered warship disposal. In 2012, the ex-USS
Enterprise was inactivated and began the process of defueling.
In 2014, the Navy released a request for information to assess
the potential of commercial dismantlement and disposal, based
on the Navy's assessment that the traditional means of nuclear-
powered warship disposal at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS)
may not be viable for the ex-USS Enterprise. In November 2016,
the Navy released a request for proposals (RFP) for partial
commercial dismantlement and disposal. In February 2017, the
Navy announced this RFP was cancelled.
The committee understands current planning includes the
evaluation of three alternatives: commercial recycling of the
non-nuclear portions of the ex-USS Enterprise followed by
reactor compartment packaging at PSNS, commercial recycling of
the entire ship, and a disposal path decision at a later date.
The committee is concerned with several aspects of the
Navy's approach to dismantlement and disposal of the ex-USS
Enterprise, which will set a precedent for future nuclear-
powered aircraft carriers, including:
(1) Incomplete National Environmental Policy Act and
Nuclear Regulatory Commission documentation necessary
to evaluate the potential impacts associated with each
alternative prior to preparing to award a contract;
(2) Intention to fund the dismantlement incrementally
using the Operations and Maintenance, Navy account;
(3) Intention to award a contract for a project that
could exceed the Acquisition Category II funding
threshold without presenting the congressional defense
committees with a contracting strategy, detailed cost
estimate, or results of a formal decision review
process; and
(4) Projections of PSNS workload that do not clearly
depict the government's best estimate of future
workload.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report setting forth the results of a review no
later than June 1, 2018, with preliminary observations and
recommendations due no later than March 1, 2018, on the Navy's
approach to dismantlement and disposal of the ex-USS Enterprise
that shall include the following:
(1) The extent to which each of the three
alternatives comply with applicable statutes and
regulations, as well as specific actions necessary to
achieve such compliance prior to selecting a course of
action or awarding an associated contract.
(2) The pros and cons associated with the Navy's
proposed alternatives to dismantlement and disposal of
the ex-USS Enterprise, including analyses of the
contracting strategies, cost and schedule estimates,
and impact on the workload and facilities at the Navy's
public shipyards.
(3) The budgetary and program management implications
of funding this effort using the Operations and
Maintenance, Navy account, as compared to a procurement
account (e.g., the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
account and treating this project similar to an
aircraft carrier refueling and complex overhaul).
Include a review of the Navy's intent to use an
incremental funding approach, as compared to fully
funding the effort.
(4) The extent to which this effort should be subject
to acquisition reviews, program deliverables (e.g., a
program cost and schedule baseline), and acquisition
executive involvement in accordance with acquisition
best practices and applicable guidance, including
Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02.
(5) The extent to which the Navy's public shipyard
workload estimates, including PSNS, depict the
government's best estimate of projected workload and is
appropriately budgeted for in the Department of Defense
future years defense program.
(6) Other information regarding or related to the
Navy's dismantlement and disposal strategy for the ex-
USS Enterprise that the Comptroller General determines
to be of significant importance to the execution and
oversight of this effort, as well as for the
dismantlement and disposal of future nuclear aircraft
carriers.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to consider
the results and recommendations of this Comptroller General
review prior to selecting a course of action for the
dismantlement and disposal of the ex-USS Enterprise and to keep
the congressional defense committees informed of significant
actions related to this effort.
DUI prevention and rideshares
The committee is encouraged by the Department's continued
efforts to reduce alcohol-related incidents generally and
driving under the influence (DUI) in particular. For example,
the Marine Corps' ``Protect What You've Earned'' effort teaches
Marines to consider the long-term benefits of responsible
decision making. The committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to consider other innovative approaches to help further
reduce the number of service member DUI incidents. Installation
and unit-based car-pool and rideshare programs have the
potential to reduce service member costs while also providing
reliable and safe methods of transportation. New transportation
technology has the potential to make these, and other,
innovative approaches more accessible to military
installations.
Efficient use of non-tactical government owned transportation
The committee notes that significant cost savings could be
achieved through the more efficient use of non-tactical
government owned mobility and transportation on military
installations. Notably, the Department of Defense spends
roughly $435.0 million each year for non-tactical passenger
vehicles and light trucks, with a use rate of just seven
percent.
To address these inefficiencies, the committee encourages
the Secretary of Defense to examine the Department's approach
to providing non-tactical transportation. New technologies and
approaches should be utilized to meet department needs while
also improving overall efficiency. The recent Department of
Transportation Smart Cities Challenge provides useful insight
to innovative approaches that might be beneficial to the
Department of Defense. The committee also encourages the
Secretary of Defense to incentivize military installations to
partner with industry and local communities to explore mutually
beneficial transportation opportunities.
Encouraging Air Force Rescue Unit Associations
The committee notes that United States Air Force rescue
squadrons, including those in the reserve component, deliver
critical combat and emergency support to military and civilian
personnel in harm's way, both at home and abroad. Whether
called upon to provide combat search and rescue or to respond
to a natural disaster, Air Force rescue squadrons are an
adaptable and invaluable capability for the nation.
The unique nature of the rescue mission lends itself well
for a robust partnership between Active, Reserve, and National
Guard rescue units. In particular, experience gained by
National Guard units while performing their domestic duties,
under title 32, United States Code, provides important
opportunities to prepare units for success in combat
environments. The committee believes that the significant
experience residing in reserve component rescue squadrons
should be better leveraged to benefit the Total Force.
Issued in 2014, the report of National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force--a report required by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. No. 112-
239)--recommended forming additional associate units comprised
of both active and reserve component personnel and equipment.
As part of the House Report of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (H. Rept. 114-537), the
House of Representatives further encouraged the Air Force to
consider forming associate units with the three Air National
Guard combat search and rescue units in Alaska, California, and
New York.
The committee believes the Air Force should accelerate the
creation of combat search and rescue associate units to promote
efficiency, leverage Reserve Component expertise, improve
readiness across the Total Force, and expand interoperability
between Active and Reserve Components.
Management of Special Access Programs
The committee understands the necessity of protecting
sensitive information in Special Access Programs (SAPs).
Unfortunately, implementing such special protection risks
creating information silos that may result in the duplication
of efforts across programs and teams. The Office of the
Secretary of Defense has undertaken efforts to address this
challenge and ensure appropriate information sharing, while
maintaining adequate security controls. The committee applauds
these efforts, but is concerned about whether the Department
has yet to achieve an appropriate balance among these concerns.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary to review the
rationalization efforts implemented to date to ensure that the
Department of Defense policy results in granting access to
special programs in a matter that will promote the goal of
advancing mission capabilities across multiple SAPs, while
maintaining appropriate security controls. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the status of these efforts no later than December 1, 2017.
National Guard Counterdrug Program
The National Guard Counterdrug Program (NGCP) is a
federally-funded program that provides military-specific skill-
sets to law enforcement agencies and community-based
organizations to address the supply and demand for illicit
drugs. The timing and allocation of funding continues to be a
limiting factor for the NGCP and impedes the effective
sustainment of relationships with supported agencies and
impacts the retention of highly-trained individuals.
With such challenges in mind, the committee is interested
in the allocation of resources to best support the Department
of Defense (DOD) counternarcotics efforts. In October 2015, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the
National Guard had developed performance measures to report on
its counterdrug program, but the information collected was not
being used to evaluate and inform funding for state-level
programs or oversee the counterdrug schools training.
While the National Guard has developed its Threat Based
Resource Model (TBRM) to determine the severity of the drug
threat, and is using it to determine funding levels for each
state within the counterdrug program, the committee is
concerned that the states' use of the funds has not produced
results in line with each state's counterdrug objectives. The
committee would like to have a better understanding of how the
NGCP allocates and expends resources in alignment with its
stated objectives.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate the NGCP's approach to
resource allocation, to include the following: (1) A
description of how the NGCP aligns with the Department of
Defense's overarching counter-narcotics objectives; (2) A
description of how the National Guard determines funding and
distribution percentages for each state in the TBRM; (3) An
assessment of the extent to which funding for the National
Guard counterdrug program is expended in accordance with
approved state plans; and (4) An assessment of the extent to
which the National Guard Counterdrug Program is achieving its
stated objectives.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than March 15, 2018, on preliminary
findings of the evaluation with a final report to follow by
June 30, 2018.
National Guard role in enhanced border security
The committee acknowledges an increased emphasis on
enhancing our nation's border security to address illegal
immigration, illicit drug smuggling, human trafficking, and
other criminal activities that threaten our national security.
The committee notes there may be additional opportunities for
National Guard units to conduct valuable unit and individual
training events that would contribute to readiness as well as
enhanced border security.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
and the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the
congressional defense committees, in consultation with the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the Commander of U.S.
Northern Command and the Secretary of Homeland Security, a
report by December 1, 2017, with recommendations on how the
Army National Guard and Air National Guard could gain effective
unit and individual training while also enhancing the border
security capabilities of the continental United States. This
report should contain a description of: the types of activities
that would achieve such training and enhanced border security;
the costs associated with such activities and the delineation
of state and federal funding required; the potential impact on
operations and personnel tempo for tasked units; any
limitations of current operating authorities for each potential
training activity; and any other information the Secretaries
consider relevant.
Navy strategic laydown and dispersal plan
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not yet
presented detailed plans for expanding the fleet to achieve the
355-ship force structure objective identified in December 2016.
As the Navy develops such plans, the committee believes that
the Navy should also define the appropriate Navy infrastructure
including measures to ensure that risk to the fleet from
natural or manmade catastrophes is effectively mitigated.
The committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations
promulgated OPNAV Instruction 3111.17A in May 2017 to set
policy and establish responsibility for the design and
assessment phases of the annual Navy Strategic Laydown and
Dispersal (SLD) plan.
The committee notes OPNAV Instruction 3111.17A includes
direction to consider actions that would ``limit risks
associated with natural disasters or manmade catastrophes'''
during the homeporting determination process. The committee
believes that the Navy should include this direction as a key
consideration in decisions regarding basing of capital ships,
namely aircraft carriers and amphibious ships, particularly as
these ship classes increase.
The committee further notes OPNAV Instruction 3111.17A also
includes direction to consider actions that would improve
Operational Plan (OPLAN) and Contingency Plan (CONPLAN)
response times. The committee believes that this direction
should also be a key consideration in decisions regarding
basing of capital ships.
Northern Triangle human rights training
The Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to provide the congressional defense and foreign
relations committees no later than June 30, 2018, a report on
the extent to which U.S. assistance to police forces in the
Northern Triangle builds professionalism and respect for human
rights. The report should contain the following elements: (1) A
description of the Department of Defense's objectives in
training police forces in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala;
(2) An assessment of the extent to which the Department of
Defense is achieving its objectives with respect to human
rights and increased professionalism across police
institutions; (3) An assessment of any plans to sustain efforts
to train police forces in the Northern Triangle; and (4) Any
other matters deemed relevant by the Comptroller General of the
United States.
Plan on actions to address vulnerabilities arising from unencrypted
aircraft transponders on military aircraft
The committee recognizes the benefits to efficiency and
effectiveness of the Department of Defense's integration into
the Next Generation Air Transportation System. However, the
committee is extremely concerned with potential vulnerabilities
to operations security, physical security, and cybersecurity of
military aircraft equipped with existing and planned
transponders that provide unencrypted real-time, or near real-
time, information available in the public domain.
The committee is also concerned that the deadline for
Department of Defense aircraft to be equipped with new
transponder equipment that provides further unencrypted
information is currently January 1, 2020. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, to
complete a plan that includes:
(1) Actions that have been taken to mitigate the
vulnerabilities discussed above;
(2) Remaining actions to be taken and deadlines for
completing those actions;
(3) Identification of the primary Department of
Defense official charged with overseeing the
Department's coordinated efforts on such plan, and a
description of the roles and responsibilities of such
official; and
(4) Other actions the Secretary deems relevant.
The Secretary of Defense shall provide a report on this
plan to the congressional defense committees no later than
December 31, 2017.
Report on infrastructure required to protect national security
interests of the United States in the Arctic region
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
to the congressional defense committees no later than June 30,
2018 a report on the requirements and investment plans for
military infrastructure necessary to protect United States
security interests in the Arctic region. The report should
include the following: a review of the operational plan for the
protection of United States national security interests in the
Arctic region, including strategic and national assets; a
description of United States military capabilities required to
implement the operational plan, including types of forces,
major weapons systems, and logistics required for operations in
the Arctic region; a description of the installations,
infrastructure, and deep water ports for deployment of assets
required to support the operational plan; and an investment
plan to establish the installations and infrastructure required
to implement the operational plan. The report shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
Report on initiatives for mitigating military pilot shortfalls
The committee remains concerned with the increasing
shortage of military pilots in the Armed Forces, particularly
in the United States Air Force, who report leaving the Armed
Forces due to various disincentives to continued service, and
the attraction of larger salaries and increased control of
their personal schedules offered by the major airline industry.
At a June 6, 2017 hearing, senior Air Force leaders testified
the Air Force was 1,500 pilots short, with fighter pilots
comprising 1,300 of that shortfall. Forecasted trends also
indicate Air Force pilot retention will worsen in future years
as more commercial airline pilots reach mandatory retirement
age. The Navy, Marine Corps, and Army are also seeing
forecasted trends toward decreased aviator retention rates.
While the services have continued to request additional bonus
authorities and increased maximum allowed annual bonus amounts,
some of which were authorized and appropriated by Congress in
recent years, underlying quality of life, quality of service,
and other disincentives to continued service remain.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of
the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force, to provide to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives no later than March 1, 2018, a report on
initiatives for mitigating pilot shortfalls. The report shall
include, at a minimum, the following elements:
(1) The viability of and resource requirements for
increasing aviator production in each military service;
(2) A comprehensive review of aviator manning
requirements in each military service;
(3) A comprehensive review of available aircraft
fleet capacities for seasoning pilots to acceptable
proficiency, currency, and experience levels;
(4) Initiatives undertaken to improve the quality of
service for aviators in the Armed Forces, to include
elimination of tertiary non-flying training
requirements, increased monthly flying time, and more
effective training;
(5) Initiatives undertaken to improve the quality of
life of aviators in the Armed Forces, to include the
review of disincentives to continued service caused by
high rates of deployment, insufficient pay and
allowances, family hardships, and other morale-based
issues;
(6) An assessment of the feasibility of developing a
career track for Armed Forces aviators that would allow
continuous flying duties, as opposed to tertiary
assignments and duties required for promotion to senior
officer ranks;
(7) The potential for striking partnership agreements
and memoranda of understanding with flight training
universities, major airlines, or other entities to
achieve synergies in satisfying national pilot demands;
and
(8) Other information the Secretary considers
relevant.
Trafficking of commodities
The committee is concerned by the trafficking of people and
illegal goods, particularly as it relates to the financing of
terrorism, the empowerment of transnational organized crime
organizations, and the destabilization of governments
worldwide. The committee notes that in recent testimony,
Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, USN, the Commander of U.S. Southern
Command, stated that in his area of responsibility,
``Transregional and transnational threat networks are now the
principal threat to regional security and stability,'' but that
their ``interests, influence, capabilities, and reach extend
beyond the responsibilities of any one Geographic or Functional
Combatant Command, undercutting our national interests in
multiple domains and many regions.'' The possibility of witting
or unwitting exploitation of these networks to harm the United
States is a serious concern.
Trafficking worldwide encompasses a number of goods,
including drugs, people, weapons, antiquities, and tobacco. The
committee notes with interest that some of these goods may not
be illegal in and of themselves, but that their illicit
movement provides significant revenue to transnational threat
networks in areas such as the Northern Triangle of Central
America, the U.S.-Mexico border, the Afghanistan-Pakistan
border, and elsewhere, as was pointed out with respect to
tobacco products in a 2015 interagency report entitled ``The
Global Illicit Trade in Tobacco: A Threat to National
Security.'' The committee is concerned by the illicit trade in
tobacco and its propensity to fund transnational organized
crime and terrorist groups.
The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense
(DOD), in consultation with the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of State, and other relevant
departments and agencies, to provide a written update to the
committee on the status of DOD's support for efforts to combat
trafficking in commodities, including tobacco. This update
should include: (1) A description of the impact of trafficking
in commodities on the national security of the United States,
including the financing of transnational terrorism and crime
organizations; (2) Current lines of effort in combating such
trafficking; and (3) A description of DOD's support for these
lines of effort.
The report, which may include a classified portion, on the
current strategy and implementation of efforts to address the
challenge posed by commodities trafficking, should be delivered
not later than September 1, 2017.
Unmanned maritime systems test and training range
The committee believes that the Navy must increasingly
leverage unmanned systems across all warfighting domains, but
particularly on the sea surface and undersea. The committee
understands that the Navy is funding development programs which
would support warfighting concepts such as manned-unmanned
teaming and multi-domain systems integration. The committee
believes that the Navy may need to increase its test and
training range infrastructure to provide adequate support for
testing, experimenting and exercising with unmanned maritime
systems.
Therefore, not later than one year after the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall deliver to the
congressional defense committees a report which evaluates
potential approaches for dealing with increased demand for
supporting unmanned maritime systems, including adding
infrastructure at new locations or expanding existing
infrastructure.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Matters
Pilot program on enhanced personnel management system for cybersecurity
and legal professionals in the Department of Defense (sec.
1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to assess the
feasibility and advisability of an enhanced personnel
management system for cybersecurity and legal professionals,
applicable to new hires in those fields in pay grades GS-15 and
below within the Department of Defense, commencing January 1,
2020.
Inclusion of Strategic Capabilities Office and Defense Innovation Unit
Experimental of the Department of Defense in personnel
management authority to attract experts in science and
engineering (sec. 1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
certain existing personnel management authorities at the
Department of Defense to include the Strategic Capabilities
Office and the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental. The
committee notes that these authorities have previously been
established to allow certain scientific organizations within
the Department to attract experts in science and engineering.
The committee notes that these authorities have been
implemented by these organizations to great effect and have
helped significantly to improve the scientific and technical
workforce of these organizations. Given this positive impact,
the committee believes that such authorities should be extended
to newly-formed scientific organizations in the Department of
Defense.
The committee notes that both the Strategic Capabilities
Office and the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental receive
administrative support through the Washington Headquarters
Services (WHS). The committee expects that the Washington
Headquarters Services will provide personnel, management, and
other administrative support in most efficient manner possible
to reduce bureaucratic delays, eliminate non-value added
processes, and best support agility, flexibility, and missions
that support technology innovation.
Permanent authority for demonstration projects relating to acquisition
personnel management policies and procedures (sec. 1103)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1762 of title 10, United States Code, to provide a
permanent authority for personnel programs for employees in the
Department of Defense civilian acquisition workforce and
supporting personnel assigned to work directly with that
workforce. The provision would also increase the number of
participants from 120,000 to 130,000 to account for the
increasing need to train individuals managing acquisition
programs in cyber deterrence, detection, and response.
Establishment of senior scientific technical managers at Major Range
and Test Facility Base facilities and Defense Test Resource
Management Center (sec. 1104)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2358a of title 10, United States Code, to explicitly
include the test and evaluation centers, defined as each
facility of the Major Range and Test Facility Base, and the
Defense Test Resource Management Center. Section 1122 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) established and codified the authority of the
defense research laboratories to hire senior scientific
technical managers classified above GS-15 of the General
Schedule. The committee intended that this authority would be
available to both defense research and development
laboratories, as well as test and evaluation centers. However,
the committee has learned that alternative interpretations
within the Department of Defense have prevented the directors
of test and evaluation centers from exercising this authority.
Extension of temporary direct hire authority for domestic defense
industrial base facilities, the major range and test facilities
base (sec. 1105)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
section 1125(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) through fiscal year 2019.
Direct hire authority for financial management experts in the
Department of Defense workforce (sec. 1106)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
financial management hiring authority granted in section 1110
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-38) to those Department of Defense components
not included in the military departments and defense agencies.
Authority for wavier of requirement for a baccalaureate degree for
positions in the Department of Defense on cybersecurity and
computer programming (sec. 1107)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
briefing by the Secretary of Defense to the Committees on Armed
Services for the Senate and the House of Representatives, no
later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
on the feasibility and advisability of the enactment into law
of a wavier that would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive
any requirement in law for the possession of a baccalaureate
degree as a condition of appointment to a position with the
primary duties of cyber security and computer programming.
Subtitle B--Government-Wide Matters
Elimination of the foreign exemption provision in regard to overtime
for Federal civilian employees temporarily assigned to a
foreign area (sec. 1111)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 5542 and 5544 of title 5, United States Code, to allow
overtime pay equal to one and one-half times the hourly rate of
basic pay for nonexempt Federal civilian employees assigned to
temporary duty travel in exempt areas as defined by the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-718).
One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium
pay and aggregate limitation on pay for Federal civilian
employees working overseas (sec. 1112)
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 1137 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), to
extend through 2018 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
of 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 of U.S. Africa Command, in
support of a military operation or an operation in response to
a declared emergency.
One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances,
benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty
in a combat zone (sec. 1113)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
year the discretionary authority of the head of a federal
agency to provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities
comparable to those provided to members of the Foreign Service
to an agency's civilian employees on official duty in a combat
zone.
Items of Special Interest
Direct hiring authorities
The committee is disappointed that despite language
authorizing direct hiring authorities provided in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
implementation of these policies has yet to take effect in many
cases. The committee requests a status update no later than
September 30, 2017, on the implementation of direct hire
authorities provided for in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
Implementation of direct hiring authorities for military spouses
The committee recognizes the unique challenges facing
military spouses in maintaining suitable employment despite
frequent moves between duty stations and other requirements of
military work. In recent years, Congress has provided direct
hiring authorities to assist military spouses in obtaining
employment with the federal government.
The committee understands that despite the authorization of
special hiring authorities for military spouses, these
authorities have not yet been sufficiently utilized and
military family groups have received feedback that spouses
still face great difficulty in navigating the federal hiring
process in a timely manner and obtaining employment. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit no
later than December 1, 2017, a report outlining the
Department's progress on the implementation of direct hiring
authorities for military spouses.
Industry fellowships for civilian contracting officers
The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense
(DOD) to assign civilian contracting officers to industry
fellowships by making use of Section 1104 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328), which authorized the DOD, with the agreement of a
private-sector organization and the consent of the employee, to
arrange for the temporary assignment of a DOD employee to the
private-sector organization, or from the private-sector
organization to a DOD organization. The committee is concerned
with the workforce development plans pertaining to civilian
contracting officers, and using such an authority will assist
in developing senior contracting officers with an aim at
leveraging industry best practices and developing innovative
better buying practices.
Waiver of Long-Term Temporary Duty travel per diem rates
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense has yet to implement the authority contained in section
1151 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 (Public Law 114-328), authorizing the service secretaries
to waive reduced per diem rates for meals and incidental
expenses incurred during long-term temporary duty travel, when
the secretary concerned, or appropriately delegated authority,
determines that the reduced rates are insufficient to cover
actual expenses under certain circumstances. The committee
strongly urges the Department to implement this policy so that
long-term temporary duty travelers in need of actual expense
reimbursement may receive it. The committee believes that
civilian public shipyard workers and others supporting enduring
mission requirements play an important role and, therefore, the
committee expects that critical work will not be interrupted in
pursuit of savings.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Support of special operations for irregular warfare (sec. 1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the relevant
Chief of Mission, to expend up to $10.0 million annually
through fiscal year 2021 to provide support to foreign forces,
irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting
or facilitating ongoing irregular warfare operations by U.S.
Special Operations Forces (SOF).
The committee notes with concern that adversarial nations
are becoming more aggressive in challenging U.S. interests and
partnerships and destabilizing regional order through the use
of asymmetric means that often fall below the threshold of
traditional armed conflict, often referred to as the ``grey
zone.'' The committee notes that the ability of U.S. SOF to
conduct low-visibility, irregular warfare operations in
politically sensitive environments make them uniquely suited to
counter the malign activities of our adversaries in this
domain. However, the committee is concerned that the Secretary
of Defense lacks sufficient authority to provide support for
irregular warfare operations by U.S. SOF to counter this
growing threat and therefore believes that granting this
authority will provide the Secretary with the necessary options
and flexibility to achieve U.S. military objectives.
Modification of authority on support of special operations to combat
terrorism (sec. 1202)
The Committee recommends a provision that would make
modifications to section 127e of title 10, United States Code
related to oversight responsibilities and reporting
requirements.
Modifications of certain authority in connection with reform of defense
security cooperation programs and activities (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
programs sufficient to satisfy the requirement for
institutional capacity building pursuant to section 333(c)(4)
of title 10, United States Code. The provision would also
modify the Ministry of Defense Advisor program under section
332 of title 10, United States Code. The committee continues to
strongly believe that strengthening the institutional capacity
of foreign security partners to more effectively manage and
employ security forces is vital to the long-term success of
Department of Defense security cooperation programs.
Global Security Contingency Fund matters (sec. 1204)
The committee recommends a provision (sec. 1204) that would
extend for two years section 1207 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as amended, and make
other modifications.
Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (sec. 1205)
The committee recommends a provision (sec. 1205) that would
authorize the Secretary of Defense to operate the Defense
Institute of International Legal Studies and would require the
Secretary to conduct a comprehensive review of the mission,
workforce, funding, and other support of the Institute.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan
Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program and related
authorities (sec. 1211)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2019 the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program (CERP) in Afghanistan under section 1201 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) as amended by the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense
services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan
(sec. 1212)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2018 the authority under section 1222 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-238), as most recently amended by section 1213
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(114-328), 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 though fiscal year
2018 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. 1213)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2018 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
Coalition Support Funds to reimburse certain or designated
nations for support provided to or in connection with U.S.
military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria.
As established in section 1218 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328),
reimbursements under this section to Pakistan can only be made
for certain activities meant to enhance the security situation
in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and for
counterterrorism. As noted in the Senate report accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328), the committee believes that stability in
the region cannot be achieved without stability in Pakistan
itself and that fostering a strong, stable, and secure Pakistan
is consistent with the national security goals of the United
States. The committee notes that these national security goals
remain unchanged from one year ago and thus, the recommended
provision would extend the separate authority for Pakistan
created last year.
The recommended provision would limit the total amount of
funds that may be provided in fiscal year 2018 to $900.0
million. Of this total, the amount that could be provided to
Pakistan would be limited to $700.0 million. The provision
would also extend for 1 year certain notifications and
certification requirements relating to payments to Pakistan.
The provision would also make $350.0 million of this amount
contingent upon certification from the Secretary of Defense
that Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps against the Haqqani
network and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba in Pakistan.
Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in
countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec.
1214)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2019 the authority in section 801(f) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84), as most recently amended by section 1212
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328), to acquire products and services produced
in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan.
Extension of semiannual report on enhancing security and stability in
Afghanistan (sec. 1215)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 15, 2020 the semiannual reporting requirement
on enhancing security and stability in Afghanistan.
Sense of Congress regarding the Afghan special immigrant visa program
(sec. 1216)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that an additional 4,000 visas should be made
available for principal aliens who are eligible for special
immigrant status under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009
(8 U.S.C. 1101 note) to prevent harm to the operations of the
United States Government in Afghanistan.
Special immigrant visas for Afghan allies (sec. 1217)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) to
authorize an additional 4,000 special immigrant visas for
Afghan allies.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran
Modification of authority to provide assistance to counter the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1231)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authority under section 1236 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3559) to provide for
infrastructure repair and renovation and small-scale
construction of temporary facilities necessary to meet urgent
operational or force protection requirements with a cost less
than $4 million in Iraq.
Construction, renovation or repair projects in excess of $1
million would not be carried out under this provision unless
approved in advance by the Commander of U.S. Central Command,
who shall notify in writing the congressional defense
committees of that decision, including the justification for
the project and its estimated cost at least 14 days in advance
of the start of the project. Aggregate costs of construction,
repair, and renovation projects carried out under this section
in any fiscal year may not exceed $30 million.
The committee supports the Department's request for a more
flexible small-scale construction authority with the objective
of bolstering the force protection of Iraqi Security Forces and
coalition advisers via the reconfiguration and development of
new temporary fighting and defensive positions, the maintenance
of roads and trails necessary for the conduct of military
operations, and similar small-scale projects. The committee
emphasizes this authority is not intended for the construction
or reconstruction of infrastructure or other permanent
facilities.
Modification of authority to provide assistance to the vetted Syrian
opposition (sec. 1232)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authority under section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3541) by striking the
prior approval reprogramming requirement and replacing it with
a notification requirement before carrying out new initiatives.
Additionally, the provision would modify the authority to
provide for infrastructure repair and renovation and small-
scale construction of temporary facilities necessary to meet
urgent operational or force protection requirements with a cost
less than $4 million in Syria. Construction or repair projects
in excess of $1 million would not be carried out under this
provision unless approved in advance by the Commander of U.S.
Central Command, who shall notify in writing the congressional
defense committees of that decision, including justification
for the project and its estimated cost at least 14 days in
advance of the start of the project. The aggregate amount of
construction and repair projects carried out under this section
in any fiscal year may not exceed $10 million.
The committee supports the Department's request for a more
flexible small-scale construction authority with the objective
of bolstering the force protection of vetted Syrian partner
forces and coalition advisers via the reconfiguration and
development of new temporary fighting and defensive positions,
the maintenance of roads and trails necessary for the conduct
of military operations, and similar small-scale projects. The
committee emphasizes this authority is not intended for the
construction or reconstruction of infrastructure or other
permanent facilities.
Extension and modification of authority to support operations and
activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec.
1233)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2018 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 $42 million in fiscal year 2018 to support OSC-I
operations and activities.
The section would limit the obligation and expenditure of
more than 50 percent of the funds available to OSC-I until 30
days after the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State
submit to the appropriate congressional committees the plan to
transition the activities conducted by OSC-I but funded by the
Department of Defense to another entity, or transition the
funding of such activities to another source, as required in
the joint explanatory statement to accompany the conference
report on S. 2943 of the 114th Congress, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts to
adjust the fiscal year 2018 budget request for the OSC-I to
more accurately reflect annual requirements and looks forward
to receiving the required plan for transition. Furthermore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to conduct an independent analysis of the required plan and
submit to the appropriate congressional committees, within 180
days of the Department of Defense and State submitting their
plan, a report containing the results of the independent
analysis. At a minimum, the independent analysis should compare
and contrast the OSC-I with other Offices of Security
Cooperation while considering any unique requirements for the
OSC-I for fulfilling its mandate.
The provision also clarifies OSC-I's mandate to support
strategic defense institution building and the
professionalization of the security forces of, or associated
with, the Government of Iraq, rather than providing tactical
support. Such capacity building activities are critical for
Iraq's long-term stability to prevent the resurgence of the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the emergence of successor
organizations, and the growth of other destabilizing actors.
Modification and additional elements in annual report on the military
power of Iran (sec. 1234)
The committee recommends a provision that would add
additional elements to the annual report on the military power
of Iran required under section 1245 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), to
include additional information on Iran's military use of
civilian transportation infrastructure and assets as well as
transfers to and from Iran pertaining to nuclear, ballistic
missile, chemical, biological, and advanced conventional
weapons, and other identified technologies.
The committee is deeply concerned about transfers to and
from Iran of illicit technology, especially with respect to
weapons programs that could potentially threaten the United
States and its allies. It also remains deeply concerned by
reports that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is using
civilian transportation infrastructure and assets to further
its destabilizing activities in the Middle East, including the
ongoing conflict in Syria.
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation
Extension of limitation on military cooperation between the United
States and the Russian Federation (sec. 1241)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2018 section 1232 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
which prohibits funds authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Defense from being used for bilateral military-
to-military cooperation between the United States and the
Russian Federation without certain certifications by the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, or unless certain waiver conditions are met.
Extension of limitation on availability of funds relating to
sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea (sec. 1242)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2018 the limitation under section 1234 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) on the use of Department of Defense funds
for activities to recognize the sovereignty of the Russian
Federation over Crimea.
Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec. 1243)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2019 the authority under section 1250 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) as amended by section 1237 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) for the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, to provide security assistance, including
defensive lethal assistance, and intelligence support to
military and other security forces of the Government of
Ukraine. The provision would authorize the use of up to $500.0
million in fiscal year 2018 to provide security assistance to
Ukraine.
The provision would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of half of the funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal
year 2018 under this authority until the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of State, certifies that
Ukraine has taken substantial action to make defense
institutional reforms. The committee continues to believe that
defense institutional reforms are critical to sustaining
capabilities developed using security assistance provided under
this and other authorities.
The committee remains deeply concerned by the continuing
aggression of Russia and Russian-backed separatists that
violate ceasefire agreements. The committee continues to
emphasize the importance of providing security assistance and
intelligence support, including defensive lethal assistance, to
the Government of Ukraine to build its capacity to defend its
territory and sovereignty.
Extension of authority on training for Eastern European national
security forces in the course of multilateral exercises (sec.
1244)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through calendar year 2020 the authority under section 1251 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) for the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide multilateral
or regional training, and pay the incremental expenses of
participating in such training, for countries in Eastern Europe
that are a signatory to the Partnership for Peace Framework
Documents but not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) or became a NATO member after January 1,
1999. The provision would also amend section 1251 to allow the
participation of non-military security forces in such training,
and would make other technical and clarifying amendments. 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.
Security assistance for Baltic nations for joint program for resiliency
and deterrence against aggression (sec. 1245)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to provide security assistance of up to $100.0
million derived from amounts authorized to be appropriated for
the European Deterrence Initiative in fiscal year 2018 to
conduct or support a joint program of the Baltic nations to
improve their resilience against and build their capacity to
deter aggression by the Russian Federation.
The committee believes that joint procurement could enable
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to strengthen security
cooperation, improve key military capabilities, and realize
cost savings through efficiencies of scale. However, the
committee also recognizes joint procurement may not be feasible
under certain circumstances. Therefore, the provision would
define a joint program as either: (a) A program jointly agreed
by the Baltic nations that builds interoperability among these
countries; or (b) An agreement for the joint procurement by the
Baltic nations of defense articles or defense services to
improve resiliency and enhance deterrence of aggression by the
Russian Federation.
Annual report on military and security developments involving the
Russian Federation (sec. 1246)
The committee recommends a provision that would add an
element on hybrid warfare to the annual report on Russian
military and security developments required under section 1245
of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291), as most recently amended by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328),
including assessments of: (a) Russia's information warfare
strategy and capabilities, including the use of misinformation,
disinformation, and propaganda in social and traditional media;
(b) Russia's financing of political parties, think tanks, media
organizations, and academic institutions; (c) Russia's
malicious cyber activities; (d) Russia's use of coercive
economic tools, including sanctions, market access, and
differential pricing, especially in energy exports; and (e)
Russia's use of criminal networks and corruption to achieve
political objectives.
Annual report on attempts of the Russian Federation to provide
disinformation and propaganda to members of the Armed Forces by
social media. (sec. 1247)
The committee recommends a provision that would require to
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees no later than March 31 of each year a report on
attempts by the Russian Federation, or any foreign person
acting as an agent of or on behalf of the Russian Federation,
during the preceding year to knowingly disseminate Russian
Federation-supported disinformation or propaganda, through
social media applications or related Internet-based means, to
members of the Armed Forces with probable intent to cause
injury to the United States or advantage the Government of the
Russian Federation.
Support of European Deterrence Initiative to deter Russian aggression
(sec. 1248)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the United States, together with NATO
allies and other European partners, should demonstrate its
resolve and ability to meet its commitments under Article V of
the North Atlantic Treaty through appropriate military
exercises with an emphasis on participation of U.S. forces
based in the continental United States and testing strategic
and operational logistics and transportation capabilities. Not
later than March 1, 2018, the provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report providing analysis of the challenges to the
United States' ability to flow significant forces from the
continental United States to the European theater in the event
of a major contingency and the Department of Defense's plans,
including the conduct of military exercises, to address these
challenges.
Sense of Congress on the European Deterrence Initiative (sec. 1249)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the European Deterrence Initiative will
bolster efforts to deter further Russian aggression and that
investments that support the security and stability of Europe
and further develop European security capabilities are in the
long-term national security interests of the United States.
Enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec. 1250)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1250 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (PL 114-92) to include treatment of wounded
Ukrainian soldiers in the United States in medical treatment
facilities as part of the Secretarial Designee Program as
appropriate security assistance and intelligence support under
the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
Sense of Congress on importance of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Intelligence Fusion Center (sec. 1251)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the collocation of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) Intelligence Fusion Center with U.S.
European Command's Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex provides
the optimal solution to intelligence and operational
requirements while fostering critical diplomatic relationships,
and is the most efficient configuration of the intelligence
enterprise.
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region
Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative (sec. 1261)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to establish the Asia-Pacific
Stability Initiative and provide the necessary guidelines and
authorities for the Department of Defense to execute and
implement it. The recommended provision would outline the
stated objective of the initiative, the authorized activities,
and funding authorities to be used. The recommended provision
would also ensure that the Department of Defense retains a
maximum amount of flexibility in carrying out the initiative.
To ensure the security and prosperity of the region, and to
enhance U.S. military power in the region, the United States
must demonstrate that it intends to remain a significant
guarantor of security through targeted funding to realign our
force posture, improve operationally relevant infrastructure,
fund additional exercises, pre-position equipment, and build
capacity with our allies and partners.
During his testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed
Services on April 27, 2017, Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr.,
Commander of United States Pacific Command, stated that, ``this
effort will reassure our regional partners and send a strong
signal to potential adversaries of our persistent commitment to
the region.'' As the initiative evolves in the coming years,
the committee expects to work closely with the Department to
make this initiative a reality and secure the freedom and
prosperity of the region for another generation.
Expansion of military-to-military engagement with the government of
Burma (sec. 1262)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Section 1253 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) to remove certain restrictions on military-to-
military engagement with Burma. As currently written, the
underlying legislation limits engagements with Burma to matters
concerning human rights, the rule of law, humanitarian and
disaster relief, English language training, medical and health
training, and defense institutional reform.
The recommended provision would expand authorized
engagements to include the understanding of security issues,
adherence to international training standards, training on
maritime domain awareness and peacekeeping operations, and
combating illegal trafficking and migration. These changes
would help shape and assist ongoing reform efforts in Burma and
assist in the pursuit of U.S. national security objectives in
the country.
Agreement supplemental to Compact of Free Association with Palau (sec.
1263)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Congressional approval necessary to bring the September 2010
Compact Review Agreement (CRA) with Palau and its appendices
into force, while authorizing and approving necessary
modifications to the outdated funding schedule that was
included in the 2010 Agreement. The recommended provision would
clarify that the funding the Department of the Interior has
provided Palau from 2011 to 2017 fulfills a portion of the
financial commitments of the United States under the CRA.
Finally, the recommended provision would extend the statutory
authority allowing the U.S. Government to provide certain
grants to Palau specified in prior legislation. This provision
would, along with funding to implement the Agreement, have a
significant impact on our defense relationship with Palau, and
would provide a measurable advantage in our strategic posture
in the western Pacific Ocean.
Under the 2010 Agreement, the United States committed to
provide a total of $215.75 million in assistance to Palau from
2011 through 2024. Adding in the $13.25 million planned to be
provided in fiscal year 2010 while negotiations were ongoing,
the total commitment of the United States amounts to $229
million. Although the Agreement has had bipartisan support and
the previous administration proposed legislation annually from
2011 through 2017 to fund commitments made under the Agreement
and bring it into force, Congress did not enact the necessary
legislation. Instead, Congress provided limited annual
authority and discretionary funding for Palau as a stop-gap
measure, totaling $105.1 million. These annual appropriations
leave the United States with a remaining $123.9 million
commitment to Palau. The Administration's budget request for
fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense includes the
$123.9 million for the remaining funding commitment to Palau.
Palau gained its independence and established diplomatic
relations with the United States in 1994 with the entry into
force of the United States-Palau Compact of Free Association,
which affirmed each nation's shared commitment to mutual
security and Palau's economic development, and provided the
United States with responsibility for Palau's defense as well
as options to access defense sites in Palau for 50 years.
As a sovereign and freely associated state in the western
Pacific, Palau carries significant foreign policy and national
security significance for the United States. The Compact
provides the United States military special access to Palau's
land, water, and air space along with the critical authority to
deny the same access to military forces and personnel of other
nations as appropriate. This agreement gives the U.S. military
critical access and influence in an increasingly contested
region.
The 1994 Compact does not have a termination date and the
majority of its provisions remain in force. The financial
assistance provisions of the 1994 Compact, however, expired on
September 30, 2009. Therefore, the recommended provision, along
with related appropriations, would allow the U.S. Government to
continue its targeted financial assistance to Palau so that
Palau will have a path toward budgetary self-reliance.
As required by the Compact, the United States and Palau
conducted a review on the 15th anniversary of the Compact
beginning in 2009 and subsequently signed the Compact Review
Agreement in September 2010. This agreement calls for $229
million in U.S. assistance to Palau through 2024, thereby
enabling Palau to transition to reliance on withdrawals from
its trust fund from 2025 through 2044.
Workforce issues for relocation of Marines to Guam (sec. 1264)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for visas to be granted to individuals performing
work on facilities related to the relocation of Marines to Guam
from 2019 to 2023. The number of new visas that could be
granted for this specific purpose is limited to 4000.
The committee notes that the limited workforce availability
on Guam is not sufficient to perform the planned work for the
Department of Defense and, if these visas are not provided, the
projects would be delayed and the costs increased by almost
$900.0 million.
United States policy with respect to freedom of navigation operations
and overflight beyond the territorial seas (sec. 1265)
The committee recommends a provision that would declare
that it is the policy of the United States to fly, sail, and
operate throughout the oceans, seas, and airspace of the world
wherever international law allows. The recommended provision
would also make a number findings regarding freedom of
navigation for law-abiding parties, the commitment of the
United States to freedom of navigation, and other things. The
recommended provision would also direct the Secretary of
Defense to implement the stated policy by planning and
executing routine and regular naval presence missions and
freedom of navigation operations throughout the world and
throughout the year.
Sense of Congress on the importance of the rule of law in the South
China Sea (sec. 1266)
The committee recommends a provision that would express a
sense of Congress on the importance of maintaining the rule of
law in the South China Sea. The committee notes that certain
activities by China have recently called into question its
commitment to the rule of law, and furthermore are continuing
to destabilize the security of the region. Such actions
directly threaten the national security interests of the United
States. The committee also notes that a United Nations arbitral
tribunal declared in July 2016 that China has no legal basis to
claim rights to the resources within its nine-dash line,
invalidating the assertions of the Chinese government. The
tribunal also went on to outline a number of actions that China
had recently taken that were unlawful and created a serious
risk of collision. These actions are alarming to the committee.
These concerns are only compounded by the fact that the United
States has taken only limited actions or operations in the last
several months to ensure freedom of navigation and overflight
in the South China Sea. As the United States has the unique
capabilities to carry out such activities, the committee is
concerned that the absence of such sends a signal to the
Chinese government that their actions will go uncontested. The
committee urges the United States government to play a vital
role in securing the South China Sea and ensuring freedom of
navigation.
Sense of Congress on the importance of the relationship between the
United States and Japan (sec. 1267)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the United States and Japan are
indispensable partners and that our security alliance will
continue to ensure a secure and prosperous region and world.
The committee notes that the Government of Japan remains
committed to our bilateral security relationship and that it is
making all necessary contributions and actions to maintain our
alliance.
The committee also notes that certain threats in the Asia-
Pacific region have been increasing recently and that
countering those threats will depend even more on a strong
partnership between our two countries. In recognition of these
evolving regional dynamics and of Japan's unwavering
commitment, the committee urges the Administration to make
clear, unequivocal statements regarding our security
relationship with Japan and about Japan's territorial
integrity.
Sense of Congress on the importance of the United States alliance with
the Republic of Korea (sec. 1268)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the United States should reaffirm its
commitment to defending our allies in Northeast Asia and
support ongoing efforts to strengthen its alliance with the
Republic of Korea. The committee notes that North Korea's
nuclear and missile programs violate multiple United Nations
Security Council resolutions and have destabilized the Korean
peninsula and the entire Asia-Pacific region by committing
provocations against South Korea and other countries. The
conduct of the government of North Korea poses an imminent
threat to the United States and the rest of the world. The
committee recommends that the United States increase pressure
on North Korea and strengthen its alliance with the Republic of
Korea in order to counter the threat posed by the North Korean
regime. The committee also supports efforts to deepen
trilateral coordination and cooperation between the United
States, the Republic of Korea, and Japan.
Sense of Congress on extended deterrence for the Korean Peninsula and
Japan (sec. 1269)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the nuclear and missile program of North
Korea is one of the most dangerous national security threats
facing the United States today, and thus the Nuclear Posture
Review to be completed this year should fully consider the
perspectives of key allies and partners in East Asia, including
the Republic of Korea and Japan.
Defense partnership between the United States and Taiwan (sec. 1270)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the United States should strengthen and
enhance its partnership and strategic cooperation with Taiwan.
The recommended provision notes the commitment to the Taiwan
Relations Act (Public Law 96-8) and to the ``Six Assurances'''
originally expressed by President Reagan. The committee notes
that both the United States and Taiwan should work toward
mutual security objectives through regular transfers of defense
articles and services, assistance in building an effective air
defense capability, and participation in multilateral training
activities. The recommended provision would also request a
report by the Secretary of Defense regarding reestablishing
port of call exchanges between the United States and Taiwan.
Naval port of call exchanges between the United States and Taiwan (sec.
1270A)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to reestablish regular ports of call by
the United States at suitable ports in Taiwan. The recommended
provision would also direct the Secretary to allow United
States Pacific Command to receive ports of call by Taiwan.
Program to enhance Taiwan's undersea warfare capabilities (sec. 1270B)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to implement a program of technical
assistance to support efforts by Taiwan to develop indigenous
undersea warfare capabilities. The committee notes that
Taiwan's current fleet of submarines is several decades old,
hampering Taiwan's ability to conduct missions and training for
their sailors. The committee believes that assistance from the
United States on undersea capabilities, to include vehicles and
sea mines, would bolster Taiwan's self-defense.
Invitation of Taiwan military forces to participate in joint military
exercises (Sec. 1270C)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to invite Taiwan to participate in a ``Red
Flag'' exercise. The committee notes that the Department of
Defense conducts several Red Flag exercises annually, including
at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska and at Nellis Air Force
Base in Nevada. The recommended provision would require an
invitation to Taiwan for one of these exercises within one
year.
Report on military exchanges between senior officers and officials of
the United States and Taiwan (Sec. 1270D)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on military exchanges between the United
States and Taiwan. The committee notes that Section 1284 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) recommended that the Secretary carry out a program
of exchanges to improve military to military relations between
the United States and Taiwan. The committee notes that these
recommendations have not yet been acted upon. Accordingly, the
recommended provision requires the report to include a list of
actions taken to implement last year's recommendations, as well
as a description of future plans to do so. The recommended
provision would also require an explanation if no action have
been taken thus far or no future plans have been made.
Subtitle F--Reports
Submittal of Department of Defense Supplemental and Cost of War
Execution Reports on a quarterly basis (sec. 1271)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1221(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) to
require the Department of Defense to submit the Cost of War
Execution report 45 days after the end of each fiscal quarter.
The committee is concerned about the time and cost necessary
for the Department to produce these reports. The average cost
to the Department to produce the monthly reports is about
$180,000 and they are usually late. By reducing the number of
reports required the committee hopes to alleviate the
Department and the taxpayers of these burdens.
The committee notes that the original intent of these
reports, and the former requirement that the Government
Accountability Office would review them, was to urge the
Department to create a process for reporting on the cost of the
wars using accounting systems to directly pull information as
necessary. The committee is encouraged that this process is now
in place and running relatively smoothly. By changing the
frequency of these reports the committee expects to receive
these reports on time and with same detail that they currently
include, since the Department will have more time to create
them.
Consolidation of reports on United States Armed Forces, civilian
employees, and contractors deployed in support of Operation
Inherent Resolve and Operation Freedom's Sentinel (sec. 1272)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report, 30 days after the enactment of the Act and
every 90 days thereafter, on the total number of U.S.
Department of Defense personnel deployed in support of
Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) and Operation Freedom's
Sentinel (OFS), including members of United States Armed
Forces, Department of Defense civilians, and Department of
Defense contractors. Additionally, this provision would repeal
section 1224 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Subtitle G--Others Matters
Modification of availability of funds in Special Defense Acquisition
Fund for precision guided munitions (sec. 1281)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 114 of title 10, United States Code to change the
current requirement that of the amount available in the Special
Defense Acquisition Fund, $500.0 million may only be used to
procure and stock precision guided munitions. The committee
recommends a change to the available obligation authority in
the Special Defense Acquisition Fund, requiring that 20 percent
of such funds must be used on precision guided munitions and
associated support equipment and services.
Precision guided munitions, for the purpose of this
requirement, is defined as a guided munition intended to
precisely hit a specific target, whether fired from air, sea,
surface, or are man-portable.
Use of funds in the United States for certain United States-Israel
anti-tunnel cooperation activities (sec. 1282)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authority under section 1279 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), as
amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), for the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of
National Intelligence, to carry out research, development,
test, and evaluation, on a joint basis with Israel, to
establish anti-tunnel capabilities to detect, map, and
neutralize underground tunnels that threaten the United States
or Israel. The provision would provide that of the amount
contributed by the United States for activities under section
1279 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92), not less than 50 percent of such
amount shall be used for research, development, test, and
evaluation activities for purposes of such section in the
United States.
The committee continues to support the anti-tunnel
cooperation program with Israel and notes the potential
benefits to support efforts to: restrict the flow of drugs,
including heroin and fentanyl, under our southern border;
protect forward deployed troops; and secure Israel's borders.
The committee encourages the department to fully utilize the
authorities provided in section 1279 and seek opportunities to
maximize anti-tunnel research, development, test, and
evaluation cooperation with Israel.
Foreign military sales letters of request for pricing and availability
(sec. 1283)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense implementing agency for a foreign
military sale (FMS) to consult with the relevant US commercial
entities involved in the sale before delivering a formal
pricing and availability response to the foreign customer. If
the commercial entity believes the price is not accurate, then
the commercial entity and the implementing agency should each
provide a justification for the differences to the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency within 30 days of being notified of
the discrepancy by the commercial entity.
Sense of Congress reaffirming strategic partnerships and allies (sec.
1284)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Congress that United States allies and partners
are critical to defending peace and prosperity throughout the
world.
Budget Items
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative
The budget request included $3.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency (SAG 4GTD), of which $150.0 million was for
the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. The committee
recommends an increase of $350.0 million for the Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative.
Items of Special Interest
Enhanced assistance and cooperation for Afghanistan by the Government
of India
The committee is concerned by the current stalemate in
Afghanistan, and believes that the United States should
leverage the capabilities of allies and partners to more
effectively secure regional stability and security. The
committee believes that the United States needs to recommit to
the fight in Afghanistan and that India, as a major defense
partner of the United States and a contributor to regional
security, has a critical role to play in this effort.
The committee notes that on February 9, 2017, General John
W. Nicholson, Commander of U.S. Forces--Afghanistan, testified
before the committee that ``With over $2.0 billion development
aid executed since 2002, and another $1.0 billion pledged in
2016, India's significant investments in Afghan infrastructure,
engineering, training, and humanitarian issues will help
develop Afghan human capital and long-term stability.''
Further, the committee notes that General Nicholson highlighted
significant short-term materiel and training needs within the
Afghan Air Force (AAF), and has personally urged India to
provide this targeted support to meet urgent gaps.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to enhance trilateral
cooperation between the Governments of Afghanistan, India, and
United States for the purposes of strengthening the sovereignty
and security of Afghanistan. In doing so, the committee expects
that any increase in investment and assistance pursuant to this
trilateral cooperation would take into account the mutual
priorities of the three respective governments. This assistance
could include logistical support; joint training; combined
military planning; threat analysis; intelligence, materiel, and
maintenance support for Afghan National Defense and Security
Forces for humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, security
assistance, and any other areas deemed appropriate.
The committee believes that India, as a regional partner to
Afghanistan and a major defense partner of the United States,
is well-suited to assist the Government of Afghanistan to
improve the security of Afghanistan and the broader region, and
can work on a trilateral basis with the United States and
Afghanistan to do so. The committee also believes that timely
actions by the Indian government to fill identified needs in
Afghanistan would significantly benefit the short- and long-
term security and stability of the region.
Importance of soft power tools in the Asia-Pacific region
The committee notes that continued engagement by the United
States in the Asia-Pacific region is critical to maintaining
security and stability in the region. In addition to assessing
current force posture and investing in hard power assets, the
committee notes the importance of soft power tools, including
independent academic institutions like Fulbright University
Vietnam and others in the region. The Committee believes these
institutions are an important element of our Asia-Pacific
strategy, and can help build the workforce and bolster the
capabilities that our regional allies need--including in cyber
defense and cyber-supportive information technology
infrastructure and training--to counter ongoing security
threats. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
support efforts by the Department of State and other U.S.
actors to ensure that all appropriate tools of U.S. soft power
are being fully utilized.
Institutionalizing Advise and Assist Lessons Learned
U.S. military personnel have been actively engaged as part
of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in advising and assisting
Iraqi Security Forces and vetted Syrian forces to counter the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant since late 2014. In
Afghanistan, the U.S. still has more than 8,000 military
forces, many of which are focused on advising and assisting the
Afghan National Defense and Security Forces as part of
Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS). The committee notes that
the Department of Defense's (DOD) approach to advising and
assisting partner nation forces has evolved over time,
transitioning from a larger U.S. military presence to now
relying on a more limited number of U.S. forces on the ground.
For example, the current approach in Syria uses a small
footprint with a significant presence of special operations
forces and reliance on key enablers such as air support,
airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR),
and logistics. DOD continues to draw personnel from across the
military services, including from conventional combat units, to
serve as advisors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has previously
identified challenges DOD has faced in supporting advising
missions, such as selecting and training advisor personnel,
balancing advising activities with other missions, and
maintaining the readiness of units that provide advisors. The
committee is aware of ongoing efforts to develop new
capabilities, such as the Army's effort to develop advise and
assist brigades. Given these past challenges, and the emphasis
that current military strategy continues to place on the
importance of advising partner security forces to counter
global threats, it remains essential for DOD to take steps to
ensure that it: (1) has an effective approach for selecting,
training, and utilizing advisor personnel in ongoing
operations; and (2) continues the development of a long-term
strategy that institutionalizes successful advise and assist
approaches to ensure U.S. forces are positioned to effectively
execute similar missions in the future. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to evaluate the following issues:
1. What are the key characteristics of DOD's approach to
planning for, training, and utilizing U.S. military personnel
to advise and assist partner forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Syria?
