prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: Beginning the summer 2013 through 2016, there were numerous reports in the media on sexual assault incidents in the U S  armed services  In many cases, such reports were followed by questions on what actions were taken by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Obama Administration, and Congress to address the issue  This report lists a comprehensive chronology of official activities in response to incidents of military sexual assault, as well as legislative action on the issue  The report is divided into three sections: the DOD and the Obama Administration's actions, congressional action, and legislation in the 113 th (2013-2014) and 114 th (2015-2016) Congresses  Also included is a resources section with related articles, hearings, and reports  Information in this report was compiled from the official government websites of DOD, the Obama White House and Congress gov for historical background and will not be updated  June 13, 2012 – DOD announced Army Major General Gary S  Patton as the new director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO)  September 25, 2012 – As part of the DOD's efforts to confront the crime of sexual assault in the military, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced improvements to prospective commander and senior enlisted training and a review of the initial military training environment in every service  December 21, 2012 – DOD released key findings from the Academic Program Year (APY) 2011-2012 Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the United States Military Service Academies  According to this report, the overall prevalence rate of unwanted sexual contact increased in all three military academies  From 2011 to 2012, the Air Force Academy in Colorado showed the largest increase in reported sexual assaults from 33 to 52 incidents  Sexual assaults at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, increased from 11 to 15, and were up at the U S  Military Academy in West Point, NY, from 10 to 13  January 18, 2013 – DOD announced the release of the 2012 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Reserve Component Members   This report included rates of unwanted sexual contact, unwanted gender-related behaviors (i e , sexual harassment and sexist behavior), and gender discriminatory behaviors and sex discrimination reported by survey respondents during the past 12 months  March 7, 2013 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in a letter responding to Members of Congress, wrote that an internal review was being conducted of a decision by a senior Air Force commander, Lt  Gen  Craig Franklin, to overturn the sexual assault conviction of an Air Force fighter pilot, Lt  Col  James Wilkerson  Colonel Wilkerson was found guilty in November 2012 of aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to one year in military prison  Lt  General Franklin's decision to overturn the findings of the court-martial freed Colonel Wilkerson, and allowed him to be reinstated in the Air Force  In his letter, Hagel said that while General Franklin's decision could not be overturned, he had asked Pentagon lawyers and the Secretary of the Air Force to review the way in which General Franklin decided the case  He also said he wanted a review of whether the military should change the way it handles sexual assault cases  April 2, 2013 – Secretary Chuck Hagel stated in a message to all DOD personnel on Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month that, "Together, we must work every day to instill a climate that does not tolerate or ignore sexist behavior, sexual harassment, or sexual assault  These have no place in the United States military and violate everything we stand for and the values we defend " April 8, 2013 – Secretary Hagel announced that DOD's Office of General Counsel will review Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) after an Air Force officer's court-martial conviction for sexual assault was dismissed using the authority provided by Article 60  May 6, 2013 – The Office of the Secretary of Defense released a 24-page memorandum from Secretary Hagel to all heads of the military services regarding DOD's 2013 Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Strategy, and the release of the Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military 2012 (2 volumes)  According to this report, in FY2012 (October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012), the number of sexual assaults reported by members of the military rose 6% to 3,374  An anonymous survey of military personnel showed the number of service members who had experienced unwanted sexual contact could be as many as 26,000 but most never reported the incidents  That number is an increase over the 19,000 estimated assaults in 2011  These reports involved offenses ranging from abusive sexual contact to rape  May 7, 2013 – In a DOD press briefing, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Major General Gary Patton, director of SAPRO, announced new series of actions to further DOD's sexual assault and prevention efforts  Hagel directed service chiefs to develop methods to hold all military commanders accountable for establishing command climates of dignity and respect in incorporating sexual assault prevention and victim care principles in their commands  May 7, 2013 – DOD announced the establishment of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel consisting of nine selected appointees  Secretary of Defense Hagel appointed five members to serve on the response systems panel, who joined four members appointed by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee  May 14, 2013 – The Army announced that an Army Sergeant First Class assigned to III Corps, Fort Hood, TX, was under investigation for pandering, abusive sexual contact, assault, and maltreatment of subordinates  May 15, 2013 – Returning from NATO meetings in Brussels, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen  Martin E  Dempsey, told reporters that sexual assault in the Armed Forces constitutes a crisis in the military  He further stated that "We're losing the confidence of the women who serve that we can solve this problem, and that's a crisis " May 16, 2013 – At the White House, President Obama met with senior military leaders on the issue of sexual assault in the U S  Armed Forces  The President stated that not only is it "shameful and disgraceful" but also "dangerous to our national security " May 17, 2013 – During a press briefing, Defense Secretary Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen  Martin Dempsey discussed their meeting with President Obama, Vice President Biden, and senior enlisted and officer leadership in the U S  military  Dempsey told the Armed Forces Press Service that he believes that the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be factors in the growing incidents of sexual assault  He also stated that: "If a perpetrator shows up at a court-martial with a rack of ribbons and has four deployments and a Purple Heart, there is certainly a risk that we might be a little too forgiving of that particular crime " May 17, 2013 – In an interview, Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen  Mark Walsh, said that sexual assaults in his branch of the military typically involve alcohol use and can be traced to a lack of respect for women  "We have a problem with respect for women that leads to many of the situations that result in sexual assault in our Air Force," he told reporters in his Pentagon office  Walsh further stated that combatting the crisis is his top priority and that he reviews every reported case of sexual assault  May 22, 2013 – The Pentagon announced that DOD's sexual assault prevention staff would be exempt from furloughs  According to Pentagon spokeswoman, Cynthia O  Smith, "The full-time civilians working these programs and implementing policies will not be furloughed  This will ensure responsive victim care and ensure all the programs recently directed by Secretary Hagel are implemented swiftly and efficiently " May 24, 2013 – President Obama addressed graduates of the U S  Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, and noted in his commencement speech that the misconduct of some in the military can endanger U S  forces and undermine U S  efforts to achieve security and peace worldwide  He further stated that those who commit sexual assault are not only committing a crime, they also "threaten the trust and discipline that make our military strong " May 25, 2013 – In a commencement speech at the U S  Military Academy at West Point, NY, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told graduates that they must be the generation of leaders that will commit to building a culture of respect for every member of the military  He stated that sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military "are a profound betrayal of sacred oaths and sacred trusts " He also quoted President Obama's remarks at the Naval Academy when he said, "these crimes have no place in the greatest military on earth " May 30, 2013 – Pentagon officials reaffirmed DOD's commitment to fighting sexual assault by launching the Safe HelpRoom at http://SafeHelpline org , a Sexual Assault Support Service for the DOD community  This new service allows victims to participate in moderated group chat sessions to connect with and support one another in a secure online environment  The Safe HelpRoom is in response to a need for peer support services identified by users of DOD's Safe Helpline for sexual assault victims  June 6, 2013 – In a speech at the 2013 Joint Women's Leadership Symposium, Navy Adm  James A  Winnefeld Jr , vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said plans to combat and eliminate sexual assault include a greater investment in specially trained sexual assault investigators and a push for more psychological, medical, and legal assistance for victims  The vice chairman also said officials will examine the scientific roots of behavioral factors associated with potential predators, which will assist sexual assault prevention efforts  June 7, 2013 – The Pentagon released a statement that Maj  Gen  Michael T  Harrison was suspended of his duties as the Commanding General of United States Army Japan and I Corps for failing in his duties as a commander to report or investigate an allegation of sexual assault  June 7, 2013 – Air Force officials announced Maj  Gen  Margaret H  Woodward has been assigned to direct the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to replace Lt  Col  Jeffrey Krusinski, the former chief of the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program  He was arrested and charged by Arlington County, VA, police for allegedly being drunk and groping a woman in a parking lot one mile from the Pentagon  In the previous year, Maj  Gen  Woodward led the investigation of Air Force training in the wake of a sexual assault scandal centered at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas  June 27, 2013 – Defense Secretary Hagel met in person with the Sexual Assault Response Systems Review Panel for the first time  According to the Pentagon, "the panel will conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault and related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and will develop recommendations to improve the effectiveness