2. What challenges, if any, has DOD faced in providing and
utilizing U.S. military personnel to carry out their assigned
advise and assist missions?
3. What challenges, if any, has DOD faced in providing air
support, ISR, logistics, or other key enabling capabilities for
advise and assist missions?
4. To what extent has DOD assessed and institutionalized
lessons from OIR, OFS, and other advise and assist missions
past and present, to identify and implement necessary changes
to doctrine, training, and force structure to support ongoing
and future advise and assist missions?
5. Any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
not later than November 1, 2017, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings and submit a final report to the
congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the
time of the briefing.
NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence
The committee is concerned by provocative information
operations campaigns conducted by the Russian Federation that
seek to undermine the United States, our allies, and the NATO
alliance. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
received testimony that describes Russia's ``mastery of the
tools of information warfare'' and public information campaigns
and propaganda.
The committee is aware that the NATO Strategic
Communication Center of Excellence is a multi-national and
NATO-accredited international military organization based in
Riga, Latvia. The Center of Excellence works to enhance the
strategic communications capabilities within the NATO alliance
and allied nations by providing comprehensive analyses, timely
advice, and practical support to the alliance.
The committee is concerned that while the Center of
Excellence's work on strategic communications and the
information environment is highly relevant to the United
States, U.S. European Command in particular, the United States
does not have a full-time employee seconded to the NATO
Strategic Communication Center of Excellence.
Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
assign appropriate personnel to the NATO Strategic
Communication Center of Excellence.
Report on the military capabilities of Hezbollah
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, submit
to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth
an assessment of the military capabilities of Hezbollah in
Lebanon. The report shall include: (1) a detailed assessment of
the capabilities of conventional and non-conventional forces of
Hezbollah in Lebanon and (2) a detailed assessment of the
operational performance of Hezbollah forces in Syria, including
its military cooperation with Syrian and Iranian military and
paramilitary entities and with armed forces and intelligence
entities of the Russian Federation. The Secretary shall submit
the report to the congressional defense committees no later
than April 1, 2018. If the report is submitted in a classified
form, the report shall be accompanied by an unclassified
executive summary.
Security strategy for Great Lakes region of Africa
The committee notes that Africa's Great Lakes sub-region
continues to be plagued by decades of instability and armed
conflict resulting from porous borders, competition for
resources, weak governance, territorial disputes, and the
continued existence and growth of extremist and terrorist
groups in the region. The United States, United Nations,
European Union, and the African Union have been engaged in
operations aimed at addressing these threats and improving
stability in the region. With Operation Observant Compass (OOC)
ending, it is imperative that the Department of Defense remain
engaged in the region through continued cooperation with
regional security forces, sharing of intelligence, and
multilateral exercises to increase regional capacity to combat
shared threats. The committee notes that following the
disestablishment of OOC and the retrograde of forces from the
African Union Regional Task Force from the affected areas,
there are reports that the Lord's Resistance Army is increasing
attacks against local populations. The committee understands
and supports the Department's decision to transition its
efforts from OOC to a broader regional engagement strategy.
However, the tenuous regional security situation underscores
the need to develop and implement a strategy to maintain
regional engagement and arrest further deterioration of the
security situation as soon as possible.
As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the committee on its strategy to combat
security threats in the African Great Lakes sub-region. The
briefing shall, at a minimum, include: (1) an identification
and assessment of the primary security threats in the region,
(2) a plan for engagement with appropriate security forces in
the region, with a focus on building capacities and cooperation
with the United States and encouraging interoperability between
countries in the region, (3) an assessment of the U.S. and
partner nation force structure necessary to mitigate regional
security threats, sustain engagement, and maintain the ability
to respond to contingencies, and (4) an account of any
agreements between the U.S. and countries of the region for use
of facilities, if required, and (5) any other matters the
Secretary of Defense deems appropriate.
Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative
The committee continues to strongly support efforts under
the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative aimed at
enhancing the capabilities of regional partners to more
effectively exercise control over their maritime territory and
to deter adversaries. The committee notes that to date, the
Department of Defense has utilized the authority under section
1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92), as amended, to support specified
partner capacity-building efforts in the region, to include the
provision of training, sustainment support, and participation
in multilateral engagements. The committee further notes that
section 1241 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) included a significant
reform of the security cooperation authorities available to the
Department intended to enhance the ability of the Department to
respond to evolving security challenges with flexible
authorities related to the provision of training, equipment,
and other support to foreign security partners with mutual
security interests and objectives.
Of particular note, section 1241 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
provides the Secretary of Defense with a permanent, global
authority to provide training, equipment, and sustainment
support to build the capacity of foreign security partners to
perform counterterrorism operations, counter-weapons of mass
destruction operations, counter-illicit trafficking operations,
counter-transnational organized crime operations, maritime and
border security operations, military intelligence operations,
and operations or activities that contribute to an
international coalition operation determined by the Secretary
to be in the national interest of the United States.
Additionally, sections 1241 through 1247 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) included numerous other authorities intended to enhance
security cooperation activities, including authorizing
military-to-military exchanges and operational support to
friendly foreign countries to enable ongoing operations. The
committee believes these security cooperation authorities
provide the Department with enhanced flexibility to operate
effectively in a continuously evolving and complex global
security environment. The committee further believes that these
authorities are particularly relevant to the security
environment in South Asia and Southeast Asia and directs the
Department to make use of the full complement of security
cooperation authorities available to the Department,
particularly those under section 1241 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), to
enhance the capabilities of foreign security partners in the
region to protect mutual security interests.
To this end, the committee directs the Department to
continue with the Maritime Security Initiative through the
title 10 authorities for security cooperation established in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328). In addition, the committee believes that,
consistent with new authorities, the Secretary should expand
the Department's efforts under the Maritime Security Initiative
to encompass additional countries, including Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, and Burma. In addition, the Secretary should also
include India among the countries eligible for payment of
incremental expenses in connection with training under the
Initiative.
Southeast Asia terrorism
The committee is concerned with the rise of violent
extremist groups in Southeast Asia and the affiliation of those
terrorist groups to the Islamic State. The committee is
concerned that, as U.S. counterterrorism operations in the U.S.
Central Command area of responsibility exert increased pressure
on the Islamic State and affiliated networks, foreign fighters
from Southeast Asia will return to their countries of origin
and continue terrorist activities. The committee urges the
Commanders of U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Special Operations
Command--Pacific to strengthen collaboration with regional
partners to combat this growing threat through a comprehensive
counterterrorism strategy.
Transformation of the Kosovo Security Forces to the Kosovo Armed Forces
The committee supports continued U.S. assistance to the
Kosovo Security Force as it makes the gradual transition to a
multi-ethnic army for the Republic of Kosovo. Kosovo's long-
term security is deeply rooted in its political and security
relationships with the United States, NATO, and other
international partners. These relationships are underwritten by
shared democratic values and adherence to the rule of law.
Therefore, the committee believes it is critical that the
transformation of the Kosovo Security Forces to the Kosovo
Armed Forces take place through an inclusive and transparent
process that complies with Kosovo's constitution, respects of
the rights and concerns of all of Kosovo's citizens, promotes
regional security and stability, and supports Kosovo's
aspirations and eventual full membership in NATO.
U.S.-India defense cooperation
The committee is pleased to see progress in the U.S.-India
defense partnership. The positive adjustment of U.S. export
controls for defense articles sold to India is in accordance
with section 1292(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) that required an
assessment regarding such an adjustment. Furthermore, the
United States and India have continued to refine their annual
Exercise Malabar, which has benefited from the recent inclusion
of Japan. The committee supports the exercise's consistent
focus on maritime patrol, reconnaissance scenarios, and anti-
submarine warfare operations.
Even so, the committee is concerned by a growing gap
between the overarching goals of the bilateral defense
relationship and the Department's implementation of these
objectives. The Joint Strategic Vision (JSV) agreed to by the
United States and India in 2015 codified a common commitment to
maritime awareness and freedom of navigation as overarching
defense missions. The key body in the Department of Defense
implementing and coordinating defense cooperation with India is
the 2012 Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI). Its
six ``pathfinder'' initiatives are (1) development of a
chemical-biological protective ensemble for troops; (2)
development of mobile electric hybrid power stations; (3) a
next-generation small unmanned aircraft; (4) a roll-on/roll-off
intelligence and surveillance module for transport aircraft;
(5) digital helmet-mounted displays; and (6) the joint
biological tactical detection system. While the Committee
supports all of these initiatives, it is concerned that several
of these projects lack focus and are underdeveloped, and
therefore urges the Department to prioritize elements of the
DTTI that most closely align with the JSV.
Compounding this concern is the Department's delay in
complying with a requirement in section 1292(a)(1)(B) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) to designate an individual within the Department
to coordinate and expedite bilateral defense cooperation. The
committee believes that appointing such an individual would
bring a refined approach to prioritizing defense cooperation
and aligning it with missions like maritime awareness and anti-
submarine warfare, and eventually joint naval patrol of the
Indian Ocean.
Moreover, the committee is aware that key defense
cooperation agreements have not been completed, namely the
Communications Capability and Security Agreement and the Basic
Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Intelligence.
The Department has approached negotiation of these agreements
with consistency and good faith, as evidenced in the successful
signing of the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement with
India earlier this year. The committee commends both the
Department and the Ministry of Defense for this progress, and
hopes to see similar agreement with the two outstanding
documents as well.
Finally, looking ahead to the future of the U.S. Major
Defense Partnership with India, the committee encourages the
Department to work closely with India in the cyber and space
operating domains at appropriate strategic, operational, and
tactical levels. As a rising economic power and key security
partner, it is the committee's judgment that India deserves a
seat at the table as the U.S. works with our other key allies
and partners to increase resiliency, strengthen deterrence, and
secure superiority in both operating domains.
Therefore, the committee requests that the Secretary of
Defense brief the committee not later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act on the following elements:
(1) Confirmation that the Secretary has appointed an
individual in fulfillment of statutory requirement
under Sec. 1292(a)(1)(B) of the National Defense
Authorization Act FY2017 (Public Law 114-328);
(2) Recommendation on which DTTI initiatives the
Secretary intends to prioritize in alignment with the
Joint Strategic Vision, and whether new initiatives are
needed to match the common importance that both
countries give to increasing maritime domain awareness;
(3) Update on the state of outstanding defense
cooperation agreements with India; and
(4) State of trilateral discussions for future
Malabar Exercises, specifically whether the Department
and the Ministry of Defense have discussed with Japan
the integration of seaborne terrorism and joint naval
patrol exercises into Malabar.
Ukrainian wounded warriors
The committee understands that in June 2015, the Secretary
of Defense approved the use of the Secretarial Designee program
and Emergency and Extraordinary Expense funding to pay costs
arising from the medical and rehabilitative treatment at
military medical treatment facilities of wounded Ukrainian
soldiers who could not receive the necessary specialized
medical treatment in Ukraine. Costs covered included inpatient
care, transportation, lodging, meals, and incidental expenses
relating to the movement and medical treatment of the wounded
Ukrainian soldiers. The committee understands that eight
wounded Ukrainian soldiers were successfully assisted through
this program. The committee recognizes that providing this
specialized care enhances military operational medical force
readiness through the performance of combat-related medical
procedures that help ensure physicians and other providers
maintain critical readiness skillsets.
The committee is concerned that the expenses of medical
coverage for additional wounded Ukrainian soldiers approved
under the Secretarial Designee program only extends to
inpatient care, and the Ukrainian government is required to
fund all remaining costs. In light of the ongoing conflict in
Ukraine, the Ukrainian government is unable to reimburse these
costs, creating difficulty in bringing any additional wounded
soldiers to the United States for the care they desperately
need.
Russia's persistent military aggression in Ukraine
continues to inflict grievous injuries on Ukrainian soldiers,
who require medical treatment that cannot be performed in
country. The committee supports the Department of Defense's
efforts through the Secretarial Designee program to provide
medical and rehabilitative assistance in military medical
treatment facilities in the United States to Ukrainian soldiers
wounded in defense of their country and strongly encourages the
Department to fund to the extent practicable both the medical
and non-medical costs it previously covered for future cases.
United States commitment to the NATO alliance
The committee believes the NATO alliance remains vital for
protecting U.S. national security interests, facilitating
transatlantic security cooperation, and promoting peace and
stability in Europe and around the world. As threats to the
common security of the United States and our NATO allies grow
more severe and more complex, the committee believes it is
essential that the United States maintain an ironclad
commitment to upholding its obligations under Article 5 of the
North Atlantic Treaty, which declares that ``an armed attack
against one or more [NATO allies] shall be considered an attack
against them all.''
The committee honors the contributions of our NATO allies
to U.S. national security. In response to the September 11th
terrorist attacks, which killed 2,600 Americans and 135
citizens of NATO countries, our NATO allies invoked Article 5
of the North Atlantic Treaty for the first time in history.
NATO troops fought side by side with U.S. troops in
Afghanistan, and over 1,000 of them made the ultimate
sacrifice. The committee honors the sacrifices of our NATO
allies sharing the burden of collective security.
At the same time, the committee continues to urge NATO
allies to uphold their obligations under Article 3 of the North
Atlantic Treaty to ``maintain and develop their individual and
collective capacity to resist armed attack'' by honoring the
pledge made at the Wales Summit in September 2014 to reach the
goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense by 2024. It is
also critical that NATO allies continue to coordinate defense
investments to both improve deterrence against Russian
aggression and terrorist organizations and more appropriately
balance defense spending across the alliance. The committee is
encouraged that, according to NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, defense budgets across Europe and Canada increased
by 3.8 percent in 2016, or by approximately $10.0 billion.
Given the threat on NATO's eastern flank, the committee is
gratified that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania each plan to
spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense in 2018.
The NATO alliance defends not only the common security of
the United States and our NATO allies, but our common values as
well. That is why the committee is increasingly concerned about
indications of the erosion of democratic institutions in
certain NATO member states, including Hungary, Turkey, and
Poland. The committee believes it is important for all NATO
allies to uphold their obligations under the North Atlantic
Treaty, which commits NATO allies to ``safeguard the freedom,
common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on
the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of
law.''
Venezuelan military cooperation
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
Congress a report on military cooperation between the
Government of Venezuela with Cuba, Iran, and Russia, entities
designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the United
States, and persons considered to be regional militant groups
hostile to the United States but not otherwise designated as
foreign terrorist organizations by the United States. The
report shall include descriptions of the following: (1)
Cooperation on military intelligence and counterintelligence
operations; (2) Cooperation in illicit drug trafficking
operations; (3) Cooperation in cyber and information
operations; (4) Cooperation with transnational criminal
organizations; (5) Weapons and technology transfers to and from
either party and the impact that such transferred weapons have
upon either party's military capabilities; and (6) Estimates of
the types and amounts of support, including funding, lethal and
non-lethal supplies, and training provided.
The Secretary shall submit the report to the congressional
defense committees no later than April 1, 2018. If the report
is submitted in a classified form, the report shall be
accompanied by an unclassified executive summary.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, define the funds as
authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and
authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal
years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$324.6 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.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction, at the levels identified in section 4501 of
division D of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug
Activities, Defense-wide, at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile
Authority to dispose of certain materials from and to acquire
additional materials for the National Defense Stockpile (sec.
1411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) Manager to dispose of up
to $9.0 million of excess materials in order to acquire two new
materials and rare earth elements (REE) that have been
identified by the Department of Defense (DOD) as essential to
meet military requirements. The committee notes these REE
acquisitions would alleviate DOD supply chain vulnerability and
mitigate the risk of foreign reliance for REE and critical
materials. Specifically, the two materials and REE are
electrolytic manganese metal and antimony.
Additionally, the committee recognizes the strategic value
of the NDS and its critical material locations across the
United States: Alabama, Arizona, California, Indiana, Nevada,
New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
Subtitle C--Chemical Demilitarization Matters
Acquisition reporting on major chemical demilitarization programs of
the Department of Defense (sec. 1421)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense's major chemical demilitarization
programs to report separately under the Acquisition Category 1
(ACAT 1) system in order to enhance transparency.
Subtitle D--Armed Forces Retirement Home
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
1431)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an appropriation of $64.3 million from the Armed Forces
Retirement Home Trust Fund for fiscal year 2018 for the
operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Armed Forces Retirement Home matters (sec. 1432)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1513A, 1517(e)(2), and 1518 of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home (AFRH) Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 413a, 417(e)(2),
and 418 respectively) to transfer oversight responsibilities of
the AFRH from the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to the Secretary of Defense. Additionally, the
provision would amend section 1516 of such Act (24 U.S.C. 416)
to provide the Department more flexibility in selecting members
of the Advisory Council of the AFRH. Finally, the provision
would amend section 1517(b) of such Act (24 U.S.C. 417(b)) to
clarify that the administrator of the AFRH serves at the
pleasure of the Secretary of Defense.
Subtitle E--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. 1441)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $115.5 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.
Enhancement of database of emergency response capabilities of the
Department of Defense (sec. 1442)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1406 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2436;
10 U.S.C. 113 note) to enhance the database of emergency
response capabilities of the Department of Defense by adding
the requirement to track the cyber capabilities of the National
Guard and Reserve in the requirement to capture emergency
response capabilities that the Department of Defense may be
able to provide in support of the National Response Plan's
Emergency Support Function. The Department of Defense would
also be required to establish, maintain, and keep current the
database at least once every 2 years.
Items of Special Interest
Agro-terrorism
A Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in the United States has
the potential to cause upwards of $200 billion in damages to
our food production economy. When American and allied forces
took control of al Qaeda harbor sites in the caves of
Afghanistan in 2002, among the thousands of documents they
discovered were U.S. agricultural documents and al Qaeda
training manuals targeting agriculture. The Committee is
concerned about the potential for our adversaries to use Foot
and Mouth Disease or another foreign animal disease in an
attempt to cause serious harm to the food security and economy
of the United States.
The committee directs the Department of Defense, in
consultation with the Department of Agriculture, to brief the
committee on the threats associated with the introduction of
Foot and Mouth Disease or another foreign animal disease in an
attempt to cause serious harm to the food security and economy
of the United States, and our ability to respond to such
threats.
Assessment of designating a Joint Chemical-Biological Defense Logistics
Distribution Center
The committee recognizes that in fiscal year 2006, Congress
urged the Secretary of the Army to designate the U.S. Army Pine
Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, as the Center of Industrial and
Technical Excellence for Chemical and Biological Defense.
The committee hereby directs the Secretary of Defense to
evaluate the feasibility of designating a Joint Chemical-
Biological Defense Logistics Distribution Center to consolidate
the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
sustainment functions and provide enhanced military readiness
to the warfighter. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit an assessment to the
congressional defense committees not later than December 1,
2017.
Domestic production of Scandium
Given the planned initiation and production in the United
States within the next 5 years of as much as 100 metric tons of
Scandium, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing on the potential defense and industrial uses
of Scandium to the congressional defense committees by December
1, 2017.
Fiscal stability of the National Defense Stockpile
The committee notes that the funds within the National
Defense Stockpile (NDS) Transaction Fund have been
significantly depleted due to the lack of excess materials
available for disposal. The Fund was designed to allow for the
sale of excess materials, from which the funds in turn could be
used to acquire emergent strategic and critical materials for
national defense requirements. While this process has been
ongoing since just after World War II, the value of the
available inventory designated as excess is no longer
sufficient to acquire the strategic and critical material
requirements identified by the President as necessary.
The committee believes the current manager of the NDS, the
Defense Logistics Agency office for Strategic Materials (DLA-
SM), is hampered in its acquisition strategy due to the lack of
funds available for procurement of materials. The committee has
observed that the DLA-SM must determine which materials are
most critical for acquisition, leaving other material
requirements unfunded. The committee notes that even after
managing resources in this cost-prohibitive environment, the
fund will likely become insolvent within the next 3-7 years.
Additionally, the committee strongly encourages the
Department to make use of existing authorities under Section
303 of the Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. 2093) to enter
into commitments to purchase strategic and critical materials
required to meet the defense, industrial, and essential
civilian needs of the United States from domestic producers and
domestic producers that the Department believes are likely to
initiate commercial production of such materials within the
next five years.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the NDS manager, to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than
January 31, 2018, on the plan to develop and implement a
funding strategy for sustaining a robust NDS inventory when
current funds in the transaction fund are depleted. This
strategy should include the incorporation of acquisition
requirements for strategic and critical materials though the
discretionary appropriations process.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations
Purpose (sec. 1501)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
this title and make authorization of appropriations available
upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act.
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
authorization of appropriations in this section as overseas
contingency operations as directed in section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
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.
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 authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $3.5 billion of
overseas contingency operation funding authorized for fiscal
year 2018 in this title to unforeseen higher priority needs in
accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. This transfer
authority would be in addition to the authority provided to the
Secretary elsewhere in this Act.
Subtitle C--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 2018 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
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 the ASFF and to treat such equipment
as Department of Defense stocks. The provision would also
extend the goal of using $25.0 million to support, to the
extent practicable, the efforts of the Government of
Afghanistan to promote the recruitment, training, and
integration of Afghan women into the Afghan National Defense
and Security Forces. The provision would also require that
products published or issued by an inspector general relating
to the oversight of the ASFF be prepared in accordance with
certain quality standards.
Budget Items
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
The budget request included $2.3 billion for Operations and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency
Operations, for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, of
which $1.0 billion is for Coalition Support Funds (CSF).
The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act is a
provision that would limit the total amount of CSF that may be
provided in fiscal year 2018 to $900.0 million. Accordingly,
the committee recommends a reduction of $100.0 million to CSF.
Transfer of European Reassurance Initiative
The budget request included $4.8 billion in the Overseas
Contingency Operations account for the European Reassurance
Initiative (ERI), of which $214.3 million was for Military
Personnel, $2.27 billion was for Operation and Maintenance,
$1.87 billion was for Procurement, $64.1 million was for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, $306.9 million was
for Military Construction, and $50.1 million was for Revolving
and Management Funds.
In the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and
annexation of Crimea and escalating threats against NATO allies
in Eastern Europe, the ERI was designed to reverse major
reductions in U.S. military presence. Due to arbitrary budget
caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25), this
timely U.S. response through the ERI was only possible by
including those funds in the Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) account. However, the committee has long been concerned
the ERI does not properly belong in the OCO account and should
be transferred to the base defense budget as soon as possible
without negatively impacting ongoing U.S. efforts to reassure
allies and re-establish deterrence.
Military and civilian leaders of the Department of Defense
have consistently identified Russia as a top threat to U.S.
national security interests. Substantial and sustained
investment in U.S. military presence in Europe will be required
to improve the capability, capacity, and agility of U.S. forces
to address Russian conventional, nuclear, and hybrid threats
from the Arctic region to Eastern Europe to the Mediterranean.
In short, providing credible deterrence against Russian
aggression is not a contingent requirement, but an enduring
requirement.
Therefore, the committee recommends a transfer of these
activities from the ERI in the OCO account to the European
Deterrence Initiative as part of the base defense budget to
fully support U.S. military presence in Europe, facilitate
efficient planning and execution, and ensure budgetary
transparency. The committee recommends a transfer of $214.3
million from Military Personnel, $2.12 billion from Operation
and Maintenance, $1.87 billion from Procurement, $64.1 million
from Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, $306.9
million from Military Construction, and $50.1 million from
Revolving and Management Funds for a total of $4.63 billion
from the OCO account to the respective base accounts.
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS
Subtitle A--Space Activities
Air Force Space Command (sec. 1601)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Commander of Air Force Space Command serve a term of at least 6
years.
The committee is concerned that numerous organizational
impediments impede the ability of the Department of Defense to
meet the national security space challenges of the 21st
century.
Numerous studies over the past 2 decades have concluded
that DoD space leadership responsibilities are fragmented and
defused. The committee believes that extending the tenure of
the Commander of Air Force Space Command will partially address
some of the challenges undermining the development, deployment,
and employment of our National Security Space capabilities.
Similar to the continuity of leadership employed by the Navy's
Nuclear Propulsion Program and the Navy Strategic Systems
Program, the committee believes that Air Force space programs,
which similarly require enhanced technical and operational
focus, will benefit from the sustained leadership.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee also proposes the
creation of the Chief Information Warfare Officer (CIWO). Among
its numerous information and cyber-related roles and
responsibilities, the CIWO would have the authority to
establish policy for, and direct, the secretaries of the
military departments and the heads of all other elements of the
Department of Defense relating to space and space launch
systems. The CIWO would also assume the role of the Principal
Department of Defense Space Advisor.
Air Force space contractor responsibility watch list (sec. 1602)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
and maintain a contractor responsibility watch list (CRWL) for
Air Force space programs. The CRWL would include contractors
with histories of poor performance on space procurement or
research, development, test, and evaluation program contracts.
The provision would authorize the Commander of Air Force Space
and Missile Systems Center to place a contractor on the CRWL
upon determining that the ability of the contractor to perform
Air Force space contracts has been called into question by: (1)
Poor performance or award fee scores below 50 percent; (2)
Financial concerns; (3) Felony or civil judgments; or (4)
Security or foreign ownership and control issues.
The provision would also make the Commander of Air Force
Space and Missile Systems Center responsible for determining
which contractors to place on the watch list, whether an entire
company or a specific division should be included, and when to
remove a contractor from the list.
The provision would prohibit the Air Force Space and
Missile Systems Center from soliciting an offer from, awarding
a contract to, executing an engineering change proposal with,
or exercising an option on any Air Force space program with a
contractor included on the CRWL without the prior approval of
the Commander of Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. It
would also prohibit a prime contractor on an Air Force Space
and Missile Systems Center contract from entering into a
subcontract valued in excess of $3.0 million or 5 percent of
the prime contract value with a contractor included on the CRWL
without the prior approval of the Commander of Air Force Space
and Missile Systems Center.
The provision would also establish a process for a
contractor to submit to the Commander of Air Force Space and
Missile Systems Center a written request for removal from the
watch list, including evidence that the contractor has resolved
the issue that was the basis for inclusion on the list.
The Commander of Air Force Space Command should notify the
congressional defense committees of each instance an entity is
either added or removed from the CRWL.
The committee believes that the Air Force space acquisition
community lacks the tools necessary to effectively hold
contractors accountable for poor performance. The space
acquisition community has a finite number of contractors,
involves numerous multi-billion dollar programs, and has a
history of cost overruns and schedule delays. Program offices
typically manage contractor performance via modifications to
award fees or in the most extreme cases through debarment of a
contractor. Because of this small contractor base, it is not
uncommon for contractors who perform poorly on one program to
win contracts for similar work in other programs. The committee
believes that, if used effectively, the CRWL would provide the
Air Force space acquisition community with an additional tool
for enhanced accountability and better contractor performance.
The committee notes that there is precedence for this
action. The National Reconnaissance Office has maintained and
effectively utilized its own CRWL to hold its contractors
accountable and to notify Congress of serious programmatic
issues. If instituted similarly at the Air Force Space and
Missile Systems Center, the CRWL will provide to the space
acquisition community additional critical tools for ensuring
taxpayer dollars are spent effectively by appropriately dis-
incentivizing contractors' poor performance.
The committee believes the unique nature of satellite
acquisition programs and the relatively small size of the
satellite industrial base make the utilization of a CRWL
particularly important.
Presidential National Voice Conferencing system (sec. 1603)
The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate
disparate program elements of the Presidential and National
Voice Conferencing (PNVC) system under the Air Force Program
Executive Officer, who has been given overall responsibility
for the system. The PNVC system, which is a ground segment
component of the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite
system, is designed to give the President the ability to
execute time-sensitive conference discussions with his advisors
under the most stressing environments, including those
associated with the employment of nuclear forces either before
or after an attack. Currently, the components of the PNVC
system are executed by different agencies, and hence its
overall budget is fragmented. This provision would consolidate
this fragmented structure under the Air Force. The committee
believes that it is important that the authority for this
effort be aligned with accountability under the Air Force.
Given the importance of this nuclear command, control, and
communications acquisition and the delays encountered to date
due to its fragmented structure, reporting shall follow
guidelines for an Acquisition Category 1 system.
Limitation on use of funds for Delta IV launch vehicle (sec. 1604)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Air Force from obligating funds to maintain infrastructure,
system engineering, critical skills, base and range support,
depreciation, or sustainment commodities for the Delta IV
launch vehicle unless the Secretary of the Air Force certifies
to the congressional defense committees that the Air Force
plans to launch a satellite procured by the Air Force on a
Delta IV launch vehicle within 3 years of that certification.
The committee understands that while the Air Force no
longer has plans to utilize the Delta IV launch vehicle, the
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) will rely on the Delta IV
to meet its heavy lift requirements for the foreseeable future.
While the committee advocated for the Delta IV launch vehicle
to eliminate its reliance on the Atlas V, the Air Force has
insisted that it no longer intends to utilize the Delta IV.
Given that the Air Force no longer requires the Delta IV, the
committee believes that the Air Force should not be responsible
for the significant costs associated with maintaining the
capability for the NRO.
The committee is concerned that with the decision to phase
out the Delta IV, the Air Force and the NRO have both
underestimated the cost and technical risk in replacing the
unique heavy lift capability required to meet NRO requirements.
Policy of the United States with respect to classification of space as
a combat domain (sec. 1605)
The committee recommends a provision that would state that
it is the policy of the United States to develop, procure,
field, and maintain an integrated system of assets in response
to the increasingly contested nature of the space operating
domain to: (1) ensure the resilience of capabilities at every
level of orbit in space; (2) deter or deny an attack on
capabilities at every level of orbit in space; and (3) defend
the territory of the United States, its allies, and its
deployed forces across all operating domains.
Launch support and infrastructure modernization (sec. 1606)
The committee understands that in calendar year 2017,
Eastern Launch and Test Range plans to support 35 space
launches, with an expected increase to 48 launches annually in
the next few years. This represents tremendous growth from the
7 to 18 launches seen annually in previous years.
The committee also understand that not only is the tempo of
space launches increasing, but the number, type, and providers
of space launch vehicles and activities are also growing to
fulfill the national objective of a competitive domestic space
launch industry.
Then-Commander of U.S. Air Force Space Command, General
John Hyten, issued in March 2016 his ``Commander's Intent on
Range Support to Commercial Space Launch'' to increase the
Department of Defense's ability to provide efficient space
launch and range support to civil and commercial space launch
providers.
The committee is concerned that, despite increased
efficiencies in space launch due to better liaison between
defense, civil, and commercial space launch providers, full-
scale space launch operations are limited by decaying range
infrastructure on both the Eastern and Western Test and Launch
Ranges.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to carry out a program to modernize space launch infrastructure
and improve space launch activities, to include processing and
launch of national security space vehicles, in the Eastern and
Western Test and Launch Ranges.
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities
Extension of authority to engage in commercial activities as security
for intelligence collection activities (sec. 1611)
The Committee recommends a provision that would extend by 3
years the authority under section 431 of title 10, United
States Code.
Subtitle C--Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related Matters
Policy of the United States on cyberspace, cybersecurity, and cyber
warfare (sec. 1621)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the policy of the United States with respect to matters
pertaining to cyberspace, cybersecurity, and cyber warfare.
The committee has long expressed its concern with the lack
of an effective strategy and policy for addressing cyber
threats and cyber deterrence. The National Defense
Authorization Act has included numerous provisions over the
past few years that directed the executive branch to define and
develop the policies and strategies necessary to improve the
structure, capability, roles, and responsibilities of our
national cyber efforts. The committee has also placed a strong
emphasis on the need for developing a comprehensive cyber
deterrence strategy. Unfortunately, the committee believes the
responses to those requests have been insufficient and not
commensurate with the threat we face in the cyber domain.
Cyber posture review (sec. 1622)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence, the Attorney General, the Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of
State, to conduct a cyber posture review. The purpose of the
review would be to clarify U.S. cyber deterrence policy and
strategy for the near term by conducting a comprehensive review
of the cyber posture of the United States for the next 5 to 10
years. A report on the results of the review would be due no
later than March 1, 2018, in unclassified and classified forms
as necessary.
The provision would also state that it is the sense of
Congress that the United States should respond to all cyber
attacks and to all significant cyber intrusions by imposing
costs on those responsible that exceed any benefit that the
attacker or intruder may have hoped to gain.
The Department of Defense Science Board Task Force on Cyber
Deterrence asserted in a report released in February 2017,
that, for ``at least the coming five to ten years, the
offensive cyber capabilities of our most capable potential
adversaries are likely to far exceed the United States' ability
to defend and adequately strengthen the resilience of its
critical infrastructures.'' As a result the Board concluded
that ``bolstering the U.S. cyber deterrence posture must be an
urgent priority.''
The committee has long advocated for a robust cyber
deterrence policy and has been disappointed in the level of
seriousness and priority afforded to developing a deterrence
framework by prior administrations. The committee encourages
the new administration to immediately prioritize the
development of a cyber deterrence strategy that emphasizes both
deterrence by denial and deterrence by consequence imposition.
Modification and clarification of requirements and authorities relating
to establishment of unified combatant command for cyber
operations (sec. 1623)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
requirements and authorities germane to the establishment of a
unified combatant command for cyber operations, mandated by
section 167b(a) of title 10, United States Code. The
recommended provision would: (1) Direct that the elevation of
United States Cyber Command to a unified combatant command
occur before the Cyber Mission Force reaches full operational
capability; (2) Clarify the functions of cyber command to make
them align with Department of Defense policy; and (3) Refine
the command and control responsibilities of the Cyber Command
Commander.
The committee notes that on May 9, 2017, the Commander of
United States Cyber Command testified that the Cyber Mission
Force is scheduled to be fully operational by the end of fiscal
year 2018.
Annual assessment of cyber resiliency of nuclear command and control
system (sec. 1624)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Commander of the United States Strategic Command and the
Commander of the United States Cyber Command to jointly conduct
an annual assessment of the cyber resiliency of the nuclear
command and control system. The assessment would evaluate the
sufficiency and resiliency of the nuclear command and control
system for operation through a cyber attack and would develop
recommendations for mitigating the concerns of the Commanders
born from this assessment.
The provision would require the Commanders to jointly
submit to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for
submission to the Council on Oversight of the National
Leadership Command, Control, Communications System (``the
Council''), a report on the assessment. The Council would also
submit the report and any comments it feels appropriate to the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense would submit
to the congressional defense committees the report along with
the Council's and the Secretary of Defense's comments. The
provision would sunset 10 years after the date of enactment.
In a report released in February 2017, the Department of
Defense Science Board Task Force on Cyber Deterrence recognized
that ``nuclear forces and supporting infrastructure require
sustained and comprehensive assessments of their ability to
operate in the face of a major state's cyber attack.''
Consistent with the annual requirements for the nuclear
stockpile assessment to the President and Congress, the Board
concluded that the ``cyber security and resilience of U.S.
nuclear forces (especially nuclear command, control, and
communications (NC3)) is of equal and parallel importance.''
Strategic Cybersecurity Program (sec. 1625)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of the
National Security Agency, to establish the Strategic
Cybersecurity Program (SCP). The program would execute
continual red-teaming reviews of: (1) Offensive cyber systems;
(2) Long-range strike systems; (3) Nuclear deterrent systems;
(4) National security systems; and (5) Critical infrastructure
of the Department of Defense. The SCP would also be responsible
for assessing the cybersecurity adequacy of acquisition plans
for proposed systems and infrastructure in order to ensure the
effectiveness of these covered systems. The provision would
provide for this effort up to $100.0 million of the funding
authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2018 for the
Information Systems Security Program.
In a report released in February 2017, the Department of
Defense Science Board Task Force on Cyber Deterrence concluded
that ``[b]usiness as usual will not be adequate to provide a
high degree of confidence that systems essential to offensive
cyber, long-range strike, and nuclear deterrence are resilient
(end-to-end) against top tier cyber attack. A sustained
independent red team capability, backed by top-notch analytics
and supported by intelligence assessments, is needed. It is
vital that such a red team be independent from the mission
owner of the systems it is evaluating.''
Consistent with the Board's findings, the committee
believes that the SCP should be a ``sustaining effort over
decades with top-notch leaders and technologically diverse
staff'' and modeled on the nuclear ballistic missile submarine
security program. The program should: include the emulation of
top tier adversaries and an expanded consideration of threats;
inform and be informed by intelligence collection requirements;
and include a full range of countermeasure development.
The committee is aware that each of the Services is
developing Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs) to defend department
systems and networks. The committee believes that CPT capacity
is limited and will be required to assess, defend, and triage a
variety of threats of different degrees of severity. The CPT
construct is also both flexible and deployable. However, the
committee believes that certain systems of critical importance
require specialized capability and evaluation independence from
the mission owner. Therefore, the committee recommends the
development of an elite independent red-teaming capability to
continuously assess the information assurance of the Department
of Defense's most significant networks and critical
infrastructure.
The committee is also aware that the Cyber Resiliency of
Weapons Systems program is working to identify vulnerabilities
in current and existing weapons systems. The committee
anticipates that the Strategic Cybersecurity Program and the
Cyber Resiliency of Weapons Systems program will work closely
together to prioritize their respective work based on the most
critical cybersecurity needs of the Department of Defense.
Evaluation of agile acquisition of cyber tools and applications (sec.
1626)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Commander of U.S. Cyber Command to conduct an evaluation of
alternative methods for developing, acquiring, and maintaining
software-based cyber tools and applications for Cyber Command
and for the cyber component commands of the Armed Forces. The
goal of the evaluation is to identify a set of practices that
will increase the speed and effectiveness of developing
capabilities to match the speed at which the operational cyber
environment changes, in peacetime and during a conflict.
The provision would specifically require consideration of
the Agile Acquisition and related models that are widely used
in leading software and information technology companies and
recommended by the Defense Digital Service.
The committee has been concerned for many years about the
inability of the Department of Defense (DOD), despite
congressional encouragement, to propose and adopt an
acquisition model tailored to the unique and demanding cyber
mission in DOD. DOD cyber forces must react almost instantly to
constant changes in the operational environment in defended
cyberspace, the global Internet, and adversary networks, as
well as in adversaries' tools and tactics. Tool and application
development must be rapid and tightly coupled to users and
operators, but must also be disciplined and repeatable.
Industry best practices provide mature models for DOD to adopt.
Report on cost implications of terminating dual-hat arrangement for
Commander of United States Cyber Command (sec. 1627)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Commander of United States Cyber Command to provide to the
congressional defense committees a report that identifies the
costs associated with developing the capabilities required to
meet the requirements outlined in section 1642(b)(2)(C) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328).
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) included a provision that prohibited the
Secretary of Defense from taking action to end the ``dual-hat
arrangement'' until the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff jointly determine and certify to the
appropriate committees of Congress that ending that arrangement
would not pose unacceptable risks to the military effectiveness
of Cyber Command. The provision also required the establishment
of conditions-based criteria, including the achievement of full
operational capability of the cyber mission force and the
development of: (1) Robust operational infrastructure; (2)
Robust command and control systems and processes; (3) The tools
and weapons used in cyber operations; (4) Capabilities to
enable intelligence collection and operational preparation of
the environment for cyber operations; and (5) Capabilities to
train cyber operations personnel, test cyber capabilities, and
rehearse cyber missions.
The committee believes any decision to separate Cyber
Command and the National Security Agency should be conditions-
based. The committee also believes that the funding associated
with separating the ``dual-hat arrangement'' will be a
multiyear sustained effort. The committee notes that the fiscal
year 2018 budget request failed to include the funding
necessary to resource the separation of the ``dual-hat
arrangement.'' The committee looks to Cyber Command to estimate
the funding required to meet the conditions identified in
section 1642(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) and intends to closely
monitor future budget submissions and the cost, schedule, and
performance of key cyber programs to ensure that Cyber Command
is appropriately resourced prior to any decision to end the
``dual-hat arrangement.''
Modification of Information Assurance Scholarship Program (sec. 1628)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2200a of title 10, United States Code, to formally
designate the Department of Defense Cybersecurity Scholarship
Program, and to require that not less than 5 percent of the
funding allocated to the program each year be reserved for the
pursuit of an associate degree. The provision would also
require the Secretary of Defense, by no later than September
30, 2018, to provide a plan to the congressional defense
committees for reinvigoration of the program.
Measuring compliance of components of Department of Defense with
cybersecurity requirements for securing industrial control
systems (sec. 1629)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to update its cyber scorecards to ensure
that the Secretary measures each component of the Department of
Defense in its progress towards securing the industrial control
systems of the Department against cyber threats.
Exercise on assessing cybersecurity support to election systems of
States (sec. 1630)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to incorporate the cybersecurity of
elections systems of the States as a component of the Cyber
Guard Exercise.
Report on various approaches to cyber deterrence (sec. 1630A)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to prepare a report on various approaches
to cyber deterrence.
The committee believes that our national security is at
great risk. The cyber threats we face from Russia, China, North
Korea, and Iran are growing in sophistication and scale.
According to the Department of Defense Science Board's Task
Force on Cyber Deterrence, ``The cyber threat to U.S. critical
infrastructure is outpacing efforts to reduce pervasive
vulnerabilities, so that for the next decade at least the
United States must lean significantly on deterrence to address
the cyber threat posed by the most capable U.S. adversaries. It
is clear that a more proactive and systematic approach to U.S.
cyber deterrence is urgently needed.''
The committee remains concerned by the executive branch's
lack of urgency and failure to address the foundational legal
and policy questions required to formulate an effective
deterrence strategy. The committee believes the Nation cannot
afford to fall another decade behind the cyber threats that are
proliferating exponentially. As the Defense Science Board
report states, a ``proactive and systematic approach'' is
necessary.
In light of the inherent complexities of cyber deterrence
and this issue's relatively nascent theoretical foundations,
the committee believes that the Department of Defense should
complete a robust competitive analysis with three strategic
objectives: (1) To identify, define, and explain the various
theoretical approaches to cyber deterrence; (2) To present the
strengths and weaknesses of each approach relative to the
threat and to one another; and (3) To present a recommended
cyber deterrence doctrine for the United States as well as a
dissenting alternative if necessary.
Further, as the Secretary completes this report, the
committee encourages the Secretary to consider past efforts
that have leveraged creative approaches to difficult problems.
For example, when President Eisenhower needed to formulate a
comprehensive government strategy for dealing with an emerging
Soviet challenger, he commissioned his ``Solarium Project,''
which tasked three separate expert ``task forces''--each with
the same information but operating with different philosophies
and under different constraints--to investigate and to
recommend a strategy for U.S. engagement with the Soviet Union.
We believe approaches like the ``Solarium Project'' may prove
to be useful models for this report.
Prohibition on use of software platforms developed by Kaspersky Lab
(sec. 1630B)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
any component of the Department of Defense from using, whether
directly or through work with or on behalf of another element
of the United States Government, from using any software
platform developed, in whole or in part, by Kaspersky Lab or
any entity of which Kaspersky Lab has a majority ownership.
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces
Collection, storage, and sharing of data relating to nuclear security
enterprise (sec. 1631)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
data sharing between the Department of Energy's (DOE) National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of
Defense (DOD) with respect to cost, programmatic, and technical
data relating to programs and projects of the nuclear security
enterprise.
The committee notes that this provision not only concerns
the sharing of such data between the DOE/NNSA and DOD but also
within each agency so that the U.S. Government-funded pool of
data is common to the nuclear enterprise. Data developed by
taxpayer dollars belong to the U.S. Government, and data
collected by any one government organization should be shared--
especially with respect to developing accurate cost estimates
of future programs to assist in developing engineering designs
and requirements. It is incumbent upon senior government
officials as stewards of taxpayer dollars to promote data
sharing and to ensure that all procedural hurdles and
classifications are overcome.
The committee notes that the Atomic Energy Act does not
restrict data sharing between organizations. Section 2163 of
title 42, United States Code, explicitly allows the sharing of
data between organizations as long as the Department of Defense
designee has determined security requirements are met.
Establishment of procedures for implementation of Nuclear Enterprise
Review (sec. 1632)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to issue a final Department of Defense
Instruction no later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act for the 2014 Nuclear Enterprise Review. The committee
believes that a formal DOD Instruction will institutionalize a
process that has served the Department well so far in
addressing concerns initially documented by the 2014 Nuclear
Enterprise Review.
Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental ballistic
missiles (sec. 1633)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense to buy intercontinental ballistic
missile parts pursuant to contracts entered into under section
1645(a) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291).
Execution and programmatic oversight of nuclear command, control, and
communications programs (sec. 1634)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Department of Defense
(DOD), or any successor with primary responsibility for nuclear
command, control, and communications (NC3), in coordination
with the Under Secretary of Defense of Acquisition and
Sustainment, to develop a database of acquisition program
metrics on DOD NC3 acquisition systems not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act.
NC3 systems connect the President to his advisors and
ultimately enable force direction of the nuclear forces, making
its modernization a key national priority. The committee is
concerned about the management of more than 100 separate NC3
systems fragmented between the Department of the Air Force, the
Department of the Navy, and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense. This fragmentation has led to delays in critical
capabilities. Section 171(a) of title 10, United States Code,
created the Council on Oversight of the National Leadership
Command, Control, and Communications Systems (the Council),
with the CIO acting as Executive Secretary, to provide
oversight of these systems, but much work remains to be done.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the Council
has neglected long-term planning in favor of addressing crises
as they arise. The Council is currently required to provide an
annual report to the congressional defense committees on its
recent activities and the activities proposed under the current
future years defense program, along with details on current
programs and threats.
Therefore, the committee directs the Council to add to its
annual report to Congress, beginning in 2019, a section on its
10-year plan for acquisition, modernization, and sustainment.
The plan should cover schedule, cost, risk, system-level
integration, and surety.
Finally, the committee values the work of the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) in reviewing the progress and
challenges facing NC3 acquisition and programs. The committee
therefore directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to continue assessment of these programs, as well as the
progress developing and implementing an overall NC3
architecture, and to brief the congressional defense committees
on the results on an annual basis from fiscal years 2018 to
2022 with periodic updates as agreed to with the GAO. In
particular, the Comptroller General should provide, as the GAO
has for space systems, a brief periodic summary of the
acquisition status of selected NC3 programs that are below
Acquisition Category I, which are not normally tracked in the
Selected Acquisition Reporting database. The Comptroller
General should pay particular attention to the recent efforts
that the Air Force has taken to consolidate NC3 acquisition at
the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, the allocation of staff
and secure facilities to stand up this acquisition effort, and
the general implementation of NC3 activities and organizations
outlined in Air Force Program Action Directive D16-01, dated
August 2, 2016.
Further, the Comptroller General should consult with the
congressional defense committees each year as he or she
determines the scope and timing of each annual review. Each
review may include, as the Comptroller General deems
appropriate, the insights of both DOD and non-DOD entities that
have relevant NC3 knowledge. The Comptroller General should, as
part of periodic reporting, notify the congressional defense
committees of any issues with the assistance of these entities
that may delay or hinder data gathering and reporting.
Measures in response to noncompliance of the Russian Federation with
its obligations under the INF Treaty (sec. 1635)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
research and development program on a dual-capable ground-
launched missile with a maximum range of 5,500 kilometers, in
order to close the capability gap opened by the Russian
violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
Treaty.
U.S. officials have been aware of possible violations by
the Russian Federation of the INF Treaty since 2008. The U.S.
Government did not raise the issue with Russian officials until
2013, and it did not brief NATO on the subject until 2014.
Since 2013, senior U.S. officials, including the President, the
Secretary of State, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, have raised the violations with their Russian
counterparts, but there is no evidence that Russia is moving
toward compliance with the treaty. The 2017 Department of State
report titled, ``Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control,
Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments,''
concluded that Russia remains in violation of its obligations
under the INF Treaty.
It is not in the national security interests of the United
States to refrain from doing any research and development into
such military capabilities while Russian capabilities are
developed, advanced, produced, and deployed, and no other
country in the world is bound by the treaty. The committee does
not intend for the United States to enter into violation of the
INF Treaty. The committee notes that research and development,
without testing, would not constitute a violation of the
treaty.
While a missile with advanced capabilities may be
preferable once the technology has matured, the most
practicable solution in the near-term may be modification of an
existing missile system for ground-launch. Accordingly, the
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees evaluating
existing U.S. missile systems for modification to intermediate
range and ground-launch, including Tomahawk, Standard Missile-
3, Standard Missile-6, Long-Range Stand-Off Cruise Missile, and
Army Tactical Missile System. The system may be operated by
whichever military service deemed most appropriate by the
Secretary of Defense but should be suitable for deployment by
the Commanders of U.S. European Command and U.S. Pacific
Command.
The report should be submitted to the congressional defense
committees no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act.
Certification that the Nuclear Posture Review addresses deterrent
effect and operation of United States nuclear forces in current
and future security environment (sec. 1636)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Secretary of Defense certify that the new Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR) being conducted by the Department of
Defense addresses: (1) The ability of the current U.S. nuclear
posture to deter current and future nuclear-armed adversaries;
(2) The ability of the United States to operate in a major
regional conflict that involves nuclear weapons; (3) The
ability and preparedness of forward-deployed members of the
Armed Forces to operate in a nuclear environment; and (4)
Weapons, equipment, and training not currently part of U.S.
nuclear posture that would fill any gaps in those capabilities.
The provision would also require the Secretary to certify
that the NPR addresses all the above interests for the
projected security environment and U.S. nuclear posture over
the next 10 years and identify any actions that could be taken
by the Secretary of Defense or the Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration to decrease the risk
posed by additional changes in the security environment in the
future.
The provision would also state the sense of the Congress on
the importance of the timely modernization of U.S. nuclear
forces in order to maintain a flexible and resilient force.
Plan to manage Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment System
and multi-domain sensors (sec. 1637)
The committee recommends a provision that, not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, would require
the Secretary of the Air Force to manage the missile element of
the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment (ITWAA)
system as a weapon system consistent with Air Force Policy
Directive 10-9, ``Lead Command Designation and Responsibilities
for Weapon Systems,'' dated March 8, 2007.
In addition, the Secretary of the Air Force should include
a long-term plan to integrate and manage all available sensors
for multi-domain exploitation against modern and emergent
threats.
Certification requirement with respect to strategic radiation hardened
trusted foundry (sec. 1638)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to certify to the congressional defense
committees that a strategic radiation hardened trusted foundry
will be operational not later than December 31, 2020. The
microelectronic components supplied by such a foundry will be
necessary for the successful and timely completion of the
Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent and the Long-Range Stand-off
Missile programs. It is the committee's understanding that
there is one remaining trusted foundry capable of meeting
future requirements of these systems. The committee is
concerned about the health of the industrial base for such
specialized components and will continue to track this issue
closely.
In addition to the certification, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on the Department of Defense's plan to
ensure an operational foundry by 2020. This plan should be
developed in coordination with the Department's long-term
strategy for trusted and assured microelectronics and should
take into consideration future opportunities for coordinating
acquisition of strategic radiation hardened microelectronics
across the Services and programs.
The report should be submitted no later than February 28,
2018.
Requirements for Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1639)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to fully incorporate into the Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR) input and views from other government
agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Department of
State, and the National Nuclear Security Administration. The
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit
the NPR in its entirety to the congressional defense committees
and provide an unclassified version to the public.
Sense of Congress on Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1640)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Congress that the Nuclear Posture Review should
take into account treaty obligations of the United States, and
should examine the tools required to sustain the stockpile
stewardship program under section 4201 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521).
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs
Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli Cooperative
Missile Defense Program co-development and co-production (sec.
1651)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
not more than $92.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency to
provide to the Government of Israel to procure Tamir
interceptors for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense
system through co-production of such interceptors in the United
States. Before disbursing the funding for Iron Dome to the
Government of Israel, the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment must certify that the March 5, 2014, bilateral
international agreement concerning Iron Dome, as amended, is
being implemented.
The provision would also authorize $120.0 million for the
Missile Defense Agency to provide to the Government of Israel
for the procurement of the David's Sling Weapon System and
$120.0 million for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor program,
including for co-production of parts and components in the
United States by U.S. industry. The funds for the David's Sling
Weapon System may be disbursed after the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment certifies that the
Government of Israel has demonstrated successful completion of
certain milestones required by the research, development, and
technology agreement and the bilateral co-production agreement;
that the funds will be matched on a one-for-one basis or in an
amount that otherwise meets best efforts; and that the level of
co-production of parts and components in the United States is
not less than 50 percent. Additionally, the committee directs
United States and Government of Israel representatives from the
David's Sling Weapon System Affordability Working Group to
jointly brief the committee no later than October 1, 2017, on
the drivers of production costs, cost reduction initiatives,
and efforts to achieve co-production efficiencies for the
David's Sling program.
The funds for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier program may be
disbursed after certain conditions, which include the
completion of two successful flight tests at a test range in
the United States and certification from the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment that the United States
has entered into a bilateral agreement with the Government of
Israel. That agreement must establish: (1) The terms of co-
production of parts and components; (2) Transparency on the
Israeli requirement for the number of interceptors and
batteries; (3) Technical milestones for co-production and
procurement; (4) A joint affordability working group to
consider cost reduction initiatives; and (5) Joint approval
processes for third-party sales.
The committee acknowledges that the September 14, 2016,
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and
Israel commits $500.0 million in U.S. funding for cooperative
missile defense programs annually beginning in fiscal year 2019
and ending in fiscal year 2028. According to the MOU, the
United States and Israel jointly understand that any U.S. funds
provided for such programs should be made available according
to separate bilateral agreements for the Iron Dome, David's
Sling, and Arrow 3 weapon systems, and should maximize co-
production of parts and components in the United States at a
level equal to or greater than 50 percent of U.S.-appropriated
funds for production. Additionally, Israel commits not to seek
additional missile defense funding from the United States for
the duration of the MOU, except in exceptional circumstances as
may be jointly agreed by the United States and Israel. The
committee expects to receive annual updates on all cooperative
defense programs, as delineated in the MOU, to include progress
reports and spending plans, as well as the top-line figures of
the Israel Missile Defense Organization budget.
Development of persistent space-based sensor architecture (sec. 1652)
The committee recommends a provision that would, unless
otherwise directed or recommended by the Ballistic Missile
Defense Review (BMDR), require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) to develop using sound acquisition
practices a highly reliable and cost-effective persistent
space-based sensor architecture capable of supporting the
ballistic missile defense system. The Director of the Missile
Defense Agency should ensure that rigorous testing of the
space-based sensor architecture is conducted before final
production decisions or operational deployment. The space-based
sensor architecture should provide functions such as: (1)
control of increased raid sizes; (2) precision tracking of
threat missiles; (3) fire-control-quality tracks of evolving
threat missiles; (4) enabling launch-on-remote and engage-on-
remote capabilities; (5) discrimination of warheads; (6)
effective kill assessment; (7) an enhanced shot doctrine; (8)
integration with the command, control, battle management, and
communication program of the ballistic missile defense system,
(9) integration with all other elements of the current
ballistic missile defense system, including the Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System,
and Patriot Air and Missile Defense Systems; (10) and any
additional functions the BMDR finds to be appropriate.
The committee recognizes that the current space-based
missile defense sensor architecture is in need of further
development and advancement and notes that, in order to counter
the growing threat from North Korea and Iran, the United States
should invest in a space-based sensor architecture to
strengthen homeland defense. To that end, the committee
recommends the authorization of MDA's request of $27.5 million
on its Unfunded Requirements List to support the development of
a space-based sensor architecture. The committee notes that
while developing the space-based sensor architecture, the
Director of MDA should design the program so as to avoid, to
the extent possible, the acquisition and program management
missteps that occurred in the past on similar programs. Because
of the high cost to develop and deploy any system in space, the
committee recommends that, as MDA generates cost estimates for
the space-based sensor architecture, it should utilize either:
(1) the GAO cost-estimating and assessment guide (GAO-09-3SP)
or (2) the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
operating and support cost-estimating guide.
Ground-based interceptor capacity and Fort Greely missile field
infrastructure requirements (sec. 1653)
The committee supports the efforts of the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) and the Department of Defense to complete the
emplacement of 44 Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs) by the end
of 2017 and to improve the overall reliability and performance
of the GBI fleet and the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system.
The committee notes that MDA has made critical improvements to
the existing kill vehicles of some of the GBI fleet in order to
address deficiencies demonstrated in flight tests. The
committee encourages MDA's development of the Redesigned Kill
Vehicle (RKV) to further address reliability concerns in the
existing fleet and to enhance the warfighter's shot doctrine.
Additionally, the committee encourages the Department to
continue its efforts to complete a Ballistic Missile Defense
Review (BMDR), as directed by the January 27, 2017 Presidential
Memorandum on Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces and section 1684
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(P.L. 114-328). As the threat from adversaries' missiles
becomes more sophisticated and complex, the committee
acknowledges that expanding the GBI fleet beyond 44 is just one
option for addressing such a threat, but would need to consider
where additional GBIs could be deployed and the infrastructure
costs to do so. The committee will evaluate any recommendations
for expanding or modifying the current program of record for
homeland missile defense put forward by the BMDR.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that,
unless otherwise directed by the BMDR, directs the Secretary of
Defense to increase the number of GBIs by up to 28, and execute
any requisite construction to ensure that Missile Fields 1 and
2 at Fort Greely, or any other alternative missile fields, are
capable of supporting and sustaining additional GBIs. The
Secretary shall additionally identify a ground-based
interceptor stockpile storage site for up to 14 GBIs.
The committee recognizes that an increase to GBIs at Fort
Greely, or elsewhere, requires significant planning. Therefore,
the committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency to submit to the congressional defense committees, not
later than 90 days after the enactment of this act, a report on
options to increase the capacity by up to 100 GBIs of the
ground-based midcourse defense element of the ballistic missile
defense system, including an identification of potential sites,
a cost-benefit analysis of such sites, a description of the
additional infrastructure and components needed, along with a
cost and schedule estimate, to increase the number of ground-
based interceptors configured with the RKV, or other designs,
at Fort Greely, Alaska, or other locations. This report should
also include the benefit of supplementing ground-based
midcourse defense elements, with other more distributed
elements, for homeland defense.
Sense of the Senate on the state of United States missile defense (sec.
1654)
The committee recommends a provision that expresses the
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should use
the Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR) to consider
accelerating the development of technologies that will increase
the capacity, capability, and reliability of the ground-based
midcourse defense element of the ballistic missile defense
system and that, upon completion of the BMDR, to the extent
practicable and with sound acquisition practices, the Director
of the Missile Defense Agency should accelerate the
development, testing, and fielding of such capabilities as they
are prioritized in the BMDR, to include the redesigned kill
vehicle, the multi-object kill vehicle, the C3 booster, a
space-based sensor layer, boost phase sensor and kill
technologies, and additional ground-based interceptors. The
provision also states that it is essential for the Department
of Defense and the Missile Defense Agency to follow a ``fly
before you buy'' approach before final production decisions or
operational deployment.
Sense of the Senate and report on ground-based mid-course defense
testing (sec. 1655)
The committee recommends a provision that expresses the
sense of the Senate that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
should increase funding to homeland missile defense testing and
continue to flight test the ground-based midcourse defense
system at least once each fiscal year. The committee directs
the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees that includes a revised
missile defense testing campaign that accelerates the
development and deployment of new missile defense technologies.
This revised testing campaign should specifically review the
acceleration of the redesigned kill vehicle, the multi-object
kill vehicle, the configuration-3 booster, unmanned aerial
vehicles that utilize directed energy, and a space-based
missile defense sensor architecture.
Items of Special Interest
Airborne boost phase laser missile defense demonstration
The committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency, unless otherwise recommended by the Ballistic Missile
Defense Review, to rapidly develop and demonstrate an airborne
boost phase intercept capability for missile defense. Existing
technologies should be adapted to demonstrate this capability.
The concept of operation for this demonstration should be
developed in cooperation with the U.S. Pacific Command to
address emerging threats and heightened tensions in the Asia-
Pacific region.
AN/TPY-2 detection and cueing capability
The committee notes the increased level of ballistic
missile development, testing, and, in some cases, use by
specific countries in the Pacific and Middle Eastern regions.
More sophisticated missile technologies, combined with growing
missile quantities and mobility, are increasing the threat to
not only our forward deployed personnel but also the homeland.
Hostile missile launches and testing programs that threaten
U.S. personnel and partners and allies like Saudi Arabia,
Japan, and Turkey require a more robust forward presence of
early detection, cueing, and discrimination capabilities to
detect and eliminate these constantly evolving threats.
The committee notes that the AN/TPY-2 radars currently
forward deployed in the U.S. Central and Pacific Command areas
of responsibility have successfully provided early detection
and cueing capability for 11 years and could serve as a
template for future expansion of ballistic missile defense
(BMD) capabilities, both as a stand-alone sensor or as part of
a larger BMD system such as a Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) battery.
The Secretary of Defense has been tasked to ``initiate a
new Ballistic Missile Defense Review to identify ways of
strengthening missile-defense capabilities, rebalancing
homeland and theater defense priorities and highlighting
priority funding areas.'' The committee encourages the Army to
strongly consider fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 funding
for additional AN/TPY-2 radar acquisitions, in either Forward
Base or Terminal Mode, to meet the growing global and regional
need.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the congressional defense committees by September 1,
2017 on plans to provide additional forward deployed radar
detection and cueing capabilities. This briefing shall include:
(1) an analysis of regional missile threats; (2) any specific
capabilities needed for operations in a nuclear environment;
(3) near-term alternatives for addressing threats; and (4)
timelines to deploy additional assets and the budget needed to
fund these additional capabilities.
Assistance of U.S. Special Operations Command to U.S. Forces-Korea for
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction
Under the Unified Command Plan, the U.S. Special Operations
Command is tasked with synchronizing the plans of the
geographic commands to Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction
(CWMD). U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) also have
exquisite, but limited, capabilities to secure and render safe
WMDs. The U.S. Forces-Korea are responsible for deterring and
countering threats from North Korea, including its stockpiles
of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The committee
understands that North Korea's chemical and biological weapons
stockpiles are large and stored in numerous heavily fortified
sites.
In the event of a contingency, the committee understands
that special operations and conventional ground forces,
including the Second Infantry Division, will be tasked with
securing such stockpiles and sites. However, it is not clear to
the committee how U.S. SOF would synchronize its highly
specialized CWMD skills within a larger military campaign
designed to secure the significant number of WMD sites in North
Korea involving conventional forces.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commanders of the U.S.
Forces-Korea and U.S. Special Operations Command to submit a
plan for synchronizing skills and expertise of conventional and
special operations forces with respect to securing North Korean
WMD sites. As part of this plan, the committee directs the
Commander of U.S. Forces--Korea to describe current
deficiencies and shortfalls that should inform changes to
operational planning (within Korea and the U.S. Government) and
training and equipping of its forces to secure North Korean WMD
sites, if directed. The committee directs that the plan be
delivered to the congressional defense committees not later
than February 28, 2018.
Cobra Dane radar system improvements
The committee is aware of the critical sensor coverage that
the Cobra Dane radar provides to the Ballistic Missile Defense
System in the tracking of threatening ballistic missiles, as
well as its role in space surveillance and identification of
space objects. The committee understands that the Cobra Dane
radar was initially fielded in 1976 and today confronts growing
sustainment and obsolescence challenges. Additionally, the
committee supports the deployment of the Long Range
Discrimination Radar (LRDR) for improved persistent long-range
midcourse discrimination, precision tracking, and hit
assessment of threat ballistic missiles, but it acknowledges
that the LRDR is not a one-for-one replacement for the Cobra
Dane radar. In addition, the committee understands that as the
Air Force's new space fence radar becomes operational in 2020,
it will not need the capabilities of the Cobra Dane radar for
space surveillance. Nevertheless, the committee is concerned
about the lack of a comprehensive and credible plan for cost-
effective investments in technology refresh to maximize Cobra
Dane's reliability and minimize life cycle costs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, to submit to
the congressional defense committees concurrently with the
fiscal year 2019 budget request, a report on the long-term
operation and sustainment of Cobra Dane. The report should
characterize Cobra Dane's current operational availability and
sustainment challenges and include a detailed comparison of the
capabilities of the LRDR and the Cobra Dane radar, to include
the unique capabilities of each radar, the common capabilities
of each radar, and the advantages and disadvantages of each
radar's location. It should also include a plan, with an
associated cost estimate and funding profile across the future
years defense program, for meeting the military's requirements
through alternative radar solutions or the continued operation
and maintenance of the Cobra Dane radar. Plans for sustainment
of the Cobra Dane radar should address obsolescence challenges
and expediting and smoothing investments in priority refresh
projects, such as transmitter group replacement, automated data
processing equipment rehost, and traveling wave tube redesign
in fiscal year 2019 and over the future years defense program.
Finally, the report should outline the costs, and how they will
be shared, to maintain operational access and sustainment of
Shemya Island, on which the radar resides.
Commercial Geospatial-Intelligence Imagery
The committee applauds the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency's (NGA) leadership in acquiring new sources of
commercial geospatial-intelligence data and services as part of
its combat support mission. As part of this leadership
function, the committee directs the NGA to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees and the House and Senate
Select Intelligence Committees on acquiring new and non-
traditional sources of geospatial-intelligence, including but
not limited to new commercial satellite imagery and data of
various kinds, commercial airborne imagery and data, and other
geospatial-intelligence-related products and services the
Director determines are relevant to its mission.
Comptroller General review of very low frequency/low frequency
terminals
The committee supports the efforts of the Department of
Defense to modernize and replace legacy very low frequency/low
frequency (VLF/LF) communications terminals and related
infrastructure, which provide to the President and military
commanders a secure and survivable beyond line of sight
communication pathway for strategic forces. The committee is
concerned, however, about the progress and health of this
modernization effort. Maintaining this capability has become
even more important because of the recent emergence of diverse
and complex threats to satellite-based communications systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct an assessment of the Department of
Defense's efforts to improve nuclear command, control, and
communications by modernizing VLF/LF terminals and related
infrastructure. This assessment should include: (1) Information
about the current health of the VLF/LF network, including
operational and sustainment challenges; (2) An update on the
progress of acquisition programs; (3) The potential costs and
benefits of requiring the military services to adopt a common
VLF/LF terminal or waveform; (4) The extent to which the
Department of Defense is considering greater use of non-
satellite radio frequencies, including but not limited to VLF/
LF, to support nuclear command, control, and communications;
and (5) Any other issues that the Comptroller General considers
appropriate. In addition to obtaining information from relevant
Department of Defense organizations, this assessment may
include, as the Comptroller General deems appropriate, the
insights of non-Department of Defense organizations, including
federally funded research and development centers, university
affiliated research centers, contractors, and industry groups.
The Comptroller General shall brief the congressional
defense committees on the results of this assessment no later
than May 31, 2018.
Conventional Prompt Strike
The committee is encouraged by the continued commitment of
the Department of Defense to the Conventional Prompt Strike
(CPS) activity shown in the budget request. In written
testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 4,
2017, General John Hyten, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command
(STRATCOM), emphasized his support for development and
deployment of CPS as the Department of Defense's ``leading
technology maturation effort in the realm of hypersonics.''
General Hyten further stated that STRATCOM ``foresee[s] an
operational need for a CPS capability by the mid-2020s.''
The committee therefore urges the Department to proceed to
a Milestone A decision consistent with section 1688 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328). The committee is concerned that a delay of a
Milestone A decision would delay investment in long lead items
or test technologies that may be required to attain an
operational capability.
The committee supports the Department's approach of
maturing and demonstrating key technologies needed by both
land- and sea-based CPS systems. The committee notes that the
CPS integrated master plan required by the Senate report
accompanying S. 2943 (S.R. 114-255) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 addressed test facility
infrastructure for ground testing and flight testing, but it
failed to address the potential future need for underwater
launch test facilities. The committee recognizes that the
Department has not yet made a decision that would determine
testing needs, but it remains concerned that failure to
adequately consider all potential requirements could lead to
needless cost and schedule delays in a future program of
record. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Director of Navy Strategic
Systems Programs, to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees no later than February 28, 2018, that
includes an assessment of the adequacy of sites in the Navy
inventory to support underwater launch testing for a CPS
capability, should the need arise.
Counter unmanned aerial systems capabilities
The committee recognizes that adversaries continue to
procure low-cost Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and have armed
them for military purposes in conflict areas like Iraq and
Syria. The United States must meet this threat by expanding its
capability to protect military personnel, military
installations, and critical infrastructure. The committee
believes that UAS threats will only increase overseas and
domestically and that additional resources are necessary to
meet Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statements.
Significant advances in directed energy in recent years has
proven that this technology is effective against the entire
find, fix, track, target, engage and assess UAS kill chain. The
committee notes that this technology has been demonstrated at
recent military exercises such as a live-fire exercise at White
Sands Missile Range and the U.S. Army's Maneuver Fires
Integration Exercise (MFIX) and is ready to be operationalized.
The committee is aware of the Marine Corps intent to procure
five compact high energy laser weapon systems for deployment
for counter-UAS purposes and commends the Marine Corps for its
forward-thinking.
High energy laser and high powered microwave weapon systems
offer a game-changing capability that augment existing kinetic
solutions and can also help break the cost disparity of using
expensive kinetic weapons and interceptors against low-cost
drones. The committee encourages the military services to
continue their efforts to develop, procure, and deploy directed
energy counter-UAS capabilities as appropriate.
Expand capacity and capabilities of the ICCAE with focus on data
sciences, machine learning, artificial intelligence, modeling &
war gaming, and intelligence integration
The Committee notes that the Intelligence Community Centers
for Academic Excellence (ICCAE) have demonstrated ongoing
support for the intelligence community in several areas, in
particular the recruitment of a more diverse set analysts,
collectors and other intelligence community staff. The ICCAE
program has effectuated a strategy for recruitment that
includes STEM related training, critical language requirements,
and cultural immersion that underlie students' primary areas of
study. Additionally, the Committee notes that the intelligence
community requires staff who possess fundamental knowledge and
critical skills in the data sciences, machine learning,
artificial intelligence, computer vision, computationally
efficient modeling techniques, empirically driven war gaming
applications, and operational intelligence integration. The
Committee believes these are key areas where expanded capacity,
capability, research, and training would directly benefit the
IC, while directly supporting the Objectives of the ICCAE
program.
Fill rate of billets for United States Cyber Command
The committee directs the Commander of United States Cyber
Command to track the rates at which the Services fill the
personnel billets for United States Cyber Command, the Joint
Force Cyber Headquarters of each of the Services, and the Cyber
Mission Forces. The Commander shall compare these fill rates to
averages for other joint assignments, component command
assignments, and combat units. The Commander shall also track
the degree to which the Services are assigning officers and
enlisted personnel to repeat tours in cyber headquarters and
operational forces and to other positions that rely on and
sustain the skills and knowledge acquired during tours at Cyber
Command, Joint Force Cyber Headquarters, and Cyber Mission
Forces. The committee directs that a brief summary of these
statistics, and any other related metrics the Commander chooses
to include, be provided annually to the congressional defense
committees in documentation supporting the budget request for
the duration of the current Future Years Defense Program.
Importance and use of United States Federal Aviation Administration
licensed spaceports
The committee continues to recognize the unique importance
of United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) licensed
spaceports and, when appropriate, encourages the use of such
spaceports and launch and range complexes for mid-to-low
inclination orbits or polar high-inclination orbits in support
of national security space priorities. The committee recognizes
that these federally licensed, non-federally owned launch
facilities, including the Pacific Spaceport Complex--Alaska
(PSCA), the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and
Oklahoma Air & Space Port, are available to meet the
requirements for the national security space program from the
Department of Defense (DOD), Air Force Space Command,
Operationally Responsive Space Office, and Missile Defense
Agency. The committee notes that such spaceports improve the
resiliency of U.S. launch infrastructure and help ensure
consistent access to space to support national security space
priorities.
The 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. A state-of-the-industry spaceport on Kodiak
Island, Alaska, PSCA provides access to space for vital
government and commercial interests. The committee supports the
Missile Defense Agency's plan to conduct tests of the Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system from the PSCA and
encourages the Department, where appropriate, to consider
expanding the use of federally-licensed, non-federally owned
launch facilities to conduct national security launches and
U.S. and foreign missile tests.
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops
Island, Virginia provides medium-class and small-class launch
capabilities for the Department. It has launched numerous
missions for DOD with its agency partners, Air Force Space
Command, the Operationally Responsive Space Office, and MDA.
MARS provides assured/responsive access to mid-to-low
inclination orbits for payloads up to 15,300 lbs. The committee
supports the Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office's planned
launch of the L-111 mission from MARS by the end of 2018 and
encourages the DOD, where appropriate, to consider expanding
the use of federally-licensed, non-federally owned launch
facilities to conduct national security launches and missile
tests. The Oklahoma Air & Space Port, near Bums Flat, Oklahoma,
is the only space port in the United States to have a civilian
FAA approved Space Flight Corridor in the National Airspace
System. This Space Flight Corridor is unique because it is not
within Military Operating Areas or within restricted airspace,
which provides an operational capability for space launch
operations and associated industries specialized in space-
related activities.
The committee believes that these three facilities can be
used, when appropriate, to support the national security space
program.
Increased procurement of low-cost ballistic missile targets
The committee continues to encourage the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) to use threat representative targets in its flight
tests, to the maximum extent possible, in order to prove our
Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) is capable of defending
against increasingly complex threat missiles. The committee is
aware of potential target technologies that could provide
flexibility, reduce cost, and improve schedule performance in
meeting BMDS test objectives. Lower cost targets that are
reliable and meet mission requirements could enable MDA to
potentially procure more targets and test more frequently.
Therefore, the committee directs MDA to complete an assessment
that would consider the integration of low cost targets into
the flight test plans for the BMDS.
Intelligence support to U.S. Strategic Command
The committee directs the Commander of the U.S. Strategic
Command and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA) to review nuclear intelligence support to the U.S.
Strategic Command. The review should take into account recent
DIA policies that require senior intelligence analysts
currently at the Command to rotate to different assignments in
support of other commands. While such a policy is admirable for
its career broadening effects, it can be detrimental to the
highly specialized areas of support, namely nuclear forces
intelligence, to the U.S. Strategic Command, where resident
analysts' skills take years to replace. Given Russia's recent
nuclear force modernization, having these long-term analysts at
U.S. Strategic Command to inform the Commander on the long-term
trends of such modernization is critical to our deterrence
posture.
The Commander of U.S. Strategic Command and the Director of
the DIA shall submit to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees a report on this review no later than
February 28, 2018.
Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interoperability
The committee notes, following the U.S.-Republic of Korea
(ROK) alliance decision, the recent deployment of a Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery to the ROK to
protect U.S. and allied forces against the rapidly escalating
ballistic missile threat from the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea. While the committee fully supports this deployment
and the Missile Defense Agency's plans to test the THAAD and
Patriot systems together in a series of simulated engagements
in fiscal year 2018, it remains concerned about the lack of
interoperability and coordination between THAAD and other
critical forward-deployed integrated air and missile defense
systems such as Patriot.
Therefore, unless otherwise directed or recommended by the
Ballistic Missile Defense Review, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, within 120 days of enactment of this Act,
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on
the benefits of achieving full interoperability between the
THAAD and Patriot weapon systems. The report shall include an
estimated schedule for integration, resources required, and any
recommendations the Secretary sees fit to improve the
integration of the two systems. The report shall be delivered
in an unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
Positioning, Navigation, and Timing alternate sources
The Department of Defense is reliant on Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing (PNT) for a cross cutting range of
military platforms and capabilities. Recognizing the importance
of PNT, the committee strongly supports efforts by the
Department's PNT Oversight Council to enhance PNT resilience
and encourages the council to move quickly to deploy an
alternate source of time and location with the ability to
deliver time globally relative to United States Naval
Observatory/Coordinated Universal Time. The committee
encourages the PNT Oversight Council to utilize Department of
Defense as well as commercial satellites systems to focus on
technologies with high readiness levels that can be fielded
rapidly and at reduced cost.
Replacement of National Airborne Operations Center aircraft
The Secretary of the Air Force is beginning an analysis of
alternatives on the replacement of the National Airborne
Operations Center in anticipation of a Milestone A decision.
The committee is concerned that the replacement fleet may lower
the mission capability. Upon completion of the analysis, the
Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees on the conclusions of the
analysis and the Air Force's planned course of action on the
replacement of the fleet.
Report on Electromagnetic Pulse Attack Commission findings and
recommendations
The committee notes that the Commission to Assess the
Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP)
Attack was established in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398),
Title XIV, and re-established again in fiscal year 2006 to
identify steps that should be taken by the United States to
better protect its military and civilian systems from
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. The EMP Commission was
charged with assessing the nature and magnitude of potential
high-altitude EMP threats to the United States from all
potentially hostile states or non-state actors, the
vulnerability of U.S. military and civilian systems to an EMP
attack, the capability of the United States to repair and
recover from damage inflicted by an EMP attack, and the
feasibility and cost of hardening select military and civilian
systems against EMP attack.
Since its establishment, the EMP Commission produced
multiple reports and briefings that included findings and
recommendations for the Department of Defense. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
committee on its assessment of the military findings and
recommendations provided by the EMP Commission. The briefing
shall, at a minimum, include: (1) An identification and
assessment of the published findings and recommendations by the
EMP Commission; (2) Actions taken on each of those findings and
recommendations; and, (3) Recommended way ahead for the
Department of Defense with regards to protection of military
systems against EMP attack.
Reusable Launch Vehicles
The committee is aware of the recent successful re-launch
of an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle-class launch vehicle
previously used to deliver a payload to orbit. With nearly
every U.S. launch company moving toward full or partial
reusability of boosters, the committee recognizes that the
potential to reuse launch vehicles for orbital space launch may
significantly reduce the cost and improve the reliability of
space launch in the national security, civil, and commercial
space sectors.
The committee recommends that the Air Force move rapidly to
establish procedures to evaluate, certify, and leverage
reusability technologies in order to meet national security
space requirements. To this end, performance and excess margin
beyond what is required to carry out a given national security
space missions should not be withheld by the government, and
booster recovery should be encouraged when possible.
The committee recommends that the government establish a
process to evaluate and potentially certify reusable launch
systems. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to brief the committee not later than 180 days after
the enactment of this Act on the Department's activities to
evaluate and utilize reusable launch vehicles for use in
national security space missions.
Sea-based X-Band Radar
As the Director of the Missile Defense Agency evaluates the
possible locations that would be best suited for a future home
port of the Sea-based X-Band Radar (SBX) as required by section
1684 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (P.L. 114-92), the Director should consult with the
Secretary of the Navy to avoid home port sites for the SBX that
could negatively impact U.S. naval operations, including ship
and submarine maintenance activities at the public shipyards.
Simultaneous strategic missile system flight tests
The committee supports efforts by both the Navy and the Air
Force to conduct realistic flight tests of their respective
strategic missile systems. These rigorous flight test programs
are critical to ensuring the reliability of the Nation's
nuclear forces and for strategic messaging regarding our
credibility.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees
containing a plan for the Air Force to carry out a simultaneous
test of at least two Minuteman III LGM-31 missiles. In addition
to the simultaneous launch itself, such a test would
demonstrate: (1) The ability of planners to deconflict multiple
launches and warhead reentries; (2) The capability of test and
tracking assets to accommodate multiple simultaneous launches
and reentries; and (3) The resolve of the United States to
ensure a robust and credible deterrent.
The report should be submitted no later than February 28,
2018.
Space Launch Automated Flight Safety and Termination Systems
The committee believes implementation of the Automated
Flight Safety and Termination System may support and enable an
increased launch cadence at the federal ranges.
Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, in consultation with the Administrator of National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, to provide a report no
later than December 31, 2017 to the congressional defense
committees, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee, and the House Space, Science, and Technology
Committee on a strategy to transition to Automated Flight
Safety and Termination Systems at the Eastern and Western
ranges by 2022.
This report should consider whether to exclude systems
certified before enactment of this Act or when transition to
automated systems is not in the best interest of the U.S.
Government. This report shall also include an assessment of
impacts to safety of both personnel involved with space launch
activities and the general public not involved in such
activities.
Staffing for nuclear command, control, and communications acquisition
The committee applauds the recent steps taken by the U.S.
Air Force to centralize responsibility for the nuclear command,
control, and communications (NC3) enterprise in order to reduce
fragmentation and increase accountability.
Modernization of the NC3 enterprise is a key national
priority, and the committee remains concerned that there is
little margin for error. Any delay or deferment of the existing
programs poses unacceptable risk.
The committee received testimony in a Strategic Forces
Subcommittee hearing on June 7, 2017, from General Robin Rand,
Commander, Global Strike Command, on efforts to get the Nuclear
Weapons Center and the Program Executive Office for NC3 50 to
60 additional acquisition professionals to adequately oversee
these programs. Therefore, the committee requests a briefing on
the Air Force plan to fully staff the acquisition oversight of
NC3 consistent with this testimony not later than 180 days
after the enactment of this Act.
Training for cyber mission forces
The Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 2013 directed the
stand up of the Cyber Mission Forces (CMF) and provided funds
for U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the service cyber
components to establish the teams and fund the training of
personnel and units. The funding provided by the Secretary for
training covered fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2016. During
this period of central funding, the Services, under the
supervision of CYBERCOM, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, and the Joint Staff, were supposed to come to an
agreement on a joint, federated training program funded by the
Services for training of the CMF. This federated training
program was to be an equitable division of labor that avoided
duplication and built on the expertise of each service. The
committee is concerned that the Services were not able to come
to an agreement on a joint training program for the CMF for the
budget submission for fiscal year 2018. The committee expects
this issue to be resolved in the current budget planning cycle
for fiscal year 2019 and expects to be kept informed of
progress towards this goal in the coming months.
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 2018 budget requested $10.4 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$8.7 billion was requested for military construction, $1.4
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
and $255.9 million for base closure activities.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
for military construction, housing programs, and base closure
activities totaling $10.5. The total amount authorized for
appropriations reflects the committee's continuing commitment
to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities and
infrastructure. However, the committee is concerned with the
cost of some projects and has withheld authorization of those
projects until such time as better analysis can be performed to
determine the requirements and lower cost alternatives.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned with cost increases and
schedule delays on previous projects that appear to be the
result of failure to properly manage these projects. Therefore
the committee has included a number of provisions to ensure
better management and accountability.
The committee also notes that the budget request includes
funding for some projects beyond what can be executed in fiscal
year 2018. While the committee includes the full authorization
for these projects, it has provided only the increment of
funding expected to be executed in the coming fiscal year.
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 2018.''
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, 2022,
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2023, whichever is later.
Effective date (sec. 2003)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide an
effective date for titles XXI through XXVII and title XXIX of
October 1, 2017 or the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.1 billion for military construction and $183.0 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2018.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.1 billion for military construction and $152.0 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2018.
The budget request included $31.0 million for 22 homes on
Kwajalein. There are currently 18 military families on
Kwajalein. This project, and a planned phase 2 which would
include an additional 30 homes for $37.0 million, would result
in 52 homes at an average cost of $1.3 million. The committee
does not include the authorization of this project. The
committee also has withheld authorization of the funding for
the new confinement facility at Joint Base Lewis-McChord
pending a review of capacity and requirements throughout the
military prison system.
The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military
construction and family housing requirements identified by the
Chief of Staff of the Army and has included an additional $68.8
million for many of these projects, including authorization of
a new Enlisted Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and an air
traffic control tower at Fort Benning, Georgia. Further details
on projects authorized can be found in section 2101 and section
4601 of this Act.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction project for the active component of the
Army for fiscal year 2018. The authorized amount is 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 2018. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2018. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the active
component of the Army. The state list contained in this report
is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project
(sec. 2104)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) for construction of an airfield
operations complex at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, to
include a standby generator capacity of 1,000 kilowatts.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 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 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) for construction of a command and
control facility at Fort Shafter, Hawaii, to include
construction of 15 megawatts of redundant power generation.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 project (sec.
2106)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) for one project in Kyoga-Misaki, Japan,
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.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 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 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) for four projects 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.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.6 billion for military construction and $85.0 million for
family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year
2018.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.6 billion for military construction and $43.0 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2018.
The budget request includes $60.0 million for the purchase
of 4 acres adjacent to the Navy Yard. The committee does not
include authorization for this project. The budget request also
includes $40.9 million for family housing units on Guam. The
committee does not include authorization for this project
pending the results of a review of policies involving
accompanied versus unaccompanied tours required elsewhere in
this act. The committee further notes the identified lack of
available workforce on Guam to perform this work absent
approval of a new visa program for construction workers.
The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military
construction and family housing requirements identified by the
Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps and has included an additional $459.4 million for many of
these projects including authorization of a pier replacement in
San Diego; an F-35 simulator facility at Miramar, California;
and a force protection entry control point at Kaneohe Bay,
Hawaii. Further details on projects authorized can be found in
section 2201 and section 4601 of this Act.
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 2018. 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 2018. 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
$36.3 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2018. This
provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount
authorized for military construction and family housing
projects for the active components of the Navy and the Marine
Corps. The state list contained in this report is the binding
list of the specific projects authorized at each location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec.
2205)
The committee recommends a provision that would further
extend the authorization contained in section 2201 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(division B of Public Law 113-66), for three projects 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.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec.
2206)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2201 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291), for two projects 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.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.7 billion for military construction and $85.0 million for
family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2018.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.2 billion for military construction and $85.0 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2018.
The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military
construction and family housing requirements identified by the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force and has included an additional
$265.5 million for many of these projects, including
authorization of a fire rescue center at Altus Air Force Base
and an Airmen dormitory at Little Rock Air Force Base,
Arkansas. Further details on projects authorized can be found
in section 2301 and section 4601 of this Act.
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 2018.
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 2018. 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 $80.6 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 2018. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the active
component of the Air Force. The state list contained in this
report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized
at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2017
projects (sec. 2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B
of Public Law 114-328) for the construction of a gate complex
at the installation at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts,
to include the construction of a visitor control center, a
traffic check house, an emergency power generator system, and a
transfer switch.
This provision would also modify the authorization
contained in section 2301(b) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public
Law 114-328) for the purchase of 142 hectares of land on Tinian
in the Northern Mariana Islands.
Additionally this provision would modify the authorization
contained in section 2902 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public
Law 114-328) for the construction of a parking apron and
taxiway at Chabelley Airfield, Djibouti, to include the
construction of paved shoulders, hangar pads, and a cargo
apron.
Finally, this provision would modify the authorization
contained in section 4601 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public
Law 114-328) to strike the project title ``Consolidated
Corrosion Facility add/alter'' and insert ``Consolidated
Communication Facility add/alter''.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec.
2306)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military
Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public Law
113-291) for two projects 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.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $3.1 billion for military construction for the defense
agencies for fiscal year 2018.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.6 billion for military construction for fiscal year 2018.
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 2018. 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 resilience and
conservation projects. The budget request included $150.0
million for the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment
Program (ERCIP). The committee recommends an increase of $26.5
million to allow for power upgrades and standby generation at
SCSC Wallops Island, Virginia; central energy plant upgrades at
Fort Jackson, South Carolina; and an IH Water Project at NSA
South Potomac, MD.
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 2018. 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 2017 project
(sec. 2404)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authority contained in section 2401(b) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B
of Public Law 114-328) for the construction of the Sembach
Elementary/Middle School Replacement at Kaiserslautern, Germany
to allow the construction of an elementary school.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec.
2405)
The committee recommends a provision that would further
extend the authorization contained in section 2401 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(division B of Public Law 113-66), as amended by the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B
of Public Law 114-328), for three projects until October 1,
2018, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for
the military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is
later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 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 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) for nine projects until October 1, 2018,
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for the
military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later.
TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $154.0 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2018 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends
the requested amount.
Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due
to the United States for construction previously financed by
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations of $154.0 million for the U.S. contribution to
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program for fiscal year 2018.
Subtitle B--Host Country In-Kind Contributions
Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to accept four military construction
projects totaling $105.5 million from the Republic of Korea as
in-kind contributions.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2017
projects (sec. 2512)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2511 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B
of Public Law 114-328) for the construction of the 8th Army
Correctional Facility at Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea, to
include a level 1 correctional facility and a utility and tool
storage building.
The provision would also modify the authorization contained
in section 2511 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114-328) for the
renovation of the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Operations
Facility at K-16 Air Base, Republic of Korea, to include a
renovation of an operations administrative area.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $575 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2018 for facilities for the National Guard and
reserve components.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$850 million for military construction in fiscal year 2018 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 the significant unfunded military
construction and family housing requirements identified by the
military service chiefs and has included as additional $276.8
million for many of these projects including authorization of
an Army reserve center at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
and a maintenance facility at Westover Air Reserve Base,
Massachusetts. Further details on projects authorized can be
found in the tables in this title and section 4601 of this Act.
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorization 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 2018. 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 2018. 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 2018. 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 2018. 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 2018. 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 2018 in
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on
the amount authorized for military construction projects for
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project
(sec. 2611)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorizations contained in section 2602 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) for construction of an Army Reserve
Center in Starkville, Mississippi to allow for the acquisition
of approximately 15 acres of land.
Extension of authorizations for certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec.
2612)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in sections 2602, 2604, and 2605 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(division B of Public Law 113-66) for three projects 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.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec.
2613)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in sections 2602 and 2604 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(division B of Public Law 113-291) for two projects 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.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
Summary and explanation of tables
The budget request included $255.9 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 $255.9 million for these efforts. 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 2018 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 remains opposed to another base realignment
and closure (BRAC) round. Our military is entering a period of
growth and modernization with a focus on increasing the overall
readiness of the force. The committee must understand what our
future force structure will look like--its size and
composition, how it will train, and the infrastructure required
to sustain it--before we consider another BRAC round. Our
nation cannot afford to spend precious resources that are
needed to improve readiness on another BRAC round, given funds
are still being appropriated for prior BRAC rounds. The
committee is also concerned that the Secretary of Defense has
yet to provide the force structure plan, the infrastructure
inventory, and the assessment of infrastructure necessary to
support the force structure that were required to be prepared
under section 2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). This congressionally
directed report with requirements based on our military's
ability to deter and defeat future threats is necessary in
order to evaluate any future base realignment and closure
round.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Authority to use expiring funds for certain military construction
projects (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funds that would otherwise expire to be used for the sole
purpose of the expansion of a cemetery, in the case of the
Army, and for the enhancement of installation security, in the
case of the Navy, by purchasing property that is voluntarily
offered for sale.
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and
maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas
outside the United States (sec. 2802)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to use operation and maintenance funds for
limited construction projects in certain areas outside the
United States.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Authority to use energy cost savings for energy resilience, mission
assurance, and weather damage repair and prevention measures
(sec. 2811)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2912 of title 10, United States Code, to allow energy
savings funds to be used for weather damage, mission assurance,
and energy resilience.
Modification of unspecified minor military construction project
authority to cover correction of deficiencies that are threats
to installation resilience (sec. 2812)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2805(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to include
both safety risks and military mission risks.
Land exchange valuation of property with reduced development that
limits encroachment on military installations (sec. 2813)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 159 of title 10, United States Code, in order to ensure
that properties where development has been voluntarily
restrained for the purpose of protecting military installations
are fairly valued as part of any land swap between the
Department of Defense and a public or private landowner.
Treatment of storm water collection systems as utility systems (sec.
2814)
The committee includes a provision that amend section
2688(i)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to include storm
water treatment systems in the definition of utility systems.
Access to military installations by transportation network companies
(sec. 2815)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to include transportation
network companies to the list of transportation companies that
are allowed, with proper clearance, to access military
installations for the purposes of transporting military
personnel to and from the base.
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances
Land conveyance, Natick Soldier Systems Center, Massachusetts (sec.
2821)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to use competitive procedures to
convey the parcels of real property consisting of approximately
98 acres located in the vicinity of Hudson, Wayland, and
Needham, Massachusetts, that are the sites of military family
housing supporting military personnel assigned to the U.S. Army
Natick Soldier Systems Center.
Land conveyance, Army and Air Force exchange service property, Dallas,
Texas (sec. 2822)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to allow the Army and Air Force
Exchange Service to convey to an entity all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property consisting of approximately 7.857 acres located at
8901 Autobahn Drive, Dallas, Texas.
Land conveyances, certain former peacekeeper ICBM facilities in Wyoming
(sec. 2823)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the conveyance, at no cost to the Air Force, of the missile
alert facility and launch control center at the Quebec #1
Missile Alert Facility for the Peacekeeper ICBM facilities of
the 190 Missile Group at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming to
the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources.
Land exchange, Naval Industrial Ordnance Reserve Plant, Sunnyvale,
California (sec. 2824)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Navy to convey to an entity all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to the parcel of real
property comprising Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant
(NIROP) located in Sunnyvale, California in exchange for
property interests that meet the readiness requirements of the
Department of the Navy, as determined by the Secretary. This
provision would restrict the Secretary from making such a
conveyance until after submitting an assessment to the
congressional defense committees of the feasibility and
advisability of transferring, in whole or in part, functions
currently performed at NIROP to real property already in the
Navy inventory and involved in supporting the fleet ballistic
missile program.
Land exchange, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas (sec. 2825)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Navy to convey to an entity all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to the parcel of real
property consisting of 44 acres known as Peary Place
Transmitter Site in Nueces County associated with the Naval Air
Station Corpus Christi, Texas.
Subtitle D--Project Management and Oversight Reforms
Project management oversight reforms
The committee is concerned with the number of construction
projects that are experiencing significant schedule delays and
cost increases. The recent notification that the Hospital at
Fort Bliss, Texas would cost an additional $250.0 million
because of ``omissions'' and ``design errors'' is just one
example of poor management of these projects with little to no
accountability for those responsible. With other significant
projects planned, including a new facility for the National
Geospatial Agency and a hospital replacement at Fort Leonard
Wood, it is essential that the Secretary of Defense ensure the
proper oversight and management of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Navy Facilities Command and, if these
organizations are not able to consistently deliver projects on
budget and on schedule, seek alternatives. Therefore the
committee recommends a number of provisions that would increase
transparency on the causes and individuals responsible for
significant cost increases and schedule delays and would
advance contracting with outside organizations if problems
continue.
Notification requirement for certain cost overruns and schedule delays
(sec. 2831)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense
committees of any military construction or military family
housing project that has a cost overrun or a schedule delay of
25 percent or more.
Limited authority for private sector supervision of military
construction projects in event of extensive overruns or project
delays (sec. 2832)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2851(a) of title 10, United States Code, to allow the
Secretary of Defense to arrange for private sector direction or
supervision of projects where the Chief of Engineers or the
Commander of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command had cost
overruns or project delays of more than 5 percent on at least
10 percent of the projects for which either was responsible in
the most recent fiscal year.
Annual report on cost overruns and schedule delays (sec. 2833)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees an annual report on military construction projects
and military family housing projects that had cost overruns or
schedule delays of 5 percent or more.
Report on design errors and omissions related to Fort Bliss hospital
replacement project (sec. 2834)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on design errors and omissions related to
the hospital replacement project at Fort Bliss, Texas. The
report should identify ``design errors'' and ``omissions'' that
led to the $245.0 million cost increase for the replacement
project and identify the organization and individual
responsible for the design errors and omissions. Additionally,
the report describe the actions taken by the Secretary of
Defense to hold such organizations and individuals responsible
for the errors and omissions. This report should be due no
later than December 1, 2017.
Additionally, this provision would prohibit the obligations
of funds appropriated for the replacement project at Fort Bliss
from being utilized until the report is submitted and a written
certification is submitted outlining the steps taken to
mitigate such overruns in the future of this project.
Report on cost increase and delay related to USSTRATCOM command and
control facility project at Offutt Air Force Base (sec. 2835)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the 16-month schedule delay and 10
percent cost increase related to the United States Strategic
Command command and control facility project at Offutt Air
Force Base, Nebraska. The report should include the name of the
organizations and/or persons responsible for the delay and cost
increase as well as a description of actions that the Secretary
has taken to hold such individuals or organizations accountable
for these problems.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Annual Department of Defense energy management reports (sec. 2841)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2925 (a) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure the
Department of Defense distinguishes between planned and
unplanned power outages and establishes critical mission
resilience metrics in the installation energy report.
Aggregation of energy efficiency and energy resilience projects in life
cycle costs (sec. 2842)
The committee recommends a provision that would ensure the
Department of Defense's energy projects consider life cycle
costs.
Authority of the Secretary of the Air Force to accept lessee
improvements at Air Force Plant 42 (sec. 2843)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to permit the lessee of Air
Force Plant 42 to make improvements to the plant or facility as
necessary for the development or production of military weapons
systems, munitions, components, or supplies.
Prohibition on use of funds for Kwajalein project (sec. 2844)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of funds to pursue the proposed 2-phase 52-home family
housing project for 18 military personnel on Kwajalein. The
committee is concerned that the project would cost $1.3 million
per unit. Therefore, the committee does not include
authorization for the Department to proceed with this project,
including planning and design.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
explore alternative structures, such as those used by U.S.
contractors on Kwajalein, that are a fraction of the price and
can be used in similar remote locations where construction
costs are prohibitively expensive.
Energy resilience (sec. 2845)
The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) Ensure
the readiness of the armed forces for their military missions
by making energy security and resilience the focus of the
Department's energy policy; (2) Require energy security and
resilience in the cost-benefit analysis for the procurement of
energy; and (3) Pursue projects that provide power directly to
a military facility or installation in the event of an outage.
The committee continues to be very concerned over the
growing threat of cyberattacks, physical attacks, electro
magnetic pulse events, weather-related outages, and their
collective risk on readiness.
For example, the committee notes that a lack of resilience
caused a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) to lose its feed
during a mission, causing a terrorist target to escape.
Furthermore, a deliberate power outage at Incirlik Air Base
left the Air Force without a grid power supply for almost a
week, significantly reducing the number of airstrikes flown in
support of the Syria mission.
Additionally, the Department has informed the committee of
an increasing trend in utility outages on military
installations--both domestic and abroad--notably 127 in fiscal
year 2015 that lasted 8 hours or longer. The majority of the
outages were caused by a lack of resilience, costing the
Department over $179,000 each day.
The committee notes that a growing number of the
Department's missions, whether RPA sorties or cyber, are fought
from its installations. Therefore, an enhanced policy of energy
resilience is necessary to improve the Department's readiness.
Consideration of energy security and energy resilience in awarding
energy and fuel contracts for military installations (sec.
2846)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2922a of title 10, United States Code, to ensure the
Secretary concerned prioritizes energy security and resilience
when considering energy or fuel contracts for military
installations.
Requirement to address energy resilience in exercising utility system
conveyance authority (sec. 2847)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2688(g) of title 10, United States Code, that would
require that utility systems be managed and operated in a
manner consistent with energy resilience requirements and
metrics.
In-kind lease payments; prioritization of utility services that promote
energy resilience (sec. 2848)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2667(c) of the title 10, United States Code, to
prioritize energy resilience as in-kind consideration.
Disclosure of beneficial ownership by foreign persons of high security
space leased by the Department of Defense (sec. 2849)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to identify the beneficial owner of
potential high security leased space. If any beneficial owner
of such space is a foreign entity, the Department would be
required to notify the tenant so that appropriate precautions
could be taken.
Items of Special Interest
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters conditions
The committee has concerns that the conditions of some
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQs) across the military services
have fallen below a desirable level of habitability. The
committee recognizes that the scarcity of military construction
(MILCON) funding and a requirement to spend limited resources
on emerging missions has caused the Services to make difficult
decisions. However, the failure to construct new BEQs has
created a situation where aging buildings are requiring
increasing amounts of Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and
Modernization (FSRM) funds in order to keep BEQs functioning,
which is increasing the degradation of other installation
infrastructure because of insufficient FSRM funds for routine
maintenance. Furthermore, some servicemembers are required to
reside in BEQs that fail to meet necessary standards, impacting
work performance, morale, and retention rates. The committee
strongly encourages the Secretaries of the Services to increase
the prioritization of their BEQs when considering MILCON
submissions.
Joint Test and Training Operations Center
The committee commends the Army and the Air Force for
establishing the Joint Test and Training Operations Center
(JTTOC) at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). The JTTOC de-
conflicts schedules between high-demand testing and training
missions in the region. The JTTOC has increased real-time
capability and airspace availability, making more effective use
of the ranges, restricted airspace, and other airspace units.
The committee applauds the progress made to-date and encourages
the Army and Air Force to continue working together to create
new efficiencies and optimize the use of WSMR's zero-to-
infinity airspace and surrounding airspace.
Life cycle construction materials
The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense
to make infrastructure and military construction investments
based on life cycle cost analyses that demonstrate the lowest
overall long-term costs needed to procure, install, maintain,
and replace each project relative to the longest extension of
service life. Such project materials may include, for example,
low-logistics materials and structural systems for rapid force
projection; infrastructure materials such as beams, girders,
decking, and pilings for port and pier facilities construction;
bridge construction, including rapidly deployable lightweight
bridges; building construction on installations, such as cross-
laminated timber; forward operating base (FOB) and contingency
base construction; maritime and air shipping, including
composite maritime shipping containers, vessels and high-speed
boats, such as the Mark V Special Operations Craft; additive
manufacturing using cellulose-reinforced thermoplastics; and
materials for ballistic and blast protection for installations,
FOBs, and contingency bases. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense
committees with a briefing on the use of these materials to
reduce life cycle costs.
Lincoln Laboratory
The committee recognizes the critical role that Lincoln
Laboratory plays in conducting research and developing
technologies that address critical national security
challenges. The committee notes that the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
included $40.0 million, as requested by the Air Force, for the
planning and design of two military construction projects to
support the recapitalization of facilities to support Lincoln
Laboratories. The committee understands that the Air Force
intends to award an architectural and engineering contact for
the design of these facilities by early October 2017 and
encourages the Air Force to maintain this schedule, in order to
support construction of the Advanced Microelectronics
Integration Facility currently programmed for fiscal year 2019.
The committee commends the Secretary of the Air Force for
programming these investments and for committing to the
recapitalization of the facilities and Lincoln Laboratory. The
committee supports these important recapitalization efforts in
order to keep the Department of Defense and the military
services at the cutting edge of technology.
Major range and test facility bases
The committee remains concerned that while the Department
of Defense's major range and test facility bases (MRTFBs) have
unspecified minor military construction authority up to $6.0
million, based on section 2805 of title 10, United States Code,
the Department has yet to adequately exercise and use its
authority.
Furthermore, the committee notes section 2806 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) amended the Defense Laboratory Modernization Pilot
Program to specifically include MRTFBs. Under this pilot
program, the funding limitation is $150.0 million and the
authority currently expires at the end of fiscal year 2020.
Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of
Defense to consider and use existing authorities to the maximum
extent practicable, in order to make the appropriate
infrastructure improvements necessary for the vital missions
conducted at MRTFBs.
Review of DOD utility privatization
The committee notes that Department of Defense (DOD)
installations serve as platforms from which the Department
employs forces across the full spectrum of military operations.
To accomplish their missions, these installations rely on the
use of utilities systems, such as the equipment, fixtures,
pipes, wires, and other structures used in the distribution of
electric power and natural gas; the treatment and distribution
of water; and the collection and treatment of wastewater.
However, historically, military installations have been unable
to upgrade and maintain reliable utility systems fully due to
inadequate funding and competing installation management
priorities.
In 1997, DOD decided that utility privatization (UP) was
the preferred method for improving utility systems and services
because privatization would allow installations to benefit from
private sector financing and efficiencies. With private sector
financing, installations could more quickly obtain major
upgrades to their utility systems and pay for these
improvements over time. Moreover, privatization of certain
functions allows military commanders to focus on core defense
missions and functions by relieving them of activities that can
be done more efficiently and effectively by others.
Prior Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have
identified challenges with DOD's UP efforts. In 2005, the GAO
identified several management weaknesses in DOD's
implementation of the UP program. In 2006, GAO reported that
DOD's progress in implementing the UP program had been slower
than expected and management concerns remained.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate DOD's UP program. The GAO
review should assess the extent to which: (1) DOD has fully
identified its priorities for privatization and achieved its UP
goals; (2) The military services have complied with existing
DOD requirements when implementing UP projects; (3) DOD has
experienced any challenges in awarding and executing UP
contracts; (4) DOD measures the performance of the UP contracts
and whether or not DOD complies with industry standards; and
(5) DOD has developed a means to have reasonable assurance the
privatized utilities' operators are addressing reliability
concerns and potential cyber threats to industrial control
systems or other utilities' systems equipment.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to brief the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than
February 28, 2018, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller
General's evaluation with a final report to be completed by
March 30, 2018.
Unified Facilities Criteria for elevator design
Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and Unified Facilities
Guide Specifications (UFGS) provide guidance for the design and
construction of facilities and the acquisition of building
system components by the Department of Defense. In general, the
UFC and UFGS system relies, to the maximum extent practicable,
upon commercial best practices. The committee is concerned that
recent Departmental guidance in elevator design departs from
these practices by prohibiting the use of machine roomless
elevator designs and equipment that are widely and increasingly
utilized in the private sector.
The committee is also concerned that the guidance provides
generally for construction specifications that depart markedly
from established model building codes. The committee is unaware
of any data regarding operational, safety, or other
considerations that would recommend against the use of machine
roomless elevator designs and equipment. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to ensure that UFC and UFGS guidance
on elevator design reflects current commercial best practices
and that such guidance permits the Department to acquire
contemporary building transportation systems widely available
on the market, unless the Secretary certifies that data are
available demonstrating that there are operational or safety
considerations.
Window fall prevention
The Committee recognizes the risks of unintentional falls
from windows in military family housing. According to the Safe
Kids Worldwide 2015 Report to the Nation; Protecting Children
in Your Home, about 8 children under age 5 die each year from
falling out a window, and more than 3,300 are injured seriously
enough to go to the hospital. Deaths and injuries often occur
when children push against window screens or climb onto
furniture located near to an open window. There have been a
number of injuries and at least one death from children falling
from windows in military housing.
As such, the committee urges the Department of Defense to
update its Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) for Family Housing
(UFC 4-711-01) to require that all new and existing residential
buildings have corrosion-resistant screens that meet the ANSI/
SMA6001 specifications for at least Medium loads, or successor
standard; or that windows shall be equipped with window fall
prevention screens, guards, or other devices that comply with
ASTM F2006 or ASTM F2090, or a successor standard.
The Committee also urges DOD to: (1) Specify that military
housing privatization partners shall be required to include
window fall prevention screens, guards, or other devices for
military housing and shall not be allowed to seek waivers or
exemptions; (2) Conduct an oversight program to ensure that all
military housing be equipped with window fall prevention
screens, guards, or other devices; and (3) Establish an
awareness campaign that educates families on window fall risks
and window fall prevention measures.
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
one Army military construction project for fiscal year 2018 for
overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2902)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2018
for overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2903)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for military construction in the overseas
contingency operations account for fiscal year 2018.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec.
2904)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 4602 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) for two projects until October 1, 2018,
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for the
military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later.
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
2018, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear
weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration
and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). This title authorizes
appropriations in three categories: (1) National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA); (2) defense environmental
cleanup; and (3) other defense activities.
The committee recommends a provision allocating funding
consistent with the funding allocations in section 4701.
The committee notes that the severity of the event at Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) necessitates biannual briefings to
the congressional defense committees on actions taken towards
bringing WIPP toward full operational status, including key
milestones, status of any capital projects under Department of
Energy Order 413.1, as well as obligations and expenditures.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review these biannual updates and report to the
congressional defense committees on significant findings and
trends.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to continue its ongoing evaluation of the Hanford Waste
Treatment Plant in the areas of cost-schedule performance,
technology readiness levels, contractor assurance system, and
other areas to be mutually agreed upon, and the committee
further directs the Comptroller General of the United States to
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committee no
later than February 28, 2018.
Finally, section 3137 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) requires a 5-year
assessment by a joint committee of the National Academies of
Science and the National Academy of Public Administration of
the report, ``Governance and Management of the Nuclear Security
Enterprise: Report to Congress,'' December 30, 2016. The joint
panel has endorsed three overarching themes of review: (1)
clarifying roles, responsibilities, authorities, and
accountability; (2) mitigating burdensome practices; and (3)
enabling change to be achieved and sustained. While the joint
committee can assess the first two items, item (3) requires the
NNSA to development a methodology not only to track
implementation but also to assess whether the recommendation
has met the objectives it was intended to achieve. The
committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA to report no
later than February 28, 2018, on the implementation of a
methodology similar to that developed by the Department of
Defense's Office of Cost Analysis and Program Estimation, which
not only tracks implementation of recommendations of the
Department's Nuclear Enterprise Review but also determines
whether the recommendations have achieved the change they were
intended to achieve. This methodology should be of assistance
to the joint committee in its review of item (3).
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the activities of the Department
of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy's
defense environmental clean-up activities.
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy's other
defense activities.