of those systems " DOD established the panel in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 ( P L  112-239 , Section 576 (a))  Previously, Hagel held a teleconference with panel members  July 3, 2013 – The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Army Gen  Frank J  Grass, launched a comprehensive campaign designed to assist National Guard units in combating sexual assault as part of a military-wide effort to protect victims and eradicate the crime from the ranks  July 9, 2013 – DOD Inspector General (IG) released its report, Joint Warfighting and Readiness Evaluation of the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations Sexual Assault Investigations   The report evaluated the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations' (MCIOs') sexual assault investigations in 2010 to determine whether they were adequately investigated  The report found most MCIO investigations (89%) met or exceeded the investigative standards and returned only cases with significant deficiencies (11%) to the MCIOs for corrective action  July 18, 2013 – The Air Force adopted two new measures to eliminate sexual assault from within the ranks, including requiring mandatory discharge for airmen, officer or enlisted, who commit sexual assault, and requiring the Air Force's most senior commanders to review actions taken on these cases  In addition, the Air Force Academy is reviewing the results of a survey on sexual assault taken on June 24, 2013  Suggestions from survey respondents ranged from involving faculty with character coaching to a complete revamping of how the Air Force Academy trains its freshmen  July 18, 2013 – Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced additional resources for investigators and a new initiative designed to enhance accountability and transparency across the Navy  Mabus approved nearly $10 million to hire more than 50 additional Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Family and Sexual Violence Program personnel to shorten investigation times, and directed the Navy and Marine Corps to regularly publish online the results of each service's courts- martial  July 18, 2013 – The Air Force announced that airmen who commit sexual assaults will be discharged, and senior commanders must review actions taken on sexual assault cases under new Air Force initiatives as of July 2, 2013  August 15, 2013 – Defense Secretary Hagel announced seven new anti-sexual assault initiatives in a memo detailing "    absolute and sustained commitment to providing a safe environment in which every service member and DOD civilian is free from the threat of sexual harassment and assault," he wrote in a statement  "Our success depends on a dynamic and responsive approach  We, therefore, must continually assess and strive to improve our prevention and response programs " October 3, 2013 – Air Force Col  Alan R  Metzler, the deputy director for SAPRO, emphasized that the first step to stopping sexual assault in the military is through prevention but when prevention fails, new measures to improve victims' confidence and combat underreporting were needed  Metzler outlined the DOD Sexual Assault Advocate Certification Program (D-SAACP) and the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID), two initiatives set to improve the advocacy services provided to victims of sexual assault  November 9, 2013 – Army Maj  Gen  Gary S  Patton, director of DOD's SAPRO, reported on DOD's recent prevention and awareness successes before the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel  He testified that new DOD initiatives to combat sexual assault helped create a 46% jump in victims reporting compared to the previous year  December 20, 2013 – President Obama instructed Defense Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey to continue their efforts to make substantial improvements with respect to sexual assault prevention and response, including to the military justice system  He also directed that they report back with a full-scale review of their progress, by December 1, 2014  January 10, 2014 – Army Maj  Gen  Jeffrey J  Snow, the new SAPRO chief announced the release of the Annual Report to Congress on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies   The report covered the 2012-13 academic year, and found in 2013, reports of sexual assault decreased at the U S  Military Academy at West Point, New York and the U S  Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado  The number of reported incidents went up at the U S  Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland  January 30, 2014 – The independent Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel accepted a subcommittee recommendation that senior military commanders retain authority for referring these crimes to courts-martial  May 1, 2014 – DOD released the 2013 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military   The report covered the period from Oct  1, 2012, through Sept  30, 2013, and revealed 5,061 reports of sexual assault in the Defense Department, a 50 percent jump from the previous year  More than 70 percent of all cases that the military had jurisdiction resulted in criminal charges  July 17, 2014 – DOD collaborated with the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime to develop a curriculum that expands on the skills learned in initial sexual assault response coordinator and sexual assault prevention and response victim advocate training  December 4, 2014 – Secretary Hagel released DOD's Report to the President of the United States on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response on its progress in addressing sexual assault in the military, and announced four directives to