Nuclear energy (sec. 3104)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy's
nuclear energy activities.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Assessment and development of prototype nuclear weapons of foreign
countries (sec. 3111)
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
section 2660 of title 50, United States Code, (Design and use
of prototypes of nuclear weapons for intelligence purposes) and
incorporate its functions into section 2538b of title 50,
United States Code (Stockpile Responsiveness Program). Both
programs were created in part to exercise all capabilities
required to design, develop, engineer, produce, and deploy
nuclear weapons, but only the latter has received funding
through the appropriations process. The committee strongly
supports this mission and supports the request of the National
Nuclear Security Administration to combine the two programs
into one fully-funded program.
Use of funds for construction and project support activities relating
to MOX facility (sec. 3112)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to carry out construction and project
support activities for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility (MFFF) with any funds authorized to be appropriated or
otherwise made available for such purposes for fiscal year
2018.
The Secretary may waive this requirement to carry out
construction and project support activities related to the MFFF
project if the Secretary submits to the congressional defense
committees: (1) The commitment of the Secretary to remove
plutonium intended to be disposed of in the MOX facility from
South Carolina and ensure a sustainable future for the Savannah
River Site and (2) Certification that an alternative option
exists for carrying out the plutonium disposition program for
the same amount of plutonium identified that was to be disposed
of in the MOX facility is completed meeting the requirements of
National Nuclear Security Administration Business Operating
Procedure ``BOP-03.07, Analysis of Alternatives'' dated March
14, 2016; details of any required statutory or regulatory
changes to complete the alternative option, and that the total
lifecycle cost, consistent with Government Accountability
Office cost estimating and assessment best practices as found
in GAO-09-3SP ``GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide,''
that the alternative option would be less than half of the
estimated remaining lifecycle cost of the mixed-oxide fuel
program, estimates that should be of comparable accuracy.
Repeal, consolidation, and modification of reporting requirements (sec.
3113)
The committee recommends modifying certain National Nuclear
Security Administration reporting requirements to streamline
such requirements for efficiency or eliminate requirements for
programs that no longer exist.
National Nuclear Security Administration personnel system (sec. 3114)
The committee recommends a provision that would adapt the
pay banding and performance-based pay adjustment demonstration
project carried out by the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) since 2008 into a permanent alternative
personnel system.
Annual reports on unfunded priorities of National Nuclear Security
Administration (sec. 3115)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to submit to the congressional defense committees, no
later than 10 days after the date on which the budget for each
fiscal year is submitted to Congress, a list, in priority
order, of the unfunded requirements for the NNSA. The committee
notes that section 222a of title 10, United States Code,
requires the service chiefs and the commanders of the combatant
commands to submit to Congress a list of unfunded requirements.
The NNSA has not followed this practice but is a vital
component to the safety and security of the United States. Each
requirement in the list shall include a summary description of
the priority, including the objectives to be achieved if such
priority is funded and the additional amount of funds
recommended.
Budget Items
National Nuclear Security Administration research and development
certification and safety
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $196.8 million for research and
development certification and safety. The committee notes that
these programs constitute the current investment in technology
maturation for future systems, such as the interoperable
warhead series, and also support the subcritical experiments
necessary for stockpile stewardship and management. In order to
meet anticipated needs in this program, the committee
recommends an increase of $20.9 million in research and
development certification and safety for a total of $217.7
million.
Enhanced capabilities for subcritical experiments
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration included $50.8 million for enhanced capabilities
for subcritical experiments. The committee notes that funding
at this level is not expected to allow for completion of the
radiography project on time in 2024. This capability is
necessary to obtain experimental results in support of
stockpile stewardship and management as well as modern
configuration changes to support the sustainment program
schedule. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$15.0 million in enhanced capabilities for subcritical
experiments for a total of $65.8 million.
National Nuclear Security Administration enhanced surety
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $39.7 million for enhanced
surety. The committee notes that the NNSA reduced funding for
this program in order to support other NNSA priorities.
Investment in this area is necessary to meet technology
maturation goals, and to meet future stockpile requirements and
insertion opportunities, such as the interoperable warhead
series. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$12.3 million in enhanced surety for a total of $52.0 million.
Stockpile Responsiveness Program
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $40.0 million for the Stockpile
Responsiveness Program. The committee strongly supports this
program and recommends an increase of $10.0 million in
Stockpile Responsiveness for a total of $50.0 million. This
program is necessary to exercise the spectrum of capabilities
required to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons to ensure
that the U.S. nuclear deterrent remains secure, reliable,
credible, and responsive.
Inertial confinement facility operations
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $334.8 million for inertial
confinement fusion and high yield facility operations and
target production. Increased shot rates across inertial
confinement facilities would better support the Science,
Advanced Simulation and Computing, and Directed Stockpile Work
programs. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
$12.0 million in facility operations and target production for
a total of $346.8 million. These operations are necessary for
the successful execution of the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Plan.
National Nuclear Security Administration additive manufacturing
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $12.0 million for additive
manufacturing. The committee notes that additive manufacturing
has the potential to decrease production schedules, design
cycles, and production costs for NNSA projects. Further
research and investment in infrastructure is necessary to
understand how additive manufacturing can be applied in this
field. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0
million in additive manufacturing for a total of $24.0 million.
National Nuclear Security Administration component manufacturing
development
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $38.6 million for component
manufacturing development within the advanced manufacturing
development program. The committee notes that the NNSA
decreased funding for this program from prior years in order to
support other NNSA priorities. The committee believes that
immediate investment in this program will improve production
efficiency and support component insertion in current and
future systems. In order to restore funding to prior year
levels, the committee recommends an increase of $36.4 million
in component manufacturing development for a total of $75.0
million.
National Nuclear Security Administration deferred maintenance
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $360.0 million for maintenance
and repair of facilities and $427.3 million for
recapitalization. The committee notes the risks and
inefficiencies for both safety and programs posed by the poor
condition of NNSA facilities and infrastructure across the
nuclear enterprise. Therefore, in order to reduce the backlog
of deferred maintenance, the committee recommends an increase
of $50.0 million to maintenance and repair of facilities for a
total of $410.0 million and an increase of $100.0 million in
recapitalization for a total of $527.3 million.
Defense Nuclear Security deferred maintenance
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $687.0 million for Defense
Nuclear Security operations and maintenance. The committee
notes that facilities operated by the Defense Nuclear Security
enterprise face a similar challenge with deferred maintenance
to that of the rest of the NNSA enterprise. Therefore, to speed
up execution of critical security infrastructure projects, the
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in operations
and maintenance for a total of $692.0 million.
International nuclear security program
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $337.1 million for global
material security. To support the ongoing efforts of the NNSA,
the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in
global material security for a total of $437.1 million. This
program directly supports the International Atomic Energy
Agency with technical expertise, works with international
governments to detect and deter nuclear smuggling, and prevents
nuclear and radiological material from being used against the
United States and its interests. The additional funding shall
be apportioned as follows: $20.0 million for international
nuclear security; $20.0 million for radiological security; and
$60.0 million for nuclear smuggling detection.
Nonproliferation and arms control
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) included $129.7 million for
nonproliferation and arms control. To support the ongoing
efforts by the NNSA, the committee recommends an increase of
$70.3 million in nonproliferation and arms control for a total
of $200.0 million. The threat of global nuclear proliferation
continues to grow, and this program is vital to reducing the
risk of nuclear and dual-use materials proliferation,
equipment, and technology, while playing an essential role in
supporting arms control treaty and agreement implementation.
The additional funding shall be apportioned as follows: $60.3
million for nuclear verification and $10.0 million for
international nuclear safeguards.
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) contained $270.0 million in
nonproliferation construction for the Mixed Oxide Fuel
Fabrication Facility (MFFF). According to the budget request,
this funding is for activities in support of a decision to
terminate the MFFF project in fiscal year 2018.
The committee is disappointed in the lack of progress made
on MFFF despite repeated concerns regarding its cost and
management expressed by Congress, the Government Accountability
Office, and other independent groups. The Department of
Defense's failure to provide an updated performance baseline
for MFFF as directed in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and its failure to
submit the owner's agent report as directed by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) are particularly troubling. Meanwhile, the committee is
concerned by the lack of specificity in the proposed dilute and
disposal alternative despite direction to address several
aspects of this approach in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and report
language accompanying S. 2943, the Senate-passed version of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328). Furthermore, the committee is concerned that, if
the MFFF project is terminated at a later date, NNSA has not
yet considered what the MFFF complex would be used for in lieu
of its current mission.
In light of the failure of the Department of Energy to
substantiate the viability of its alternative to MFFF, the
committee recommends an additional $80.0 million in
nonproliferation construction for the MFFF for a total of
$350.0 million, and it directs the Department of Energy to
continue construction. Additional measures pertaining to MFFF
are contained in title 31 of this Act.
Naval Reactors deferred maintenance
The budget request for Naval Reactors included $466.9
million for operations and infrastructure. The committee notes
that Naval Reactors owns aging and excess facilities that pose
safety and program risks and environmental liabilities.
Therefore, in order to increase the pace of remediation,
dismantlement, and disposal of inactive Naval Reactors
facilities and to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog in
operational facilities, the committee recommends an increase of
$38.0 million in Naval Reactors operations and infrastructure
for a total of $504.9 million.
Items of Special Interest
Common financial reporting
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to periodically review, on a biannual basis beginning in
fiscal year 2018 and through 2022, the National Nuclear
Security Administration's (NNSA) financial integration efforts
and to report to the congressional defense committees on NNSA's
progress in implementing a common financial reporting system as
required in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328). The committee has an interest
in understanding NNSA's experience with financial integration
and in ensuring that efforts to complete this integration are
effective. The committee directs the first of the Comptroller
General's reviews to examine the National Nuclear Security
Administration's efforts to integrate financial systems at its
Y-12 National Security Complex and Pantex Plant as part of the
effort to combine the two sites' management and operating
contracts.
Competition in contracting
The committee believes competition is essential to
efficient and effective use of taxpayer resources. However, the
committee is concerned that unpredictability in contracting
schedules of the Department of Energy (DOE), including the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), could
negatively affect competition. Specifically, and with
particular respect to large contracts for management and
operations (M&O), decontamination and decommissioning (D&D),
and remediation, the committee is concerned that qualified
entities may be less willing to undertake the expenses
necessary to participate in a process that is prone to delay
and reconsideration. Such an eventuality does not serve the
interests of the Department or the taxpayer. The committee's
concerns are amplified by the value of contracts planned for
the next decade, which is expected to be around $60.0 billion.
Accordingly, the committee encourages both DOE and NNSA to
improve the stability and reliability of its schedule for
releasing draft requests for proposals, requests for proposals,
and awarding contracts. Further, the committee directs the
Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees, not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, on the schedule of major contract awards
and procurements expected in the next 18 months funded under
Atomic Energy Defense Activities.
Comptroller General review of high explosives capability
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the National Nuclear Security Administration's
(NNSA) high-explosives (HE) capability. The committee
recognizes that HE are a vital nuclear weapons component and
that it is critical that NNSA maintain both a robust research
and development (R&D) program as well as a production
capability. Maintaining this capability across multiple NNSA
sites, while perhaps necessary, is an expensive and potentially
risky undertaking. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to: (1) identify all
Department of Energy (DOE) and NNSA HE R&D and production
capabilities specific to nuclear weapons, the justification for
these sites, and what is known about the costs to maintain
them; (2) examine DOE's projected requirements for HE
capabilities to support the stockpile and work for others; (3)
compare these requirements to current capabilities to identify
any gaps or duplication in these capabilities; and 4) assess
how NNSA plans for its HE capability and the extent to which it
manages this capability as a strategic material.
The Comptroller General of the United States should provide
to the congressional defense committees a briefing within 270
days of the enactment of this Act with a full report to follow.
Comptroller General review of Kansas City Plant capabilities
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the Kansas City Plant's staffing plans and
capabilities to meet national security requirements. The
Comptroller General shall provide an update of the review to
the congressional defense committees no later than February 28,
2018, with a final report to follow.
The National Nuclear Security Administration's Kansas City
Plant is responsible for producing non-nuclear components for
Life Extension Programs (LEPs). The Kansas City Plant, which is
currently producing components for two LEPs, will soon see its
requirements double to accommodate four LEPs. Its timely
production of components for Sandia National Laboratories is
essential for maintaining LEP schedules.
Comptroller General review of plutonium oxide feedstock production
capacity
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to assess the Department of Energy's (DOE) current
capacity and plans to meet the feedstock production needs of
the plutonium disposition program, including the status of the
Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) and
whether there are any potential alternatives to ARIES for
feedstock production not later than May 1, 2018.
The DOE's approaches for disposing of excess defense
plutonium require that nuclear weapons pits from dismantled
U.S. nuclear weapons are disassembled and that weapons-grade
plutonium from these pits is converted into plutonium oxide
feedstock. In 2012, DOE canceled plans for constructing a
stand-alone facility where this work would take place and
determined it would rely on existing facilities, particularly
the Plutonium Facility 4 (PF-4) at Los Alamos National Lab
(LANL), to accomplish feedstock production. The National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) operates the ARIES
project, which is the technology development and demonstration
project for disassembling pits and converting the resulting
plutonium into oxide, within PF-4. However, in a 2009 report,
NNSA concluded that the ARIES project at LANL would not be a
viable option to perform the entire pit disassembly and
conversion mission. Moreover, NNSA stated that the ARIES
project would be unable to sustain the annual output of
plutonium oxide feedstock necessary to support plutonium
disposition through the mixed oxide fuel option. NNSA reached
this conclusion in part because the nuclear weapons research
and production missions that occupy most of the space at PF-4
take precedence over other priorities at the facility.
More recently, an independent assessment of DOE's options
for plutonium disposition published by Aerospace in April 2015
concluded that the production of plutonium oxide feedstock was
a major risk factor for increasing costs. Aerospace did not
assess the adequacy of the existing and proposed facilities to
support the physics, chemistry, and metallurgical processes
required for plutonium disposition. However, GAO's reporting on
this subject in 2010 noted that there were a number of key
technologies for pit disassembly and conversion that had not
attained an appropriate technology readiness level.
Given the importance of feedstock production to the success
of U.S. plutonium disposition efforts, as well as the cost
implications of delays to feedstock production, the committee
is concerned that DOE may not have produced adequate plans for
feedstock production. Specifically, the committee is concerned
that the current capacity of the ARIES project, as well as the
earlier planned use of H canyon for feedstock production, may
not be sufficient to meet the needs of the plutonium
disposition program and that competing priorities for space at
PF-4 may interfere with feedstock production efforts.
National Nuclear Security Administration arms control research and
development plan
The committee notes that Annex I, Section N of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provides for the long-term
presence of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in
Iran using modern technologies. This section allows the IAEA to
utilize internationally accepted modern technologies for
inspection and verification of Iran's compliance with the
JCPOA.
The committee included an increase of $70.3 million above
the President's budget request for National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) nonproliferation and arms control, for a
total of $200.0 million.
The committee directs the NNSA to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees on planned and potential
research and development of technologies to detect
proliferation of nuclear material which can be used for
verification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA. The briefing
should include information on what amount of funding would be
required to support significant advances and breakthroughs in
technology development before the end of calendar year 2023.
National Nuclear Security Administration plutonium strategy
Since 2008, the Nuclear Weapons Council has had a
requirement to be able to produce between 50 and 80 plutonium
pits per year by 2030 in order to meet deterrence requirements
and national requirements related to the creation of a
responsive nuclear infrastructure. In section 3112 of the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291),
Congress enacted a number of milestone pit production
requirements to ensure the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) is making adequate progress to achieve
the goal established by the Nuclear Weapons Council,
culminating with the requirement to demonstrate the capability
to produce 80 pits per year in 2027.
The committee strongly supports the actions NNSA has taken
to repurpose existing facilities at Los Alamos National
Laboratory in pursuit of these requirements. By more
economically using laboratory space, NNSA has developed a plan
that it expects will eventually provide it with the capability
to produce about 30 plutonium pits per year. Despite the
important progress that has been made to resurrect this
critical capability, the committee remains concerned about
NNSA's plans to achieve the additional pit production capacity
necessary for the long-term viability of the Nation's nuclear
deterrent.
In February 2016, the Administrator of the NNSA testified
that NNSA was conducting an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to
evaluate infrastructure options associated with achieving the
required pit production level of up to 80 pits per year by
2030. In May 2017, the Administrator indicated that this AoA is
expected to be complete in the summer of 2017. The committee
strongly encourages NNSA to complete the AoA within the
Administrator's estimated timeframe.
While the committee appreciates the testimony of the
Administrator that the AoA may not be ``necessarily
dispositive,'' the committee expects the results of the AoA to
evaluate and resolve most of the essential matters relating to
how NNSA plans to achieve the required level of pit production.
The committee believes NNSA must develop an actionable strategy
that represents the most effective way to achieve the required
level of capability, within the available schedule and at an
appropriate cost, and it believes that progress must be made
before these three requirements come into competition with each
other.
Pantex material staging facility
The National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA)
Pantex plant uses a 60-year-old facility to store and stage
special nuclear material. The committee understands that
efforts are underway to develop a new material staging area to
facilitate workflow as well as secure special nuclear material
that is awaiting final disposition. However, while the NNSA has
begun a process to validate requirements for such a facility
and expects that to be accomplished by the end of fiscal year
2017, it has not scheduled a start date for an Analysis of
Alternatives (AoA) of such a facility, nor has it identified an
anticipated completion date. In addition, the committee
understands that there may be opportunities for the NNSA to
work with the Air Force and the Corps of Engineers as the Air
Force replaces its aging weapons storage areas, which will have
similar design and construction requirements.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Administrator of the
NNSA to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees, to be submitted no later than February 28, 2018,
with the validated requirements and the start and end dates of
the AoA, as well as an account of how it will utilize, if
possible, the design and construction expertise being developed
for the replacement of the Air Force weapons storage areas.
Requirement for update on progress on interoperable warhead
The committee supports the efforts of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) to design and produce the first
interoperable warhead (IW-1), which is an important piece of
the modernization plan for the U.S. nuclear stockpile. However,
while the NNSA's internal independent cost estimates for the
IW-1 assume spending in fiscal year 2019, NNSA's Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Plan does not propose to begin work
until 2020. The committee is concerned that the misalignment of
plans within NNSA could lead to delays in the program.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of the
NNSA to provide an annual briefing to the congressional defense
committees, beginning in fiscal year 2018 and no later than
February 28th of each year, addressing whether the design and
production of IW-1 remains on schedule; whether NNSA will be
ready for an accelerated start should the Nuclear Weapons
Council give authorization for Phase 6.2 by fiscal year 2020;
and whether activities supporting the design and production are
proceeding on schedule and will be available.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to brief the congressional defense committees no
later than February 28, 2018, with a report to follow, on
NNSA's progress on the IW-1. GAO's review shall also cover
NNSA's planning and program management for the infrastructure,
equipment, and personnel needed to complete the IW-1.
Requirements for managing schedules for analyses of alternatives for
projects of the National Nuclear Security Administration
The Comptroller General of the United States issued a
report in August 2016 titled ``NNSA Needs to Clarify
Requirements for Its Plutonium Analysis Project at Los
Alamos,'' which found that the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) ``has spent billions of dollars designing
and partially constructing several one-of-a-kind major capital
asset projects only to later reassess alternatives for each
project in the wake of significant cost increases and schedule
delays.'' The same report found that in some cases, the NNSA
failed to identify key requirements for projects before
beginning design work on a major project. In particular, the
revised Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR)
facility project may not be able to support the requirement
mandated by the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) to demonstrate the capability to produce 80
plutonium pits per year by 2027, because ``NNSA only tasked the
CMRR project with replacing analysis equipment used in an aging
facility'' and did not include a pit production-related
parameter.
Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office report
found that the revised CMRR project schedule did not meet best
practices because it only included near-term work ending in
2017 and did not include all necessary work activities. The
Department of Energy (DOE) updated its guidance ``Program and
Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets'' (DOE
O. 413.3B) in May 2016 to direct that all major capital
projects include an integrated master schedule, but NNSA has
not followed that practice.
The committee is concerned that the facility produced by
the revised CMRR project will not have the capacity for the
legal requirements for pit production, and may continue to fall
short of best practices for schedule and project management.
The committee therefore directs the Administrator of the
NNSA to submit to the congressional defense committees a report
that includes an integrated master schedule for the revised
CMRR project and updated key performance parameters and
program-specific requirements for the same project, including
anticipated needs to support pit production in the completed
facility.
The report should be submitted no later than February 28,
2018.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant planning
The committee is concerned that the Department of Energy
(DOE) lacks a strategic plan for the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant's (WIPP) transuranic (TRU) waste disposal mission that
would include an analysis of whether the facility's existing
disposal space is sufficient for existing and likely future TRU
waste and whether future expansion of the facility will be
necessary. The committee notes that the National Nuclear
Security Agency's (NNSA) Plutonium Disposition Program,
radioactive waste cleanup projects across the country, and
ongoing nuclear modernization efforts depend on the
availability of disposal space at the WIPP. In addition to the
need for plans to account for the physical space limitations at
WIPP, long-term planning is also required to ensure that future
requirements and plans are consistent with the statutory
disposal limit established in the 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal
Act, which was carefully negotiated between the State of New
Mexico, the Department of Energy, and the Congress. DOE may
need to excavate more storage at WIPP as early as 2026 and has
already begun reviewing potential changes to the method it uses
to count waste volumes that, if approved, would allow WIPP to
accept more TRU waste. DOE, however, lacks complete information
on the future volume of TRU waste it will need to dispose of
and has not developed a plan or timeline for completing the
regulatory approvals and construction tasks needed to ensure
that WIPP can continue to support all of DOE's critical
missions in 2026 and beyond.
Therefore, to ensure that NNSA's Plutonium Disposition
Program and other cleanup projects have accurate and up-to-date
information on whether WIPP will be able to accept additional
TRU waste, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to
develop a strategic plan for disposing of its TRU Waste that
includes: (1) an analysis of WIPP's need for additional
disposal space to dispose of the waste currently accounted for
in its Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report as well as waste
likely to be sent to WIPP but not yet in the inventory; (2) a
plan for expanding WIPP's disposal space based on this
analysis, including a timeline for completing the necessary
regulatory approvals and construction tasks before WIPP's
remaining disposal space is filled; and (3) a timeline for
implementing DOE's preferred method for changing the way in
which waste volumes disposed of at WIPP are counted and an
analysis of the extent to which this change will allow for
additional volumes of waste to be disposed of at WIPP without
exceeding the statutory limit. The Secretary of Energy should
submit this strategic plan to the congressional defense
committees no later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Authorization (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at
$30.6 million consistent with the budget request.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)
The committee recommends a provision that would re-
authorize certain aspects of the Maritime Administration.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this
Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established
procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by
an agency head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria or merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 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...................................... 4,149,894 887,174 5,037,068
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY....................................... 2,519,054 1,514,570 4,033,624
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY...................................... 2,423,608 1,931,402 4,355,010
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY................................. 1,879,283 885,552 2,764,835
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY......................................... 6,469,331 1,491,332 7,960,663
JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND............................. 14,442 14,442
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY...................................... 15,056,235 5,154,008 20,210,243
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY....................................... 3,420,107 69,400 3,489,507
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC.................................. 792,345 42,500 834,845
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY............................... 19,903,682 4,850,800 24,754,482
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................... 8,277,789 1,218,069 9,495,858
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS....................................... 2,064,825 59,803 2,124,628
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE................................. 15,430,849 5,139,437 20,570,286
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................. 2,296,182 48,000 2,344,182
SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................... 3,370,775 107,328 3,478,103
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................ 1,376,602 1,376,602
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................... 19,603,497 452,399 20,055,896
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE....................................... 4,835,418 611,150 5,446,568
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND............................. 99,795 99,795
UNDISTRIBUTED................................................... 0 1,870,600 1,870,600
SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.................................. 113,983,713 26,333,524 140,317,237
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................ 9,425,440 480,912 9,906,352
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................ 17,675,035 378,455 18,053,490
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF.......................... 34,914,359 1,224,318 36,138,677
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW.......................... 20,490,902 1,167,608 21,658,510
OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE................................ 210,900 210,900
UNDISTRIBUTED................................................... 0 64,100 64,100
SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION.. 82,716,636 3,315,393 86,032,029
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................................... 38,945,417 1,261,823 40,207,240
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............................... 2,906,842 73,024 2,979,866
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................................... 7,307,170 182,923 7,490,093
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................................... 45,439,407 761,181 46,200,588
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS........................... 6,933,408 46,891 6,980,299
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............................... 1,084,007 1,084,007
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE............................. 278,837 1,077 279,914
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE.............................. 39,429,232 2,133,433 41,562,665
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE............................. 3,267,507 59,800 3,327,307
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................................... 6,939,968 203,700 7,143,668
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE......................... 34,709,717 74,000 34,783,717
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.................................... 1,452,686 1,452,686
UNDISTRIBUTED................................................... 0 1,411,595 1,411,595
SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.................. 188,694,198 6,209,447 194,903,645
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL.............................................. 133,881,636 -154,913 133,726,723
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS............. 7,804,427 16,000 7,820,427
SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL.......................... 141,686,063 -138,913 141,547,150
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND............................................ 1,586,596 50,100 1,636,696
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION............................. 961,732 961,732
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.................... 790,814 790,814
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................................. 336,887 336,887
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.......................................... 33,664,466 33,664,466
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND................................... 509,327 7,000 516,327
SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................... 37,849,822 57,100 37,906,922
TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS......... 564,930,432 35,776,551 600,706,983
DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY............................................................ 920,394 18,500 938,894
NAVY............................................................ 1,616,665 426,904 2,043,569
AIR FORCE....................................................... 1,738,796 228,330 1,967,126
DEFENSE-WIDE.................................................... 3,114,913 -501,450 2,613,463
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD............................................. 210,652 83,500 294,152
AIR NATIONAL GUARD.............................................. 161,491 26,000 187,491
ARMY RESERVE.................................................... 73,712 58,600 132,312
NAVY RESERVE.................................................... 65,271 65,271
AIR FORCE RESERVE............................................... 63,535 108,700 172,235
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM................................ 154,000 154,000
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................. 8,119,429 449,084 8,568,513
FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY.............................................. 182,662 -31,000 151,662
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY................................. 346,625 346,625
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS............................. 83,682 -40,875 42,807
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS................ 328,282 328,282
CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE......................................... 85,062 85,062
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............................ 318,324 318,324
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE......................... 59,169 59,169
IMPROVEMENT FUND................................................ 2,726 2,726
SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING........................................ 1,406,532 -71,875 1,334,657
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
ARMY............................................................ 58,000 58,000
NAVY............................................................ 143,644 143,644
AIR FORCE....................................................... 54,223 54,223
SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE.......................... 255,867 255,867
TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS......... 9,781,828 377,209 10,159,037
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051). 574,712,260 36,153,760 610,866,020
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.................................................. 133,000 133,000
SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS....................................... 133,000 133,000
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.............................................. 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION................................ 1,793,310 250,297 2,043,607
NAVAL REACTORS.................................................. 1,479,751 38,000 1,517,751
FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES................................... 418,595 418,595
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.............. 13,931,000 14,492,897
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................................ 815,512 815,512
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.................................. 30,000 30,000
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP................................... 5,537,186 5,537,186
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES............ 6,382,698 6,382,698
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS................... 20,446,698 561,897 21,008,595
INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION
DEFENSE FACILITIES NUCLEAR SAFETY BOARD......................... 30,600 30,600
SUBTOTAL, INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION.............. 30,600 30,600
TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND 20,477,298 561,897 21,039,195
INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS......................
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)...... 20,477,298 561,897 21,039,195
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST............ 595,189,558 36,715,657 631,905,215
NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)
PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY...................................... 424,686 424,686
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY....................................... 559,283 559,283
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY...................................... 1,191,139 1,191,139
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY................................. 193,436 193,436
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY......................................... 405,575 405,575
JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND............................. 483,058 483,058
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY...................................... 157,300 157,300
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY....................................... 152,373 152,373
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC.................................. 225,587 225,587
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................... 220,059 220,059
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS....................................... 65,274 65,274
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE................................. 740,778 740,778
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................. 395,400 395,400
SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................... 2,256 2,256
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................ 501,509 501,509
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................... 4,008,887 4,008,887
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE....................................... 518,026 15,900 533,926
UNDISTRIBUTED................................................... 0 -1,870,600
SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT........................................... 10,244,626 -1,854,700 8,389,926
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................ 119,368 119,368
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................ 130,365 130,365
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF.......................... 135,358 135,358
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW.......................... 226,096 226,096
UNDISTRIBUTED................................................... 0 -64,100 -64,100
SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION............ 611,187 -64,100 547,087
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................................... 16,126,403 16,126,403
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............................... 24,699 24,699
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................................... 108,111 108,111
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND................................ 4,937,515 4,937,515
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................................... 5,875,015 5,875,015
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS........................... 1,116,640 1,116,640
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............................... 23,980 23,980
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE............................. 3,367 3,367
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE.............................. 10,266,295 10,266,295
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE............................. 58,523 58,523
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................................... 15,400 15,400
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE......................... 7,712,080 256,300 7,968,380
UNDISTRIBUTED................................................... 0 -2,121,300 -2,121,300
SUBTOTAL,OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................. 46,268,028 -1,865,000 44,403,028
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL.............................................. 4,276,276 -214,300 4,061,976
SUBTOTAL,MILITARY PERSONNEL..................................... 4,276,276 -214,300 4,061,976
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND............................................ 148,956 -50,111 98,845
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.................... 196,300 196,300
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................................. 24,692 24,692
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.......................................... 395,805 395,805
COUNTER-ISLAMIC ISIS TRAIN & EQUIP FUND......................... 1,769,000 1,769,000
SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 2,534,753 -50,111 2,484,642
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY............................................................ 139,700 -15,700 124,000
NAVY............................................................ 18,500 -18,500
AIR FORCE....................................................... 478,030 -270,830 207,200
DEFENSE-WIDE.................................................... 1,900 -1,900
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................. 638,130 -306,930 331,200
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO BUDGET REQUEST 64,573,000 -4,355,141 60,217,859
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050)................... 659,762,558 32,360,516 692,123,074
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............................. [4,000,000] [4,000,000]
TITLE XV--SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY............................ [3,500,000] [3,500,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Senate Senate
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY, 574,712,260 36,153,760 610,866,020
BASE BUDGET (051).............
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 20,477,298 561,897 21,039,195
ACTIVITIES (053)..............
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 64,573,000 -4,355,141 60,217,859
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050).. 659,762,558 32,360,516 692,123,074
OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE OR ALREADY AUTHORIZED
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY
(051)
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT 37,000 37,000
PURCHASES.....................
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL OF 9,000 9,000
DOD REAL PROPERTY.............
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF 37,000 37,000
DOD REAL PROPERTY.............
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE- 83,000 0 83,000
MILITARY (051)................
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES
(053)
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES 118,000 118,000
REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM.......
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 118,000 0 118,000
ACTIVITIES (053)..............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES
(054)
OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS... 7,855,000 7,855,000
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED 7,855,000 0 7,855,000
ACTIVITIES (054)..............
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE 8,056,000 0 8,056,000
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS
(050).........................
DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY
AUTHORIZATIONS (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY 574,795,260 36,153,760 610,949,020
(051).........................
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 20,595,298 561,897 21,157,195
ACTIVITIES (053)..............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES 7,855,000 7,855,000
(054).........................
TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET 603,245,558 36,715,657 639,961,215
AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 050....
NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY
(051)
CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL 7,496,000 7,496,000
PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY
RETIREMENT FUND...............
REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD 1,333,000 1,333,000
MANDATORY.....................
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS............ -1,889,000 -1,889,000
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE- 6,940,000 0 6,940,000
MILITARY (051)................
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES
(053)
ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL 1,273,000 1,273,000
ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
AND OTHER.....................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 1,273,000 0 1,273,000
ACTIVITIES (053)..............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES
(054)
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION 59,000 59,000
TRUST FUND....................
PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND 514,000 514,000
AND OTHER.....................
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED 573,000 0 573,000
ACTIVITIES (054)..............
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE 8,095,000 0 8,095,000
MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050)......
DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY
IMPLICATION (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY 581,735,260 36,153,760 617,889,020
(051).........................
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 21,868,298 561,897 22,430,195
ACTIVITIES (053)..............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES 8,428,000 8,428,000
(054).........................
TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY 612,031,558 36,715,657 648,747,215
IMPLICATION (050).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
2 UTILITY F/W 4 75,115 4 75,115
AIRCRAFT..........
4 MQ-1 UAV........... 2 30,206 10 100,000 12 130,206
UFR: ER [10] [100,000]
Improved Gray
Eagle Air
Vehicles.......
ROTARY
5 HELICOPTER, LIGHT 13 108,383 13 108,383
UTILITY (LUH).....
6 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 48 725,976 2 39,000 50 764,976
IIIA REMAN........
UFR: Procures [2] [39,000]
remanufactured
AH64Es.........
7 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 170,910 0 170,910
IIIA REMAN (AP)...
8 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 13 374,100 9 273,700 22 647,800
IIIB NEW BUILD....
UFR: Procures [9] [273,700]
AH-64E.........
9 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 71,900 0 71,900
IIIB NEW BUILD
(AP)..............
10 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 48 938,308 48 938,308
MODEL (MYP).......
11 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 0 86,295 0 86,295
MODEL (MYP) (AP)..
12 UH-60 BLACK HAWK A 36 76,516 36 76,516
AND L MODELS......
13 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 6 202,576 4 246,564 10 449,140
UFR: New Build [4] [246,564]
MH-47G aircraft
14 CH-47 HELICOPTER 0 17,820 0 17,820
(AP)..............
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
15 MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP). 0 5,910 10 16,000 10 21,910
UFR: Procures [10] [16,000]
of Common
Sensor Payloads
16 UNIVERSAL GROUND 0 15,000 0 15,000
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
(UAS).............
17 GRAY EAGLE MODS2... 0 74,291 0 74,291
18 MULTI SENSOR ABN 0 68,812 0 29,475 0 98,287
RECON (MIP).......
UFR: Procures [0] [29,475]
of Electronic
Intelligence
(ELINT)
upgrades.......
19 AH-64 MODS......... 0 238,141 0 238,141
20 CH-47 CARGO 0 20,166 0 20,166
HELICOPTER MODS
(MYP).............
21 GRCS SEMA MODS 0 5,514 0 5,514
(MIP).............
22 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) 0 11,650 0 11,650
23 EMARSS SEMA MODS 0 15,279 0 15,279
(MIP).............
24 UTILITY/CARGO 0 57,737 0 57,737
AIRPLANE MODS.....
25 UTILITY HELICOPTER 0 5,900 0 5,900
MODS..............
26 NETWORK AND MISSION 0 142,102 0 142,102
PLAN..............
27 COMMS, NAV 0 166,050 0 166,050
SURVEILLANCE......
28 GATM ROLLUP........ 0 37,403 0 37,403
29 RQ-7 UAV MODS...... 0 83,160 5 131,000 5 214,160
UFR: Procures [5] [131,000]
Shadow V2 BLK
III systems....
30 UAS MODS........... 0 26,109 9 320 9 26,429
UFR: Procures [9] [320]
OSRVT systems..
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
31 AIRCRAFT 0 70,913 0 70,913
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.........
32 SURVIVABILITY CM... 0 5,884 0 5,884
33 CMWS............... 0 26,825 24 25,000 24 51,825
UFR: Limited [24] [25,000]
Interim Missile
Warning System
(LIMWS) Quick
Reaction
Capability.....
34 COMMON INFRARED 0 6,337 24 25,000 24 31,337
COUNTERMEASURES
(CIRCM)...........
UFR: CIRCM B- [24] [25,000]
Kits...........
OTHER SUPPORT
35 AVIONICS SUPPORT 0 7,038 0 7,038
EQUIPMENT.........
36 COMMON GROUND 0 47,404 0 47,404
EQUIPMENT.........
37 AIRCREW INTEGRATED 0 47,066 0 47,066
SYSTEMS...........
38 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 83,790 0 1,115 0 84,905
UFR: Airspace [0] [1,115]
Information
System shelter
and Alternate
Workstation....
39 INDUSTRIAL 0 1,397 0 1,397
FACILITIES........
40 LAUNCHER, 2.75 0 1,911 0 1,911
ROCKET............
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 170 4,149,894 97 887,174 267 5,037,068
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
1 LOWER TIER AIR AND 0 140,826 0 140,826
MISSILE DEFENSE
(AMD).............
2 MSE MISSILE........ 93 459,040 147 650,041 240 1,109,081
UFR: Additional [147] [650,041]
MSE missiles...
3 INDIRECT FIRE 0 57,742 0 -19,000 0 38,742
PROTECTION
CAPABILITY INC 2-I
Available prior [0] [-19,000]
year funds.....
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
5 HELLFIRE SYS 998 94,790 106 10,070 1,104 104,860
SUMMARY...........
UFR: Procures [106] [10,070]
maximum
Hellfire
missile........
6 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 824 178,432 0 -45,000 824 133,432
MSLS (JAGM).......
Excess due to [0] [-45,000]
delays.........
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 525 110,123 373 147,365 898 257,488
SYSTEM SUMMARY....
UFR: Procures [373] [147,365]
additional
Javelin........
9 TOW 2 SYSTEM 1,156 85,851 1,156 85,851
SUMMARY...........
10 TOW 2 SYSTEM 0 19,949 0 19,949
SUMMARY (AP)......
11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 4,458 595,182 0 14,500 4,458 609,682
(GMLRS)...........
UFR: Tooling [0] [14,500]
and practice
rounds.........
12 MLRS REDUCED RANGE 3,306 28,321 576 6,330 3,882 34,651
PRACTICE ROCKETS
(RRPR)............
UFR: Funds [576] [6,330]
Reduced Range
Practice
Rockets........
MODIFICATIONS
15 PATRIOT MODS....... 0 329,073 47 167,454 47 496,527
UFR: Procures [47] [167,454]
additional ELES
16 ATACMS MODS........ 0 116,040 75 69,400 75 185,440
UFR: Additional [75] [69,400]
ATACMS.........
17 GMLRS MOD.......... 0 531 0 531
18 STINGER MODS....... 0 63,090 576 28,800 576 91,890
UFR: Maximizes [576] [28,800]
Stinger........
19 AVENGER MODS....... 0 62,931 0 62,931
20 ITAS/TOW MODS...... 0 3,500 0 3,500
21 MLRS MODS.......... 0 138,235 32 48,882 32 187,117
UFR: Procures [32] [48,882]
M270A1 MLRS
launchers......
22 HIMARS 0 9,566 0 9,566
MODIFICATIONS.....
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
27 HIMARS............. 0 0 32 435,728 32 435,728
UFR: Procures [32] [435,728]
HIMARS
launchers......
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
23 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 18,915 0 18,915
PARTS.............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
24 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS 0 5,728 0 5,728
26 PRODUCTION BASE 0 1,189 0 1,189
SUPPORT...........
TOTAL MISSILE 11,360 2,519,054 1,964 1,514,570 13,324 4,033,624
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 BRADLEY PROGRAM.... 0 0 0 111,000 0 111,000
UFR: Recap 1 [0] [111,000]
Infantry
Battalion Set
of M2A4........
2 ARMORED MULTI 42 193,715 42 193,715
PURPOSE VEHICLE
(AMPV)............
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
4 STRYKER (MOD)...... 0 97,552 0 695,500 0 793,052
UFR: Second [0] [347,500]
SBCT set of
30mm...........
UFR: Stryker [0] [348,000]
ECP............
6 BRADLEY PROGRAM 0 444,851 0 444,851
(MOD).............
7 M109 FOV 0 64,230 0 64,230
MODIFICATIONS.....
8 PALADIN INTEGRATED 59 646,413 59 646,413
MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
9 IMPROVED RECOVERY 16 72,402 0 122,000 16 194,402
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).........
UFR: Procures [0] [122,000]
one ABCT set of
HERCULES
(M88A2)........
10 ASSAULT BRIDGE 0 5,855 0 5,855
(MOD).............
11 ASSAULT BREACHER 7 34,221 0 60,000 7 94,221
VEHICLE...........
UFR: Procures [0] [60,000]
Assault
Breacher
Vehicles,
Combat Dozer
Blades, Full
Width Mine
Plows..........
12 M88 FOV MODS....... 0 4,826 0 4,826
13 JOINT ASSAULT 27 128,350 27 128,350
BRIDGE............
14 M1 ABRAMS TANK 0 248,826 0 221,000 0 469,826
(MOD).............
UFR: Completes [0] [221,000]
the first
Brigade set of
Trophy (NDI
APS) for Abrams
w/ ERI OCO (1
APS Set).......
15 ABRAMS UPGRADE 20 275,000 0 561,000 20 836,000
PROGRAM...........
UFR: [0] [561,000]
Recapitalizatio
n of 29 Abrams
tanks to
M1A2SEPv3......
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT VEHICLES
18 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 0 1,992 0 2,350 0 4,342
GUN (7.62MM)......
UFR: Procures [0] [2,350]
additional.....
19 MULTI-ROLE ANTI- 0 6,520 0 20,000 0 26,520
ARMOR ANTI-
PERSONNEL WEAPON S
UFR: Procures [0] [20,000]
M3E1 light
weight Carl
Gustaf weapon
systems........
20 MORTAR SYSTEMS..... 0 21,452 0 13,050 0 34,502
UFR: Procures [0] [13,050]
M121 120mm
Mortars........
21 XM320 GRENADE 0 4,524 0 799 0 5,323
LAUNCHER MODULE
(GLM).............
UFR: Procures [0] [799]
M320A1 40mm
Grenade
Launchers......
23 CARBINE............ 0 43,150 0 13,987 0 57,137
UFR: Procures [0] [13,987]
M4A1 carbines..
24 COMMON REMOTELY 0 750 0 10,000 0 10,750
OPERATED WEAPONS
STATION...........
UFR: Accelerate [0] [10,000]
CROWS
modifications..
25 HANDGUN............ 0 8,326 0 378 0 8,704
UFR: Procures [0] [378]
Modular Handgun
Systems........
MOD OF WEAPONS AND
OTHER COMBAT VEH
26 MK-19 GRENADE 0 2,000 0 2,000
MACHINE GUN MODS..
27 M777 MODS.......... 0 3,985 0 85,787 0 89,772
UFR: Funds M777 [0] [85,787]
lightweight
towed howitzers
28 M4 CARBINE MODS.... 0 31,315 0 31,315
29 M2 50 CAL MACHINE 0 47,414 0 5,256 0 52,670
GUN MODS..........
UFR: Procures [0] [2,350]
M2A1 .50cal
machine........
UFR: Procures [0] [2,906]
Mk93 MG mounts,
M2A1 .50cal
MGs, M205
tripods........
30 M249 SAW MACHINE 0 3,339 0 3,339
GUN MODS..........
31 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 0 4,577 0 6,582 0 11,159
GUN MODS..........
UFR: Procures [0] [6,582]
M192 tripods,
M240B 7.62mm,
M240L 7.62mm,
Gun Optics.....
32 SNIPER RIFLES 0 1,488 0 1,488
MODIFICATIONS.....
33 M119 MODIFICATIONS. 0 12,678 0 12,678
34 MORTAR MODIFICATION 0 3,998 0 3,998
35 MODIFICATIONS LESS 0 2,219 0 2,219
THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
36 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 5,075 0 2,713 0 7,788
$5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
UFR: Procures [0] [2,713]
M150 Rifle
Combat Optic
(RCO); M68
Close Combat
Optics (CCO)...
37 PRODUCTION BASE 0 992 0 992
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).............
39 SMALL ARMS 0 1,573 0 1,573
EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
ENH PROG).........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 171 2,423,608 0 1,931,402 171 4,355,010
OF W&TCV, ARMY....
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 0 39,767 0 7,225 0 46,992
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [7,225]
ammunition.....
2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL 0 46,804 0 14,900 0 61,704
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [14,900]
ammunition.....
3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 0 10,413 0 90 0 10,503
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [90]
ammunition.....
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 0 62,837 0 8,890 0 71,727
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [8,890]
ammunition.....
5 CTG, 20MM, ALL 0 8,208 0 8,208
TYPES.............
6 CTG, 25MM, ALL 0 8,640 0 31,862 0 40,502
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [31,862]
ammunition.....
7 CTG, 30MM, ALL 0 76,850 0 2,150 0 79,000
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [2,150]
ammunition.....
8 CTG, 40MM, ALL 0 108,189 0 17,191 0 125,380
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [17,191]
ammunition.....
MORTAR AMMUNITION
9 60MM MORTAR, ALL 0 57,359 0 2,506 0 59,865
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [2,506]
ammunition.....
10 81MM MORTAR, ALL 0 49,471 0 3,109 0 52,580
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [3,109]
mortar.........
11 120MM MORTAR, ALL 0 91,528 0 18,192 0 109,720
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [18,192]
120mm..........
TANK AMMUNITION
12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 0 133,500 0 40,300 0 173,800
105MM AND 120MM,
ALL TYPES.........
UFR: Additional [0] [40,300]
Tank cartridge.
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
13 ARTILLERY 0 44,200 0 44,200
CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
105MM, ALL TYPES..
14 ARTILLERY 0 187,149 0 159,181 0 346,330
PROJECTILE, 155MM,
ALL TYPES.........
UFR: Additional [0] [159,181]
ammunition.....
15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 480 49,000 0 233,500 480 282,500
RANGE M982........
UFR: Excalibur. [0] [233,500]
16 ARTILLERY 0 83,046 0 80,722 0 163,768
PROPELLANTS, FUZES
AND PRIMERS, ALL..
UFR: Additional [0] [48,601]
PGK, prop
charges,
artillery fuzes
UFR: Required [0] [32,121]
to execute
simultaneous
OPLAN..........
MINES
17 MINES & CLEARING 0 3,942 0 3,050 0 6,992
CHARGES, ALL TYPES
UFR: Additional [0] [3,050]
ammunition.....
ROCKETS
19 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 0 5,000 0 61,881 0 66,881
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [61,881]
rockets,
grenades.......
20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 0 161,155 0 68,087 0 229,242
ALL TYPES.........
UFR: Additional [0] [68,087]
APKWS..........
OTHER AMMUNITION
21 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES. 0 7,441 0 7,441
22 DEMOLITION 0 19,345 0 2,261 0 21,606
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [2,261]
munitions......
23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 0 22,759 0 25,361 0 48,120
UFR: Additional [0] [25,361]
ammunition.....
24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 0 2,583 0 829 0 3,412
UFR: Additional [0] [829]
signal
munitions......
25 SIMULATORS, ALL 0 13,084 0 450 0 13,534
TYPES.............
UFR: Additional [0] [450]
signal
munitions......
MISCELLANEOUS
26 AMMO COMPONENTS, 0 12,237 0 12,237
ALL TYPES.........
27 NON-LETHAL 0 1,500 0 150 0 1,650
AMMUNITION, ALL
TYPES.............
UFR: Non-Lethal [0] [150]
Hand Grenade
Munitions......
28 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 10,730 0 3,665 0 14,395
MILLION (AMMO)....
UFR: Additional [0] [3,665]
ammunition.....
29 AMMUNITION PECULIAR 0 16,425 0 16,425
EQUIPMENT.........
30 FIRST DESTINATION 0 15,221 0 15,221
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO)............
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
32 INDUSTRIAL 0 329,356 0 100,000 0 429,356
FACILITIES........
UFR: Upgrade at [0] [100,000]
GOCO Army
ammuntion
plants.........
33 CONVENTIONAL 0 197,825 0 197,825
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATION..
34 ARMS INITIATIVE.... 0 3,719 0 3,719
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 480 1,879,283 0 885,552 480 2,764,835
OF AMMUNITION,
ARMY..............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/ 0 9,716 25 1,155 25 10,871
DOLLY SETS........
UFR: Provides [25] [1,155]
self-haul
capability to
Engineer
Construction
Units..........
2 SEMITRAILERS, 0 14,151 0 27,000 0 41,151
FLATBED:..........
UFR: Procures [0] [27,000]
100 % of
equipment
shortage in
Europe for M872
3 AMBULANCE, 4 0 53,000 0 15,593 0 68,593
LITTER, 5/4 TON,
4X4...............
UFR: Procures [0] [15,000]
HMMWV
ambulances.....
UFR: Support [0] [593]
increased end-
strength.......
4 GROUND MOBILITY 0 40,935 0 40,935
VEHICLES (GMV)....
6 JOINT LIGHT 2,110 804,440 2,110 804,440
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
7 TRUCK, DUMP, 20T 0 967 0 967
(CCE).............
8 FAMILY OF MEDIUM 0 78,650 0 185,222 0 263,872
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV)............
UFR: Procures [0] [185,222]
vehicles.......
9 FIRETRUCKS & 0 19,404 0 19,404
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
10 FAMILY OF HEAVY 0 81,656 31 7,443 31 89,099
TACTICAL VEHICLES
(FHTV)............
UFR: Procures [31] [7,443]
Forward Repair
Systems (FRS)..
11 PLS ESP............ 0 7,129 0 52,675 0 59,804
UFR: Provides [0] [52,675]
transportion of
ammunition and
break-bulk
cargo..........
13 TACTICAL WHEELED 0 43,040 0 43,040
VEHICLE PROTECTION
KITS..............
14 MODIFICATION OF IN 0 83,940 0 107,727 0 191,667
SVC EQUIP.........
UFR: Additional [0] [107,727]
Buffalo and
MMPV...........
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
16 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN 0 269 0 269
17 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 1,320 0 1,320
VEHICLES..........
18 NONTACTICAL 0 6,964 0 6,964
VEHICLES, OTHER...
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
19 WIN-T--GROUND 0 420,492 0 -420,492 0 0
FORCES TACTICAL
NETWORK...........
Early to need.. [0] [-420,492]
20 SIGNAL 0 92,718 0 92,718
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
21 TACTICAL NETWORK 0 150,497 0 150,497
TECHNOLOGY MOD IN
SVC...............
22 JOINT INCIDENT SITE 0 6,065 0 6,065
COMMUNICATIONS
CAPABILITY........
23 JCSE EQUIPMENT 0 5,051 0 5,051
(USREDCOM)........
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
24 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 0 161,383 0 161,383
WIDEBAND SATCOM
SYSTEMS...........
25 TRANSPORTABLE 0 62,600 0 62,600
TACTICAL COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS....
26 SHF TERM........... 0 11,622 0 11,622
28 SMART-T (SPACE).... 0 6,799 0 6,799
29 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC-- 0 7,065 0 11,000 0 18,065
GBS...............
UFR: Procures [0] [11,000]
Global
Broadcast
Systems........
31 ENROUTE MISSION 0 21,667 0 21,667
COMMAND (EMC).....
COMM--COMBAT
SUPPORT COMM
33 MOD-IN-SERVICE 0 70 0 70
PROFILER..........
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
34 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & 0 2,658 0 2,658
CONTROL SYS
(AGCCS)...........
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
36 HANDHELD MANPACK 0 355,351 0 355,351
SMALL FORM FIT
(HMS).............
37 MID-TIER NETWORKING 0 25,100 0 25,100
VEHICULAR RADIO
(MNVR)............
38 RADIO TERMINAL SET, 0 11,160 0 11,160
MIDS LVT(2).......
40 TRACTOR DESK....... 0 2,041 0 2,041
41 TRACTOR RIDE....... 0 5,534 0 8,200 0 13,734
UFR: [0] [8,200]
Procurement of
Offensive Cyber
Operations.....
42 SPIDER APLA REMOTE 0 996 0 996
CONTROL UNIT......
43 SPIDER FAMILY OF 0 4,500 0 2,358 0 6,858
NETWORKED
MUNITIONS INCR....
UFR: Procures [0] [2,358]
SPIDER INC 1A
systems........
45 TACTICAL 0 4,411 0 4,411
COMMUNICATIONS AND
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
46 UNIFIED COMMAND 0 15,275 0 15,275
SUITE.............
47 FAMILY OF MED COMM 0 15,964 0 15,964
FOR COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.....
COMM--INTELLIGENCE
COMM
49 CI AUTOMATION 0 9,560 0 9,560
ARCHITECTURE......
50 DEFENSE MILITARY 0 4,030 0 4,030
DECEPTION
INITIATIVE........
INFORMATION
SECURITY
54 COMMUNICATIONS 0 107,804 0 23,278 0 131,082
SECURITY (COMSEC).
UFR: Security [0] [23,278]
Data System and
End
Cyrptographic
Units..........
55 DEFENSIVE CYBER 0 53,436 4 8,000 4 61,436
OPERATIONS........
UFR: Funds [4] [8,000]
Deployable DCO
Systems for
COMPO 2&3 Cyber
Protection
Teams..........
56 INSIDER THREAT 0 690 0 690
PROGRAM--UNIT
ACTIVITY MONITO...
57 PERSISTENT CYBER 0 4,000 0 4,000
TRAINING
ENVIRONMENT.......
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
58 BASE SUPPORT 0 43,751 0 43,751
COMMUNICATIONS....
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
59 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 118,101 0 118,101
60 EMERGENCY 0 4,490 0 4,490
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
61 HOME STATION 0 20,050 0 20,050
MISSION COMMAND
CENTERS (HSMCC)...
62 INSTALLATION INFO 0 186,251 0 186,251
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
65 JTT/CIBS-M......... 0 12,154 0 7,600 0 19,754
UFR: Procures [0] [7,600]
critical spare
parts..........
68 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 0 274,782 0 -150,000 0 124,782
Changing [0] [-150,000]
tactical
requirements...
70 TROJAN (MIP)....... 0 16,052 0 13,160 0 29,212
UFR: Procures [0] [13,160]
TROJAN SPIRIT..
71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 51,034 0 51,034
(INTEL SPT) (MIP).
72 CI HUMINT AUTO 0 7,815 0 76 0 7,891
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS)......
UFR: Provides [0] [76]
CI/HUMINT
Automated
Reporting and
Collection
System
capabilities...
73 CLOSE ACCESS TARGET 0 8,050 0 8,050
RECONNAISSANCE
(CATR)............
74 MACHINE FOREIGN 0 567 0 567
LANGUAGE
TRANSLATION SYSTEM-
M.................
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
76 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER 0 20,459 0 20,459
MORTAR RADAR......
77 EW PLANNING & 0 5,805 0 5,805
MANAGEMENT TOOLS
(EWPMT)...........
78 AIR VIGILANCE (AV). 0 5,348 0 5,348
81 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 0 469 0 469
SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES...
82 CI MODERNIZATION... 0 285 0 285
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
83 SENTINEL MODS...... 0 28,491 12 72,000 12 100,491
UFR: Procures [12] [72,000]
additional
Sentinal Radars
84 NIGHT VISION 0 166,493 50 65,005 50 231,498
DEVICES...........
New night [50] [2,500]
vision testing
devices........
UFR: [0] [15,749]
Accelerates
fielding of the
LTLM...........
UFR: AN/PVS-14 [0] [5,414]
Night Vision
Goggles........
UFR: Enhanced [0] [4,608]
Night Vision
Goggles........
UFR: Security [0] [36,734]
Force
Assistance Bde.
85 SMALL TACTICAL 0 13,947 0 2,150 0 16,097
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF......
UFR: Procures [0] [2,150]
Small Tactical
Optical Rifle
Mounted laser
range finder...
87 INDIRECT FIRE 0 21,380 0 577,283 0 598,663
PROTECTION FAMILY
OF SYSTEMS........
UFR: IFPC/ [0] [577,283]
Avernger
Battalions and
Warn Suites....
88 FAMILY OF WEAPON 0 59,105 0 59,105
SIGHTS (FWS)......
89 ARTILLERY ACCURACY 0 2,129 0 2,129
EQUIP.............
91 JOINT BATTLE 0 282,549 0 120,422 0 402,971
COMMAND--PLATFORM
(JBC-P)...........
UFR: [0] [120,422]
Replenishes
Joint Battle
Command-
Platform.......
92 JOINT EFFECTS 0 48,664 0 48,664
TARGETING SYSTEM
(JETS)............
93 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 5,198 0 5,198
(LLDR)............
94 COMPUTER 0 8,117 0 8,117
BALLISTICS: LHMBC
XM32..............
95 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 0 31,813 0 20,700 0 52,513
SYSTEM............
UFR: Procures [0] [20,700]
Mortar Fire
Control systems
(M95, M96).....
96 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 0 329,057 0 64,200 0 393,257
UFR: Procures [0] [64,200]
AN/TPQ-53
Counterfire
Target
Acquisition
Radar System...
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
97 FIRE SUPPORT C2 0 8,700 0 4,758 0 13,458
FAMILY............
UFR: Additional [0] [4,758]
Advanced Field
Artillery
Tactical Data
System (AFATDS)
98 AIR & MSL DEFENSE 0 26,635 0 96,978 0 123,613
PLANNING & CONTROL
SYS...............
UFR: Supports [0] [96,978]
fielding (AMD)
mission command
assets to a
Army Corps HQ..
100 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE 0 1,992 0 1,992
SUPPORT (LCSS)....
101 NETWORK MANAGEMENT 0 15,179 0 15,179
INITIALIZATION AND
SERVICE...........
102 MANEUVER CONTROL 0 132,572 0 4,819 0 137,391
SYSTEM (MCS)......
UFR: Tactical [0] [4,819]
Mission Command
Equipment......
103 GLOBAL COMBAT 0 37,201 0 37,201
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).....
104 INTEGRATED 0 16,140 0 16,140
PERSONNEL AND PAY
SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP..
105 RECONNAISSANCE AND 0 6,093 0 19,755 0 25,848
SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET....
UFR: Procures [0] [19,755]
Engineer
Instrument Set
Field
Reconnaissance
and Survey Kits
106 MOD OF IN-SVC 0 1,134 0 1,459 0 2,593
EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE)
UFR: Support [0] [1,459]
Security Force
Assistance Bde.
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
107 ARMY TRAINING 0 11,575 0 11,575
MODERNIZATION.....
108 AUTOMATED DATA 0 91,983 0 -15,000 0 76,983
PROCESSING EQUIP..
Accelerate [0] [-15,000]
commercial IT
solutions......
109 GENERAL FUND 0 4,465 0 4,465
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS SYSTEMS
FAM...............
110 HIGH PERF COMPUTING 0 66,363 0 66,363
MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
111 CONTRACT WRITING 0 1,001 0 1,001
SYSTEM............
112 RESERVE COMPONENT 0 26,183 0 26,183
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS)............
ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
VISUAL SYS (A/V)
113 TACTICAL DIGITAL 0 4,441 0 4,441
MEDIA.............
114 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 0 3,414 0 13,000 0 16,414
(SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT)........
UFR: Accelerate [0] [3,000]
procurement of
Global
Positioning
System-Survey..
UFR: Procures [0] [10,000]
Automated
Integrated
Survey
Instrument
(AISI) systems.
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
115 PRODUCTION BASE 0 499 0 499
SUPPORT (C-E).....
116 BCT EMERGING 0 25,050 0 25,050
TECHNOLOGIES......
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
185 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 4,819 0 4,819
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
117 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS. 0 1,613 0 1,613
118 FAMILY OF NON- 0 9,696 0 9,696
LETHAL EQUIPMENT
(FNLE)............
120 CBRN DEFENSE....... 0 11,110 0 11,110
BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
121 TACTICAL BRIDGING.. 0 16,610 0 16,610
122 TACTICAL BRIDGE, 0 21,761 28 22,000 28 43,761
FLOAT-RIBBON......
UFR: Procures [28] [22,000]
Bridge Erection
Boats..........
124 COMMON BRIDGE 0 21,046 112 50,400 112 71,446
TRANSPORTER (CBT)
RECAP.............
UFR: Procure [112] [50,400]
Common Bridge
Transporters...
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
125 HANDHELD STANDOFF 0 5,000 0 5,600 0 10,600
MINEFIELD
DETECTION SYS-HST.
UFR: Procures [0] [5,600]
hand held mine
detectors......
126 GRND STANDOFF MINE 0 32,442 0 10,820 0 43,262
DETECTN SYSM
(GSTAMIDS)........
UFR: Equipment [0] [10,820]
for 15th and
16th ABCT......
127 AREA MINE DETECTION 0 10,571 0 10,571
SYSTEM (AMDS).....
128 HUSKY MOUNTED 0 21,695 0 2,400 0 24,095
DETECTION SYSTEM
(HMDS)............
UFR: Procures [0] [2,400]
Husky Mounted
Detection
System.........
129 ROBOTIC COMBAT 0 4,516 5 15,100 5 19,616
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS)............
UFR: Procures [5] [15,100]
M160s..........
130 EOD ROBOTICS 0 10,073 211 11,000 211 21,073
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATION..
UFR: Procures [211] [11,000]
the Talon 5A
robot..........
131 ROBOTICS AND 0 3,000 0 3,000
APPLIQUE SYSTEMS..
133 REMOTE DEMOLITION 0 5,847 44 1,192 44 7,039
SYSTEMS...........
UFR: Procures [44] [1,192]
Radio Frequency
Remote
Activated
Munitions......
134 < $5M, COUNTERMINE 0 1,530 0 1,530
EQUIPMENT.........
135 FAMILY OF BOATS AND 0 4,302 0 4,302
MOTORS............
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
136 HEATERS AND ECU'S.. 0 7,405 0 9,056 0 16,461
UFR: Procures [0] [9,056]
Improved
Environmental
Control Units..
137 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 0 1,095 0 1,095
138 PERSONNEL RECOVERY 0 5,390 0 5,390
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS)............
139 GROUND SOLDIER 0 38,219 0 9,808 0 48,027
SYSTEM............
UFR: Procures [0] [9,808]
NETT Warrior...
140 MOBILE SOLDIER 0 10,456 0 1,562 0 12,018
POWER.............
UFR: Procures [0] [1,562]
ISPDS-C systems
for a Security
Forces
Assistance Bde.
142 FIELD FEEDING 0 15,340 0 14,440 0 29,780
EQUIPMENT.........
UFR: BCT [0] [14,440]
support
equipment......
143 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 0 30,607 0 30,607
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
144 FAMILY OF ENGR 0 10,426 0 9,736 0 20,162
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION SETS.
UFR: [0] [9,736]
Engineering
equipment......
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
146 QUALITY 0 6,903 0 6,903
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT.........
147 DISTRIBUTION 0 47,597 0 47,597
SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
& WATER...........
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
148 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 43,343 0 43,343
MEDICAL...........
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
149 MOBILE MAINTENANCE 0 33,774 0 21,591 0 55,365
EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
UFR: Shop [0] [21,591]
equipment......
150 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 2,728 0 954 0 3,682
$5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
UFR: Additional [0] [954]
equipment for
growing Army...
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
151 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, 0 989 48 14,730 48 15,719
HVY, 6X4 (CCE)....
UFR: Procures [48] [14,730]
48 Graders for
the 16th ABCT..
152 SCRAPERS, 0 11,180 0 11,180
EARTHMOVING.......
155 ALL TERRAIN CRANES. 0 8,935 2 3,000 2 11,935
UFR: Procures [2] [3,000]
cranes to
support
bridging assets
157 HIGH MOBILITY 0 64,339 0 20,560 0 84,899
ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
(HMEE)............
UFR: Procures [0] [20,560]
HMEE for the
16th ABCT......
158 ENHANCED RAPID 0 2,563 0 2,563
AIRFIELD
CONSTRUCTION CAPAP
160 CONST EQUIP ESP.... 0 19,032 0 70,679 0 89,711
UFR: Procures [0] [7,000]
Engineer
Mission Module--
Water
Distributors
and 31
Vibratory
Rollers........
UFR: Procures [0] [63,679]
T9 Dozers and
Armor Kits.....
161 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 6,899 0 10,012 0 16,911
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP)............
UFR: Procures 2 [0] [10,012]
Vibratory Plate
Compactors
(VPC) for the
16th ABCT......
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATION
EQUIPMENT
162 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP 0 20,110 0 20,110
163 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 2,877 0 2,877
$5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
GENERATORS
164 GENERATORS AND 0 115,635 380 27,210 380 142,845
ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
UFR: Additional [380] [27,210]
equipment for
growing Army...
165 TACTICAL ELECTRIC 0 7,436 0 7,436
POWER
RECAPITALIZATION..
MATERIAL HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
166 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS 0 9,000 15 1,635 15 10,635
UFR: Procures [15] [1,635]
additonal 5K
LCRTF..........
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
167 COMBAT TRAINING 0 88,888 0 88,888
CENTERS SUPPORT...
168 TRAINING DEVICES, 0 285,989 0 285,989
NONSYSTEM.........
169 CLOSE COMBAT 0 45,718 0 45,718
TACTICAL TRAINER..
170 AVIATION COMBINED 0 30,568 0 30,568
ARMS TACTICAL
TRAINER...........
171 GAMING TECHNOLOGY 0 5,406 0 5,406
IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
TRAINING..........
TEST MEASURE AND
DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
172 CALIBRATION SETS 0 5,564 0 5,564
EQUIPMENT.........
173 INTEGRATED FAMILY 0 30,144 0 30,144
OF TEST EQUIPMENT
(IFTE)............
174 TEST EQUIPMENT 0 7,771 0 525 0 8,296
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD)...........
UFR: Test [0] [525]
Equipment
Modernization
systems (TEMOD)
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
175 M25 STABILIZED 0 3,956 0 3,956
BINOCULAR.........
176 RAPID EQUIPPING 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 10,000
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
UFR: Support 10 [0] [5,000]
initiatives per
year...........
177 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 60,047 0 60,047
SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
178 BASE LEVEL COMMON 0 13,239 0 13,239
EQUIPMENT.........
179 MODIFICATION OF IN- 0 60,192 0 60,134 0 120,326
SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3)................
UFR: Additional [0] [60,134]
support
equipment......
180 PRODUCTION BASE 0 2,271 0 2,271
SUPPORT (OTH).....
181 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 0 5,319 0 5,319
FOR USER TESTING..
182 TRACTOR YARD....... 0 5,935 0 5,935
185 BETSS-C COMPACT 0 0 0 0
PAYLOADS..........
186 INTELLIGENT REMOTE 0 0 0 8,600 0 8,600
IMAGING
SPECTOMETER--GROUN
D SYSTEM..........
UFR: [0] [8,600]
Development of
six focal plan
arrays.........
187 FORCE PROVIDER 0 0 12 27,700 12 27,700
EXPEDITIONARY.....
UFR: Procures [12] [27,700]
Force Providers
Battle-loss and
components for
RESET..........
188 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE 0 0 230 132,250 230 132,250
TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
SERV..............
UFR: Procures [230] [132,250]
HEMTTS.........
189 FIRE PROTECTION 0 0 9 54 9 54
TYPE I..........
UFR: Procures [9] [54]
Fire Protection
Type 1 sets....
OPA2
184 INITIAL SPARES--C&E 0 38,269 0 -23,940 0 14,329
Early to need.. [0] [-23,940]
TOTAL OTHER 2,110 6,469,331 1,218 1,491,332 3,328 7,960,663
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
JOINT IMPROVISED-
THREAT DEFEAT FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
1 RAPID ACQUISITION 0 14,442 0 14,442
AND THREAT
RESPONSE..........
TOTAL JOINT 0 14,442 0 0 0 14,442
IMPROVISED-THREAT
DEFEAT FUND.......
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
2 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) 14 1,200,146 10 739,000 24 1,939,146
HORNET............
UFR: Additional [10] [739,000]
F/A-18 E/F
Super Hornets..
3 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) 0 52,971 0 52,971
HORNET (AP).......
4 JOINT STRIKE 4 582,324 6 800,000 10 1,382,324
FIGHTER CV........
UFR: Additional [6] [800,000]
F-35C..........
5 JOINT STRIKE 0 263,112 0 263,112
FIGHTER CV (AP)...
6 JSF STOVL.......... 20 2,398,139 4 525,600 24 2,923,739
UFR: Additional [4] [525,600]
F-35B..........
7 JSF STOVL (AP)..... 0 413,450 0 413,450
8 CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT) 4 567,605 2 280,200 6 847,805
UFR: Additional [2] [280,200]
CH-53K.........
9 CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT) 0 147,046 0 147,046
(AP)..............
10 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT). 6 677,404 6 562,464 12 1,239,868
Multi-year [0] [-10,000]
savings........
UFR: Additional [2] [180,464]
MV-22/V-22.....
UFR: Additional [4] [392,000]
MV-22B.........
11 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT) 0 27,422 0 27,422
(AP)..............
12 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 22 678,429 7 220,500 29 898,929
AH-1Z)............
UFR: Additional [7] [220,500]
AH-1Z..........
13 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 0 42,082 0 42,082
AH-1Z) (AP).......
16 P-8A POSEIDON...... 7 1,245,251 6 1,011,000 13 2,256,251
UFR: Additional [6] [1,011,000]
P-8A Poseidon..
17 P-8A POSEIDON (AP). 0 140,333 0 140,333
18 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE... 5 733,910 5 733,910
19 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE 0 102,026 0 102,026
(AP)..............
OTHER AIRCRAFT
22 KC-130J............ 2 129,577 4 342,700 6 472,277
UFR: Additional [4] [342,700]
KC-130J........
23 KC-130J (AP)....... 0 25,497 0 25,497
24 MQ-4 TRITON........ 3 522,126 3 522,126
25 MQ-4 TRITON (AP)... 0 57,266 0 57,266
26 MQ-8 UAV........... 0 49,472 0 49,472
27 OTHER SUPPORT 0 0 4 59,200 4 59,200
AIRCRAFT..........
27 STUASL0 UAV........ 0 880 0 880
UFR: Procure [4] [59,200]
additional
aircraft.......
71 C-40A AIRCRAFT 0 0 2 215,000 2 215,000
PROCUREMENT.......
UFR: Procure [2] [215,000]
additional
aircraft.......
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
30 AEA SYSTEMS........ 0 52,960 0 52,960
31 AV-8 SERIES........ 0 43,555 0 43,555
32 ADVERSARY.......... 0 2,565 0 2,565
33 F-18 SERIES........ 0 1,043,661 62 81,100 62 1,124,761
UFR: ALQ-214 [28] [65,100]
USMC Retrofit..
UFR: ALR-67 [34] [16,000]
Retrofit A-KITS
and Partial B-
Kits...........
34 H-53 SERIES........ 0 38,712 0 38,712
35 SH-60 SERIES....... 0 95,333 0 95,333
36 H-1 SERIES......... 0 101,886 0 101,886
37 EP-3 SERIES........ 0 7,231 0 7,231
38 P-3 SERIES......... 0 700 0 700
39 E-2 SERIES......... 0 97,563 0 97,563
40 TRAINER A/C SERIES. 0 8,184 0 8,184
41 C-2A............... 0 18,673 0 18,673
42 C-130 SERIES....... 0 83,541 0 83,541
43 FEWSG.............. 0 630 0 630
44 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C 0 10,075 0 10,075
SERIES............
45 E-6 SERIES......... 0 223,508 0 223,508
46 EXECUTIVE 0 38,787 0 38,787
HELICOPTERS SERIES
47 SPECIAL PROJECT 0 8,304 0 8,304
AIRCRAFT..........
48 T-45 SERIES........ 0 148,071 0 148,071
49 POWER PLANT CHANGES 0 19,827 0 19,827
50 JPATS SERIES....... 0 27,007 0 27,007
51 COMMON ECM 0 146,642 0 146,642
EQUIPMENT.........
52 COMMON AVIONICS 0 123,507 0 123,507
CHANGES...........
53 COMMON DEFENSIVE 0 2,317 0 2,317
WEAPON SYSTEM.....
54 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 49,524 0 49,524
55 P-8 SERIES......... 0 18,665 0 18,665
56 MAGTF EW FOR 0 10,111 0 10,111
AVIATION..........
57 MQ-8 SERIES........ 0 32,361 0 32,361
59 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR 0 228,321 0 228,321
ACFT) OSPREY......
60 F-35 STOVL SERIES.. 0 34,963 0 34,963
61 F-35 CV SERIES..... 0 31,689 0 31,689
62 QRC................ 0 24,766 0 24,766
63 MQ-4 SERIES........ 0 39,996 0 39,996
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
64 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 1,681,914 0 299,744 0 1,981,658
PARTS.............
UFR: C-40A [0] [12,600]
Spares.........
UFR: CH-53K [0] [7,500]
Spares.........
UFR: F-35B [0] [91,000]
Spares.........
UFR: Fund to [0] [168,000]
max executable.
UFR: KC-130J [0] [12,844]
Spares.........
UFR: UC-12W [0] [7,800]
Spares.........
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIP & FACILITIES
65 COMMON GROUND 0 388,052 0 17,500 0 405,552
EQUIPMENT.........
UFR: F/A-18C/D [0] [17,500]
Training
Systems........
66 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL 0 24,613 0 24,613
FACILITIES........
67 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 39,614 0 39,614
68 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 1,463 0 1,463
CHARGES...........
69 SPECIAL SUPPORT 0 48,500 0 48,500
EQUIPMENT.........
70 FIRST DESTINATION 0 1,976 0 1,976
TRANSPORTATION....
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 87 15,056,235 113 5,154,008 200 20,210,243
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
1 TRIDENT II MODS.... 0 1,143,595 0 1,143,595
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL 0 7,086 0 7,086
FACILITIES........
STRATEGIC MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK........... 34 134,375 34 134,375
TACTICAL MISSILES
4 AMRAAM............. 120 197,109 0 12,000 120 209,109
UFR: Munitions [0] [12,000]
Wholeness......
5 SIDEWINDER......... 185 79,692 185 79,692
6 JSOW............... 0 5,487 0 5,487
7 STANDARD MISSILE... 117 510,875 117 510,875
8 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 90 20,968 90 20,968
II................
9 RAM................ 60 58,587 60 48,000 120 106,587
UFR: Additional [60] [48,000]
RAM BLK II.....
10 JOINT AIR GROUND 0 3,789 0 3,789
MISSILE (JAGM)....
13 STAND OFF PRECISION 19 3,122 0 9,400 19 12,522
GUIDED MUNITIONS
(SOPGM)...........
UFR: AGM-176A [0] [9,400]
Griffin Missile
Qualifications.
14 AERIAL TARGETS..... 0 124,757 0 124,757
15 OTHER MISSILE 0 3,420 0 3,420
SUPPORT...........
16 LRASM.............. 25 74,733 25 74,733
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
17 ESSM............... 30 74,524 30 74,524
19 HARPOON MODS....... 0 17,300 0 17,300
20 HARM MODS.......... 0 183,368 0 183,368
21 STANDARD MISSILES 0 11,729 0 11,729
MODS..............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
22 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL 0 4,021 0 4,021
FACILITIES........
23 FLEET SATELLITE 0 46,357 0 46,357
COMM FOLLOW-ON....
ORDNANCE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
25 ORDNANCE SUPPORT 0 47,159 0 47,159
EQUIPMENT.........
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
26 SSTD............... 0 5,240 0 5,240
27 MK-48 TORPEDO...... 17 44,771 17 44,771
28 ASW TARGETS........ 0 12,399 0 12,399
MOD OF TORPEDOES
AND RELATED EQUIP
29 MK-54 TORPEDO MODS. 0 104,044 0 104,044
30 MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP 0 38,954 0 38,954
MODS..............
31 QUICKSTRIKE MINE... 0 10,337 0 10,337
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
32 TORPEDO SUPPORT 0 70,383 0 70,383
EQUIPMENT.........
33 ASW RANGE SUPPORT.. 0 3,864 0 3,864
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
34 FIRST DESTINATION 0 3,961 0 3,961
TRANSPORTATION....
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
35 SMALL ARMS AND 0 11,332 0 11,332
WEAPONS...........
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
36 CIWS MODS.......... 0 72,698 0 72,698
37 COAST GUARD WEAPONS 0 38,931 0 38,931
38 GUN MOUNT MODS..... 0 76,025 0 76,025
39 LCS MODULE WEAPONS. 110 13,110 110 13,110
40 CRUISER 0 34,825 0 34,825
MODERNIZATION
WEAPONS...........
41 AIRBORNE MINE 0 16,925 0 16,925
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
43 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 110,255 0 110,255
PARTS.............
TOTAL WEAPONS 807 3,420,107 60 69,400 867 3,489,507
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 34,882 0 34,882
BOMBS.............
2 JDAM............... 2,492 57,343 2,492 57,343
3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 0 79,318 0 79,318
ALL TYPES.........
4 MACHINE GUN 0 14,112 0 14,112
AMMUNITION........
5 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 47,027 0 47,027
6 CARTRIDGES & CART 0 57,718 0 57,718
ACTUATED DEVICES..
7 AIR EXPENDABLE 0 65,908 0 65,908
COUNTERMEASURES...
8 JATOS.............. 0 2,895 0 2,895
10 5 INCH/54 GUN 0 22,112 0 22,112
AMMUNITION........
11 INTERMEDIATE 0 12,804 0 12,804
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION........
12 OTHER SHIP GUN 0 41,594 0 41,594
AMMUNITION........
13 SMALL ARMS & 0 49,401 0 49,401
LANDING PARTY AMMO
14 PYROTECHNIC AND 0 9,495 0 9,495
DEMOLITION........
16 AMMUNITION LESS 0 3,080 0 3,080
THAN $5 MILLION...
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
20 MORTARS............ 0 24,118 0 25,500 0 49,618
UFR: Additional [0] [11,000]
60mm Full Range
Practice Rounds
UFR: Additional [0] [14,500]
81mm Full Range
Practice Rounds
23 DIRECT SUPPORT 0 64,045 0 64,045
MUNITIONS.........
24 INFANTRY WEAPONS 0 91,456 0 91,456
AMMUNITION........
29 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 11,788 0 11,788
MUNITIONS.........
32 AMMO MODERNIZATION. 0 17,862 0 17,862
33 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS 0 79,427 0 17,000 0 96,427
UFR: Additional [0] [17,000]
training rounds
34 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 5,960 0 5,960
MILLION...........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 2,492 792,345 0 42,500 2,492 834,845
OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
SHIPBUILDING AND
CONVERSION, NAVY
FLEET BALLISTIC
MISSILE SHIPS
1 OHIO REPLACEMENT 0 842,853 0 842,853
SUBMARINE (AP)....
OTHER WARSHIPS
2 CARRIER REPLACEMENT 1 4,441,772 0 -300,000 1 4,141,772
PROGRAM...........
Unjustified [0] [-300,000]
cost growth....
4 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 3,305,315 2 3,305,315
SUBMARINE.........
5 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 1,920,596 0 1,173,000 0 3,093,596
SUBMARINE (AP)....
3rd FY20 SSN or [0] [450,000]
SIB expansion..
Additional EOQ [0] [750,000]
funding Blk V
MYP............
NSBDF Savings.. [0] [-27,000]
6 CVN REFUELING 0 1,604,890 0 1,604,890
OVERHAULS.........
7 CVN REFUELING 0 75,897 0 75,897
OVERHAULS (AP)....
8 DDG 1000........... 0 223,968 0 -50,000 0 173,968
Unjustified [0] [-50,000]
cost growth....
9 DDG-51............. 2 3,499,079 1 1,559,000 3 5,058,079
Available prior [0] [-225,000]
year funds.....
Procure 1 [1] [1,750,000]
additional DDG-
51.............
UFR: SSEE Inc F [0] [34,000]
for DDG........
10 DDG-51 (AP)........ 0 90,336 0 300,000 0 390,336
EOQ for FY18-22 [0] [300,000]
MYP contract...
11 LITTORAL COMBAT 1 636,146 0 -40,000 1 596,146
SHIP..............
Unit price [0] [-40,000]
adjustment.....
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
12 LX(R) OR LPD-30.... 0 0 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000
Incremental [1] [1,000,000]
funding for
LX(R) or LPD-30
15 LHA REPLACEMENT.... 0 1,710,927 0 1,710,927
AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
AND PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
18 TAO FLEET OILER.... 1 465,988 1 465,988
19 TAO FLEET OILER 0 75,068 0 75,068
(AP)..............
20 TOWING, SALVAGE, 1 76,204 1 76,204
AND RESCUE SHIP
(ATS).............
23 LCU 1700........... 1 31,850 1 31,850
24 OUTFITTING......... 0 548,703 0 -38,200 0 510,503
Post-delivery [0] [-38,200]
funds early to
need...........
25 SHIP TO SHORE 3 212,554 5 297,000 8 509,554
CONNECTOR.........
Quantity unit [0] [-15,000]
price
adjustment.....
UFR: 5 [5] [312,000]
additional Ship-
to-Shore
Connector......
26 SERVICE CRAFT...... 0 23,994 0 39,000 0 62,994
UFR: Berthing [0] [39,000]
barge..........
29 COMPLETION OF PY 0 117,542 0 117,542
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS..........
30 ESB................ 0 0 1 661,000 1 661,000
Procure [1] [661,000]
additional ESB.
32 CABLE SHIP......... 0 0 1 250,000 1 250,000
Procure cable [1] [250,000]
ship...........
TOTAL SHIPBUILDING 12 19,903,682 9 4,850,800 21 24,754,482
AND CONVERSION,
NAVY..............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
3 SURFACE POWER 0 41,910 0 41,910
EQUIPMENT.........
4 HYBRID ELECTRIC 0 6,331 0 -6,331 0 0
DRIVE (HED).......
Unjustified [0] [-6,331]
cost growth....
GENERATORS
5 SURFACE COMBATANT 0 27,392 0 27,392
HM&E..............
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
6 OTHER NAVIGATION 0 65,943 0 65,943
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
8 SUB PERISCOPE, 0 151,240 0 29,000 0 180,240
IMAGING AND SUPT
EQUIP PROG........
UFR: 3 [0] [29,000]
Submarine
Warfare
Federated
Tactical
Systems........
9 DDG MOD............ 0 603,355 0 603,355
10 FIREFIGHTING 0 15,887 0 15,887
EQUIPMENT.........
11 COMMAND AND CONTROL 0 2,240 0 2,240
SWITCHBOARD.......
12 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE.... 0 30,287 0 30,287
14 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 17,293 0 17,293
EQUIPMENT.........
15 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 0 27,990 0 27,990
EQUIPMENT.........
16 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 46,610 0 46,610
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
17 LCS CLASS SUPPORT 0 47,955 0 -42,600 0 5,355
EQUIPMENT.........
Procurement [0] [-42,600]
ahead of need..
18 SUBMARINE BATTERIES 0 17,594 0 17,594
19 LPD CLASS SUPPORT 0 61,908 0 61,908
EQUIPMENT.........
21 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 15,812 0 15,812
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
22 DSSP EQUIPMENT..... 0 4,178 0 4,178
23 CG MODERNIZATION... 0 306,050 0 306,050
24 LCAC............... 0 5,507 0 5,507
25 UNDERWATER EOD 0 55,922 0 55,922
PROGRAMS..........
26 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 96,909 0 96,909
MILLION...........
27 CHEMICAL WARFARE 0 3,036 0 3,036
DETECTORS.........
28 SUBMARINE LIFE 0 10,364 0 10,364
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
29 REACTOR POWER UNITS 0 324,925 0 324,925
30 REACTOR COMPONENTS. 0 534,468 0 534,468
OCEAN ENGINEERING
31 DIVING AND SALVAGE 0 10,619 0 10,619
EQUIPMENT.........
SMALL BOATS
32 STANDARD BOATS..... 0 46,094 0 46,094
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
34 OPERATING FORCES 0 191,541 0 191,541
IPE...............
OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
36 LCS COMMON MISSION 0 34,666 0 34,666
MODULES EQUIPMENT.
37 LCS MCM MISSION 0 55,870 2 28,900 2 84,770
MODULES...........
Procurement [0] [-5,100]
ahead of need..
UFR: Additional [2] [34,000]
MCM USV........
39 LCS SUW MISSION 0 52,960 0 52,960
MODULES...........
40 LCS IN-SERVICE 0 74,426 0 84,000 0 158,426
MODERNIZATION.....
UFR: LCS [0] [84,000]
modernization
for increased
lethatlity.....
LOGISTIC SUPPORT
42 LSD MIDLIFE & 0 89,536 0 89,536
MODERNIZATION.....
SHIP SONARS
43 SPQ-9B RADAR....... 0 30,086 0 30,086
44 AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW 0 102,222 0 102,222
COMBAT SYSTEM.....
46 SSN ACOUSTIC 0 287,553 0 27,000 0 314,553
EQUIPMENT.........
UFR: 3 [0] [27,000]
Submarine
Warfare
Federated
Tactical
Systems........
47 UNDERSEA WARFARE 0 13,653 0 13,653
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
49 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 0 21,449 0 21,449
WARFARE SYSTEM....
50 SSTD............... 0 12,867 0 12,867
51 FIXED SURVEILLANCE 0 300,102 0 300,102
SYSTEM............
52 SURTASS............ 0 30,180 0 10,000 0 40,180
UFR: 1 [0] [10,000]
Additional.....
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
54 AN/SLQ-32.......... 0 240,433 0 240,433
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
55 SHIPBOARD IW 0 187,007 0 40,000 0 227,007
EXPLOIT...........
UFR: 3 SSEE [0] [40,000]
Increment F and
Paragon/
Graywing.......
56 AUTOMATED 0 510 0 510
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS)......
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
58 COOPERATIVE 0 23,892 0 4,000 0 27,892
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY........
UFR: CEC IFF [0] [4,000]
Mode 5
Acceleration...
60 NAVAL TACTICAL 0 10,741 0 10,741
COMMAND SUPPORT
SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
61 ATDLS.............. 0 38,016 0 38,016
62 NAVY COMMAND AND 0 4,512 0 4,512
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NCCS)............
63 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM 0 31,531 0 31,531
REPLACEMENT.......
64 SHALLOW WATER MCM.. 0 8,796 0 8,796
65 NAVSTAR GPS 0 15,923 0 15,923
RECEIVERS (SPACE).
66 AMERICAN FORCES 0 2,730 0 2,730
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE...........
67 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 6,889 0 6,889
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
AVIATION ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
70 ASHORE ATC 0 71,882 0 71,882
EQUIPMENT.........
71 AFLOAT ATC 0 44,611 0 44,611
EQUIPMENT.........
77 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 21,239 0 21,239
78 NAVAL MISSION 0 11,976 0 1,000 0 12,976
PLANNING SYSTEMS..
UFR: Munitions [0] [1,000]
Wholeness......
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
80 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I 0 32,425 0 32,425
SYSTEMS...........
81 DCGS-N............. 0 13,790 0 13,790
82 CANES.............. 0 322,754 0 322,754
83 RADIAC............. 0 10,718 0 10,718
84 CANES-INTELL....... 0 48,028 0 48,028
85 GPETE.............. 0 6,861 0 6,861
86 MASF............... 0 8,081 0 8,081
87 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM 0 5,019 0 5,019
TEST FACILITY.....
88 EMI CONTROL 0 4,188 0 4,188
INSTRUMENTATION...
89 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 105,292 0 105,292
MILLION...........
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
90 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL 0 23,695 0 23,695
COMMUNICATIONS....
91 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS 0 103,990 0 103,990
AUTOMATION........
92 COMMUNICATIONS 0 18,577 0 18,577
ITEMS UNDER $5M...
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
93 SUBMARINE BROADCAST 0 29,669 0 29,669
SUPPORT...........
94 SUBMARINE 0 86,204 0 86,204
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.........
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
95 SATELLITE 0 14,654 0 14,654
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS...........
96 NAVY MULTIBAND 0 69,764 0 69,764
TERMINAL (NMT)....
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
97 JOINT 0 4,256 0 4,256
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT ELEMENT
(JCSE)............
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
99 INFO SYSTEMS 0 89,663 0 12,000 0 101,663
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
UFR: Crypto [0] [12,000]
modernization..
100 MIO INTEL 0 961 0 961
EXPLOITATION TEAM.
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
101 CRYPTOLOGIC 0 11,287 0 11,287
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.............
OTHER ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
110 COAST GUARD 0 36,584 0 36,584
EQUIPMENT.........
SONOBUOYS
112 SONOBUOYS--ALL 0 173,616 0 173,616
TYPES.............
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
113 WEAPONS RANGE 0 72,110 0 72,110
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
114 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT 0 108,482 0 108,482
EQUIPMENT.........
115 ADVANCED ARRESTING 0 10,900 0 10,900
GEAR (AAG)........
116 METEOROLOGICAL 0 21,137 0 21,137
EQUIPMENT.........
117 DCRS/DPL........... 0 660 0 660
118 AIRBORNE MINE 0 20,605 0 20,605
COUNTERMEASURES...
119 AVIATION SUPPORT 0 34,032 0 34,032
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
120 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS 0 5,277 0 5,277
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
121 SHIP MISSILE 0 272,359 0 272,359
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
122 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT 0 73,184 0 73,184
EQUIPMENT.........
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
123 STRATEGIC MISSILE 0 246,221 0 246,221
SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
124 SSN COMBAT CONTROL 0 129,972 0 20,000 0 149,972
SYSTEMS...........
UFR: 3 [0] [20,000]
Submarine
Warfare
Federated
Tactical
Systems........
125 ASW SUPPORT 0 23,209 0 23,209
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
126 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 15,596 0 15,596
DISPOSAL EQUIP....
127 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 5,981 0 5,981
MILLION...........
OTHER EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
128 SUBMARINE TRAINING 0 74,550 0 74,550
DEVICE MODS.......
130 SURFACE TRAINING 0 83,022 0 83,022
EQUIPMENT.........
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
131 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 5,299 0 5,299
VEHICLES..........
132 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 2,946 0 2,946
TRUCKS............
133 CONSTRUCTION & 0 34,970 0 34,970
MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
134 FIRE FIGHTING 0 2,541 0 2,541
EQUIPMENT.........
135 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 19,699 0 19,699
136 AMPHIBIOUS 0 12,162 0 12,162
EQUIPMENT.........
137 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 2,748 0 2,748
EQUIPMENT.........
138 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 18,084 0 18,084
MILLION...........
139 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 1,170 0 1,170
VEHICLES..........
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
141 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT... 0 21,797 0 21,797
143 FIRST DESTINATION 0 5,572 0 5,572
TRANSPORTATION....
144 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 482,916 0 482,916
SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
TRAINING DEVICES
146 TRAINING AND 0 25,624 0 25,624
EDUCATION
EQUIPMENT.........
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
147 COMMAND SUPPORT 0 59,076 0 -7,900 0 51,176
EQUIPMENT.........
Consolidate [0] [-4,200]
requirements
Navy Enterprise
Resource
Planning.......
Consolidate [0] [-3,700]
requirements
Navy ePS.......
149 MEDICAL SUPPORT 0 4,383 0 4,383
EQUIPMENT.........
151 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT 0 2,030 0 2,030
EQUIPMENT.........
152 OPERATING FORCES 0 7,500 0 7,500
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
153 C4ISR EQUIPMENT.... 0 4,010 0 4,010
154 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 23,644 0 23,644
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
155 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 101,982 0 19,000 0 120,982
EQUIPMENT.........
UFR: Port [0] [19,000]
Security
Barriers for
Ship Repair
Facilities.....
156 ENTERPRISE 0 19,789 0 19,789
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY........
OTHER
160 NEXT GENERATION 0 104,584 0 104,584
ENTERPRISE SERVICE
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
162 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 23,707 0 1,000,000 0 1,023,707
Classified [0] [1,000,000]
Project 0428...
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
161 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 278,565 0 278,565
PARTS.............
TOTAL OTHER 0 8,277,789 2 1,218,069 2 9,495,858
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 AAV7A1 PIP......... 0 107,665 0 107,665
2 AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT 26 161,511 26 161,511
VEHICLE 1.1.......
3 LAV PIP............ 0 17,244 0 17,244
ARTILLERY AND OTHER
WEAPONS
4 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE 0 626 0 626
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
5 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT 0 20,259 0 20,259
TOWED HOWITZER....
6 HIGH MOBILITY 0 59,943 0 59,943
ARTILLERY ROCKET
SYSTEM............
7 WEAPONS AND COMBAT 0 19,616 0 19,616
VEHICLES UNDER $5
MILLION...........
OTHER SUPPORT
8 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 17,778 0 17,778
GUIDED MISSILES
10 GROUND BASED AIR 0 9,432 0 9,432
DEFENSE...........
11 JAVELIN............ 222 41,159 222 41,159
12 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW.. 0 25,125 0 25,125
13 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS 0 51,553 0 51,553
SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
H)................
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEMS
16 COMMON AVIATION 0 44,928 0 44,928
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM (C.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
17 REPAIR AND TEST 0 33,056 0 33,056
EQUIPMENT.........
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
20 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 17,644 0 20,200 0 37,844
MILLION (COMM &
ELEC).............
UFR: Night [0] [20,200]
Optics for
Sniper Rifle...
21 AIR OPERATIONS C2 0 18,393 0 18,393
SYSTEMS...........
RADAR + EQUIPMENT
(NON-TEL)
22 RADAR SYSTEMS...... 0 12,411 0 12,411
23 GROUND/AIR TASK 3 139,167 3 139,167
ORIENTED RADAR (G/
ATOR).............
24 RQ-21 UAS.......... 4 77,841 4 77,841
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
25 GCSS-MC............ 0 1,990 0 1,990
26 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 0 22,260 0 22,260
27 INTELLIGENCE 0 55,759 0 10,120 0 65,879
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
UFR: CI and [0] [10,120]
HUMINT
Equipment
Program........
29 UNMANNED AIR 0 10,154 10 13,500 10 23,654
SYSTEMS (INTEL)...
UFR: Long [10] [13,500]
Endurance Small
UAS............
30 DCGS-MC............ 0 13,462 0 13,462
31 UAS PAYLOADS....... 0 14,193 0 14,193
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
TEL)
35 NEXT GENERATION 0 98,511 0 98,511
ENTERPRISE NETWORK
(NGEN)............
36 COMMON COMPUTER 0 66,894 0 7,104 0 73,998
RESOURCES.........
UFR: Full [0] [7,104]
Spectrum Cyber
Operations DMSS
37 COMMAND POST 0 186,912 0 186,912
SYSTEMS...........
38 RADIO SYSTEMS...... 0 34,361 0 34,361
39 COMM SWITCHING & 0 54,615 0 54,615
CONTROL SYSTEMS...
40 COMM & ELEC 0 44,455 0 44,455
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
41 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 4,214 0 4,214
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
42 COMMERCIAL CARGO 0 66,951 0 66,951
VEHICLES..........
TACTICAL VEHICLES
43 MOTOR TRANSPORT 0 21,824 0 21,824
MODIFICATIONS.....
44 JOINT LIGHT 527 233,639 527 233,639
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
45 FAMILY OF TACTICAL 0 1,938 0 1,938
TRAILERS..........
46 TRAILERS........... 0 10,282 0 10,282
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
48 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 1,405 0 1,405
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT............
50 TACTICAL FUEL 0 1,788 0 1,788
SYSTEMS...........
51 POWER EQUIPMENT 0 9,910 0 9,910
ASSORTED..........
52 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT 0 5,830 0 5,830
EQUIPMENT.........
53 EOD SYSTEMS........ 0 27,240 0 27,240
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
54 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 53,477 0 53,477
EQUIPMENT.........
GENERAL PROPERTY
56 TRAINING DEVICES... 0 76,185 0 8,879 0 85,064
UFR: ITESS-II [0] [8,879]
Force on Force
Training System
58 FAMILY OF 0 26,286 0 26,286
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.........
59 FAMILY OF 0 1,583 0 1,583
INTERNALLY
TRANSPORTABLE VEH
(ITV).............
OTHER SUPPORT
60 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 7,716 0 7,716
MILLION...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
62 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 35,640 0 35,640
PARTS.............
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 782 2,064,825 10 59,803 792 2,124,628
MARINE CORPS......
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
1 F-35............... 46 4,544,684 14 1,760,000 60 6,304,684
UFR: Procure [14] [1,760,000]
additional F-
35As...........
2 F-35 (AP).......... 0 780,300 0 780,300
2a O/A-X LIGHT ATTACK 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 1,200,000
FIGHTER...........
O/A-X Light [0] [1,200,000]
Attack Fighter.
TACTICAL AIRLIFT
3 KC-46A TANKER...... 15 2,545,674 2 400,000 17 2,945,674
UFR: Procure KC- [2] [400,000]
46.............
OTHER AIRLIFT
4 C-130J............. 0 57,708 3 162,100 3 219,808
Technical [3] [102,000]
adjustments....
UFR: C-130J [0] [60,000]
simulators.....
6 HC-130J............ 2 198,502 1 100,000 3 298,502
UFR: Procures [1] [100,000]
HC-130s........
8 MC-130J............ 5 379,373 12 1,230,000 17 1,609,373
UFR: Procure MC- [0] [30,000]
130J WST.......
UFR: Procures [12] [1,200,000]
MC-130s........
9 MC-130J (AP)....... 0 30,000 0 30,000
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
12 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/ 6 2,695 6 2,695
C.................
OTHER AIRCRAFT
14 TARGET DRONES...... 42 109,841 42 109,841
17 MQ-9............... 0 117,141 0 117,141
17a COMPASS CALL....... 0 0 0 108,173 0 108,173
Technical [0] [108,173]
adjustment.....
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
18 B-2A............... 0 96,727 0 96,727
19 B-1B............... 0 155,634 0 -34,000 0 121,634
Excess funding. [0] [-34,000]
20 B-52............... 0 109,295 0 109,295
21 LARGE AIRCRAFT 0 4,046 0 4,046
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURES...
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
22 A-10............... 0 6,010 4 103,000 4 109,010
UFR: A-10 Wings [4] [103,000]
23 F-15............... 0 417,193 0 417,193
24 F-16............... 0 203,864 0 203,864
25 F-22A.............. 0 161,630 0 161,630
26 F-22A (AP)......... 0 15,000 0 15,000
27 F-35 MODIFICATIONS. 0 68,270 0 68,270
28 INCREMENT 3.2B..... 72 105,756 72 105,756
30 KC-46A TANKER...... 0 6,213 0 6,213
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
31 C-5................ 0 36,592 0 36,592
32 C-5M............... 0 6,817 0 6,817
33 C-17A.............. 0 125,522 0 125,522
34 C-21............... 0 13,253 0 13,253
35 C-32A.............. 0 79,449 0 79,449
36 C-37A.............. 0 15,423 3 191,300 3 206,723
UFR: Procure C- [3] [191,300]
37B............
37 C-130J............. 0 10,727 0 -10,727 0 0
Technical [0] [-10,727]
adjustments....
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
38 GLIDER MODS........ 0 136 0 136
39 T-6................ 0 35,706 0 35,706
40 T-1................ 0 21,477 0 21,477
41 T-38............... 0 51,641 0 51,641
OTHER AIRCRAFT
42 U-2 MODS........... 0 36,406 0 36,406
43 KC-10A (ATCA)...... 0 4,243 0 4,243
44 C-12............... 0 5,846 0 5,846
45 VC-25A MOD......... 0 52,107 0 52,107
46 C-40............... 0 31,119 0 31,119
47 C-130.............. 0 66,310 0 29,800 0 96,110
Propulsion [0] [26,800]
improvement....
UFR: Procures [0] [3,000]
AC-130J AGM-114
Cape...........
48 C-130J MODS........ 0 171,230 0 10,727 0 181,957
Technical [0] [10,727]
adjustments....
49 C-135.............. 0 69,428 0 69,428
50 OC-135B............ 0 23,091 0 23,091
51 COMPASS CALL MODS.. 0 166,541 0 -63,573 0 102,968
Technical [0] [-108,173]
adjustment.....
UFR: Avionics [0] [10,000]
Viability
Program (AVP)
upgrades.......
UFR: Expected [0] [10,000]
disconnect in
air vehicle....
UFR: Mission [0] [24,600]
and support
equipment......
52 COMBAT FLIGHT 0 495 0 495
INSPECTION (CFIN).
53 RC-135............. 0 201,559 0 201,559
54 E-3................ 0 189,772 0 189,772
55 E-4................ 0 30,493 0 30,493
56 E-8................ 0 13,232 0 13,232
57 AIRBORNE WARNING 0 164,786 0 164,786
AND CONTROL SYSTEM
58 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 24,716 0 6,637 0 31,353
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
UFR: Family of [0] [6,637]
Advance Beyond
Line of Sight-
Terminals......
59 H-1................ 0 3,730 0 8,500 0 12,230
UFR: UH-1N [0] [8,500]
Safety
Enhancements...
60 H-60............... 0 75,989 0 75,989
61 RQ-4 MODS.......... 0 43,968 0 39,600 0 83,568
UFR: Replace RQ- [0] [39,600]
4 TFT Antennas.
62 HC/MC-130 0 67,674 0 67,674
MODIFICATIONS.....
63 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 59,068 0 59,068
65 MQ-9 MODS.......... 0 264,740 0 264,740
66 CV-22 MODS......... 0 60,990 0 60,990
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
67 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 1,041,569 0 1,041,569
REPAIR PARTS......
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
68 AIRCRAFT 0 75,846 0 75,846
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
69 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 8,524 0 8,524
CHARGES...........
71 T-53A TRAINER...... 0 501 0 501
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
72 B-2A............... 0 447 0 447
73 B-2A............... 0 38,509 0 38,509
74 B-52............... 0 199 0 199
75 C-17A.............. 0 12,028 0 12,028
78 RC-135............. 0 29,700 0 29,700
79 F-15............... 0 20,000 0 20,000
80 F-15............... 0 2,524 0 2,524
81 F-16............... 0 18,051 0 18,051
82 F-22A.............. 0 119,566 0 119,566
83 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 85,000 0 85,000
85 RQ-4 POST 0 86,695 0 86,695
PRODUCTION CHARGES
86 CV-22 MODS......... 0 4,500 0 4,500
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
87 INDUSTRIAL 0 14,739 0 14,739
RESPONSIVENESS....
88 C-130J............. 0 102,000 0 -102,100 0 -100
Technical [0] [-102,000]
adjustments....
WAR CONSUMABLES
89 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 37,647 0 37,647
OTHER PRODUCTION
CHARGES
90 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 1,339,160 0 1,339,160
CHARGES...........
92 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 600 0 600
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
93 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 53,212 0 53,212
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 188 15,430,849 39 5,139,437 227 20,570,286
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
MISSILE REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
IC
1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT 0 99,098 0 20,000 0 119,098
EQ-BALLISTIC......
UFR: (NUC) TE [0] [20,000]
Replacement
Disconnect.....
TACTICAL
2 JOINT AIR-SURFACE 360 441,367 360 441,367
STANDOFF MISSILE..
3 LRASM0............. 15 44,728 0 17,000 15 61,728
UFR: Long Range [0] [17,000]
Anti-Ship
Missile (LRASM)
4 SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X) 310 125,350 310 125,350
5 AMRAAM............. 205 304,327 205 304,327
6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 399 34,867 399 34,867
MISSILE...........
7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 5,039 266,030 5,039 266,030
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
8 INDUSTR'L 0 926 0 926
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION........
CLASS IV
9 ICBM FUZE MOD...... 0 6,334 0 6,334
10 MM III 0 80,109 0 11,000 0 91,109
MODIFICATIONS.....
UFR: (NUC) [0] [11,000]
Upgrade Minimum
Essential
Emergency
Communications
Network (MEECN)
(MMPU).........
11 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 0 289 0 289
13 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE 0 36,425 0 36,425
MISSILE (ALCM)....
14 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 0 14,086 0 14,086
MISSILE SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
15 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 101,153 0 101,153
REPAIR PARTS......
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
20 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 32,917 0 32,917
PROGRAMS..........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
21 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 708,176 0 708,176
TOTAL MISSILE 6,328 2,296,182 0 48,000 6,328 2,344,182
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
SPACE PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
SPACE PROGRAMS
1 ADVANCED EHF....... 0 56,974 0 56,974
2 AF SATELLITE COMM 0 57,516 0 57,516
SYSTEM............
3 COUNTERSPACE 0 28,798 0 28,798
SYSTEMS...........
4 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 146,972 0 12,528 0 159,500
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
UFR: Family of [0] [12,528]
Advance Beyond
Line of Sight-
Terminals......
5 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER 0 80,849 0 80,849
SATELLITES(SPACE).
6 GPS III SPACE 0 85,894 0 85,894
SEGMENT...........
7 GLOBAL POSTIONING 0 2,198 0 2,198
(SPACE)...........
8 SPACEBORNE EQUIP 0 25,048 0 25,048
(COMSEC)..........
10 MILSATCOM.......... 0 33,033 0 33,033
11 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 0 957,420 0 957,420
LAUNCH CAPABILITY.
12 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 3 606,488 3 606,488
LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
13 SBIR HIGH (SPACE).. 0 981,009 0 73,800 0 1,054,809
UFR: SBIRS [0] [73,800]
equipment......
14 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) 0 132,420 0 132,420
(AP)..............
15 NUDET DETECTION 0 6,370 0 6,370
SYSTEM............
16 SPACE MODS......... 0 37,203 0 21,000 0 58,203
UFR: Fix [0] [21,000]
Enterprise
Space Battle
Management
Command &
Control (BMC2).
17 SPACELIFT RANGE 0 113,874 0 113,874
SYSTEM SPACE......
SPARES
18 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 18,709 0 18,709
REPAIR PARTS......
TOTAL SPACE 3 3,370,775 0 107,328 3 3,478,103
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS............ 0 147,454 0 147,454
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 0 161,744 0 161,744
BOMBS
3 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 28,509 0 28,509
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 329,501 0 329,501
BOMBS.............
5 MASSIVE ORDNANCE 0 38,382 0 38,382
PENETRATOR (MOP)..
6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 10,330 319,525 10,330 319,525
MUNITION..........
7 B61................ 30 77,068 30 77,068
8 B61 (AP)........... 0 11,239 0 11,239
OTHER ITEMS
9 CAD/PAD............ 0 53,469 0 53,469
10 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 5,921 0 5,921
DISPOSAL (EOD)....
11 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 678 0 678
PARTS.............
12 MODIFICATIONS...... 0 1,409 0 1,409
13 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 5,047 0 5,047
MILLION...........
FLARES
15 FLARES............. 0 143,983 0 143,983
FUZES
16 FUZES.............. 0 24,062 0 24,062
SMALL ARMS
17 SMALL ARMS......... 0 28,611 0 28,611
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 10,360 1,376,602 0 0 10,360 1,376,602
OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 15,651 0 1,100 0 16,751
VEHICLES..........
UFR: Set the [0] [1,100]
Theater
initiative,
PACOM..........
CARGO AND UTILITY
VEHICLES
2 MEDIUM TACTICAL 0 54,607 0 54,607
VEHICLE...........
3 CAP VEHICLES....... 0 1,011 0 1,011
4 CARGO AND UTILITY 0 28,670 0 28,670
VEHICLES..........
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
5 SECURITY AND 0 59,398 0 10,610 0 70,008
TACTICAL VEHICLES.
UFR: Set the [0] [10,610]
Theater
initiative,
PACOM..........
6 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 19,784 0 19,784
VEHICLES..........
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH 0 14,768 0 14,768
RESCUE VEHICLES...
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
8 MATERIALS HANDLING 0 13,561 0 4,200 0 17,761
VEHICLES..........
UFR: Set the [0] [4,200]
Theater (StT)
PACOM..........
BASE MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & 0 3,429 0 13,230 0 16,659
CLEANING EQUIP....
UFR: Set the [0] [13,230]
Theater (StT)
PACOM..........
10 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 60,075 0 449 0 60,524
SUPPORT VEHICLES..
UFR: Set the [0] [449]
Theater (StT)
PACOM..........
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
11 COMSEC EQUIPMENT... 0 115,000 0 8,000 0 123,000
UFR: Cyber [0] [8,000]
Squadron
Initiative.....
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
13 INTERNATIONAL INTEL 0 22,335 0 22,335
TECH &
ARCHITECTURES.....
14 INTELLIGENCE 0 5,892 0 5,892
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
15 INTELLIGENCE COMM 0 34,072 0 34,072
EQUIPMENT.........
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 66,143 0 57,200 0 123,343
& LANDING SYS.....
UFR: Cyber [0] [8,000]
Squadron
Initiative
(WSCR).........
UFR: Deployable [0] [33,000]
Radar Approach
Control........
UFR: D-ILS [0] [16,200]
Procurement....
17 NATIONAL AIRSPACE 0 12,641 0 12,641
SYSTEM............
18 BATTLE CONTROL 0 6,415 0 1,400 0 7,815
SYSTEM--FIXED.....
UFR: Battle [0] [1,400]
Control System
(BCS) Tech
Refresh........
19 THEATER AIR CONTROL 0 23,233 0 23,233
SYS IMPROVEMENTS..
20 WEATHER OBSERVATION 0 40,116 0 30,000 0 70,116
FORECAST..........
UFR: [0] [30,000]
Installation
and
Notification
Warning System
(INWS) (ANG)...
21 STRATEGIC COMMAND 0 72,810 0 72,810
AND CONTROL.......
22 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 0 9,864 0 9,864
COMPLEX...........
23 MISSION PLANNING 0 15,486 0 15,486
SYSTEMS...........
25 INTEGRATED STRAT 0 9,187 0 9,187
PLAN & ANALY
NETWORK (ISPAN)...
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
26 GENERAL INFORMATION 0 51,826 0 6,300 0 58,126
TECHNOLOGY........
UFR: AFSPC [0] [6,300]
Cyber Request
for CMF Initial
Skills Training
(IST) Pipeline.
27 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & 0 3,634 0 3,634
CONTROL SYS.......
28 MOBILITY COMMAND 0 10,083 0 10,083
AND CONTROL.......
29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 0 201,866 0 201,866
SECURITY SYSTEM...
30 COMBAT TRAINING 0 115,198 0 115,198
RANGES............
31 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 0 292 0 292
EMERGENCY COMM N..
32 WIDE AREA 0 62,087 0 62,087
SURVEILLANCE (WAS)
33 C3 COUNTERMEASURES. 0 37,764 0 37,764
34 GCSS-AF FOS........ 0 2,826 0 2,826
35 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 0 1,514 0 1,514
ACCOUNTING AND
MGMT SYSTEM.......
36 THEATER BATTLE MGT 0 9,646 0 9,646
C2 SYSTEM.........
37 AIR & SPACE 0 25,533 0 25,533
OPERATIONS CTR-WPN
SYS...............
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
40 BASE INFORMATION 0 28,159 0 28,159
TRANSPT INFRAST
(BITI) WIRED......
41 AFNET.............. 0 160,820 0 195,600 0 356,420
UFR: ARAD [0] [26,000]
Enterprise
Software.......
UFR: Inst [0] [169,600]
Processing
Nodes in FY18..
42 JOINT 0 5,135 0 5,135
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT ELEMENT
(JCSE)............
43 USCENTCOM.......... 0 18,719 0 18,719
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
44 TACTICAL C-E 0 123,206 0 123,206
EQUIPMENT.........
45 COMBAT SURVIVOR 0 3,004 0 3,004
EVADER LOCATER....
46 RADIO EQUIPMENT.... 0 15,736 0 15,736
47 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL 0 5,480 0 5,480
EQUIPMENT.........
48 BASE COMM 0 130,539 0 130,539
INFRASTRUCTURE....
MODIFICATIONS
49 COMM ELECT MODS.... 0 70,798 0 70,798
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
51 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 52,964 0 84,700 0 137,664
MILLION...........
UFR: [0] [83,700]
Battlefield
Airman Combat
Equipment......
UFR: Procure [0] [1,000]
Parachute
Phantom Oxygen
System.........
DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
52 MECHANIZED MATERIAL 0 10,381 0 10,381
HANDLING EQUIP....
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
53 BASE PROCURED 0 15,038 0 15,038
EQUIPMENT.........
54 ENGINEERING AND EOD 0 26,287 0 26,287
EQUIPMENT.........
55 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 0 8,470 0 36,680 0 45,150
UFR: Basic [0] [36,680]
Expeditionary
Airfield
Resources spare
requirements in
support of the
Set the
Theater, PACOM.
56 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 28,768 0 28,768
MILLION...........
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
58 DARP RC135......... 0 25,985 0 25,985
59 DCGS-AF............ 0 178,423 0 178,423
61 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 840,980 0 840,980
PROGRAM...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
62 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 16,601,513 0 16,601,513
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
64 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 26,675 0 2,930 0 29,605
PARTS.............
UFR: Basic [0] [2,930]
Expeditionary
Airfield
Resources spare
requirements in
support of the
Set the
Theater, PACOM.
TOTAL OTHER 0 19,603,497 0 452,399 0 20,055,896
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
OSD
42 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 20 36,999 20 36,999
OSD...............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
NSA
41 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 5,938 0 5,938
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
WHS
45 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 10,529 0 10,529
WHS...............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
7 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 24,805 0 24,805
SECURITY..........
8 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 0 46,638 0 46,638
9 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 15,541 0 15,541
MILLION...........
10 NET CENTRIC 0 1,161 0 1,161
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (NCES)...
11 DEFENSE INFORMATION 0 126,345 0 126,345
SYSTEM NETWORK....
12 CYBER SECURITY 0 1,817 0 1,817
INITIATIVE........
13 WHITE HOUSE 0 45,243 0 45,243
COMMUNICATION
AGENCY............
14 SENIOR LEADERSHIP 0 294,139 0 294,139
ENTERPRISE........
16 JOINT REGIONAL 0 188,483 0 188,483
SECURITY STACKS
(JRSS)............
17 JOINT SERVICE 0 100,783 0 100,783
PROVIDER..........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DLA
19 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 2,951 0 2,951
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DSS
23 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 1,073 0 1,073
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 1,475 0 1,475
MILLION...........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
TJS
43 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 9,341 0 9,341
TJS...............
44 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 903 0 903
TJS--CE2T2........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY
27 THAAD.............. 34 451,592 24 319,400 58 770,992
UFR: Procures [24] [319,400]
additional
THAAD
Interceptors...
28 AEGIS BMD.......... 34 425,018 34 425,018
29 AEGIS BMD (AP)..... 0 38,738 0 38,738
30 BMDS AN/TPY-2 0 947 0 947
RADARS............
33 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE 0 59,739 0 59,739
III...............
34 IRON DOME.......... 1 42,000 0 50,000 1 92,000
Increase for Co- [0] [50,000]
production of
Iron Dome Tamir
interceptors...
35 AEGIS BMD HARDWARE 21 160,330 21 160,330
AND SOFTWARE......
78 DAVID'S SLING...... 0 0 0 120,000 0 120,000
Increase to [0] [120,000]
DSWS Co-
production.....
79 ARROW UPPER TIER... 0 0 0 120,000 0 120,000
Increase Arrow [0] [120,000]
3 Co-production
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
3 PERSONNEL 0 14,588 0 14,588
ADMINISTRATION....
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY
25 VEHICLES........... 0 204 0 204
26 OTHER MAJOR 0 12,363 0 12,363
EQUIPMENT.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
21 AUTOMATION/ 0 1,910 0 1,910
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 4,347 0 4,347
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
20 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 3 13,464 3 13,464
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
46 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 657,759 0 657,759
AVIATION PROGRAMS
49 ROTARY WING 0 158,988 0 -13,500 0 145,488
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.......
SOCOM requested [0] [-13,500]
transfer.......
50 UNMANNED ISR....... 0 13,295 0 13,295
51 NON-STANDARD 0 4,892 0 4,892
AVIATION..........
52 U-28............... 0 5,769 1 14,800 1 20,569
UFR: Aircraft [1] [14,800]
loss
replacement....
53 MH-47 CHINOOK...... 0 87,345 0 87,345
55 CV-22 MODIFICATION. 0 42,178 0 42,178
57 MQ-9 UNMANNED 0 21,660 0 21,660
AERIAL VEHICLE....
59 PRECISION STRIKE 0 229,728 0 229,728
PACKAGE...........
60 AC/MC-130J......... 0 179,934 0 179,934
61 C-130 MODIFICATIONS 0 28,059 0 28,059
SHIPBUILDING
62 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS. 0 92,606 0 -12,800 0 79,806
SOCOM requested [0] [-12,800]
transfer.......
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
63 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M 0 112,331 0 112,331
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
64 INTELLIGENCE 0 82,538 0 82,538
SYSTEMS...........
65 DISTRIBUTED COMMON 0 11,042 0 11,042
GROUND/SURFACE
SYSTEMS...........
66 OTHER ITEMS <$5M... 0 54,592 0 54,592
67 COMBATANT CRAFT 0 23,272 0 23,272
SYSTEMS...........
68 SPECIAL PROGRAMS... 0 16,053 0 16,053
69 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 63,304 0 63,304
70 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 0 252,070 0 252,070
<$5M..............
71 COMBAT MISSION 0 19,570 0 19,570
REQUIREMENTS......
72 GLOBAL VIDEO 0 3,589 0 3,589
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES........
73 OPERATIONAL 0 17,953 0 17,953
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE......
75 OPERATIONAL 0 241,429 26 13,250 26 254,679
ENHANCEMENTS......
UFR: Medium [26] [13,250]
Precision
Strike
munitions......
CBDP
76 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL 0 135,031 0 135,031
SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS.........
77 CB PROTECTION & 0 141,027 0 141,027
HAZARD MITIGATION.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 113 4,835,418 51 611,150 164 5,446,568
DEFENSE-WIDE......
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
1 JOINT URGENT 0 99,795 0 99,795
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............
TOTAL JOINT URGENT 0 99,795 0 0 0 99,795
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED
1 UNDISTRIBUTED...... 0 0 0 1,870,600 0 1,870,600
ERI costs [0] [1,870,600]
transfer from
OCO............
TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED 0 0 0 1,870,600 0 1,870,600
TOTAL PROCUREMENT.. 35,463 113,983,713 3,563 26,333,524 39,026 140,317,237
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
4 MQ-1 UAV........... 9 87,300 9 87,300
ROTARY
6 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 4 39,040 4 39,040
IIIA REMAN........
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
15 MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP). 0 41,400 0 41,400
18 MULTI SENSOR ABN 0 33,475 0 33,475
RECON (MIP).......
23 EMARSS SEMA MODS 0 36,000 0 36,000
(MIP).............
27 COMMS, NAV 0 4,289 0 4,289
SURVEILLANCE......
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
33 CMWS............... 0 139,742 0 139,742
34 COMMON INFRARED 0 43,440 0 43,440
COUNTERMEASURES
(CIRCM)...........
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 13 424,686 0 0 13 424,686
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
5 HELLFIRE SYS 2,927 278,073 2,927 278,073
SUMMARY...........
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 47 8,112 47 8,112
SYSTEM SUMMARY....
9 TOW 2 SYSTEM 49 3,907 49 3,907
SUMMARY...........
11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 1,542 191,522 1,542 191,522
(GMLRS)...........
13 HIGH MOBILITY 0 41,000 0 41,000
ARTILLERY ROCKET
SYSTEM (HIMARS....
14 LETHAL MINIATURE 120 8,669 120 8,669
AERIAL MISSILE
SYSTEM (LMAMS.....
MODIFICATIONS
18 STINGER MODS....... 0 28,000 0 28,000
TOTAL MISSILE 4,685 559,283 0 0 4,685 559,283
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 BRADLEY PROGRAM.... 60 200,000 60 200,000
2 ARMORED MULTI 65 253,903 65 253,903
PURPOSE VEHICLE
(AMPV)............
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
6 BRADLEY PROGRAM 0 30,000 0 30,000
(MOD).............
8 PALADIN INTEGRATED 12 125,736 12 125,736
MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
14 M1 ABRAMS TANK 0 138,700 0 138,700
(MOD).............
15 ABRAMS UPGRADE 36 442,800 36 442,800
PROGRAM...........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 173 1,191,139 0 0 173 1,191,139
OF W&TCV, ARMY....
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 0 5 0 5
TYPES.............
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 0 121 0 121
TYPES.............
5 CTG, 20MM, ALL 0 1,605 0 1,605
TYPES.............
7 CTG, 30MM, ALL 0 35,000 0 35,000
TYPES.............
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 266 23,234 266 23,234
RANGE M982........
16 ARTILLERY 0 20,023 0 20,023
PROPELLANTS, FUZES
AND PRIMERS, ALL..
MINES
17 MINES & CLEARING 0 11,615 0 11,615
CHARGES, ALL TYPES
ROCKETS
19 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 0 25,000 0 25,000
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 0 75,820 0 75,820
ALL TYPES.........
OTHER AMMUNITION
24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 0 1,013 0 1,013
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 266 193,436 0 0 266 193,436
OF AMMUNITION,
ARMY..............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
10 FAMILY OF HEAVY 0 25,874 0 25,874
TACTICAL VEHICLES
(FHTV)............
12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE 0 38,628 0 38,628
TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
SERV..............
14 MODIFICATION OF IN 0 64,647 0 64,647
SVC EQUIP.........
15 MINE-RESISTANT 0 17,508 0 17,508
AMBUSH-PROTECTED
(MRAP) MODS.......
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
20 SIGNAL 0 4,900 0 4,900
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
41 TRACTOR RIDE....... 0 1,000 0 1,000
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
62 INSTALLATION INFO 0 2,500 0 2,500
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
68 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 0 39,515 0 39,515
70 TROJAN (MIP)....... 0 21,310 0 21,310
71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 2,300 0 2,300
(INTEL SPT) (MIP).
72 CI HUMINT AUTO 0 14,460 0 14,460
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS)......
75 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL 0 5,180 0 5,180
COLLECTION DEVICES
(MIP).............
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
80 FAMILY OF 0 16,935 0 16,935
PERSISTENT
SURVEILLANCE
CAPABILITIE.......
81 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 0 18,874 0 18,874
SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES...
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
84 NIGHT VISION 0 377 0 377
DEVICES...........
85 SMALL TACTICAL 0 60 0 60
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF......
87 INDIRECT FIRE 0 57,500 0 57,500
PROTECTION FAMILY
OF SYSTEMS........
93 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 3,974 0 3,974
(LLDR)............
95 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 0 2,947 0 2,947
SYSTEM............
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
98 AIR & MSL DEFENSE 0 9,100 0 9,100
PLANNING & CONTROL
SYS...............
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
119 BASE DEFENSE 0 3,726 0 3,726
SYSTEMS (BDS).....
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
136 HEATERS AND ECU'S.. 0 270 0 270
142 FIELD FEEDING 0 145 0 145
EQUIPMENT.........
143 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 0 1,980 0 1,980
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
148 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 25,690 0 25,690
MEDICAL...........
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
149 MOBILE MAINTENANCE 0 1,124 0 1,124
EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
153 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR 0 3,850 0 3,850
157 HIGH MOBILITY 0 1,932 0 1,932
ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
(HMEE)............
GENERATORS
164 GENERATORS AND 0 569 0 569
ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
168 TRAINING DEVICES, 0 2,700 0 2,700
NONSYSTEM.........
TEST MEASURE AND
DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
173 INTEGRATED FAMILY 0 7,500 0 7,500
OF TEST EQUIPMENT
(IFTE)............
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
176 RAPID EQUIPPING 0 8,500 0 8,500
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
TOTAL OTHER 0 405,575 0 0 0 405,575
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
JOINT IMPROVISED-
THREAT DEFEAT FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
1 RAPID ACQUISITION 0 483,058 0 483,058
AND THREAT
RESPONSE..........
TOTAL JOINT 0 483,058 0 0 0 483,058
IMPROVISED-THREAT
DEFEAT FUND.......
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER AIRCRAFT
27 STUASL0 UAV........ 0 3,900 0 3,900
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
34 H-53 SERIES........ 0 950 0 950
35 SH-60 SERIES....... 0 15,382 0 15,382
37 EP-3 SERIES........ 0 7,220 0 7,220
47 SPECIAL PROJECT 0 19,855 0 19,855
AIRCRAFT..........
51 COMMON ECM 0 75,530 0 75,530
EQUIPMENT.........
62 QRC................ 0 15,150 0 15,150
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
64 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 18,850 0 18,850
PARTS.............
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIP & FACILITIES
66 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL 0 463 0 463
FACILITIES........
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 0 157,300 0 0 0 157,300
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
STRATEGIC MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK........... 66 100,086 66 100,086
TACTICAL MISSILES
7 STANDARD MISSILE... 8 35,208 8 35,208
11 HELLFIRE........... 110 8,771 110 8,771
12 LASER MAVERICK..... 0 5,040 0 5,040
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
17 ESSM............... 1 1,768 1 1,768
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
35 SMALL ARMS AND 0 1,500 0 1,500
WEAPONS...........
TOTAL WEAPONS 185 152,373 0 0 185 152,373
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 74,021 0 74,021
BOMBS.............
2 JDAM............... 4,717 106,941 4,717 106,941
3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 0 1,184 0 1,184
ALL TYPES.........
7 AIR EXPENDABLE 0 15,700 0 15,700
COUNTERMEASURES...
8 JATOS.............. 0 540 0 540
12 OTHER SHIP GUN 0 13,789 0 13,789
AMMUNITION........
13 SMALL ARMS & 0 1,963 0 1,963
LANDING PARTY AMMO
14 PYROTECHNIC AND 0 765 0 765
DEMOLITION........
16 AMMUNITION LESS 0 866 0 866
THAN $5 MILLION...
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
20 MORTARS............ 0 1,290 0 1,290
23 DIRECT SUPPORT 0 1,355 0 1,355
MUNITIONS.........
24 INFANTRY WEAPONS 0 1,854 0 1,854
AMMUNITION........
33 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS 0 5,319 0 5,319
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 4,717 225,587 0 0 4,717 225,587
OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
25 UNDERWATER EOD 0 12,348 0 12,348
PROGRAMS..........
SMALL BOATS
32 STANDARD BOATS..... 0 18,000 0 18,000
SHIP SONARS
46 SSN ACOUSTIC 0 43,500 0 43,500
EQUIPMENT.........
AVIATION ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
78 NAVAL MISSION 0 2,550 0 2,550
PLANNING SYSTEMS..
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
80 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I 0 7,900 0 7,900
SYSTEMS...........
81 DCGS-N............. 0 6,392 0 6,392
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
101 CRYPTOLOGIC 0 2,280 0 2,280
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.............
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
119 AVIATION SUPPORT 0 29,245 0 29,245
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
121 SHIP MISSILE 0 2,436 0 2,436
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
126 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 31,970 0 31,970
DISPOSAL EQUIP....
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
132 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 496 0 496
TRUCKS............
134 FIRE FIGHTING 0 2,304 0 2,304
EQUIPMENT.........
135 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 2,336 0 2,336
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
141 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT... 0 164 0 164
143 FIRST DESTINATION 0 420 0 420
TRANSPORTATION....
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
147 COMMAND SUPPORT 0 21,650 0 21,650
EQUIPMENT.........
152 OPERATING FORCES 0 15,800 0 15,800
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
154 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 1,000 0 1,000
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
155 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 15,890 0 15,890
EQUIPMENT.........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 2,200 0 2,200
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
161 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 1,178 0 1,178
PARTS.............
TOTAL OTHER 0 220,059 0 0 0 220,059
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
ARTILLERY AND OTHER
WEAPONS
6 HIGH MOBILITY 0 5,360 0 5,360
ARTILLERY ROCKET
SYSTEM............
GUIDED MISSILES
11 JAVELIN............ 11 2,833 11 2,833
12 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW.. 0 49 0 49
13 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS 0 5,024 0 5,024
SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
H)................
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
17 REPAIR AND TEST 0 8,241 0 8,241
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
19 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 750 0 750
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
20 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 200 0 200
MILLION (COMM &
ELEC).............
RADAR + EQUIPMENT
(NON-TEL)
24 RQ-21 UAS.......... 0 8,400 0 8,400
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
26 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 0 50 0 50
27 INTELLIGENCE 0 3,000 0 3,000
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
TEL)
37 COMMAND POST 0 5,777 0 5,777
SYSTEMS...........
38 RADIO SYSTEMS...... 0 4,590 0 4,590
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
53 EOD SYSTEMS........ 0 21,000 0 21,000
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 11 65,274 0 0 11 65,274
MARINE CORPS......
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
OTHER AIRCRAFT
17 MQ-9............... 32 271,080 32 271,080
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
33 C-17A.............. 0 26,850 0 26,850
OTHER AIRCRAFT
48 C-130J MODS........ 0 8,400 0 8,400
51 COMPASS CALL MODS.. 0 56,720 0 56,720
56 E-8................ 0 3,000 0 3,000
62 HC/MC-130 0 153,080 0 153,080
MODIFICATIONS.....
63 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 10,381 0 10,381
65 MQ-9 MODS.......... 0 56,400 0 56,400
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
67 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 129,450 0 129,450
REPAIR PARTS......
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
68 AIRCRAFT 0 25,417 0 25,417
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 32 740,778 0 0 32 740,778
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL
6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 3,230 294,480 3,230 294,480
MISSILE...........
7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 2,273 90,920 2,273 90,920
CLASS IV
11 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 0 10,000 0 10,000
TOTAL MISSILE 5,503 395,400 0 0 5,503 395,400
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
SPACE PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
SPACE PROGRAMS
10 MILSATCOM.......... 0 2,256 0 2,256
TOTAL SPACE 0 2,256 0 0 0 2,256
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS............ 0 49,050 0 49,050
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 0 11,384 0 11,384
BOMBS
6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 16,990 390,577 16,990 390,577
MUNITION..........
FLARES
15 FLARES............. 0 3,498 0 3,498
FUZES
16 FUZES.............. 0 47,000 0 47,000
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 16,990 501,509 0 0 16,990 501,509
OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 3,855 0 3,855
VEHICLES..........
CARGO AND UTILITY
VEHICLES
4 CARGO AND UTILITY 0 1,882 0 1,882
VEHICLES..........
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
5 SECURITY AND 0 1,100 0 1,100
TACTICAL VEHICLES.
6 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 32,479 0 32,479
VEHICLES..........
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH 0 22,583 0 22,583
RESCUE VEHICLES...
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
8 MATERIALS HANDLING 0 5,353 0 5,353
VEHICLES..........
BASE MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & 0 11,315 0 11,315
CLEANING EQUIP....
10 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 40,451 0 40,451
SUPPORT VEHICLES..
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
13 INTERNATIONAL INTEL 0 8,873 0 8,873
TECH &
ARCHITECTURES.....
15 INTELLIGENCE COMM 0 2,000 0 2,000
EQUIPMENT.........
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 56,500 0 56,500
& LANDING SYS.....
19 THEATER AIR CONTROL 0 4,970 0 4,970
SYS IMPROVEMENTS..
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 0 3,000 0 3,000
SECURITY SYSTEM...
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
48 BASE COMM 0 55,000 0 55,000
INFRASTRUCTURE....
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
51 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 8,469 0 8,469
MILLION...........
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
53 BASE PROCURED 0 7,500 0 7,500
EQUIPMENT.........
54 ENGINEERING AND EOD 0 80,427 0 80,427
EQUIPMENT.........
56 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 110,405 0 110,405
MILLION...........
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
58 DARP RC135......... 0 700 0 700
59 DCGS-AF............ 0 9,200 0 9,200
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 3,542,825 0 3,542,825
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
TOTAL OTHER 0 4,008,887 0 0 0 4,008,887
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
8 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 0 1,979 0 1,979
18 DEFENSE INFORMATION 0 12,000 0 12,000
SYSTEMS NETWORK...
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 43,653 0 43,653
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
AVIATION PROGRAMS
46 MANNED ISR......... 0 15,900 0 15,900
47 MC-12.............. 0 20,000 0 20,000
50 UNMANNED ISR....... 0 38,933 0 38,933
51 NON-STANDARD 0 9,600 0 9,600
AVIATION..........
52 U-28............... 0 8,100 0 8,100
53 MH-47 CHINOOK...... 0 10,270 0 10,270
57 MQ-9 UNMANNED 0 19,780 0 19,780
AERIAL VEHICLE....
61 C-130 MODIFICATIONS 0 3,750 0 3,750
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
63 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M 0 62,643 0 62,643
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
64 INTELLIGENCE 0 12,000 0 12,000
SYSTEMS...........
69 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 38,527 0 38,527
70 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 0 20,215 0 20,215
<$5M..............
73 OPERATIONAL 0 7,134 0 7,134
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE......
75 OPERATIONAL 0 193,542 0 15,900 0 209,442
ENHANCEMENTS......
UFR: Joint Task [0] [15,900]
Force Platform
Expansion......
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 0 518,026 0 15,900 0 533,926
DEFENSE-WIDE......
UNDISTRIBUTED
1 UNDISTRIBUTED...... 0 0 -1,870,600 0 -1,870,600
ERI costs [0] [-1,870,600]
transfer from
OCO to base....
TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED 0 0 0 -1,870,600 0 0
UNDISTRIBUTED
TOTAL PROCUREMENT.. 32,575 10,244,626 0 -1,854,700 32,575 8,389,926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2018 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 12,010 12,010
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 263,590 10,000 273,590
..................... Basic research [10,000]
program increase.
3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 67,027 67,027
INITIATIVES.
4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 87,395 5,000 92,395
RESEARCH CENTERS.
..................... Basic research [5,000]
program increase.
235 111111 UNDISTRIBUTED BASIC 0 10,000 10,000
RESEARCH.
..................... Modernizing Army [10,000]
capabilities and
Third Offset.
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 430,022 25,000 455,022
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY..... 29,640 10,000 39,640
..................... Strategic materials.. [10,000]
6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 35,730 35,730
SURVIVABILITY.
7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP.............. 8,627 8,627
8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY...... 66,086 -5,000 61,086
..................... General program [-5,000]
reduction.
9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 27,144 27,144
TECHNOLOGY.
10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY....... 43,742 43,742
11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS 22,785 22,785
TECHNOLOGY.
12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 28,650 28,650
SIMULATION.
13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 67,232 67,232
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
14 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY.... 85,309 85,309
15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 4,004 4,004
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
16 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,615 5,615
PROGRAM.
17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 41,455 41,455
TECHNOLOGY.
18 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND 58,352 58,352
ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.. 34,723 34,723
20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS...... 26,190 26,190
21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 24,127 24,127
TECHNOLOGY.
22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 21,678 21,678
TECHNOLOGY.
23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 33,123 5,000 38,123
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Position, navigation, [5,000]
and timing
technologies.
24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 14,041 14,041
TECHNOLOGY.
25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 67,720 67,720
TECHNOLOGY.
26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/ 20,216 20,216
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY.... 39,559 39,559
28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....... 83,434 83,434
236 222222 UNDISTRIBUTED APPLIED 0 15,000 15,000
RESEARCH.
..................... Modernizing Army [15,000]
capabilities and
Third Offset.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 889,182 25,000 914,182
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 44,863 44,863
TECHNOLOGY.
30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED 67,780 67,780
TECHNOLOGY.
31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 160,746 -20,000 140,746
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Platform design & [-20,000]
structure systems.
32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 84,079 84,079
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 125,537 125,537
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
34 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION 12,231 12,231
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 6,466 6,466
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
36 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............. 28,552 28,552
37 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING 16,434 16,434
& SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
39 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 26,903 26,903
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
40 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............. 4,880 4,880
41 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............. 4,326 4,326
42 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 31,296 31,296
TECHNOLOGY.
43 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET 62,850 62,850
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
44 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............. 12,323 12,323
45 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE 182,331 40,000 222,331
COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
..................... Program increase..... [40,000]
46 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 17,948 17,948
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
47 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,796 5,796
PROGRAM.
48 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 47,135 47,135
TECHNOLOGY.
49 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 10,421 10,421
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
50 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 32,448 -5,000 27,448
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Combat engineering [-5,000]
system.
51 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL 52,206 52,206
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.
52 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY... 33,426 33,426
237 333333 UNDISTRIBUTED ADVANCED 0 20,000 20,000
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Modernizing Army [20,000]
capabilities and
Third Offset.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 1,070,977 35,000 1,105,977
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
53 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE 9,634 9,634
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
55 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 33,949 33,949
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 72,909 72,909
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
57 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND 7,135 7,135
TARGET DEFEATING SYS--
ADV DEV.
58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 41,452 24,450 65,902
AMMUNITION.
..................... UFR: Munitions and CM [24,450]
development.
59 0603645A ARMORED SYSTEM 32,739 70,000 102,739
MODERNIZATION--ADV DEV.
..................... UFR: Supports [70,000]
development of
critical ground
combat vehicle
technologies.
60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 10,157 10,157
SURVIVABILITY.
61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 27,733 1,620 29,353
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
..................... UFR: Funds of the [1,620]
Advanced Miniaturized
Data Acquisition
System-Next.
62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 12,347 12,347
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 10,456 10,456
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
64 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 2,588 2,588
DEVELOPMENT.
65 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV........ 14,055 14,055
66 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 35,333 35,333
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
67 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV. 33,491 33,491
68 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 20,239 20,239
DEVELOPMENT.
69 0604017A ROBOTICS DEVELOPMENT..... 39,608 5,000 44,608
..................... UFR: Accelerate armed [5,000]
Robotic Wingman
development.
70 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. 9,921 9,921
71 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE 76,728 76,728
DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR.
72 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 115,221 115,221
INITIATIVES.
73 0604117A MANEUVER--SHORT RANGE AIR 20,000 20,000
DEFENSE (M-SHORAD).
74 0604118A TRACTOR BEAM............. 10,400 10,400
75 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, 164,967 126 165,093
NAVIGATION AND TIMING
(PNT).
..................... UFR: Fully funds Anti- [126]
Jam Antenna
development and
testing.
76 0604121A SYNTHETIC TRAINING 1,600 1,600
ENVIRONMENT REFINEMENT &
PROTOTYPING.
77 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 11,303 11,303
CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
78 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS 56,492 56,492
FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT.
79 1206308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 20,432 20,432
INTEGRATION.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 890,889 101,196 992,085
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
80 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS........ 30,153 12,000 42,153
..................... UFR: Funds [12,000]
implementation of
Assured Position,
Navigation, and
Timing (A-PNT).
81 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 71,671 71,671
DEVELOPMENT.
83 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 10,589 10,589
VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
84 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS 4,774 4,774
SYSTEM.
85 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............. 17,252 13,000 30,252
..................... UFR: Provides the [13,000]
Army's Cyber Mission
Force (CMF) with
classified cyber
tools.
86 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS. 87,643 6,000 93,643
..................... UFR: Acceleration of [6,000]
qualification of
XM914 and XM913.
87 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES. 6,039 6,039
88 0604611A JAVELIN.................. 21,095 21,095
89 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 10,507 10,507
VEHICLES.
90 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL...... 3,536 3,536
92 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED 7,000 7,000
VEHICLES.
93 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS 36,242 36,242
MODERNIZATION (ASM)--ENG
DEV.
94 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 108,504 17,500 126,004
DEV.
..................... UFR: Develop Thermal [17,500]
Weapon Sights.
95 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 3,702 3,702
AND EQUIPMENT.
96 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 43,575 43,575
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
97 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 28,726 28,726
CONTROL AND
INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
98 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 18,562 18,562
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
99 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 8,344 8,344
DEVELOPMENT.
100 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 11,270 11,270
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
DEV.
101 0604768A BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR 10,000 10,000
SUBMUNITION (BAT).
102 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 18,566 18,566
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
103 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 145,360 145,360
INTEGRATION AND
EVALUATION.
104 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS-- 145,232 16,178 161,410
ENG DEV.
..................... UFR: 105mm Anti- [8,000]
Personnel / Wall
Breach Ammunition.
..................... UFR: Devops the 40mm [4,178]
Low Velocity M320
Door Breaching
cartridge.
..................... UFR: Testing for the [4,000]
Anti-Tank Confined
Space Tandem Warhead.
105 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 90,965 90,965
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
106 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 9,910 9,910
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
107 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 39,238 39,238
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
108 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 34,684 34,684
ENG DEV.
109 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 164,409 164,409
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
110 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT........ 32,968 32,968
111 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 49,554 49,554
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
112 0604823A FIREFINDER............... 45,605 45,605
113 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 16,127 16,127
DEM/VAL.
114 0604852A SUITE OF SURVIVABILITY 98,600 35,000 133,600
ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS--EMD.
..................... UFR: Expands [25,000]
installation of
Active Protection
Systems.
..................... UFR: Modular Active [10,000]
Protection System.
115 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD... 1,972 2,000 3,972
..................... UFR: Funds research [2,000]
for 55 cal tube.
116 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 81,776 81,776
DEVELOPMENT.
117 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 172,361 172,361
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
118 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 199,778 199,778
VEHICLE (AMPV).
119 0605029A INTEGRATED GROUND 4,418 4,418
SECURITY SURVEILLANCE
RESPONSE CAPABILITY
(IGSSR-C).
120 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 15,877 15,877
CENTER (JTNC).
121 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 44,150 44,150
(JTN).
122 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE............. 34,670 78,900 113,570
..................... UFR: Develops [78,900]
Offensive Cyber
Operations
capabilities.
123 0605033A GROUND-BASED OPERATIONAL 5,207 5,207
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--
EXPEDITIONARY (GBOSS-E).
124 0605034A TACTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM 4,727 4,727
(TSS).
125 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 105,778 105,778
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
126 0605036A COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS 6,927 6,927
DESTRUCTION (CWMD).
127 0605037A EVIDENCE COLLECTION AND 214 214
DETAINEE PROCESSING.
128 0605038A NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL 16,125 16,125
CHEMICAL RECONNAISSANCE
VEHICLE (NBCRV) SENSOR
SUITE.
129 0605041A DEFENSIVE CYBER TOOL 55,165 55,165
DEVELOPMENT.
130 0605042A TACTICAL NETWORK RADIO 20,076 20,076
SYSTEMS (LOW-TIER).
131 0605047A CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM.. 20,322 -20,300 22
..................... Consolidate [-20,300]
requirements.
132 0605049A MISSILE WARNING SYSTEM 55,810 155,000 210,810
MODERNIZATION (MWSM).
..................... UFR: Supports [155,000]
Directed Requirement
for Limited Interim
Missile Warning
System to detect
Enemy (MANPADS).
133 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 30,879 30,879
DEVELOPMENT.
134 0605052A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 175,069 175,069
CAPABILITY INC 2--BLOCK
1.
135 0605053A GROUND ROBOTICS.......... 70,760 70,760
137 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 8,965 8,965
SYSTEM (JTRS).
138 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 34,626 34,626
MISSILE (JAGM).
140 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 336,420 -200,000 136,420
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
..................... Early to need........ [-200,000]
143 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 6,882 2,500 9,382
INTEGRATION (MIP).
..................... UFR: Funds [2,500]
development for
Remote Ground
Terminal.
144 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 23,467 23,467
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
145 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT 6,930 6,930
EQUIPMENT.
146 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED 6,112 6,112
MANAGEMENT (PIM).
147 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............. 4,431 4,431
150 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 14,616 14,616
DEVELOPMENT.
151 1205117A TRACTOR BEARS............ 17,928 17,928
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 3,012,840 117,778 3,130,618
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
152 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 22,862 22,862
DEVELOPMENT.
153 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS 13,902 13,902
DEVELOPMENT.
154 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 102,901 102,901
155 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER....... 20,140 20,140
156 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL..... 246,663 4,362 251,025
..................... UFR: Increases [4,362]
funding for
facilities
sustainment from 75%
to 83%.
157 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 29,820 29,820
PROGRAM.
159 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 307,588 307,588
FACILITIES.
160 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 49,242 49,242
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
161 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 41,843 41,843
ANALYSIS.
162 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION... 4,804 4,804
163 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 7,238 7,238
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
164 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 21,890 21,890
165 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 12,684 12,684
ITEMS.
166 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 51,040 51,040
TESTING.
167 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER... 56,246 56,246
168 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 1,829 1,829
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
169 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES... 55,060 55,060
170 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 33,934 33,934
ACTIVITIES.
171 0605805A MUNITIONS 43,444 43,444
STANDARDIZATION,
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
172 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5,087 5,087
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
173 0605898A ARMY DIRECT REPORT 54,679 54,679
HEADQUARTERS--R&D--MHA.
174 0606001A MILITARY GROUND-BASED 7,916 7,916
CREW TECHNOLOGY.
175 0606002A RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC 61,254 61,254
MISSILE DEFENSE TEST
SITE.
176 0303260A DEFENSE MILITARY 1,779 1,779
DECEPTION INITIATIVE.
..................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT 1,253,845 4,362 1,258,207
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
178 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 8,929 8,929
PROGRAM.
179 0603813A TRACTOR PULL............. 4,014 4,014
180 0605024A ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 4,094 4,094
SUPPORT.
181 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 15,738 15,738
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
182 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE............ 4,513 4,513
183 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION 102,014 42,731 144,745
FIRES (LRPF).
..................... UFR: Accelerates LRPF [42,731]
procurement from FY25.
184 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT 59,977 59,977
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
185 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT 34,416 34,416
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
186 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT 194,567 194,567
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
187 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT 9,981 9,981
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
188 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE 204,304 204,304
PROGRAM.
189 0607140A EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES 1,023 1,023
FROM NIE.
190 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION..... 1,504 1,504
191 0607142A AVIATION ROCKET SYSTEM 10,064 8,000 18,064
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... UFR: Qualifies M282 [8,000]
for use by AH-64
aircraft.
192 0607143A UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM 38,463 38,463
UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS.
193 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS..... 6,159 6,159
194 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT 90,217 90,000 180,217
IMPROVEMENT.
..................... UFR: Funds Terminal [90,000]
High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD)/
Missile Segment
Enhanced (MSE)
integration.
195 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT-- 6,749 6,749
COCOM EXERCISE.
196 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP 33,520 33,520
OPERATION COORDINATION
SYSTEM (JADOCS).
197 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE 343,175 8,000 351,175
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
..................... Laser warning sensor [4,000]
suite.
..................... UFR: Accelerate the [4,000]
development of the
M88A2E1.
198 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.. 6,639 6,639
199 0203743A 155MM SELF-PROPELLED 40,784 40,784
HOWITZER IMPROVEMENTS.
200 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 39,358 39,358
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
201 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 145 145
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
202 0203758A DIGITIZATION............. 4,803 4,803
203 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 2,723 26,000 28,723
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
..................... UFR: Supports [26,000]
research for the
Stinger Product
Improvement Program
(PIP).
204 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 5,000 5,000
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
205 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............. 37,883 37,883
207 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING 1,582 1,582
EQUIPMENT.
208 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 195 195
TECHNOLOGY--OPERATIONAL
SYSTEM DEV.
209 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND 78,926 78,926
MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD)
SYSTEM.
210 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH 102,807 102,807
ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
213 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 13,807 21,845 35,652
ACTIVITIES.
..................... UFR: Funds Offensive [21,845]
Cyber capabilities
development.
214 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 132,438 132,438
SECURITY PROGRAM.
215 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 64,370 64,370
SYSTEM.
217 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 10,475 10,475
CONTROL SYSTEM.
220 0305172A COMBINED ADVANCED 1,100 1,100
APPLICATIONS.
222 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 9,433 9,433
VEHICLES.
223 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 5,080 5,080
SYSTEMS.
224 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 24,700 -20,000 4,700
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
..................... Change in tactical [-20,000]
requirements.
225 0305219A MQ-1C GRAY EAGLE UAS..... 9,574 9,574
226 0305232A RQ-11 UAV................ 2,191 2,191
227 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................. 12,773 12,773
228 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 2,537 2,537
INTELLIGENCE.
229 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2-- 4,723 -4,000 723
INITIAL NETWORKING.
..................... Change in tactical [-4,000]
requirements.
230 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 60,877 60,877
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
231 1203142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 11,959 11,959
(SPACE).
232 1208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 10,228 10,228
SYSTEM.
234 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 7,154 7,154
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 1,877,685 172,576 2,050,261
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 9,425,440 480,912 9,906,352
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.....................
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 118,130 5,000 123,130
INITIATIVES.
..................... Program increase..... [5,000]
2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 19,438 19,438
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 458,333 458,333
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 595,901 5,000 600,901
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 13,553 13,553
RESEARCH.
5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 125,557 125,557
RESEARCH.
6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING 53,936 53,936
FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 36,450 36,450
RESEARCH.
8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 48,649 48,649
APPLIED RESEARCH.
9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 79,598 79,598
APPLIED RESEARCH.
10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 42,411 15,000 57,411
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
..................... Research vessel refit [15,000]
11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,425 6,425
APPLIED RESEARCH.
12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 56,094 25,000 81,094
RESEARCH.
..................... Program increase..... [25,000]
13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 156,805 156,805
APPLIED RESEARCH.
14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 32,733 32,733
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
15 0602792N INNOVATIVE NAVAL 171,146 -10,000 161,146
PROTOTYPES (INP) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
..................... General decrease..... [-10,000]
16 0602861N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 62,722 62,722
MANAGEMENT--ONR FIELD
ACITIVITIES.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 886,079 30,000 916,079
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
19 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 26,342 26,342
TECHNOLOGY.
20 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 9,360 9,360
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
21 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 154,407 -5,000 149,407
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
..................... Futures directorate.. [-5,000]
22 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 13,448 13,448
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
23 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 231,772 -5,000 226,772
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Capable manpower, [-5,000]
enterprise and
platform enablers.
24 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 57,797 57,797
PROGRAM.
25 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,878 4,878
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
27 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 64,889 64,889
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
28 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 15,164 15,000 30,164
WARFARE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Maritime [15,000]
intelligence,
surveillance, and
reconaissance
technology.
29 0603801N INNOVATIVE NAVAL 108,285 15,000 123,285
PROTOTYPES (INP)
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Underwater unmanned [15,000]
vehicle prototypes.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 686,342 20,000 706,342
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
30 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 48,365 48,365
APPLICATIONS.
31 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY... 5,566 5,566
33 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS......... 695 695
34 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.. 7,661 7,661
35 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 3,707 3,707
RECONNAISSANCE.
36 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 61,381 61,381
TECHNOLOGY.
37 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 154,117 -26,000 128,117
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
..................... PLUS experimentation. [10,000]
..................... Reduce Barracuda..... [-16,000]
..................... Reduce Snakehead..... [-20,000]
38 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 14,974 14,974
DEFENSE.
39 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS 9,296 9,296
DEVELOPMENT.
40 0603525N PILOT FISH............... 132,083 132,083
41 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 15,407 15,407
42 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER.......... 122,413 122,413
43 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL..... 745 745
44 0603553N SURFACE ASW.............. 1,136 1,136
45 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 100,955 100,955
DEVELOPMENT.
46 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 13,834 13,834
WARFARE SYSTEMS.
47 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 36,891 36,891
DESIGN.
48 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 12,012 30,000 42,012
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
..................... Aircraft carrier [30,000]
preliminary design.
49 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 329,500 329,500
SYSTEMS.
50 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE 29,953 29,953
MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
51 0603576N CHALK EAGLE.............. 191,610 191,610
52 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP 40,991 -7,000 33,991
(LCS).
..................... Excess program [-7,000]
support.
53 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION 24,674 24,674
54 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT......... 776,158 776,158
55 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES...... 116,871 116,871
56 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND 8,052 8,052
ANALYSIS.
57 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT...... 143,450 143,450
58 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 8,909 8,909
60 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND 1,428 1,428
COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
61 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 53,367 53,367
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
63 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 8,212 8,212
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
64 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 20,214 20,214
65 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM...... 50,623 50,623
66 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT... 2,837 2,837
67 0603734N CHALK CORAL.............. 245,143 245,143
68 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC 2,995 2,995
PRODUCTIVITY.
69 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE............ 306,101 306,101
70 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA............ 253,675 253,675
71 0603751N RETRACT ELM.............. 55,691 55,691
72 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN........... 48,982 48,982
74 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 9,099 9,099
DEVELOPMENT.
75 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY... 33,568 33,568
76 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 29,873 29,873
TESTING.
77 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 106,391 106,391
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
78 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND 107,310 107,310
ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
79 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS 83,935 83,935
NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
(CVN 78--80).
81 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 46,844 46,844
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
83 0604286M MARINE CORPS ADDITIVE 6,200 6,200
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
85 0604320M RAPID TECHNOLOGY 7,055 10,000 17,055
CAPABILITY PROTOTYPE.
..................... Increase rapid [10,000]
acquisition
capability for Marine
Corps Warfighting Lab.
86 0604454N LX (R)................... 9,578 9,578
87 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA 66,543 -52,900 13,643
PROTOTYPING.
..................... Funding early to need [-52,900]
89 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 31,315 31,315
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
90 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 42,851 42,851
WARFARE (SEW)
ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
SUPPORT.
91 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 160,694 160,694
WARFARE WEAPON
DEVELOPMENT.
93 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 8,278 8,278
MIP.
94 0304240M ADVANCED TACTICAL 7,979 7,979
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM.
95 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 527 527
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,218,714 -45,900 4,172,814
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
96 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT. 16,945 16,945
97 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT... 26,786 26,786
98 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.. 48,780 48,780
99 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT.... 2,722 2,722
100 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 5,371 5,371
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
101 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 782 782
ENGINEERING.
102 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 1,361 1,361
103 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM... 14,167 14,167
104 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.. 55,695 55,695
105 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE......... 292,535 292,535
106 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............. 61,288 61,288
107 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.. 37,167 37,167
108 0604262N V-22A.................... 171,386 15,000 186,386
..................... UFR: MV-22 Common [15,000]
Configuration CC-RAM
improvements.
109 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 13,235 20,000 33,235
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Physiological Episode [10,000]
prize competition.
..................... Physiological [10,000]
episodes.
110 0604269N EA-18.................... 173,488 173,488
111 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 54,055 3,000 57,055
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... UFR: Intrepid Tiger [3,000]
UH-1Y Jettison
Capability.
112 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO 451,938 451,938
DEVELOPMENT.
113 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 632,936 632,936
(NGJ).
114 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 4,310 4,310
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
115 0604282N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 66,686 66,686
(NGJ) INCREMENT II.
116 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 390,238 390,238
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
117 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 689 689
INTEGRATION.
118 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) 112,846 112,846
119 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 158,578 158,578
IMPROVEMENTS.
120 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............. 15,734 15,734
122 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 25,445 25,445
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
124 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 87,233 87,233
SENSORS.
125 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 130,981 130,981
MODERNIZATION.
126 0604504N AIR CONTROL.............. 75,186 75,186
127 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION 177,926 177,926
SYSTEMS.
128 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER 8,062 8,062
CONVERSION.
129 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 32,090 32,090
RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
130 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN........... 120,087 120,087
131 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 50,850 50,850
WARFARE SYSTEM.
132 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ 67,166 67,166
LIVE FIRE T&E.
133 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 4,817 4,817
RESOURCES.
134 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE 72,861 72,861
(VPM).
135 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT......... 25,635 25,635
136 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 28,076 28,076
DEVELOPMENT.
137 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 7,561 7,561
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
138 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 40,828 40,828
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
139 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 435 435
SYSTEMS.
140 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT 161,713 3,000 164,713
& CONTROL).
..................... UFR: Ship C2 Systems [3,000]
for Amphibs.
141 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 212,412 212,412
(ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
142 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 103,391 103,391
(ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW).
143 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING. 34,855 34,855
144 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 9,353 9,353
145 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM..... 92,546 92,546
146 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 152,934 91,200 244,134
(JSF)--EMD.
..................... SDD plus up.......... [91,200]
147 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 108,931 66,700 175,631
(JSF)--EMD.
..................... SDD plus up.......... [66,700]
148 0604810M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 144,958 144,958
FOLLOW ON MODERNIZATION
(FOM)--MARINE CORPS.
149 0604810N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 143,855 143,855
FOLLOW ON MODERNIZATION
(FOM)--NAVY.
150 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 14,865 14,865
DEVELOPMENT.
151 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 152,977 -35,045 117,932
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Navy ePS consolidate [-11,200]
requirements.
..................... NSIPS consolidate [-23,845]
requirements.
152 0605024N ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 3,410 3,410
SUPPORT.
153 0605212N CH-53K RDTE.............. 340,758 340,758
154 0605215N MISSION PLANNING......... 33,430 33,430
155 0605217N COMMON AVIONICS.......... 58,163 58,163
156 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR 22,410 22,410
(SSC).
157 0605327N T-AO 205 CLASS........... 1,961 1,961
158 0605414N UNMANNED CARRIER AVIATION 222,208 222,208
(UCA).
159 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 15,473 15,473
MISSILE (JAGM).
160 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 11,795 11,795
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
161 0605504N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 181,731 181,731
(MMA) INCREMENT III.
162 0605611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 178,993 178,993
VEHICLES SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
163 0605813M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 20,710 20,710
VEHICLE (JLTV) SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
164 0204202N DDG-1000................. 140,500 -50,000 90,500
..................... Unjustified cost [-50,000]
growth.
168 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 28,311 28,311
SYSTEMS.
170 0306250M CYBER OPERATIONS 4,502 4,502
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 6,362,102 113,855 6,475,957
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
171 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 91,819 91,819
DEVELOPMENT.
172 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS 23,053 23,053
DEVELOPMENT.
173 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 52,634 13,000 65,634
..................... UFR: Critical [13,000]
infrastructure
investments for major
range and test
facilities.
174 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 141 141
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
175 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 3,917 3,917
SUPPORT--NAVY.
176 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES 50,432 50,432
179 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 782 782
SERVICES.
180 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 94,562 -5,500 89,062
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
..................... Unjustified cost [-5,500]
growth.
181 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL 4,313 4,313
SUPPORT.
182 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 1,104 1,104
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
183 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 105,666 105,666
SUPPORT.
184 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION 373,667 373,667
SUPPORT.
185 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 20,298 20,298
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
186 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 17,341 17,341
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
188 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 21,751 21,751
SUPPORT.
189 0605898N MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 44,279 44,279
190 0606355N WARFARE INNOVATION 28,841 28,841
MANAGEMENT.
191 0902498N MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS 1,749 1,749
(DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES).
194 1206867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 9,408 9,408
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 945,757 7,500 953,257
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
196 0607658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT 92,571 29,000 121,571
CAPABILITY (CEC).
..................... UFR: Accelerate [18,000]
Tactical Data
Distribution
Initiative.
..................... UFR: IFF Mode 5 [11,000]
acceleration.
197 0607700N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,137 3,137
AND CONTROL.
198 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 135,219 135,219
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
199 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 36,242 36,242
PROGRAM.
200 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 12,053 12,053
WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.
201 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 18,221 18,221
COMMUNICATIONS.
203 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS......... 224,470 224,470
204 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 33,525 33,525
(TACTICAL).
205 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT.......... 24,829 24,829
206 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 133,617 133,617
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
207 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 38,972 38,972
SYSTEM.
208 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL 3,940 3,940
SUPPORT UNITS
(DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
209 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 54,645 54,645
RADAR (G/ATOR).
210 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 66,518 66,518
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
211 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT 1,155 1,155
SUPPORT.
212 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 51,040 51,040
READINESS SUPPORT.
213 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT......... 87,989 10,000 97,989
..................... UFR: Weapons [10,000]
Improvement.
214 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS...... 89,852 89,852
215 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 29,351 29,351
INTEGRATION.
216 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP.............. 68,553 68,553
217 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS.... 119,099 119,099
218 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 127,445 127,445
SYSTEMS.
219 0206313M MARINE CORPS 123,825 123,825
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
220 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND 7,343 7,343
AND CONTROL SYSTEM
(CAC2S).
221 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND 66,009 66,009
COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
SYSTEMS.
222 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 25,258 25,258
SERVICES SUPPORT.
223 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 30,886 30,886
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
SYSTEMS (MIP).
224 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT 58,728 58,728
VEHICLE.
225 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 42,884 9,000 51,884
..................... UFR: Weapons [9,000]
Improvement.
226 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 25,364 25,364
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
232 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 24,271 24,271
NETWORK ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (CANES).
233 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 50,269 50,269
SECURITY PROGRAM.
236 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 6,352 6,352
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
237 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 7,770 7,770
VEHICLES.
238 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND 39,736 39,736
INTEROPERABILITY.
239 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 12,867 12,867
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
240 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 46,150 46,150
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
241 0305220N MQ-4C TRITON............. 84,115 84,115
242 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................. 62,656 62,656
243 0305232M RQ-11 UAV................ 2,022 2,022
245 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 4,835 4,835
UAS (STUASL0).
246 0305239M RQ-21A................... 8,899 8,899
247 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 99,020 99,020
DEVELOPMENT.
248 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS 18,578 18,578
(UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
249 0305421N RQ-4 MODERNIZATION....... 229,404 229,404
250 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 5,238 5,238
SUPPORT.
251 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 38,227 38,227
IF).
252 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 4,808 4,808
(MARITECH).
253 1203109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 37,836 37,836
(SPACE).
255 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 1,364,347 200,000 1,564,347
..................... Classified project [200,000]
0428.
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 3,980,140 248,000 4,228,140
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 17,675,035 378,455 18,053,490
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.....................
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 342,919 342,919
2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 147,923 147,923
INITIATIVES.
3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER 14,417 14,417
RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 505,259 0 505,259
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602102F MATERIALS................ 124,264 124,264
5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 124,678 5,000 129,678
TECHNOLOGIES.
..................... Hypersonic wind [5,000]
tunnels.
6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 108,784 25,000 133,784
APPLIED RESEARCH.
..................... Advanced training [25,000]
environments.
7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION..... 192,695 8,000 200,695
..................... Program increase..... [5,500]
..................... UFR: S&T TOA to 1.9%. [2,500]
8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS........ 152,782 152,782
9 0602298F SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 8,353 8,353
MANAGEMENT-- MAJOR
HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES.
10 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY......... 116,503 116,503
11 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 112,195 112,195
12 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY 132,993 8,300 141,293
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... UFR: S&T TOA to 1.9%. [8,300]
13 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 167,818 167,818
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
14 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER 43,049 43,049
RESEARCH.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 1,284,114 46,300 1,330,414
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
15 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 37,856 37,856
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
16 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 22,811 22,811
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
17 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE 40,978 40,978
SENSORS.
18 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 115,966 5,700 121,666
DEMO.
..................... UFR: S&T TOA to 1.9%. [5,700]
19 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 104,499 13,500 117,999
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
..................... UFR: S&T TOA to 1.9%. [13,500]
20 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 60,551 5,000 65,551
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Software engineering [5,000]
capabilities.
21 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 58,910 15,000 73,910
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... UFR: Commercial SSA [15,000]
consortia/testbed.
22 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 10,433 10,433
SYSTEM (MSSS).
23 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 33,635 33,635
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
24 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 167,415 167,415
TECHNOLOGY.
25 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS 45,502 45,502
TECHNOLOGY.
26 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 46,450 46,450
PROGRAM.
27 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 49,011 49,011
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 794,017 39,200 833,217
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
28 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 5,652 5,652
DEVELOPMENT.
30 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 24,397 24,397
TECHNOLOGY.
31 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 3,851 3,851
DEVELOPMENT.
33 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL 10,736 10,736
BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
VAL.
34 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION--DEM/ 2 2
VAL.
35 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE--BOMBER 2,003,580 2,003,580
36 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS 65,458 35,400 100,858
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
..................... UFR: GPS Receiver [35,400]
Development.
37 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND 68,719 14,700 83,419
SENSORS.
..................... UFR: Hyperspectral [14,700]
Chip Development.
38 0604288F NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPS 7,850 7,850
CENTER (NAOC) RECAP.
39 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER...... 3,295 3,295
40 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 17,365 17,365
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
41 0604414F CYBER RESILIENCY OF 32,253 10,200 42,453
WEAPON SYSTEMS-ACS.
..................... UFR: Cyber Security & [10,200]
Resiliency for Weapon
Systems.
44 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION 26,222 26,222
ENTERPRISE R&D.
46 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.. 840,650 95,000 935,650
..................... UFR: Directed Energy [70,000]
Prototyping.
..................... UFR: Hypersonics [10,000]
Prototyping.
..................... UFR: Long-Endurance [15,000]
Aerial Platform Ahead
Prototyping.
47 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC 215,721 215,721
DETERRENT.
49 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR 294,746 147,000 441,746
DOMINANCE.
..................... UFR: Penetrating [147,000]
Counter air (PCA)
Risk Reduction.
50 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 10,645 10,645
RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
52 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK 41,509 41,509
EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA).
53 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS 226,287 226,287
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
54 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES. 16,687 16,687
55 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 4,500 4,500
CONTROL.
56 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION 15,867 -15,867
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM.
..................... Consolidate [-15,867]
requirements.
57 1203164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 253,939 98,500 352,439
POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
..................... UFR: Military GPS [98,500]
User Equipment INC2.
58 1203710F EO/IR WEATHER SYSTEMS.... 10,000 10,000
59 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON. 112,088 112,088
60 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 34,764 34,764
SYSTEMS.
61 1206434F MIDTERM POLAR MILSATCOM 63,092 63,092
SYSTEM.
62 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 7,842 120,800 128,642
..................... UFR: Space Defense [113,800]
Force Packaging.
..................... UFR: Space Enterprise [7,000]
Defense
Implementation.
63 1206730F SPACE SECURITY AND 41,385 41,385
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
64 1206760F PROTECTED TACTICAL 18,150 18,150
ENTERPRISE SERVICE
(PTES).
65 1206761F PROTECTED TACTICAL 24,201 24,201
SERVICE (PTS).
66 1206855F PROTECTED SATCOM SERVICES 16,000 16,000
(PSCS)--AGGREGATED.
67 1206857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 87,577 87,577
SPACE.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,605,030 505,733 5,110,763
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
68 0604200F FUTURE ADVANCED WEAPON 5,100 5,100
ANALYSIS & PROGRAMS.
69 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS 101,203 101,203
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
70 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT.. 3,009 3,009
71 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 2,241 2,241
DEVELOPMENT.
72 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 38,250 38,250
ENTERPRISE.
73 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 19,739 19,739
EQUIPMENT.
74 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 38,979 38,979
(SDB)--EMD.
78 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC 7,091 7,091
ATTACK.
80 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 46,540 46,540
DEVELOPMENT.
81 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............. 2,705 2,705
82 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT..... 31,240 31,240
84 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS..... 9,060 9,060
85 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES... 87,350 87,350
86 0604800F F-35--EMD................ 292,947 172,000 464,947
..................... SDD plus up.......... [172,000]
88 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF 451,290 451,290
WEAPON.
89 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.. 178,991 178,991
90 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 12,736 12,736
CENTER (JTNC).
91 0605031F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 9,319 9,319
(JTN).
92 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 13,600 13,600
INCREMENT 3.2B.
94 0605221F KC-46.................... 93,845 93,845
95 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING.. 105,999 105,999
96 0605229F COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER. 354,485 354,485
100 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 119,745 -104,800 14,945
10.2 RDT&E.
..................... Restructure of [-104,800]
program.
101 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 194,570 194,570
SYSTEM.
102 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 91,237 91,237
MODERNIZATION.
103 0207171F F-15 EPAWSS.............. 209,847 209,847
104 0207328F STAND IN ATTACK WEAPON... 3,400 3,400
105 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 16,727 16,727
TRAINING.
109 0307581F JSTARS RECAP............. 417,201 417,201
110 0401310F C-32 EXECUTIVE TRANSPORT 6,017 6,017
RECAPITALIZATION.
111 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT 434,069 434,069
RECAPITALIZATION (PAR).
112 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS... 18,528 18,528
113 1203176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER 24,967 24,967
LOCATOR.
114 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 10,029 10,029
OPERATIONS.
115 1206421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS..... 66,370 66,370
116 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 48,448 48,448
SYSTEMS.
117 1206426F SPACE FENCE.............. 35,937 26,900 62,837
..................... UFR: Space Fence Site [26,900]
1 & Ground Based
Operational
Surveillance System.
118 1206431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 145,610 145,610
(SPACE).
119 1206432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).. 33,644 33,644
120 1206433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 14,263 37,000 51,263
(SPACE).
..................... UFR: Fix wideband Ka [37,000]
Anti-jam Enhancement
(KAJE).
121 1206441F SPACE BASED INFRARED 311,844 12,800 324,644
SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
..................... UFR: Fix upgrades [12,800]
Space Based Infrared
System.
122 1206442F EVOLVED SBIRS............ 71,018 71,018
123 1206853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 297,572 297,572
VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
EMD.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 4,476,762 143,900 4,620,662
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
124 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 35,405 35,405
DEVELOPMENT.
125 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 82,874 20,000 102,874
..................... Advanced weapons [15,000]
system testing
capabilities.
..................... UFR: Weapon System [5,000]
Cyber Resiliency-TE.
126 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE... 34,346 34,346
128 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST 15,523 15,523
& EVALUATION.
129 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION 678,289 27,400 705,689
SUPPORT.
..................... UFR: 4th Gen Mods.... [23,000]
..................... UFR: Weapon System [4,400]
Cyber Resiliency-TE.
130 0605826F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 219,809 219,809
POWER.
131 0605827F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL VIG 223,179 223,179
& COMBAT SYS.
132 0605828F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 138,556 138,556
REACH.
133 0605829F ACQ WORKFORCE- CYBER, 221,393 221,393
NETWORK, & BUS SYS.
134 0605830F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 152,577 152,577
BATTLE MGMT.
135 0605831F ACQ WORKFORCE- CAPABILITY 196,561 196,561
INTEGRATION.
136 0605832F ACQ WORKFORCE- ADVANCED 28,322 28,322
PRGM TECHNOLOGY.
137 0605833F ACQ WORKFORCE- NUCLEAR 126,611 126,611
SYSTEMS.
140 0605898F MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 9,154 9,154
141 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION 135,507 135,507
AND MODERNIZATION--TEST
AND EVALUATION SUPPORT.
142 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 28,720 28,720
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
143 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 35,453 100,000 135,453
MATURATION.
..................... UFR: Modeling and [70,000]
Simulation Joint
Simulation
Environment.
..................... UFR:AS2030 Planning [30,000]
for Development.
146 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION 29,049 29,049
SERVICES (EIS).
147 0702806F ACQUISITION AND 14,980 14,980
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
148 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING... 1,434 1,434
150 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 4,569 4,569
151 1206116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING 25,773 25,773
RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
152 1206392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 169,887 169,887
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
153 1206398F SPACE & MISSILE SYSTEMS 9,531 9,531
CENTER--MHA.
154 1206860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 20,975 13,300 34,275
PROGRAM (SPACE).
..................... UFR: Rocket System [13,300]
Launch Program (RSLP).
155 1206864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP). 25,398 25,398
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 2,663,875 160,700 2,824,575
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
157 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT.. 27,579 27,579
158 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 5,776 5,776
FLIGHT TRAINING.
159 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE... 16,247 16,247
161 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL 21,915 -21,915
AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
..................... Consolidate [-21,915]
requirements.
162 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 33,150 33,150
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
163 0605117F FOREIGN MATERIEL 66,653 66,653
ACQUISITION AND
EXPLOITATION.
164 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E.... 38,579 38,579
165 0606018F NC3 INTEGRATION.......... 12,636 12,636
166 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS........... 111,910 111,910
167 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE 463 463
MISSILE (ALCM).
168 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS........... 62,471 62,471
169 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS............ 193,108 193,108
170 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS...... 210,845 210,845
..................... Requested transfer: [-20,000]
Ground and Comms
Equipment.
..................... Requested transfer: [20,000]
ICBM Cryptography
Upgrade II.
171 0101313F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC 25,736 25,736
PLANNING AND ANALYSIS
NETWORK (ISPAN)--
USSTRATCOM.
173 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC 6,272 4,000 10,272
COMMUNICATIONS.
..................... UFR: NC3--Global [4,000]
Assured
Communications CBA
Execution.
174 0101324F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC 11,032 11,032
PLANNING & ANALYSIS
NETWORK.
176 0102110F UH-1N REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 108,617 108,617
177 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 3,347 3,347
CONTROL CENTER
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
179 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................. 201,394 201,394
182 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS........... 17,459 17,459
183 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS........... 246,578 25,000 271,578
..................... UFR: F-16 MIDS-JTRS.. [25,000]
184 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS.......... 320,271 320,271
185 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 15,106 15,106
SUPPRESSION.
186 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS.......... 610,942 610,942
187 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS........... 334,530 334,530
188 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 34,952 20,000 54,952
..................... Pulsed rocket motor [20,000]
technologies.
189 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 61,322 61,322
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
191 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE 693 693
193 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,714 1,714
PROCUREMENT.
194 0207253F COMPASS CALL............. 14,040 20,200 34,240
..................... UFR: Baseline 3 (BL3) [20,200]
Advanced Radar
Countermeasure System.
195 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 109,243 109,243
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
197 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 29,932 29,932
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
198 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 26,956 26,956
CENTER (AOC).
199 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 2,450 2,450
CENTER (CRC).
200 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 151,726 151,726
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
201 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 3,656 3,656
SYSTEMS.
203 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 13,420 13,420
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
204 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL 10,623 10,623
PARTY-MOD.
205 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK. 1,754 1,754
206 0207452F DCAPES................... 17,382 17,382
207 0207573F NATIONAL TECHNICAL 2,307 2,307
NUCLEAR FORENSICS.
208 0207590F SEEK EAGLE............... 25,397 25,397
209 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 10,175 10,175
SIMULATION.
210 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 12,839 12,839
CENTERS.
211 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 4,190 4,190
EXERCISES.
212 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS. 85,531 85,531
213 0208007F TACTICAL DECEPTION....... 3,761 3,761
214 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 35,693 35,693
OPERATIONS.
215 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 20,964 20,964
OPERATIONS.
218 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED 3,549 3,549
ON NETWORK (GSIN).
219 0301112F NUCLEAR PLANNING AND 4,371 4,371
EXECUTION SYSTEM (NPES).
227 0301401F AIR FORCE SPACE AND CYBER 3,721 3,721
NON-TRADITIONAL ISR FOR
BATTLESPACE AWARENESS.
228 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 35,467 35,467
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
230 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 48,841 48,841
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
..................... Requested transfer: [-21,100]
Global ASNT Incr 2
and CVR.
..................... Requested transfer: [21,100]
Global ASNT Increment
1.
231 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 42,973 42,973
SECURITY PROGRAM.
232 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 105 105
SYSTEM.
233 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT-- 2,147 2,147
DATA INITIATIVE.
236 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT 121,948 121,948
ENTERPRISE.
237 0304310F COMMERCIAL ECONOMIC 3,544 3,544
ANALYSIS.
240 0305020F CCMD INTELLIGENCE 1,542 1,542
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
241 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,453 4,453
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
243 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE.......... 26,654 26,654
244 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 6,306 6,306
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
245 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS........... 21,295 21,295
248 0305128F SECURITY AND 415 415
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
250 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 3,867 3,867
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
257 0305202F DRAGON U-2............... 34,486 34,486
259 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 4,450 4,450
SYSTEMS.
260 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 14,269 14,269
SYSTEMS.
261 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 27,501 27,501
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
262 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................. 214,849 214,849
263 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 18,842 18,842
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
265 0305238F NATO AGS................. 44,729 44,729
266 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS 26,349 26,349
ENTERPRISE.
269 0305600F INTERNATIONAL 3,491 3,491
INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY
AND ARCHITECTURES.
271 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.. 4,899 4,899
275 0305984F PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,445 2,445
COMMAND & CTRL (PRC2).
276 0307577F INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA 8,684 8,684
(IMD).
278 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON... 10,219 10,219
279 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS 22,758 22,758
(IF).
280 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)....... 34,287 34,287
281 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM........... 26,821 -6,400 20,421
..................... Available prior year [-6,400]
funds.
282 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 5,283 5,283
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
283 0401218F KC-135S.................. 9,942 9,942
284 0401219F KC-10S................... 7,933 7,933
285 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 6,681 6,681
AIRLIFT.
286 0401318F CV-22.................... 22,519 14,000 36,519
..................... UFR: CV-22 Aircraft [7,000]
Survivability and
Availability.
..................... UFR: CV-22 Integrated [7,000]
Modula Avionics.
287 0401840F AMC COMMAND AND CONTROL 3,510 3,510
SYSTEM.
288 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 8,090 8,090
CONTROL.
289 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 1,528 1,528
IF).
290 0708055F MAINTENANCE, REPAIR & 31,677 31,677
OVERHAUL SYSTEM.
291 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 33,344 33,344
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
292 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS 9,362 9,362
DEVELOPMENT.
293 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING.... 2,074 2,074
294 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL 107 107
ACTIVITIES.
295 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,006 2,006
AGENCY.
296 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 3,780 3,780
PROGRAM.
297 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 7,472 7,472
298 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,563 1,563
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
299 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 91,211 91,211
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
300 1201921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 14,255 14,255
STRATCOM--SPACE
ACTIVITIES.
301 1202247F AF TENCAP................ 31,914 31,914
302 1203001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS 32,426 32,426
TERMINALS (FAB-T).
303 1203110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 18,808 18,808
(SPACE).
305 1203165F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 10,029 10,029
POSITIONING SYSTEM
(SPACE AND CONTROL
SEGMENTS).
306 1203173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST 25,051 40,000 65,051
AND EVALUATION CENTER.
..................... UFR: Space Enterprise [40,000]
Defense
Implementation.
307 1203174F SPACE INNOVATION, 11,390 11,390
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
308 1203179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 8,747 8,747
SERVICE (IBS).
309 1203182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 10,549 10,549
(SPACE).
310 1203265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT.... 243,435 40,300 283,735
..................... UFR: GPS satellite [40,300]
simulator (GSS).
311 1203400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 12,691 12,691
INTELLIGENCE.
312 1203614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM..... 99,455 48,500 147,955
..................... UFR: Space Enterprise [48,500]
Defense
Implementation.
313 1203620F NATIONAL SPACE DEFENSE 18,052 68,000 86,052
CENTER.
..................... UFR: Fix Enterprise [68,000]
Space BMC2.
314 1203699F SHARED EARLY WARNING 1,373 1,373
(SEW).
315 1203906F NCMC--TW/AA SYSTEM....... 5,000 5,000
316 1203913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 31,508 31,508
(SPACE).
317 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 99,984 40,800 140,784
OPERATIONS.
..................... UFR: Space Fence Site [40,800]
1 & Ground Based
Operational
Surveillance System.
318 1206423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 510,938 510,938
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
320 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 14,938,002 36,000 14,974,002
..................... Program increase..... [36,000]
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 20,585,302 328,485 20,913,787
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 34,914,359 1,224,318 36,138,677
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.....................
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH...... 37,201 37,201
2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 432,347 432,347
3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH 40,612 40,612
INITIATIVES.
4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 43,126 43,126
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE 74,298 25,000 99,298
EDUCATION PROGRAM.
..................... Evidence based [5,000]
military child STEM
education.
..................... Manufacturing [20,000]
Engineering Education
Program.
6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK 25,865 2,000 27,865
COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
INSTITUTIONS.
..................... STEM support for [2,000]
minority women.
7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 43,898 43,898
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 697,347 27,000 724,347
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS 19,111 19,111
TECHNOLOGY.
9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.... 109,360 109,360
11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY 49,748 49,748
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
12 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 49,226 49,226
ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
PRIORITIES.
13 0602303E INFORMATION & 392,784 392,784
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
14 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 13,014 13,014
DEFENSE.
15 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 201,053 201,053
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
16 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.. 14,775 14,775
17 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 343,776 -15,000 328,776
..................... General decrease..... [-15,000]
18 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 224,440 224,440
TECHNOLOGY.
19 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY... 295,447 -10,000 285,447
..................... Unjustified growth... [-10,000]
20 0602718BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 157,908 157,908
DESTRUCTION APPLIED
RESEARCH.
21 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 8,955 8,955
INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
22 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY 34,493 34,493
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 1,914,090 -25,000 1,889,090
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
23 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 25,627 25,627
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 76,230 76,230
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
25 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE 24,199 24,199
TESTING.
26 0603160BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 268,607 268,607
DESTRUCTION ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
27 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 12,996 12,996
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
29 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY....... 5,495 5,495
31 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH........ 20,184 20,184
32 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 18,662 18,662
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
35 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE 155,406 155,406
SYSTEMS.
36 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 247,435 247,435
TECHNOLOGY.
37 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS..... 13,154 -5,000 8,154
..................... General decrease..... [-5,000]
38 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 37,674 37,674
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
39 0603291D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 15,000 15,000
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS--
MHA.
40 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE 252,879 252,879
TECHNOLOGY.
41 0603342D8W DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT 29,594 29,594
EXPERIMENTAL (DIUX).
42 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION.... 59,863 59,863
43 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 145,359 145,359
DEFENSE PROGRAM--
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
44 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH............ 171,120 171,120
45 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 14,389 14,389
TECHNOLOGY.
46 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY 105,871 105,871
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
47 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 12,661 12,661
CAPABILITIES.
48 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE 136,159 55,000 191,159
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
..................... Improve productivity [20,000]
of defense industrial
base.
..................... Partnership between [15,000]
MEP centers and
Manufacturing USA
Institutes.
..................... Manufacturing USA [20,000]
institutes.
49 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 40,511 40,511
PROGRAM.
50 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 57,876 57,876
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
51 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 10,611 10,611
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
53 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 71,832 10,000 81,832
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
..................... Readiness increase... [10,000]
54 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS 219,803 80,000 299,803
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
AND SUPPORT.
..................... Supply chain [80,000]
assurance.
55 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM 6,349 6,349
56 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 79,173 79,173
TECHNOLOGIES.
57 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 106,787 106,787
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
58 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 439,386 439,386
TECHNOLOGY.
59 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........ 210,123 210,123
60 0603769D8Z DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 11,211 11,211
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
62 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 15,047 15,047
INSTITUTE.
63 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 69,203 69,203
PROJECTS.
64 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & 25,395 25,395
TECHNOLOGY.
65 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE 89,586 89,586
& TECHNOLOGY.
66 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 38,403 10,000 48,403
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
..................... Readiness increase... [10,000]
67 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............. 33,382 33,382
68 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 72,605 72,605
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,445,847 150,000 3,595,847
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES
69 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 32,937 32,937
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
70 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................. 101,714 101,714
72 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE 2,198 2,198
DATA & INFORMATION
SERVICES.
73 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 54,583 10,000 64,583
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
..................... Readiness increase... [10,000]
74 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 230,162 230,162
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
75 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 828,097 21,996 850,093
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE
SEGMENT.
..................... UFR: Discrimination.. [21,996]
76 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 148,518 148,518
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
77 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 247,345 57,862 305,207
SENSORS.
..................... UFR: Discrimination.. [57,862]
78 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS.... 449,442 29,444 478,886
..................... UFR: Discrimination.. [23,342]
..................... UFR: High Fidelity [6,102]
Modeling and
Simulation.
79 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA.... 320,190 320,190
80 0603892C AEGIS BMD................ 852,052 852,052
83 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 430,115 430,115
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATI.
84 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 48,954 48,954
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
85 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE 53,265 53,265
INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS
CENTER (MDIOC).
86 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH......... 9,113 9,113
87 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 130,695 130,695
(SBX).
88 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 105,354 268,450 373,804
PROGRAMS.
..................... Arrow................ [71,460]
..................... Arrow Upper Tier [105,000]
flight test.
..................... Arrow-Upper Tier..... [28,140]
..................... David's Sling........ [63,850]
89 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 305,791 305,791
TEST.
90 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 410,425 410,425
TARGETS.
91 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING.... 10,837 10,837
92 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE........ 10,740 10,740
93 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,837 10,000 13,837
CORROSION PROGRAM.
..................... DOD Corrosion Program [10,000]
94 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 128,406 128,406
INITIATIVES.
95 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT... 98,369 98,369
96 0604181C HYPERSONIC DEFENSE....... 75,300 75,300
97 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 1,175,832 1,175,832
TECHNOLOGIES.
98 0604294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED 83,626 83,626
MICROELECTRONICS.
99 0604331D8Z RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM 100,000 100,000
100 0604342D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY OFFSET 0 200,000 200,000
..................... Directed energy...... [200,000]
101 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,967 3,967
(DOD) UNMANNED SYSTEM
COMMON DEVELOPMENT.
102 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR 3,833 3,833
STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA).
104 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY 23,638 23,638
DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION
AND INTEROPERABILITY
ASSESSMENTS.
105 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION 357,659 357,659
RADAR (LRDR).
106 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE 465,530 80,000 545,530
INTERCEPTORS.
..................... UFR: C3 Booster [80,000]
Development.
107 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 36,239 36,239
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT
TEST.
108 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST........... 134,468 26,351 160,819
..................... UFR: Anti-Air Warfare [26,351]
Capability.
109 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 84,239 84,239
SENSOR TEST.
110 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).. 30,486 67,275 97,761
..................... UFR: Anti-Air Warfare [67,275]
Capability.
111 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 9,739 9,739
DEVELOPMENT.
112 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 76,757 76,757
MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST.
113 0604894C MULTI-OBJECT KILL VEHICLE 6,500 6,500
114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 2,902 2,902
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 986 986
116 1206893C SPACE TRACKING & 34,907 34,907
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
117 1206895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 16,994 27,500 44,494
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
..................... UFR: Space Based [27,500]
Sensor.
262 888888 GROUND-LAUNCHED 0 65,000 65,000
INTERMEDIATE RANGE
MISSILE.
..................... Ground-Launched [65,000]
Intermediate Range
Missile.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 7,736,741 863,878 8,600,619
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
118 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 12,536 12,536
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
119 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 201,749 201,749
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 406,789 406,789
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
122 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL 15,358 15,358
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (JTIDS).
123 0605000BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 6,241 6,241
DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
124 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,322 12,322
DEVELOPMENT.
125 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL 4,893 4,893
SECURITY INITIATIVE.
126 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 3,162 3,162
PROGRAM.
127 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 21,353 -2,000 19,353
INITIATIVES.
..................... Find COTS solution... [-2,000]
128 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 6,266 6,266
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
129 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND 2,810 2,810
INTEGRATION.
130 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY 24,436 24,436
INITIATIVES (DAI)--
FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
131 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND 13,475 13,475
ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
(DRAS).
133 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 11,870 -11,870
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
..................... Consolidate [-11,870]
requirements.
134 0605294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED 61,084 61,084
MICROELECTRONICS.
135 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 2,576 2,576
SYSTEM.
136 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 3,669 3,669
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
137 0305310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: SYSTEM 8,230 8,230
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 818,819 -13,870 804,949
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
138 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS 6,941 6,941
REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
139 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS 4,851 4,851
ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT.
140 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND 211,325 211,325
EVALUATION INVESTMENT
DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
141 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND 30,144 100,000 130,144
EVALUATIONS.
..................... Classified assessment [100,000]
142 0605001E MISSION SUPPORT.......... 63,769 63,769
143 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 91,057 91,057
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
144 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, 22,386 22,386
SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS.
145 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 36,581 36,581
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING...... 37,622 37,622
148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 5,200 5,200
SUPPORT--OSD.
149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 5,232 5,232
SECURITY.
150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 12,583 12,583
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 31,451 31,451
(INTELLIGENCE).
152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 104,348 104,348
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
161 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 2,372 2,372
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER.
162 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 24,365 24,365
ANALYSIS.
163 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 54,145 54,145
INFORMATION CENTER
(DTIC).
164 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 30,356 30,356
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
165 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 20,571 5,000 25,571
EVALUATION.
..................... Software testing [5,000]
capabilities.
166 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 14,017 14,017
167 0605998KA MANAGEMENT HQ--DEFENSE 4,187 4,187
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
CENTER (DTIC).
168 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 3,992 3,992
ASSESSMENTS.
169 0606225D8Z ODNA TECHNOLOGY AND 1,000 1,000
RESOURCE ANALYSIS.
170 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS 2,551 2,551
SECURITY INITIATIVE
(DOSI).
171 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 7,712 7,712
SUPPORT.
174 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 673 673
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
175 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY 1,006 1,006
DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE
(DMDPO).
177 0305172K COMBINED ADVANCED 16,998 16,998
APPLICATIONS.
180 0305245D8Z INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES 18,992 18,992
AND INNOVATION
INVESTMENTS.
181 0306310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: RDT&E 1,231 1,231
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
183 0804767J COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 44,500 44,500
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)--
MHA.
184 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA....... 29,947 29,947
186 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 63,312 63,312
187 0903235K JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER 5,113 5,113
(JSP).
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 1,010,530 105,000 1,115,530
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
188 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY 4,565 4,565
SYSTEM (ESS).
189 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 1,871 1,871
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MANA.
190 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 298 298
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
191 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 10,882 10,882
AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
192 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL 7,222 7,222
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
193 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 14,450 14,450
COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
TSCMIS).
194 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 45,677 45,677
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
195 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,037 3,037
SYSTEM (PDAS).
196 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY..... 59,490 59,490
198 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 6,104 6,104
INFORMATION SHARING.
202 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 1,863 1,863
SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
203 0302019K DEFENSE INFO 21,564 21,564
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
204 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 15,428 15,428
DCS.
205 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 15,855 15,855
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
206 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 4,811 4,811
(PKI).
207 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 33,746 33,746
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
208 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 9,415 9,415
SECURITY PROGRAM.
209 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 227,652 227,652
SECURITY PROGRAM.
210 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND 42,687 42,687
CONTROL SYSTEM.
211 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 8,750 8,750
ORGANIZATION.
214 0303228K JOINT INFORMATION 4,689 4,689
ENVIRONMENT (JIE).
216 0303430K FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE 50,000 50,000
SERVICES INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
222 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 1,686 1,686
227 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS...... 6,526 6,526
228 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY........... 18,455 18,455
230 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,496 5,496
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
233 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,049 3,049
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
236 0305327V INSIDER THREAT........... 5,365 5,365
237 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE 2,071 2,071
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAM.
243 0307577D8Z INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA 13,111 13,111
(IMD).
245 0708012S PACIFIC DISASTER CENTERS. 1,770 1,770
246 0708047S DEFENSE PROPERTY 2,924 2,924
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.
248 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................. 37,863 13,000 50,863
..................... MQ-9 Capability [13,000]
Enhancement.
251 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS......... 259,886 13,500 273,386
..................... SOCOM requested [13,500]
transfer.
252 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 8,245 8,245
DEVELOPMENT.
253 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS. 79,455 16,000 95,455
..................... UFR: Enhanced [16,000]
Precision Strike.
254 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS.......... 45,935 45,935
255 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS......... 1,978 1,978
256 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR............. 31,766 31,766
257 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 2,578 2,578
258 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS......... 42,315 18,100 60,415
..................... SOCOM requested [12,800]
transfer.
..................... UFR: Develop Dry [5,300]
Combat Submersible.
259 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 4,661 4,661
ACTIVITIES.
260 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 12,049 12,049
INTELLIGENCE.
261 1203610K TELEPORT PROGRAM......... 642 642
262 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 3,689,646 3,689,646
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 4,867,528 60,600 4,928,128
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 20,490,902 1,167,608 21,658,510
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.....................
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 83,503 83,503
EVALUATION.
2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 59,500 59,500
EVALUATION.
3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST 67,897 67,897
ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 210,900 0 210,900
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 210,900 210,900
EVAL, DEFENSE.
.....................
.....................
..................... UNDISTRIBUTED
..................... UNDISTRIBUTED
999 999999 UNDISTRIBUTED............ 0 64,100 64,100
..................... ERI costs transfer [64,100]
from OCO to base.
..................... SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED... 0 64,100 64,100
.....................
..................... TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...... 0 64,100 64,100
.....................
.....................
..................... TOTAL RDT&E.............. 82,716,636 3,315,393 86,032,029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2018 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
55 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 15,000 15,000
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 3,000 3,000
SURVIVABILITY.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 18,000 0 18,000
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
122 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE............. 5,000 5,000
125 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 21,540 21,540
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
133 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 30,100 30,100
DEVELOPMENT.
147 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............. 1,200 1,200
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 57,840 0 57,840
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
203 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 15,000 15,000
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
222 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 7,492 7,492
VEHICLES.
223 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 15,000 15,000
SYSTEMS.
228 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 6,036 6,036
INTELLIGENCE.
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 43,528 0 43,528
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 119,368 0 119,368
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
41 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 22,000 22,000
81 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 5,710 5,710
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 27,710 0 27,710
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 89,855 89,855
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
207 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 11,600 11,600
SYSTEM.
211 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT 1,200 1,200
SUPPORT.
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 102,655 0 102,655
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 130,365 0 130,365
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
29 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 7,800 7,800
53 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS 5,400 5,400
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 13,200 0 13,200
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 112,408 112,408
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
196 0207277F ISR INNOVATIONS.......... 5,750 5,750
214 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 4,000 4,000
OPERATIONS.
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 122,158 0 122,158
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 135,358 0 135,358
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
...................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
24 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 25,000 25,000
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 25,000 0 25,000
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
......................
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 196,176 196,176
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
253 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS. 1,920 1,920
256 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR............. 3,000 3,000
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 201,096 0 201,096
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 226,096 0 226,096
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
......................
...................... UNDISTRIBUTED
...................... UNDISTRIBUTED
999 999999 UNDISTRIBUTED............ -64,100 -64,100
...................... ERI costs transfer [-64,100]
from OCO to base.
...................... SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED... -64,100 -64,100
......................
...................... TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...... -64,100 -64,100
......................
...................... TOTAL RDT&E.............. 611,187 -64,100 547,087
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2018 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 1,455,366 112,179 1,567,545
UFR: Convert IBCT to ABCT....................... [27,000]
UFR: Readiness to execute NMS................... [44,179]
UFR: Stryker Vehicle training................... [20,000]
UFR: Support 16th ABCT.......................... [21,000]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 105,147 12,873 118,020
UFR: Readiness to execute NMS................... [12,873]
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 604,117 147,218 751,335
UFR: NETCOM HQ.................................. [13]
UFR: Readiness to execute NMS................... [147,205]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 793,217 43,005 836,222
UFR: 3% increase to Decisive Action training.... [5,244]
UFR: Readiness to execute NMS................... [28,327]
UFR: Support Equipment.......................... [9,434]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 1,169,478 1,169,478
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 1,496,503 1,496,503
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 3,675,901 49,500 3,725,401
UFR: Funding to support 6k additional [680]
endstrength.....................................
UFR: Organizational Clothing & Indiv. Equipment [44,215]
maintenance.....................................
UFR: Support Equipment.......................... [4,605]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 466,720 4,872 471,592
UFR: Medical equipment.......................... [4,872]
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 1,443,516 77,669 1,521,185
UFR: Depot Maintenance.......................... [77,669]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 8,080,357 90,719 8,171,076
UFR: Engineering Services....................... [36,949]
UFR: IT Services NEC C4IM....................... [22,000]
UFR: Support 6k additional endstrength.......... [31,770]
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 3,401,155 601,817 4,002,972
UFR: Address facility restoration backlog....... [70,427]
UFR: FSRM increases............................. [481,210]
UFR: Support 6k additional endstrength.......... [50,180]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 443,790 443,790
180 US AFRICA COMMAND................................... 225,382 225,382
190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND................................. 141,352 141,352
200 US SOUTHERN COMMAND................................. 190,811 190,811
210 US FORCES KOREA..................................... 59,578 59,578
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 23,752,390 1,139,852 24,892,242
MOBILIZATION
220 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.................................. 346,667 1,124 347,791
UFR: Readiness increase......................... [1,124]
230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS........................... 422,108 5,238 427,346
UFR: Readiness increase......................... [5,238]
240 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS............................. 7,750 7,750
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 776,525 6,362 782,887
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
250 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 137,556 137,556
260 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 58,872 1,392 60,264
UFR: Recruit training........................... [1,392]
270 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING........................... 58,035 1,886 59,921
UFR: One Station Unit Training.................. [1,886]
280 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.............. 505,089 673 505,762
UFR: Supports commissions for increase end [673]
strength........................................
290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 1,015,541 15,293 1,030,834
UFR: Supports increased capacity................ [15,293]
300 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 1,124,115 1,124,115
310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 220,688 220,688
320 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 618,164 3,526 621,690
UFR: Supports increased capacity................ [1,526]
UFR: Supports Initial Entry Training............ [2,000]
330 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 613,586 10,673 624,259
UFR: Supports increased capacity................ [10,673]
340 EXAMINING........................................... 171,223 171,223
350 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 214,738 350 215,088
UFR: Supports increased capacity................ [350]
360 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 195,099 195,099
370 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS............... 176,116 176,116
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 5,108,822 33,793 5,142,615
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 555,502 96,563 652,065
UFR: Supports transportation equipment.......... [96,563]
400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES........................... 894,208 894,208
410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES......................... 715,462 715,462
420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 446,931 446,931
430 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 493,616 493,616
440 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 2,084,922 10,000 2,094,922
UFR: Army Regional Cyber Centers capabilities... [10,000]
450 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 259,588 259,588
460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 326,387 326,387
470 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT............................... 1,087,602 -41,400 1,046,202
UFR: Funds DFAS increases....................... [3,600]
Under execution................................. [-45,000]
480 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.............................. 210,514 3,500 214,014
UFR: Supports JAG increase needs................ [3,500]
490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 243,584 13,153 256,737
UFR: Supports engineering services.............. [13,153]
500 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS............ 284,592 284,592
510 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS................. 415,694 415,694
520 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS...................... 46,856 46,856
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,242,222 1,242,222
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 9,307,680 81,816 9,389,496
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................. 38,945,417 1,261,823 40,207,240
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 11,461 286 11,747
UFR: ARNG Operational Demand Model to 82%....... [286]
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 577,410 15,643 593,053
UFR: ARNG Operational Demand Model to 82%....... [15,643]
030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 117,298 4,718 122,016
UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82%............ [4,718]
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 552,016 12,918 564,934
UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82%............ [12,918]
050 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 80,302 1,159 81,461
UFR: Increases aviation contract support........ [845]
UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82%............ [314]
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 399,035 4,600 403,635
UFR: Support additional capacity................ [4,600]
070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 102,687 102,687
080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 56,016 56,016
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 599,947 550 600,497
UFR: Support 6k additional endstrength.......... [550]
100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 273,940 30,750 304,690
UFR: Address facility restoration backlog....... [4,465]
UFR: Increased facilities sustainment........... [26,285]
110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 22,909 22,909
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 2,793,021 70,624 2,863,645
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
120 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 11,116 11,116
130 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 17,962 17,962
140 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 18,550 2,400 20,950
UFR: Equipment support.......................... [2,400]
150 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 6,166 6,166
160 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 60,027 60,027
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 113,821 2,400 116,221
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............. 2,906,842 73,024 2,979,866
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 777,883 16,979 794,862
UFR: Readiness increase......................... [16,979]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 190,639 190,639
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 807,557 13,099 820,656
UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82%............ [13,099]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 85,476 13,093 98,569
UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82%............ [13,093]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 36,672 2,225 38,897
UFR: Increased aviation readiness............... [2,225]
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 956,381 29,998 986,379
UFR: Aviation readiness for AH64................ [24,828]
UFR: Aviation readiness for TAB................. [2,040]
UFR: Aviation readinss for ECAB................. [3,130]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 777,756 100 777,856
UFR: Supports increased capacity................ [100]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 51,506 51,506
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 244,942 244,942
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 1,144,726 3,850 1,148,576
UFR: Support increase end-strength.............. [3,850]
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 781,895 94,839 876,734
UFR: Address facility restoration backlog....... [20,108]
UFR: Facilities Sustainment improvement......... [74,731]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 999,052 240 999,292
UFR: Support increase end-strength.............. [240]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 6,854,485 174,423 7,028,908
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 7,703 7,703
140 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 79,236 79,236
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 85,160 85,160
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 8,654 8,654
170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 268,839 8,500 277,339
UFR: Behavior Health Specialists................ [8,500]
180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 3,093 3,093
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 452,685 8,500 461,185
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................. 7,307,170 182,923 7,490,093
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 5,544,165 5,544,165
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.................................. 2,075,000 2,075,000
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 46,801 46,801
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 119,624 119,624
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 552,536 42,000 594,536
UFR: Fund to Max Executable..................... [42,000]
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 1,088,482 1,088,482
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 40,584 40,584
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 723,786 120,000 843,786
UFR: Fund to Max Executable..................... [120,000]
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 4,067,334 22,000 4,089,334
UFR: Combat Logistics Maintenance Funding TAO- [22,000]
187.............................................
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 977,701 977,701
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 7,165,858 7,165,858
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT....................... 2,193,851 2,193,851
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE........ 1,288,094 1,288,094
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE...................... 206,678 206,678
160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 621,581 1,000 622,581
UFR: Operational range Clearance and [1,000]
Environmental Compliance........................
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 370,681 370,681
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 1,437,966 1,437,966
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT.. 162,705 162,705
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 65,108 65,108
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 86,892 86,892
230 MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS............. 8,427 8,427
240 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 385,212 385,212
260 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE............................. 1,278,456 1,278,456
280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 745,680 5,000 750,680
UFR: Munitions wholeness........................ [5,000]
290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................ 380,016 380,016
300 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 914,428 -32,000 882,428
Under execution................................. [-32,000]
310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 1,905,679 542,181 2,447,860
NHHC Reduction.................................. [-29,000]
UFR: 88% of Facility Sustainment requirements... [293,181]
UFR: FSRM Increases............................. [218,000]
UFR: MPT&E Management System IT Modernization... [60,000]
320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 4,333,688 51,000 4,384,688
UFR: FSRM Increases............................. [28,000]
UFR: Operational range Clearance and [11,000]
Environmental Compliance........................
UFR: Port Operations Service Craft Maintenance.. [12,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 38,787,013 751,181 39,538,194
MOBILIZATION
330 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE....................... 417,450 10,000 427,450
UFR: Strategic Sealift.......................... [10,000]
360 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS...................... 198,341 198,341
370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 66,849 66,849
390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 21,870 21,870
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 704,510 10,000 714,510
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
400 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 143,924 143,924
410 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 8,975 8,975
420 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS..................... 144,708 144,708
430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 812,708 812,708
450 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 180,448 180,448
460 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 234,596 234,596
470 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 177,517 177,517
480 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 103,154 103,154
490 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 72,216 72,216
500 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 53,262 53,262
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 1,931,508 0 1,931,508
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
510 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 1,135,429 1,135,429
530 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 149,365 149,365
540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 386,749 386,749
590 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 165,301 165,301
610 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND PROGRAM SUPPORT.......... 311,616 311,616
620 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT............... 665,580 665,580
660 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES................. 659,143 659,143
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 543,193 543,193
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 4,016,376 0 4,016,376
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................. 45,439,407 761,181 46,200,588
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 967,949 967,949
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 1,065,090 3,100 1,068,190
UFR: Long Endurance Small UAS................... [3,100]
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 286,635 286,635
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING............................. 85,577 85,577
050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 181,518 181,518
060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............ 785,264 43,791 829,055
UFR: Facilities Sustainment to 80%.............. [43,791]
070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 2,196,252 2,196,252
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 5,568,285 46,891 5,615,176
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
080 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 16,163 16,163
090 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 1,154 1,154
100 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 100,398 100,398
110 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 46,474 46,474
120 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 405,039 405,039
130 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 201,601 201,601
140 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 32,045 32,045
150 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 24,394 24,394
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 827,268 0 827,268
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 28,827 28,827
170 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 378,683 378,683
190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 77,684 77,684
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 52,661 52,661
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 537,855 0 537,855
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS......... 6,933,408 46,891 6,980,299
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 596,876 596,876
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 5,902 5,902
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 94,861 94,861
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 381 381
050 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 13,822 13,822
060 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 571 571
070 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 16,718 16,718
080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 118,079 118,079
090 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 308 308
100 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 28,650 28,650
110 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 86,354 86,354
120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 103,596 103,596
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 1,066,118 0 1,066,118
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 1,371 1,371
140 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 13,289 13,289
160 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 3,229 3,229
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 17,889 0 17,889
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............. 1,084,007 1,084,007
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 103,468 103,468
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 18,794 18,794
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 32,777 1,077 33,854
UFR: Facilities Sustainment to 80%.............. [1,077]
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 111,213 111,213
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 266,252 1,077 267,329
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 12,585 12,585
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 12,585 0 12,585
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE........... 278,837 1,077 279,914
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 694,702 13,200 707,902
UFR: NC3 & Other Nuclear Requirements........... [9,000]
UFR: PACAF Contingency Response Group........... [4,200]
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 1,392,326 184,100 1,576,426
Air and Space Operations Center................. [104,800]
UFR: Airmen Readiness Training.................. [8,900]
UFR: Cyber Requirements......................... [70,400]
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 1,128,640 144,300 1,272,940
UFR: Airmen Readiness Training.................. [93,100]
UFR: Contract Adversary Air..................... [51,200]
040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 2,755,367 160,600 2,915,967
UFR: Airmen Readiness Training.................. [7,100]
UFR: WSS funded at 89%.......................... [153,500]
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 3,292,553 3,292,553
060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 6,555,186 328,500 6,883,686
UFR: E-4B Maintenance personnel................. [1,000]
UFR: EC-130H Compass Call....................... [20,000]
UFR: Sustain 3 additional C-37B................. [11,300]
UFR: Weapon Systems Sustainment................. [296,200]
070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM................................. 4,135,330 4,135,330
080 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 5,985,232 999,483 6,984,715
UFR: Cyber Requirements......................... [152,600]
UFR: Facility Restoration Modernization......... [493,883]
UFR: Funds mission readiness at installations... [146,000]
UFR: Funds Operational Communications and JIE [190,000]
conversion......................................
UFR: PACAF Contingency Response Group........... [6,700]
UFR: Transient Alert Contracts.................. [10,300]
090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 847,516 84,700 932,216
UFR: Cyber Requirements......................... [10,700]
UFR: NC3 & Other Nuclear Requirements........... [66,000]
UFR: SBIRS Requirements......................... [8,000]
100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 1,131,817 41,200 1,173,017
UFR: Cyber Requirements......................... [18,300]
UFR: Eagle Vision sustainment................... [6,100]
UFR: PACAF Contingency Response Group........... [16,800]
120 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 175,457 175,457
130 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 353,458 353,458
160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD................................... 189,891 189,891
170 US STRATCOM......................................... 534,236 534,236
180 US CYBERCOM......................................... 357,830 357,830
190 US CENTCOM.......................................... 168,208 168,208
200 US SOCOM............................................ 2,280 2,280
210 US TRANSCOM......................................... 533 533
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,091,655 1,091,655
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 30,792,217 1,956,083 32,748,300
MOBILIZATION
220 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 1,570,697 1,800 1,572,497
UFR: sustain 3 additional C-37B................. [1,800]
230 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 130,241 46,450 176,691
UFR: PACAF Contingency Response Group........... [16,900]
UFR: Set the Theater (StT) PACOM................ [29,550]
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 1,700,938 48,250 1,749,188
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
270 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 113,722 113,722
280 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 24,804 24,804
290 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).............. 95,733 95,733
320 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 395,476 395,476
330 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 501,599 501,599
340 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 287,500 287,500
350 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 91,384 91,384
370 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 166,795 166,795
380 EXAMINING........................................... 4,134 4,134
390 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 222,691 222,691
400 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 171,974 171,974
410 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 60,070 60,070
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 2,135,882 0 2,135,882
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
420 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 805,453 805,453
430 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 127,379 127,379
470 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 911,283 911,283
480 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 432,172 432,172
490 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 1,175,658 1,175,658
500 CIVIL AIR PATROL.................................... 26,719 26,719
530 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 76,878 76,878
540 AIR FORCE WIDE UNDISTRIBUTED........................ 0 129,100 129,100
UFR: C&Y Tech Sustainment....................... [6,000]
UFR: Child and Youth Compliance................. [35,000]
UFR: Food Service Capabilities.................. [43,200]
UFR: MWR Resiliency Capabilities................ [40,000]
UFR: Violence Prevention Program................ [4,900]
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,244,653 1,244,653
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 4,800,195 129,100 4,929,295
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............ 39,429,232 2,133,433 41,562,665
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 1,801,007 1,801,007
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 210,642 210,642
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 403,867 403,867
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 124,951 124,951
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 240,835 25,800 266,635
UFR: Weapon Systems Sustainment................. [25,800]
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 371,878 34,000 405,878
UFR: Restore maintenance and repair............. [34,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 3,153,180 59,800 3,212,980
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
070 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 74,153 74,153
080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 19,522 19,522
090 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).............. 12,765 12,765
100 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)................ 7,495 7,495
110 AUDIOVISUAL......................................... 392 392
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.. 114,327 0 114,327
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE........... 3,267,507 59,800 3,327,307
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS................................. 3,175,055 3,175,055
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 746,082 66,000 812,082
UFR: Facility and Communication Infrastructure.. [66,000]
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 867,063 867,063
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 325,090 56,000 381,090
UFR: Sustainment, Restoration, Modernization [56,000]
(SRM)...........................................
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 1,100,829 58,700 1,159,529
UFR: Increase Weapons System Sustainment........ [58,700]
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 583,664 68,000 651,664
UFR: Facility Restoration Modernization......... [68,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 6,797,783 248,700 7,046,483
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
070 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 44,955 44,955
080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 97,230 -45,000 52,230
Advertising Reduction........................... [-45,000]
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES. 142,185 -45,000 97,185
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................. 6,939,968 203,700 7,143,668
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 440,853 440,853
020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF--CE2T2........................ 551,511 551,511
040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES......... 5,008,274 5,008,274
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 6,000,638 0 6,000,638
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
050 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY...................... 144,970 5,000 149,970
Increase for curriculum development............. [5,000]
060 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 84,402 84,402
080 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING.. 379,462 379,462
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 608,834 5,000 613,834
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
090 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS............................. 183,000 25,000 208,000
Starbase........................................ [25,000]
110 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 597,836 597,836
120 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 1,439,010 1,439,010
130 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY.................... 807,754 807,754
140 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 2,009,702 2,009,702
160 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 24,207 24,207
170 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY............................ 400,422 400,422
180 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 217,585 217,585
190 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY................. 131,268 131,268
200 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 722,496 722,496
210 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE............................ 683,665 683,665
230 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.......... 34,712 34,712
240 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY..................... 542,604 542,604
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 2,794,389 35,000 2,829,389
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities [10,000]
Impact aid for schools with military dependent [25,000]
students........................................
270 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.............................. 504,058 504,058
290 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT....................... 57,840 57,840
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 1,612,244 9,000 1,621,244
CDC Study....................................... [7,000]
Readiness increase.............................. [1,000]
Study on Air Force aircraft capacity and [1,000]
capabilities....................................
310 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE 94,273 94,273
ACTIVITIES.........................................
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 436,776 436,776
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 14,806,404 14,806,404
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 28,100,245 69,000 28,169,245
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 34,709,717 74,000 34,783,717
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE... 14,538 14,538
SUBTOTAL US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 14,538 0 14,538
DEFENSE............................................
OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID
010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID....... 104,900 104,900
SUBTOTAL OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC 104,900 0 104,900
AID................................................
FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION
010 FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION.......... 324,600 324,600
SUBTOTAL FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION. 324,600 0 324,600
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY..................... 215,809 215,809
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY............ 215,809 0 215,809
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY..................... 281,415 281,415
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY............ 281,415 0 281,415
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE................ 293,749 293,749
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE....... 293,749 0 293,749
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE
110 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.................. 9,002 9,002
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE......... 9,002 0 9,002
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES
130 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES....... 208,673 208,673
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED 208,673 0 208,673
SITES..............................................
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.................. 1,452,686 1,452,686
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED
999 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 1,411,595 1,411,595
ERI costs transferred to base (except Ukraine [2,121,300]
assistance).....................................
Foreign Currency Fluctuations................... [-313,315]
Fuel Savings.................................... [-396,390]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.............................. 0 1,411,595 1,411,595
TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED................................. 0 1,411,595 1,411,595
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE....................... 188,694,198 6,209,447 194,903,645
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 828,225 828,225
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 25,474 25,474
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 1,778,644 1,778,644
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 260,575 260,575
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 284,422 284,422
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 2,784,525 2,784,525
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 502,330 502,330
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 104,149 104,149
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 80,249 80,249
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 32,000 32,000
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES............................... 6,151,378 6,151,378
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM............... 5,000 5,000
160 RESET............................................... 864,926 864,926
180 US AFRICA COMMAND................................... 186,567 186,567
190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND................................. 44,250 44,250
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 13,932,714 0 13,932,714
MOBILIZATION
230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS........................... 56,500 56,500
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 56,500 0 56,500
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 755,029 755,029
400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES........................... 16,567 16,567
410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES......................... 6,000 6,000
420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 5,207 5,207
460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 107,091 107,091
490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 165,280 165,280
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,082,015 1,082,015
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 2,137,189 0 2,137,189
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................. 16,126,403 0 16,126,403
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 4,179 4,179
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 2,132 2,132
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 779 779
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 17,609 17,609
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 24,699 0 24,699
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............. 24,699 0 24,699
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 41,731 41,731
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 762 762
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 11,855 11,855
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 204 204
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 27,583 27,583
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 5,792 5,792
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 18,507 18,507
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 937 937
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 107,371 0 107,371
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 740 740
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 740 0 740
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................. 108,111 0 108,111
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
010 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 2,660,855 2,660,855
020 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 21,000 21,000
030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 684,786 684,786
040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 405,117 405,117
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE........................ 3,771,758 0 3,771,758
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
050 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 955,574 955,574
060 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 39,595 39,595
070 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 75,976 75,976
080 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 94,612 94,612
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR....................... 1,165,757 0 1,165,757
TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND.............. 4,937,515 0 4,937,515
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 412,710 412,710
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 1,750 1,750
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 2,989 2,989
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 144,030 144,030
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 211,196 211,196
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 1,921 1,921
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 102,834 102,834
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 855,453 855,453
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 19,627 19,627
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 2,483,179 2,483,179
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE........ 58,886 58,886
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE...................... 4,400 4,400
160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 21,550 21,550
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 21,104 21,104
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 605,936 605,936
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT.. 11,433 11,433
280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 325,011 325,011
290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................ 9,598 9,598
310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 31,898 31,898
320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 228,246 228,246
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 5,553,751 0 5,553,751
MOBILIZATION
360 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS...................... 1,869 1,869
370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 11,905 11,905
390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 161,885 161,885
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 175,659 0 175,659
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 43,369 43,369
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 43,369 0 43,369
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
510 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 3,217 3,217
540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 7,356 7,356
590 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 67,938 67,938
620 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT............... 9,446 9,446
660 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES................. 1,528 1,528
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 12,751 12,751
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 102,236 0 102,236
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................. 5,875,015 0 5,875,015
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 710,790 710,790
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 242,150 242,150
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 52,000 52,000
070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 17,529 17,529
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 1,022,469 0 1,022,469
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
120 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 29,421 29,421
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 29,421 0 29,421
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 61,600 61,600
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 3,150 3,150
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 64,750 0 64,750
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS......... 1,116,640 0 1,116,640
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 14,964 14,964
080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 9,016 9,016
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 23,980 0 23,980
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............. 23,980 0 23,980
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 2,548 2,548
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 819 819
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 3,367 0 3,367
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE........... 3,367 0 3,367
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 248,235 248,235
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 1,394,962 1,394,962
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 5,450 5,450
040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 699,860 699,860
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 113,131 113,131
060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 2,039,551 2,039,551
070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM................................. 2,059,363 2,059,363
080 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 1,088,946 1,088,946
090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 15,274 15,274
100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 198,090 198,090
120 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 385 385
130 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 22,020 22,020
160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD................................... 381 381
170 US STRATCOM......................................... 698 698
180 US CYBERCOM......................................... 35,239 35,239
190 US CENTCOM.......................................... 159,520 159,520
200 US SOCOM............................................ 19,000 19,000
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 58,098 58,098
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 8,158,203 0 8,158,203
MOBILIZATION
220 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 1,430,316 1,430,316
230 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 213,827 213,827
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 1,644,143 0 1,644,143
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
270 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 300 300
280 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 298 298
290 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).............. 90 90
320 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 25,675 25,675
330 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 879 879
340 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 1,114 1,114
350 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 1,426 1,426
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 29,782 0 29,782
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
420 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 151,847 151,847
430 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 8,744 8,744
470 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 6,583 6,583
480 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 129,508 129,508
490 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 84,110 84,110
530 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 120 120
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 53,255 53,255
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 434,167 0 434,167
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............ 10,266,295 0 10,266,295
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 52,323 52,323
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 6,200 6,200
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 58,523 0 58,523
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE........... 58,523 0 58,523
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 3,468 3,468
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 11,932 11,932
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 15,400 0 15,400
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................. 15,400 0 15,400
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 4,841 4,841
040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES......... 3,305,234 6,300 3,311,534
UFR: Joint Task Force Platform Expansion........ [6,300]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 3,310,075 6,300 3,316,375
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
110 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 9,853 9,853
120 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 21,317 21,317
140 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 64,137 64,137
160 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 115,000 115,000
180 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 13,255 13,255
200 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 2,312,000 250,000 2,562,000
Reduction to Coalition Support Funds............ [-100,000]
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.......... [350,000]
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 31,000 31,000
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 34,715 34,715
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 3,179 3,179
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,797,549 1,797,549
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 4,402,005 250,000 4,652,005
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 7,712,080 256,300 7,968,380
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED
999 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -2,121,300 -2,121,300
ERI costs transferred from OCO to base (except [-2,121,300]
Ukraine assistance).............................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.............................. 0 -2,121,300 -2,121,300
TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED................................. 0 -2,121,300 -2,121,300
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE....................... 46,268,028 -1,865,000 44,403,028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 133,881,636 -154,913 133,726,723
Defense Innovation Board software review....... 1,000
ERI costs transferred to base.................. 214,300
Marine Corps endstrength increase (1k)......... 100,000
Public-Private partnership on military spousal 1,000
employment.....................................
UFR: ANG funds training man days............... 170,800
UFR: Army endtrength increase (6k)............. 321,000
UFR: Army readiness requirements............... 107,987
UFR: ATFP Enhancement--2nd Pier Sentry (Mahan 12,000
Report)........................................
Unobligated Balances........................... [-1,083,000]
SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.......... 133,881,636 -154,913 133,726,723
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 7,804,427 16,000 7,820,427
UFR: Army endtrength increase (6k)............. 16,000
SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND 7,804,427 16,000 7,820,427
CONTRIBUTIONS......................................
TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL............................ 141,686,063 -138,913 141,547,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 4,276,276 -214,300 4,061,976
ERI costs transferred to base budget........... [-214,300]
SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.......... 4,276,276 -214,300 4,061,976
TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL............................ 4,276,276 -214,300 4,061,976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
010 Industrial Operations........................... 43,140 43,140
020 Supply Management--Army......................... 40,636 50,100 90,736
ERI costs transfer from OCO to base......... [50,100]
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 83,776 50,100 133,876
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
010 Supplies and Materials.......................... 66,462 66,462
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 66,462 0 66,462
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
020 Supply Chain Management--Def.................... 47,018 47,018
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 47,018 0 47,018
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
010 Working Capital Fund, DECA...................... 1,389,340 1,389,340
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............. 1,389,340 0 1,389,340
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................... 1,586,596 50,100 1,636,696
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1 Chem Demilitarization--O&M...................... 104,237 104,237
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............. 104,237 0 104,237
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
2 Chem Demilitarization--RDT&E.................... 839,414 839,414
SUBTOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 839,414 0 839,414
EVALUATION.....................................
PROCUREMENT
3 Chem Demilitarization--Proc..................... 18,081 18,081
SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT............................ 18,081 0 18,081
TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION....... 961,732 0 961,732
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
010 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 674,001 674,001
Defense........................................
SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG 674,001 0 674,001
ACTIVITIES.....................................
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM
020 Drug Demand Reduction Program................... 116,813 116,813
SUBTOTAL DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM.......... 116,813 0 116,813
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 790,814 0 790,814
DEF............................................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
010 Operation And Maintenance....................... 334,087 334,087
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............. 334,087 0 334,087
RDT&E
020 RDT&E........................................... 2,800 2,800
SUBTOTAL RDT&E.................................. 2,800 0 2,800
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........... 336,887 0 336,887
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 In-House Care................................... 9,457,768 9,457,768
020 Private Sector Care............................. 15,317,732 15,317,732
030 Consolidated Health Support..................... 2,193,045 2,193,045
040 Information Management.......................... 1,803,733 1,803,733
050 Management Activities........................... 330,752 330,752
060 Education and Training.......................... 737,730 737,730
070 Base Operations/Communications.................. 2,255,163 2,255,163
SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE................ 32,095,923 0 32,095,923
RDT&E
080 R&D Research.................................... 9,796 9,796
090 R&D Exploratry Development...................... 64,881 64,881
100 R&D Advanced Development........................ 246,268 246,268
110 R&D Demonstration/Validation.................... 99,039 99,039
120 R&D Engineering Development..................... 170,602 170,602
130 R&D Management and Support...................... 69,191 69,191
140 R&D Capabilities Enhancement.................... 13,438 13,438
SUBTOTAL RDT&E.................................. 673,215 0 673,215
PROCUREMENT
150 PROC Initial Outfitting......................... 26,978 26,978
160 PROC Replacement & Modernization................ 360,831 360,831
180 PROC Joint Operational Medicine Information 8,326 8,326
System.........................................
190 PROC DoD Healthcare Management System 499,193 499,193
Modernization..................................
SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT............................ 895,328 0 895,328
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................... 33,664,466 0 33,664,466
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND LEASE
050 LG Med Spd Ro/Ro Maintenance.................... 135,800 135,800
060 DoD Mobilization Alterations.................... 11,197 11,197
070 TAH Maintenance................................. 54,453 54,453
SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND LEASE...... 201,450 0 201,450
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
080 Research And Development........................ 18,622 18,622
SUBTOTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............... 18,622 0 18,622
READY RESERVE FORCES
090 Ready Reserve Force............................. 289,255 7,000 296,255
UFR: Strategic Sealift service life [7,000]
extension...................................
SUBTOTAL READY RESERVE FORCES................... 289,255 7,000 296,255
TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND............. 509,327 7,000 516,327
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 37,849,822 57,100 37,906,922
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
020 Supply Management--Army......................... 50,111 -50,111 0
ERI costs transfer from OCO to base......... [-50,111]
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 50,111 -50,111 0
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
010 Energy Management--Def.......................... 70,000 70,000
020 Supply Chain Management--Def.................... 28,845 28,845
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 98,845 0 98,845
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................... 148,956 -50,111 98,845
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
010 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 196,300 196,300
Defense........................................
SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG 196,300 0 196,300
ACTIVITIES.....................................
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 196,300 0 196,300
DEF............................................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
010 Operation And Maintenance....................... 24,692 24,692
SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............. 24,692 0 24,692
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........... 24,692 0 24,692
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 In-House Care................................... 61,857 61,857
020 Private Sector Care............................. 331,968 331,968
030 Consolidated Health Support..................... 1,980 1,980
SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE................ 395,805 0 395,805
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................... 395,805 0 395,805
COUNTER-ISLAMIC ISIS TRAIN & EQUIP FUND
COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF)
010 Iraq............................................ 1,269,000 1,269,000
020 Syria........................................... 500,000 500,000
SUBTOTAL COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND 1,769,000 0 1,769,000
(CTEF).........................................
TOTAL COUNTER-ISLAMIC ISIS TRAIN & EQUIP FUND... 1,769,000 0 1,769,000
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 2,534,753 -50,111 2,484,642
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ALABAMA Fort Rucker Training Support Facility. 38,000 38,000
MILCON, ARMY ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB General Instruction 22,000 22,000
Building.
MILCON, ARMY ARIZONA Fort Huachuca Ground Transport Equipment 30,000 30,000
Building.
MILCON, ARMY CALIFORNIA Fort Irwin Land Acquisition.......... 3,000 3,000
MILCON, ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Ammunition Supply Point... 21,000 21,000
MILCON, ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Battlefield Weather 8,300 8,300
Facility.
MILCON, ARMY FLORIDA Eglin AFB Multipurpose Range Complex 18,000 18,000
MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Benning Air Traffic Control Tower 0 10,800 10,800
(ATCT).
MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Benning Training Support Facility. 28,000 28,000
MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Access Control Point...... 33,000 33,000
MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Automation-Aided 18,500 18,500
Instructional Building.
MILCON, ARMY GERMANY Stuttgart Commissary................ 40,000 40,000
MILCON, ARMY GERMANY Weisbaden Administrative Building... 43,000 43,000
MILCON, ARMY HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control 90,000 90,000
Facility, Incr 3.
MILCON, ARMY HAWAII Pohakuloa Training Operational Readiness 0 25,000 25,000
Area Training Complex
(Barracks).
MILCON, ARMY INDIANA Crane Army Ammunition Shipping and Receiving 24,000 24,000
Plant Building.
MILCON, ARMY KOREA Kunsan AB Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 53,000 53,000
Hangar.
MILCON, ARMY NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy Cemetery.................. 22,000 22,000
MILCON, ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson Reception Barracks 60,000 60,000
Complex, Ph1.
MILCON, ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA Shaw AFB Mission Training Complex.. 25,000 25,000
MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Camp Bullis Vehicle Maintenance Shop.. 13,600 13,600
MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Fort Hood Vehicle Maintenance Shop.. 0 33,000 33,000
MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Fort Hood, Texas Battalion Headquarters 37,000 37,000
Complex.
MILCON, ARMY TURKEY Turkey Various Forward Operating Site.... 6,400 6,400
MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Secure Admin/Operations 14,124 14,124
Facility, Incr 3.
MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- Aircraft Maintenance 34,000 34,000
Eustis Instructional Bldg.
MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Joint Base Myer- Security Fence............ 20,000 20,000
Henderson
MILCON, ARMY WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis- Confinement Facility...... 66,000 -66,000 0
Mcchord
MILCON, ARMY WASHINGTON Yakima Fire Station.............. 19,500 19,500
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 72,770 72,770
Locations
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Host Nation Support....... 28,700 28,700
Locations
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 31,500 31,500
Locations Construction.
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design.. 0 15,700 15,700
Locations
SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY 920,394 18,500 938,894
....................... ......................
MIL CON, NAVY
MIL CON, NAVY ARIZONA Yuma Enlisted Dining Facility & 36,358 36,358
Community Bldgs.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Barstow Combat Vehicle Repair 36,539 36,539
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, Ammunition Supply Point 61,139 61,139
California Upgrade.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Coronado P988 Undersea Rescue 0 36,000 36,000
Command (URC) Operations
Building.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore F/A 18 Avionics Repair 60,828 60,828
Facility Replacement.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Marine Corps Air F-35 Simulator Facility... 0 47,574 47,574
Station Miramar
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar Aircraft Maintenance 39,600 39,600
Hangar (INC 2).
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA San Diego P440 Pier 8 Replacement... 0 108,000 108,000
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Twentynine Palms, Potable Water Treatment/ 55,099 55,099
California Blending Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NSA Washington Washington Navy Yard AT/FP 60,000 -60,000 0
Land Acquisition.
MIL CON, NAVY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NSA Washington Electronics Science and 37,882 37,882
Technology Laboratory.
MIL CON, NAVY DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier, Aircraft Parking Apron 13,390 13,390
Djibouti Expansion.
MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport P426 Littoral Combat Ship 0 81,000 81,000
(LCS) Support Facility
(LSF).
MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport P427 Littoral Combat Ship 0 29,000 29,000
(LCS) Training Facility
(LTF).
MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport Missile Magazines......... 9,824 9,824
MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport Advanced Wastewater 74,994 74,994
Treatment Plant (AWWTP).
MIL CON, NAVY GEORGIA Marine Corps Logistics Combat Vehicle Warehouse.. 0 43,308 43,308
Base Albany
MIL CON, NAVY GREECE Souda Bay Strategic Aircraft Parking 22,045 22,045
Apron Expansion.
MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Water Well Field.......... 56,088 56,088
MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas MALS Facilities........... 49,431 49,431
MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Corrosion Control Hangar.. 66,747 66,747
MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Aircraft Maintenance 75,233 75,233
Hangar #2.
MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Navy-Commercial Tie-In 37,180 37,180
Hardening.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Sewer Lift Station & 73,200 73,200
Harbor-Hickam Relief Sewer Line.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay LHD Pad Conversions MV-22 19,012 19,012
Landing Pads.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Marine Corps Base Mokapu Gate Entry Control 0 26,492 26,492
Kaneohe Bay AT/FP Compliance.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Wahiawa Communications/Crypto 65,864 65,864
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Iwakuni KC130J Enlisted Aircrew 21,860 21,860
Trainer Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY MAINE Kittery Paint, Blast, and Rubber 61,692 61,692
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Water Treatment Plant 65,784 65,784
Carolina Replacement Hadnot Pt.
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 37,983 37,983
Carolina
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine F-35B Vertical Lift Fan 15,671 15,671
Corps Air Station Test Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Marine Corps Base Radio BN Complex, Phase 2. 0 64,292 64,292
Lejeune
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Dam Neck ISR Operations Facility 29,262 29,262
Expansion.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary ACU-4 Electrical Upgrades. 2,596 2,596
Base Little Creek--
Story
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Marine Corps Base TBS Fire Station Building 0 23,738 23,738
Quantico 533 Replacement.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Norfolk Chambers Field Magazine 34,665 34,665
Recap Ph 1.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Portsmouth Ship Repair Training 72,990 72,990
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Yorktown Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 36,358 36,358
MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Indian Island Missile Magazines......... 44,440 44,440
MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 23,842 23,842
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design.. 0 18,500 18,500
Locations
MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 219,069 9,000 228,069
Locations
SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY 1,616,665 426,904 2,043,569
....................... ......................
MILCON, AIR FORCE
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB Repair Central Heat/Power 41,000 41,000
Plant Boiler PH 4.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A OSS/Weapons/Intel 11,800 11,800
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A AGE Facility / 21,000 21,000
Fillstand.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A R-11 Fuel Truck 9,600 9,600
Shelter.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Satellite Dining 8,000 8,000
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Consolidated 27,000 27,000
Munitions Admin Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A ADAL Conventional 2,500 2,500
Munitions Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Extend Utiliduct to 48,000 48,000
South Loop.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ARKANSAS Little Rock AFB Dormitory - 168 PN........ 0 20,000 20,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE AUSTRALIA Darwin APR--Bulk Fuel Storage 76,000 76,000
Tanks.
MILCON, AIR FORCE COLORADO Buckley Air Force Base SBIRS Operations Facility. 38,000 38,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado 13 ASOS Expansion......... 13,000 13,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE COLORADO U.S. Air Force Academy Air Force CyberWorx....... 30,000 30,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: POL Capacity Phase II 0 4,700 4,700
MILCON, AIR FORCE ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: Tactical Fighter 0 9,200 9,200
Aircraft Parking Apron.
MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB Dormitories (288 RM)...... 0 44,000 44,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB F-35A Armament Research 8,700 8,700
Fac Addition (B614).
MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB Long-Range Stand-Off 38,000 38,000
Acquisition Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Macdill AFB KC-135 Beddown OG/MXG HQ.. 8,100 8,100
MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Tyndall AFB Fire/Crash Rescue Station. 0 17,000 17,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE GEORGIA Robins AFB Commercial Vehicle Visitor 9,800 9,800
Control Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Increase POL Storage 0 12,500 12,500
Capacity.
MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Construct Parallel 0 30,000 30,000
Taxiway.
MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Airfield Upgrades.... 0 12,900 12,900
MILCON, AIR FORCE ICELAND Keflavik ERI: Airfield Upgrades.... 0 14,400 14,400
MILCON, AIR FORCE ITALY Aviano AB Guardian Angel Operations 27,325 27,325
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE KANSAS Mcconnell AFB Combat Arms Facility...... 17,500 17,500
MILCON, AIR FORCE LATVIA Lielvarde Air Base ERI: Expand Strategic Ramp 0 3,850 3,850
Parking.
MILCON, AIR FORCE LUXEMBOURG Sanem ERI: ECAOS Deployable 0 67,400 67,400
Airbase System Storage.
MILCON, AIR FORCE MARIANA ISLANDS Tinian APR Land Acquisition...... 12,900 12,900
MILCON, AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews PAR Land Acquisition...... 17,500 17,500
MILCON, AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Presidential Aircraft 254,000 -196,000 58,000
Recap Complex.
MILCON, AIR FORCE MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB Vandenberg Gate Complex... 11,400 11,400
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB Red Flag 5th Gen Facility 23,000 23,000
Addition.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB Virtual Warfare Center 38,000 38,000
Operations Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Dangerous Cargo Pad 42,000 42,000
Relocate CATM.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB RPA Fixed Ground Control 4,250 4,250
Station Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Replace Fire Station 3.... 0 9,300 9,300
MILCON, AIR FORCE NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB Indoor Firing Range....... 27,000 27,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE NORWAY Rygge ERI: Replace/Expand Quick 0 10,300 10,300
Reaction Alert Pad.
MILCON, AIR FORCE OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB Fire/Crash Rescue Station. 0 6,800 6,800
MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Altus AFB Fire Rescue Center........ 0 16,000 16,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU Fuselage 4,900 4,900
Trainer Phase 2.
MILCON, AIR FORCE QATAR Al Udeid, Qatar Consolidated Squadron 15,000 15,000
Operations Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Upgrade Utilities 0 2,950 2,950
Infrastructure.
MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: Increase POL Storage 0 20,000 20,000
Capacity.
MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: Airfield Upgrades.... 0 4,000 4,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Sliac Airport ERI: Airfield Upgrades.... 0 22,000 22,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Camp Bullis Dining 18,500 18,500
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Air Traffic Control Tower. 10,000 10,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Recruit Dormitory 7... 90,130 90,130
MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Classrooms/Dining 38,000 38,000
Facility 4.
MILCON, AIR FORCE TURKEY Incirlik AB Dormitory--216 PN......... 25,997 25,997
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force EIC RC-135 Intel and Squad 38,000 38,000
Fairford Ops Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force EIC RC-135 Runway Overrun 5,500 5,500
Fairford Reconfiguration.
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force EIC RC-135 Infrastructure. 2,150 2,150
Fairford
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Consolidated Corrosion 20,000 20,000
Lakenheath Control Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A F-15 Parking........ 10,800 10,800
Lakenheath
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A Flight Simulator 22,000 22,000
Lakenheath Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A Field Training 12,492 12,492
Lakenheath Detachment Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A Infrastructure...... 6,700 6,700
Lakenheath
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A 6-Bay Hangar........ 24,000 24,000
Lakenheath
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A Squadron Operations 41,000 41,000
Lakenheath and AMU.
MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB UTTR Consolidated Mission 28,000 28,000
Control Center.
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide KC-46A Main Operating Base 269,000 -16,000 253,000
Locations 4.
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 0 56,400 56,400
Locations
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 97,852 97,852
Locations
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design.. 0 56,630 56,630
Locations
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 31,400 31,400
Locations Construction.
MILCON, AIR FORCE WYOMING F. E. Warren AFB Consolidated Helo/TRF Ops/ 62,000 62,000
AMU and Alert Fac.
SUBTOTAL MILCON, AIR FORCE 1,738,796 228,330 1,967,126
....................... ......................
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, SOF Marine Battalion 9,958 9,958
California Company/Team Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, SOF Motor Transport 7,284 7,284
California Facility Expansion.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, Ambulatory Care Center 26,400 26,400
California Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Basic Training Command 96,077 96,077
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF SEAL Team Ops Facility 66,218 66,218
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Logistics Support Unit 46,175 46,175
One Ops Fac. #3.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF SEAL Team Ops Facility 50,265 50,265
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE COLORADO Schriever AFB Ambulatory Care Center/ 10,200 10,200
Dental Add./Alt..
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location Battalion Complex, PH 1... 64,364 64,364
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Eglin AFB SOF Simulator Facility.... 5,000 5,000
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Eglin AFB Upgrade Open Storage Yard. 4,100 4,100
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF Simulator & Fuselage 11,700 11,700
Trainer Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF Combat Aircraft 34,700 34,700
Parking Apron.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GEORGIA Fort Gordon Blood Donor Center 10,350 10,350
Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Medical Center Replacement 106,700 106,700
Barracks Incr 7.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB Spangdahlem Elementary 79,141 79,141
School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Stuttgart Robinson Barracks Elem. 46,609 46,609
School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GREECE Souda Bay Construct Hydrant System.. 18,100 18,100
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GUAM Andersen AFB Construct Truck Load & 23,900 23,900
Unload Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE HAWAII Kunia NSAH Kunia Tunnel Entrance 5,000 5,000
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ITALY Sigonella Construct Hydrant System.. 22,400 22,400
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ITALY Vicenza Vicenza High School 62,406 62,406
Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Iwakuni Construct Bulk Storage 30,800 30,800
Tanks PH 1.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB SOF Special Tactics 27,573 27,573
Operations Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB SOF Maintenance Hangar.... 3,972 3,972
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Okinawa Replace Mooring System.... 11,900 11,900
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Sasebo Upgrade Fuel Wharf........ 45,600 45,600
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Torii Commo Station SOF Tactical Equipment 25,323 25,323
Maintenance Fac.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Hangar/Aircraft 12,034 12,034
Maintenance Unit.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Operations and Warehouse 8,590 8,590
Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Simulator Facility........ 2,189 2,189
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Airfield Apron............ 10,800 10,800
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Bethesda Naval Medical Center Addition/ 123,800 123,800
Hospital Alteration Incr 2.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building 313,968 313,968
#2 Incr 3.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood Hospital Replacement Ph 1. 250,000 -200,000 50,000
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood Blood Processing Center 11,941 11,941
Repalcement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MISSOURI St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) 381,000 -331,000 50,000
Complex Ph1.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF C-130 AGE Facility.... 8,228 8,228
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North SOF Human Performance 10,800 10,800
Carolina Training Center.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North SOF Motor Transport 20,539 20,539
Carolina Maintenance Expansion.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Ambulatory Care Center 15,300 15,300
Carolina Addition/Alteration.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Ambulatory Care Center/ 21,400 21,400
Carolina Dental Clinic.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Ambulatory Care Center/ 22,000 22,000
Carolina Dental Clinic.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Support Battalion 13,518 13,518
Admin Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Human Performance 20,260 20,260
Training Ctr.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Tactical Equipment 20,000 20,000
Maintenance Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Telecomm Reliability 4,000 4,000
Improvements.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB Construct Tanker Truck 20,000 20,000
Delivery System.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE PUERTO RICO Punta Borinquen Ramey Unit School 61,071 61,071
Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE SOUTH CAROLINA Shaw AFB Consolidate Fuel 22,900 22,900
Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE TEXAS Fort Bliss Blood Processing Center... 8,300 8,300
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE TEXAS Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement Incr 251,330 251,330
8.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE UNITED KINGDOM Menwith Hill Station RAFMH Main Gate 11,000 11,000
Rehabilitation.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE UTAH Hill AFB Replace POL Facilities.... 20,000 20,000
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary SOF SATEC Range Expansion. 23,000 23,000
Base Little Creek--
Story
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Norfolk Replace Hazardous 18,500 18,500
Materials Warehouse.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon Security Updates.......... 13,260 13,260
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon Pentagon Corr 8 Pedestrian 8,140 8,140
Access Control Pt.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon S.E. Safety Traffic and 28,700 28,700
Parking Improvements.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Portsmouth Replace Harardous 22,500 22,500
Materials Warehouse.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 8,000 8,000
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 26,147 26,147
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 39,746 39,746
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 7,384 7,384
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design.. 0 1,900 1,900
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 1,150 1,150
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 23,012 23,012
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 2,039 2,039
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Energy Resilience and 150,000 26,500 176,500
Locations Conserv. Invest. Prog..
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Contingency Construction.. 10,000 10,000
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 13,500 13,500
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERCIP Design.............. 10,000 10,000
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 20,000 20,000
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 40,220 40,220
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 10,000 10,000
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Exercise Related Minor 11,490 11,490
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 0 1,150 1,150
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 1,942 1,942
Locations
SUBTOTAL MIL CON, DEF-WIDE 3,114,913 -501,450 2,613,463
....................... ......................
MILCON, ARNG
MILCON, ARNG DELAWARE New Castle Combined Support 36,000 36,000
Maintenance Shop.
MILCON, ARNG IDAHO Mission Training Enlisted Barracks, 0 9,000 9,000
Center Gowen Transient Training.
MILCON, ARNG IDAHO Orchard Trainig Area Digital Air/Ground 22,000 22,000
Integration Range.
MILCON, ARNG IOWA Camp Dodge Vehicle Maintenance 0 8,500 8,500
Instructional Facility.
MILCON, ARNG KANSAS Fort Leavenworth Enlisted Barracks, 0 19,000 19,000
Transient Training.
MILCON, ARNG MAINE Presque Isle National Guard Readiness 17,500 17,500
Center.
MILCON, ARNG MARYLAND Sykesville National Guard Readiness 19,000 19,000
Center.
MILCON, ARNG MINNESOTA Arden Hills National Guard Readiness 39,000 39,000
Center.
MILCON, ARNG MISSOURI Springfield Aircraft Maintenance 0 32,000 32,000
Hangar (Addition).
MILCON, ARNG NEW MEXICO Las Cruces National Guard Readiness 8,600 8,600
Center Addition.
MILCON, ARNG VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir National Guard Readiness 0 15,000 15,000
Center.
MILCON, ARNG VIRGINIA Fort Pickett Training Aids Center...... 4,550 4,550
MILCON, ARNG WASHINGTON Tumwater National Guard Readiness 31,000 31,000
Center.
MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 16,731 16,731
Locations Construction.
MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 16,271 16,271
Locations
SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARNG 210,652 83,500 294,152
....................... ......................
MILCON, ANG
MILCON, ANG CALIFORNIA March AFB TFI Construct RPA Flight 15,000 15,000
Training Unit.
MILCON, ANG COLORADO Peterson AFB Space Control Facility.... 8,000 8,000
MILCON, ANG CONNECTICUT Bradley IAP Construct Base Entry 7,000 7,000
Complex.
MILCON, ANG INDIANA Hulman Regional Construct Small Arms Range 0 8,000 8,000
Airport
MILCON, ANG KENTUCKY Louisville IAP Add/Alter Response Forces 9,000 9,000
Facility.
MILCON, ANG MISSISSIPPI Jackson International Construct Small Arms Range 0 8,000 8,000
Airport
MILCON, ANG MISSOURI Rosecrans Memorial Replace Communications 10,000 10,000
Airport Facility.
MILCON, ANG NEW YORK Hancock Field Add To Flight Training 6,800 6,800
Unit, Building 641.
MILCON, ANG OHIO Toledo Express Airport NORTHCOM--Construct Alert 15,000 15,000
Hangar.
MILCON, ANG OKLAHOMA Tulsa International Construct Small Arms Range 0 8,000 8,000
Airport
MILCON, ANG OREGON Klamath Falls IAP Construct Corrosion 10,500 10,500
Control Hangar.
MILCON, ANG OREGON Klamath Falls IAP Construct Indoor Range.... 8,000 8,000
MILCON, ANG SOUTH DAKOTA Joe Foss Field Aircraft Maintenance Shops 12,000 12,000
MILCON, ANG TENNESSEE McGhee-Tyson Airport Replace KC-135 Maintenance 25,000 25,000
Hangar and Shops.
MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 0 2,000 2,000
Locations
MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 18,000 18,000
Locations
MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 17,191 17,191
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL MILCON, ANG 161,491 26,000 187,491
....................... ......................
MILCON, ARMY R
MILCON, ARMY R CALIFORNIA Fallbrook Army Reserve Center....... 36,000 36,000
MILCON, ARMY R DELAWARE Newark Army Reserve Center....... 0 19,500 19,500
MILCON, ARMY R OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB Area Maintenance Support 0 9,100 9,100
Activity.
MILCON, ARMY R PUERTO RICO Aguadilla Army Reserve Center....... 12,400 12,400
MILCON, ARMY R WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis- Army Reserve Center....... 0 30,000 30,000
McChord
MILCON, ARMY R WISCONSIN Fort McCoy AT/MOB Dining Facility- 13,000 13,000
1428 PN.
MILCON, ARMY R WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 6,887 6,887
Locations
MILCON, ARMY R WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 5,425 5,425
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY R 73,712 58,600 132,312
....................... ......................
MIL CON, NAVY RES
MIL CON, NAVY RES CALIFORNIA Lemoore Naval Operational Support 17,330 17,330
Center Lemoore.
MIL CON, NAVY RES GEORGIA Fort Gordon Naval Operational Support 17,797 17,797
Center Fort Gordon.
MIL CON, NAVY RES NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-Dix- Aircraft Apron, Taxiway & 11,573 11,573
Lakehurst Support Facilities.
MIL CON, NAVY RES TEXAS Fort Worth KC130-J EACTS Facility.... 12,637 12,637
MIL CON, NAVY RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 1,504 1,504
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, NAVY RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 4,430 4,430
Locations
SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY RES 65,271 0 65,271
....................... ......................
MILCON, AF RES
MILCON, AF RES FLORIDA Patrick AFB Guardian Angel Facility... 25,000 25,000
MILCON, AF RES GEORGIA Robins AFB Consolidated Mission 0 32,000 32,000
Complex Phase 2.
MILCON, AF RES GUAM Joint Region Marianas Reserve Medical Training 5,200 5,200
Facility.
MILCON, AF RES HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Consolidated Training 5,500 5,500
Harbor-Hickam Facility.
MILCON, AF RES MASSACHUSETTS Westover ARB Indoor Small Arms Range... 10,000 10,000
MILCON, AF RES MASSACHUSETTS Westover ARB Maintenance Facility Shops 0 51,100 51,100
MILCON, AF RES MINNESOTA Minneapolis-St Paul Indoor Small Arms Range... 0 9,000 9,000
IAP
MILCON, AF RES NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC-46A ADAL for Alt 6,400 6,400
Mission Storage.
MILCON, AF RES TEXAS NAS JRB Fort Worth Munitions Training/Admin 0 3,100 3,100
Facility.
MILCON, AF RES UTAH Hill AFB Add/Alter Life Support 3,100 3,100
Facility.
MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 0 13,500 13,500
Locations
MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 4,725 4,725
Locations
MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,610 3,610
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL MILCON, AF RES 63,535 108,700 172,235
....................... ......................
NATO SEC INV PRGM
NATO SEC INV PRGM WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Nato Security Nato Security Investment 154,000 154,000
Investment Program Program.
SUBTOTAL NATO SEC INV PRGM 154,000 0 154,000
....................... ......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 8,119,429 449,084 8,568,513
....................... ......................
FAMILY HOUSING
FAM HSG CON, ARMY
FAM HSG CON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Family Housing New 6,100 6,100
Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY GERMANY Baumholder Construction Improvements. 34,156 34,156
FAM HSG CON, ARMY GERMANY South Camp Vilseck Family Housing New 22,445 22,445
Construction (36 units).
FAM HSG CON, ARMY KOREA Camp Humphreys Family Housing New 34,402 34,402
Construction Incr 2.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY KWAJALEIN Kwajalein Atoll Family Housing Replacement 31,000 -31,000 0
Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY MASSACHUSETTS Natick Family Housing Replacement 21,000 21,000
Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 33,559 33,559
Locations
SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, ARMY 182,662 -31,000 151,662
....................... ......................
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 37,089 37,089
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 8,930 8,930
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 12,816 12,816
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous............. 400 400
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 57,708 57,708
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 60,251 60,251
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 148,538 148,538
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privitization 20,893 20,893
Locations Support.
SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, ARMY 346,625 0 346,625
....................... ......................
FAM HSG CON, N/MC
FAM HSG CON, N/MC BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Construct On-Base GFOQ.... 2,138 2,138
FAM HSG CON, N/MC MARIANA ISLANDS Guam Replace Andersen Housing 40,875 -40,875 0
PH II.
FAM HSG CON, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Construction Improvements. 36,251 36,251
Locations
FAM HSG CON, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 4,418 4,418
Locations
SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, N/MC 83,682 -40,875 42,807
....................... ......................
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 62,167 62,167
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 14,529 14,529
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 50,989 50,989
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous............. 336 336
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 15,649 15,649
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 61,921 61,921
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 95,104 95,104
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization 27,587 27,587
Locations Support.
SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, N/MC 328,282 0 328,282
....................... ......................
FAM HSG CON, AF
FAM HSG CON, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Construction Improvements. 80,617 80,617
Locations
FAM HSG CON, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 4,445 4,445
Locations
SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, AF 85,062 0 85,062
....................... ......................
FAM HSG O&M, AF
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization..... 21,569 21,569
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 47,504 47,504
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 53,464 53,464
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 13,517 13,517
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 29,424 29,424
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous............. 1,839 1,839
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 16,818 16,818
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 134,189 134,189
Locations
SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, AF 318,324 0 318,324
....................... ......................
FAM HSG O&M, DW
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 4,100 4,100
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 407 407
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 268 268
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 12,390 12,390
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 655 655
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 641 641
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 39,716 39,716
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 6 6
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 14 14
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 86 86
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 567 567
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 319 319
Locations
SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, DW 59,169 0 59,169
....................... ......................
FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND
FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Administrative Expenses-- 2,726 2,726
Locations FHIF.
SUBTOTAL FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND 2,726 0 2,726
....................... ......................
TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING 1,406,532 -71,875 1,334,657
....................... ......................
DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
DOD BRAC--ARMY
DOD BRAC--ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Base Realignment and 58,000 58,000
Closure, Army Closure.
SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC--ARMY 58,000 0 58,000
....................... ......................
DOD BRAC--NAVY
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Base Realignment & Closure 93,474 93,474
Closure, Navy
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-172: NWS Seal Beach, 5,355 5,355
Locations Concord, CA.
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-138: NAS Brunswick, ME 647 647
Locations
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-157: MCSA Kansas City, 40 40
Locations MO.
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-84: JRB Willow Grove & 4,737 4,737
Locations Cambria Reg AP.
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Undistributed............. 7,210 7,210
Locations
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-100: Planing, Design 8,428 8,428
Locations and Management.
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-101: Various Locations 23,753 23,753
Locations
SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC--NAVY 143,644 0 143,644
....................... ......................
DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE
DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DoD BRAC Activities--Air 54,223 54,223
Locations Force.
SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE 54,223 0 54,223
....................... ......................
TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 255,867 255,867
....................... ......................
UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND
UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND
UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unaccompanied Housing Administrative Expenses-- 623 623
Improvement Fund UHIF.
SUBTOTAL UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND 623 0 623
....................... ......................
TOTAL UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND 623 623
....................... ......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC 9,782,451 377,209 10,159,660
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Senate
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request Senate Change Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
MILCON, ARMY
MILCON, ARMY GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay OCO: Barracks............. 115,000 115,000
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design.. 15,700 -15,700 0
Locations
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide OCO: Planning and Design.. 9,000 9,000
Locations
SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY 139,700 -15,700 124,000
....................... ......................
MIL CON, NAVY
MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design.. 18,500 -18,500 0
Locations
SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY 18,500 -18,500
....................... ......................
MILCON, AIR FORCE
MILCON, AIR FORCE ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: POL Capacity Phase II 4,700 -4,700 0
MILCON, AIR FORCE ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: Tactical Fighter 9,200 -9,200 0
Aircraft Parking Apron.
MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Increase POL Storage 12,500 -12,500 0
Capacity.
MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Construct Parallel 30,000 -30,000 0
Taxiway.
MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Airfield Upgrades.... 12,900 -12,900 0
MILCON, AIR FORCE ICELAND Keflavik ERI: Airfield Upgrades.... 14,400 -14,400 0
MILCON, AIR FORCE JORDAN Azraq OCO: MSAB Development..... 143,000 143,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE LATVIA Lielvarde Air Base ERI: Expand Strategic Ramp 3,850 -3,850 0
Parking.
MILCON, AIR FORCE LUXEMBOURG Sanem ERI: ECAOS Deployable 67,400 -67,400 0
Airbase System Storage.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NORWAY Rygge ERI: Replace/Expand Quick 10,300 -10,300 0
Reaction Alert Pad.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Upgrade Utilities 2,950 -2,950 0
Infrastructure.
MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: Increase POL Storage 20,000 -20,000 0
Capacity.
MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: Airfield Upgrades.... 4,000 -4,000 0
MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Sliac Airport ERI: Airfield Upgrades.... 22,000 -22,000 0
MILCON, AIR FORCE TURKEY Incirlik AB OCO: Replace Perimeter 8,100 8,100
Fence.
MILCON, AIR FORCE TURKEY Incirlik AB OCO: Relocate Base Main 14,600 14,600
Access Control Point.
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design.. 56,630 -56,630 0
Locations
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide OCO--Planning and Design.. 41,500 41,500
Locations
SUBTOTAL MILCON, AIR FORCE 478,030 -270,830 207,200
....................... ......................
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: Planning and Design.. 1,900 -1,900 0
Locations
SUBTOTAL MIL CON, DEF-WIDE 1,900 -1,900
....................... ......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 638,130 -306,930 331,200
....................... ......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC 638,130 -306,930 331,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2018 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary by Appropriation
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Nuclear energy...................................... 133,000 0 133,000
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Weapons activities................................ 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 1,793,310 250,297 2,043,607
Naval reactors.................................... 1,479,751 38,000 1,517,751
Federal Salaries and Expenses..................... 418,595 0 418,595
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 13,931,000 561,897 14,492,897
Environmental and other defense activities:
Other defense activities.......................... 815,512 0 815,512
Defense nuclear waste disposal.................... 30,000 0 30,000
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 845,512 0 845,512
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 14,776,512 561,897 15,338,409
Subtotal, Energy And Water Development and Related 14,909,512 561,897 15,471,409
Agencies...............................................
Defense EM funded..................................... 5,537,186 0 5,537,186
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution............ 0 0 0
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 20,446,698 561,897 21,008,595
Nuclear Energy
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................. 133,000 133,000
Total, Nuclear Energy..................................... 133,000 0 133,000
Defense (050) function.....................(non-add)...... ( 133,000) -133,000
Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs and major alterations
B61 Life extension program.......................... 788,572 788,572
W76 Life extension program.......................... 224,134 224,134
W88 Alt 370......................................... 0 0
W88 Alteration program.............................. 332,292 332,292
W80-4 Life extension program........................ 399,090 399,090
Total, Life extension programs and major alterations.. 1,744,088 0 1,744,088
Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 59,729 59,729
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 51,400 51,400
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 60,100 60,100
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 80,087 80,087
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 35,762 35,762
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 83,200 83,200
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 131,576 131,576
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 501,854 0 501,854
Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 52,000 52,000
Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 470,400 470,400
Research and development support.................... 31,150 31,150
R&D certification and safety........................ 196,840 20,900 217,740
Program increase for technology maturation.... [20,900]
Management, technology, and production.............. 285,400 285,400
Total, Stockpile services............................. 983,790 20,900 1,004,690
Strategic materials
Uranium sustainment................................. 20,579 20,579
Plutonium sustainment............................... 210,367 210,367
Tritium sustainment................................. 198,152 198,152
Domestic uranium enrichment......................... 60,000 60,000
Strategic materials sustainment..................... 206,196 206,196
Total, Strategic materials............................ 695,294 0 695,294
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 3,977,026 20,900 3,997,926
Research, development, test evaluation (RDT&E)
Science
Advanced certification.............................. 57,710 57,710
Primary assessment technologies..................... 89,313 89,313
Dynamic materials properties........................ 122,347 122,347
Advanced radiography................................ 37,600 37,600
Secondary assessment technologies................... 76,833 76,833
Academic alliances and partnerships................. 52,963 52,963
Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments... 50,755 15,000 65,755
Radiography project completion................ [15,000]
Total, Science........................................ 487,521 15,000 502,521
Engineering
Enhanced surety..................................... 39,717 12,300 52,017
Program increase for technology maturation.... [12,300]
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 23,029 23,029
Nuclear survivability............................... 45,230 45,230
Enhanced surveillance............................... 45,147 45,147
Stockpile Responsiveness............................ 40,000 10,000 50,000
Program increase.............................. [10,000]
Total, Engineering.................................... 193,123 22,300 215,423
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
Ignition............................................ 79,575 79,575
Support of other stockpile programs................. 23,565 23,565
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 77,915 77,915
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 7,596 7,596
Joint program in high energy density laboratory 9,492 9,492
plasmas............................................
Facility operations and target production........... 334,791 12,000 346,791
Support increased shot rates.................. [12,000]
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield..... 532,934 12,000 544,934
Advanced simulation and computing
Advanced simulation and computing................... 709,244 709,244
Construction:
18-D-670, Exascale Class Computer Cooling 22,000 22,000
Equipment, LNL...................................
18-D-620, Exascale Computing Facility 3,000 3,000
Modernization Project............................
Total, Construction................................. 25,000 0 25,000
Total, Advanced simulation and computing.............. 734,244 0 734,244
Advanced manufacturing development
Additive manufacturing.............................. 12,000 12,000 24,000
Program increase for research and [12,000]
infrastructure...............................
Component manufacturing development................. 38,644 36,400 75,044
Improve production efficiency................. [36,400]
Process technology development...................... 29,896 29,896
Total, Advanced manufacturing development............. 80,540 48,400 128,940
Total, RDT&E............................................ 2,028,362 97,700 2,126,062
Infrastructure and operations
Operating
Operations of facilities
Operations of facilities.......................... 868,000 868,000
Kansas City National Security Campus.............. 0 0
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory............ 0 0
Los Alamos National Laboratory.................... 0 0
Nevada National Security Site..................... 0 0
Pantex............................................ 0 0
Sandia National Laboratories...................... 0 0
Savannah River Site............................... 0 0
Y-12 National security complex.................... 0 0
Total, Operations of facilities..................... 868,000 0 868,000
Safety and environmental operations................. 116,000 116,000
Maintenance and repair of facilities................ 360,000 50,000 410,000
Reduce deferred maintenance backlog........... [50,000]
Recapitalization.................................... 427,342 100,000 527,342
Reduce deferred maintenance backlog........... [100,000]
Construction:
18-D-660, Fire Station, Y-12........................ 28,000 28,000
18-D-650, Tritium Production Capability, SRS........ 6,800 6,800
17-D-640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS.... 22,100 22,100
17-D-630, Expand Electrical Distribution System, 6,000 6,000
LLNL...............................................
17-D-126, PF-4 reconfiguration project, LANL........ 0 0
17-D-125, RLOUB reconfiguration project, LANL....... 0 0
16-D-621 TA-3 substation replacement, LANL.......... 0 0
16-D-515 Albuquerque complex project................ 98,000 98,000
15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12.......... 7,000 7,000
15-D-302, TA-55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL. 0 0
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL... 0 0
07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility 2,100 2,100
upgrade project, LANL..............................
07-D-220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL. 17,895 17,895
06-D-141 Uranium processing facility Y-12, Oak 663,000 663,000
Ridge, TN..........................................
Chemistry and metallurgy replacement (CMRR)
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy research 180,900 180,900
facility replacement project, LANL...............
04-D-125--04 RLUOB equipment installation......... 0 0
04-D-125--05 PF -4 equipment installation......... 0 0
Total, Chemistry and metallurgy replacement (CMRR).. 180,900 0 180,900
Total, Construction................................... 1,031,795 0 1,031,795
Total, Infrastructure and operations.................... 2,803,137 150,000 2,953,137
Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 219,464 219,464
Program direction..................................... 105,600 105,600
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 325,064 0 325,064
Defense nuclear security
Operations and maintenance............................ 686,977 5,000 691,977
Reduce deferred maintenance backlog............. [5,000]
Security improvements program......................... 0 0
Construction:
17-D-710 West end protected area reduction project, 0 0
Y-12...............................................
14-D-710 Device assembly facility argus installation 0 0
project, NNSS, NV..................................
Total, Defense nuclear security......................... 686,977 5,000 691,977
Information technology and cybersecurity................ 186,728 186,728
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 232,050 232,050
Subtotal, Weapons activities.............................. 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944
Adjustments
Use of prior year balances............................ 0 0
Subtotal, Weapons activities.............................. 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944
Rescission
Rescission of prior year balances..................... 0 0
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
Global material security
International nuclear security...................... 46,339 20,000 66,339
Enhanced nuclear security..................... [20,000]
Radiological security............................... 146,340 20,000 166,340
Protection and safe disposal of radioactive [20,000]
sources......................................
Domestic radiologic security........................ 0 0
International radiologic security................... 0 0
Nuclear smuggling detection......................... 144,429 60,000 204,429
Radiation detection........................... [60,000]
Total, Global material security....................... 337,108 100,000 437,108
Material management and minimization
HEU reactor conversion.............................. 125,500 125,500
Nuclear material removal............................ 32,925 32,925
Material disposition................................ 173,669 173,669
Total, Material management & minimization............. 332,094 0 332,094
Nonproliferation and arms control..................... 129,703 70,297 200,000
Verification.................................... [70,297]
Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D.................. 446,095 446,095
Nonproliferation construction
U. S. Construction:
18-D-150 Surplus Plutonium Disposition Project.... 9,000 9,000
99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 270,000 80,000 350,000
Facility, SRS....................................
Increase to continue construction of MOX.... [80,000]
Total, Nonproliferation construction................ 279,000 80,000 359,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........ 1,524,000 250,297 1,774,297
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 40,950 40,950
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program.. 277,360 277,360
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................ 1,842,310 250,297 2,092,607
Adjustments
Use of prior year balances............................ 0 0
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................ 1,842,310 250,297 2,092,607
Rescission.............................................. 0
Rescission of prior year balances..................... -49,000 -49,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,793,310 250,297 2,043,607
Naval Reactors
Naval reactors development.............................. 473,267 473,267
Ohio replacement reactor systems development............ 0 0
Columbia-Class reactor systems development.............. 156,700 156,700
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 190,000 190,000
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 466,884 38,000 504,884
Reduce deferred maintenance backlog............... [38,000]
Construction:........................................... 0
17-D-911, BL Fire System Upgrade...................... 0 0
15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3............. 13,700 13,700
15-D-903 KL Fire System Upgrade....................... 15,000 15,000
15-D-902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility.......... 0 0
14-D-902 KL Materials characterization laboratory 0 0
expansion, KAPL......................................
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, 116,000 116,000
NRF..................................................
10-D-903, Security upgrades, KS....................... 0 0
Total, Construction..................................... 144,700 0 144,700
Program direction....................................... 48,200 48,200
Subtotal, Naval Reactors.................................. 1,479,751 38,000 1,517,751
Rescission
Rescission of prior year balances..................... 0 0
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,479,751 38,000 1,517,751
Federal Salaries and Expenses
Program direction....................................... 418,595 418,595
Rescission......................................... 0 0
Total, Federal Salaries and Expenses...................... 418,595 0 418,595
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......... 58,692 58,692
Central plateau remediation:
Central plateau remediation......................... 637,879 637,879
Richland community and regulatory support............. 5,121 5,121
Construction
18-D-404 WESF Modifications and Capsule Storage..... 6,500 6,500
15-D-401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL..... 8,000 8,000
Total, Construction................................... 14,500 14,500
Total, Hanford site..................................... 716,192 716,192
Idaho National Laboratory:
SNF stabilization and disposition--2012............... 19,975 19,975
Solid waste stabilization and disposition............. 170,101 170,101
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 111,352 111,352
disposition..........................................
Soil and water remediation--2035...................... 44,727 44,727
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 4,071 4,071
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 350,226 350,226
NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,175 1,175
Nuclear facility D&D Separations Process Research Unit 1,800 1,800
Nevada................................................ 60,136 60,136
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 2,600 2,600
Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 191,629 191,629
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 257,340 257,340
Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D & D
OR-0041--D&D - Y-12................................. 29,369 29,369
OR-0042--D&D -ORNL.................................. 48,110 48,110
Construction
17-D-401 On-site waste disposal facility.......... 5,000 5,000
14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility... 17,100 17,100
Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D...................... 99,579 99,579
U233 Disposition Program.............................. 33,784 33,784
OR cleanup and disposition
OR cleanup and disposition.......................... 66,632 66,632
OR community & regulatory support..................... 4,605 4,605
Solid waste stabilization and disposition
Oak Ridge technology development.................... 3,000 3,000
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 207,600 207,600
Office of River Protection:
Waste treatment and immobilization plant
Construction:
01-D-416 A-D WTP Subprojects A-D................. 655,000 655,000
01-D-416 E--Pretreatment Facility................ 35,000 35,000
Total, 01-D-416 Construction..................... 690,000 690,000
WTP Commissioning................................ 8,000 8,000
Total, Waste treatment & immobilization plant......... 698,000 698,000
Tank farm activities
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. 713,311 713,311
Construction:
15-D-409 Low activity waste pretreatment system, 93,000 93,000
ORP..............................................
Total, Tank farm activities........................... 806,311 806,311
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,504,311 1,504,311
Savannah River Sites:
Savannah River risk management operations:
Nuclear material stabilization and disposition...... 0 0
SNF stabilization and disposition................... 0 0
Soil and water remediation-2035..................... 0 0
Solid waste stabilization and disposition........... 0 0
Total, Savannah River risk management operations...... 0 0
Nuclear Material Management
Nuclear Material Management....................... 323,482 323,482
Environmental Cleanup
Environmental Cleanup............................ 159,478 159,478
Construction:
08-D-402, Emergency Operations Center............. 500 500
Total, Environmental Cleanup.......................... 159,978 159,978
SR community and regulatory support................... 11,249 11,249
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 597,258 597,258
disposition........................................
Construction:
18-D-401, SDU #8/9................................ 500 500
17-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #7.............. 40,000 40,000
15-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #6, SRS......... 0 0
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 150,000 150,000
River Site.......................................
Total, Savannah River Site.............................. 1,282,467 1,282,467
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Operations and maintenance............................ 206,617 206,617
Recovery activities................................... 0 0
Central characterization project...................... 22,500 22,500
Transportation........................................ 21,854 21,854
Construction:
15-D-411 Safety significant confinement ventilation 46,000 46,000
system, WIPP.......................................
15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP........................ 19,600 19,600
Total, Construction................................... 65,600 65,600
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...................... 316,571 316,571
Program direction....................................... 300,000 300,000
Program support......................................... 6,979 6,979
WCF Mission Related Activities.......................... 22,109 22,109
Minority Serving Institution Partnership................ 6,000 6,000
Safeguards and Security:
Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 16,500 16,500
Paducah............................................... 14,049 14,049
Portsmouth............................................ 12,713 12,713
Richland/Hanford Site................................. 75,600 75,600
Savannah River Site................................... 142,314 142,314
Waste Isolation Pilot Project......................... 5,200 5,200
West Valley........................................... 2,784 2,784
Total, Safeguards and Security.......................... 269,160 269,160
Cyber Security.......................................... 43,342 43,342
Technology development.................................. 25,000 25,000
HQEF-0040--Excess Facilities............................ 225,000 225,000
CB-0101 Economic assistance to the state of NM.......... 0 0
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup................... 5,537,186 5,537,186
Rescission:
Rescission of prior year balances..................... 0
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,537,186 5,537,186
Other Defense Activities
Environment, health, safety and security
Environment, health, safety and security.............. 130,693 130,693
Program direction..................................... 68,765 68,765
Total, Environment, Health, safety and security......... 199,458 0 199,458
Independent enterprise assessments
Independent enterprise assessments.................... 24,068 24,068
Program direction..................................... 50,863 50,863
Total, Independent enterprise assessments............... 74,931 0 74,931
Specialized security activities......................... 237,912 237,912
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 137,674 137,674
Program direction..................................... 16,932 16,932
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 154,606 0 154,606
Defense related administrative support
Chief financial officer............................... 48,484 48,484
Chief information officer............................. 91,443 91,443
Management............................................ 0 0
Project management oversight and Assessments.......... 3,073 3,073
Total, Defense related administrative support........... 143,000 0 143,000
Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 5,605 5,605
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 815,512 0 815,512
Rescission:
Rescission of prior year balances (LM)................ 0 0
Rescission of prior year balances (EHS&S)............. 0 0
Rescission of prior year balances (OHA)............... 0 0
Rescission of prior year balances (SSA)............... 0 0
Rescission of prior year balances (EA)................ 0 0
Rescission of prior year balances (ESA)............... 0 0
Total, Rescission....................................... 0 0 0
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 815,512 0 815,512
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Yucca mountain and interim storage...................... 30,000 30,000
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund
Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Contribution................ 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Departmental Recommendations
One legislative proposal on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 was submitted as an
executive communication to the President of the Senate by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the
Department of Defense and subsequently referred to the
committee. Information on this executive communications appears
below. This executive communication is available for review at
the committee.
Executive Communication No. EC-1677
Dated June 6, 2017
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on June 6, 2017
Committee Action
The committee vote to report the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 passed by roll call
vote, 27-0, as follows: In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe,
Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan,
Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, Strange, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
The other 7 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 2018 in closed
session because of classified and proprietary information
expected to be discussed.
Passed by roll call vote 18-9
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Graham, Sasse,
Strange, Reed, Nelson, Donnelly, Hirono, and King
Opposed: Senators Cruz, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Kaine, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
2. MOTION: To include a provision that would vest in the
Chief of Staff of each of the Armed Forces the responsibility
for establishing, approving, and modifying the criteria,
standards, and qualifications for military specialty codes
within that Armed Force.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15-12
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse,
Strange, and King
Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, Heinrich,
Warren, and Peters
3. MOTION: To include a provision that would remove
Department of Defense exemptions from Program and Program
Management requirements in Section 503(c) of title 31, United
States Code, and Program Improvement Management Officer
requirements in Section 1123(a)(3) of title 31, United States
Code.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-17
In favor: Senators Ernst, Perdue, Cruz, McCaskill,
Gillibrand, Donnelly, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Sasse, Strange, Reed, Nelson,
Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono, and Kaine
4. MOTION: To include a provision that would allow each
secretary of a military department to transfer funds designated
for military museums to the World War I Centennial Commission.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-14
In favor: Senators Cruz, Strange, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine,
Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Graham, Sasse, King,
and Heinrich
5. MOTION: To include a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to reestablish port of call exchanges
between the United States and Taiwan.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 21-6
In Favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse,
Strange, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Heinrich, and Peters
Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Hirono, Kaine, King, and
Warren
6. MOTION: To strike the portions of a provision that would
allow the Department of Defense to conduct all personnel
background and security investigations adjudicated by the
Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Department.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 9-18
In favor: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse,
Strange, Reed, Nelson, Donnelly, and Heinrich
7. MOTION: To include a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the oversight of
Department of Defense assistance for the Lebanese Armed Forces
and the Lebanese Internal Security Forces.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 8-19
In favor: Senators Cotton, Ernst, Perdue, Cruz, Sasse,
Donnelly, Kaine, and King
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds,
Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Strange, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Heinrich, Warren, and
Peters
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 2018.
Changes in Existing Laws
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. ROUNDS
I strongly support the National Defense Authorization Act
reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I commend
Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their outstanding
bipartisan cooperation in once again moving this crucial bill
to the full Senate. However, I strongly oppose a section of the
bill that would adversely affect my constituents who are
military retirees as well as those in many other states. These
retirees may be disproportionately and unfairly impacted by
increases in TRICARE prescription drug copay increases in the
bill. Specifically, provisions in this bill would increase
cost-sharing amounts for the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program
for years 2018 through 2026.
The committee report does not state the rationale for these
increases. Such increases in the Senate passed NDAA 2017, which
fortunately did not survive conference, had the stated
rationale that the increases would generate savings which could
be used to improve health outcomes and the experience of care
for beneficiaries of the military health system. I fully
support improving care for beneficiaries of the military health
system. However, increased TRICARE pharmacy copays must be
carefully considered to make certain that they do not
disproportionately impact one part of the beneficiary
population. Unfortunately that would be the case for South
Dakota and other largely rural states with large military
retiree populations that live too far from Military Treatment
Facilities to draw free prescriptions available there. Instead,
these military retirees and their families are compelled to use
the TRICARE mail order system or retail pharmacies and in both
cases, they would have to pay higher copays.
For example, the copay for a generic drug ordered through
the TRICARE mail order system would increase by $10 dollars in
Fiscal Year 2018. While this does not seem like a lot of money,
these costs can add up rapidly if a military retiree and his or
her family members are required to make multiple copays for
multiple prescriptions every month.
Simply put--our military retirees who live distant from a
Military Treatment Facility should not be unfairly forced to
pay higher copays on prescription drugs just because of where
they choose to live.
Mike Rounds.
[all]