further strengthen the department's prevention and response program  According to this report, based on survey data, servicemembers experienced fewer sexual assaults in FY2014 than in FY2012, an estimated 19,000, down from 26,000  January 16, 2015 – Secretary Hagel at the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Summit remarked that the fight to end sexual assault in the military must be "personal " He cited "encouraging progress" over the last year, but acknowledged more can be done, notably in areas such as social retaliation, which he said stems from the overall environment  February 11, 2015 – The annual report on sexual harassment and violence at the military service academies estimated that overall rates of unwanted sexual contact at the military service academies declined in Academic Program Year (APY) 2013-2014, decreased for both men and women, indicating that fewer sexual assaults occurred at the academies in APY 13-14 than in APY 11-12  February 19, 2015 – Health and criminal investigation experts spoke at the Army's Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Program Summit on the underreporting of male victims of sexual assault in the military due to factors such as shame and fear of being ostracized  March 26, 2015 – SAPRO head Army Maj  Gen  Jeffrey Snow monitored 50 initiatives put in place by past Defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel  According to Snow, the most recent data, gathered last year, shows the past-year prevalence of sexual assault is down significantly, Snow said  Estimates indicate there were 6,000 to 7,000 fewer sexual assaults in 2014 than in 2012  May 1, 2015 – According to the 2014 RAND Military Workplace Stud y, "the percentage of active duty women who experienced unwanted sexual contact over the past year declined from 6 1% in 2012 to an estimated 4 3% in 2014  For active duty men, the estimated prevalence rate dropped from 1 2% in 2012 to 0 9% in 2014  Based on these rates, an estimated 18,900 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2014, down from around 26,000 in 2012 " May 22, 2015 – Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Army Maj  Gen  Camille M  Nichols will assume duties as director of SAPRO effective June 8, 2015  January 8, 2016 – DOD announced the release of the Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies for A cademic P rogram Y ear 2014-2015   Data in the report indicated the academies received 91 sexual assault reports during the academic year, an increase of 32 reports over the previous year  April 2 8 , 2016 – Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced a sexual assault retaliation prevention and response strategy aimed at how the department supports servicemembers who experience retaliation, while aligning prevention and response efforts across the services  May 5, 2016 – The annual report of the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program indicated that DOD's efforts are having an impact  In FY2015, service members made 6,083 reports of sexual assault – the same rate as the previous fiscal year, with four in 1,000 servicemembers reporting sexual assault despite a smaller active force size  In addition, 21 percent of those making restricted reports in fiscal 2015 chose to convert to unrestricted reports, enabling them to participate in the military justice process  September 19 , 2016 – The Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, hosted an all-day training event to strengthen how military and civilian communities work together to support servicemembers who report sexual assault in a joint program between DOD and the Justice Department  October 19, 2016 – DOD released the 2016 Military Investigation and Justice Experience Survey that allowed servicemembers who have experienced sexual assault and elected to participate in the military justice process the opportunity to provide DOD with direct feedback on their experiences; and to improve the services and support servicemembers reporting sexual assault  December 15, 2016 – Defense Department officials announced the release of the "DOD Plan to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Assault of Military Men," designed to enhance outreach to military men and increase efforts to help them recover  The following information was compiled using Congress gov, Congressional Quarterly (CQ com), House gov, Senate gov, and Roll Call  See the section "Resources" for a list of congressional hearings, reports and other documents  January 23, 2013 – The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on sexual misconduct at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX  January 25, 2013 – H R  430 , Protect Our Military Trainees Act, was introduced  This legislation would have amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect new members of the Armed Forces who are undergoing basic training from the sexual advances of the members of the Armed Forces responsible for their instruction  It also requires that violators be punished as a court-martial may direct  March 5, 2013 – H R  975 , the Servicemember Mental Health Review Act, was introduced  This bill would have amended Title 10, United States Code, to extend the duration of the Physical Disability Board of Review and to the expand the authority of such Board to review the separation of members of the Armed Forces on the basis of a mental condition not amounting to disability, including separation on the basis of a personality or adjustment disorder  This would have included a review of those victims who have suffered military sexual trauma  March 13, 2013 – S  548 , Military Sexual Assault Prevention Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice, and referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee  This legislation aimed to amend Title 10, United States Code, and to improve capabilities of the Armed Forces to prevent and respond to sexual assault and sexual harassment in the Armed Forces  March 13, 2013 – Victims of sexual assault in the military testified before a Senate panel examining the military's handling of sexual assault cases and stated that the "military justice system is broken " They urged Congress to make changes in the law that would stem the rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment that they said are pervasive in the service branches  Several male Navy veterans testified before the Senate Armed Service Committee's military personnel panel investigating sexual assaults in the military  One recounted that he was raped in 2000 by a higher-ranking petty officer aboard a submarine  He told the committee that he carries permanent shame not for the sexual assault but over how the Navy forced him to leave  He stated in his testimony, "I carry my discharge as an official and permanent symbol of shame, on top of the trauma of the physical attack, the retaliation and its aftermath " March 20, 2013 – S  628 , Servicemember Mental Health Review Act, was introduced, read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services  Related to H R  975 , this bill would have amended Title 10, United States Code, to extend the duration of the Physical Disability Board of Review and to the expand the authority of such board to review the separation of members of the Armed Forces on the basis of a mental condition not amounting to disability, including separation on the basis of a personality or adjustment disorder  This would have included a review of those victims who may have suffered military sexual trauma  April 17, 2013 – H R  1593 , Sexual Assault Training Oversight and Prevention (STOP) Act, was introduced  This bill seeks to amend Title 10, United States Code, by establishing a Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Council and an enhanced Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Office "to improve the prevention of and response to sexual assault in the Armed Forces, and by requiring the appointment of a Director of Military Prosecutions for sexual-related offenses committed by a member of the Armed Forces " April 26, 2013 – A U S  senator reportedly put a hold on the nomination of Air Force Lt  Gen  Susan Helms, nominated to serve as vice commander of the U S  Space Command  Earlier in February 2012, Gen  Helms rejected the recommendation of legal counsel and overturned the conviction of an Air Force captain who had been found guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a female lieutenant  May 7, 2013 – S  871 , Combating Military Sexual Assault Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services  This legislation would have aimed to provide any victim with a special military lawyer who would assist them throughout the process, prohibit sexual contact between instructors and trainees during and within 30 days of completion of basic training or its equivalent, and ensure that sexual assault response coordinators are available to help members of the National Guard and Reserve  May 7, 2013 – H R  1864 , to amend Title 10, United States Code, would have required an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault, was introduced and referred to the House Armed Services Committee  This bill would have required the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with respect to the Coast Guard, or any of the military departments to investigate allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding alleged instances of rape, sexual assault, or other forms of sexual misconduct in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice  May 7, 2013 – At the Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel hearing Gen  Mark Welsh, the Air Force's Chief of Staff, told the committee that he and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley were "appalled" by the charges against Lt  Col  Jeffrey Krusinski, branch chief of the Air Force's Sexual Assault and Prevention Office  He was arrested and charged by Arlington County, VA, police for allegedly being drunk and groping a woman in a parking lot one mile from the Pentagon  "Sexual assault prevention and response efforts are critically important to us," Welsh said  "It is unacceptable that this occurs anywhere, at any time, in our Air Force " May 8, 2013 – H R  1867 , the Better Enforcement for Sexual Assault Free Environments (BE SAFE) Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice, and referred to the House Armed Services Committee  This bill would have amended Title 10, United States Code, "to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault " This bill would ensure those found guilty of rape, sexual assault, sodomy, or an attempt to commit any of those crimes, are—at a minimum—dismissed or dishonorably discharged from the military  The five-year statute of limitations within the military's justice system for sexual assault cases would be eliminated, and legal assistance services available to victims would be expanded  May 8, 2013 – In a hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, senators questioned the Air Force's top leaders over rising sexual assaults in the military  Some senators cited DOD statistics from the Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military 2012 on the number of incidents of sexual assaults the same week Lt  Col  Jeffrey Krusinski, Chief of the Air Force's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Branch, was arrested and charged with sexual battery  May 9, 2013 – A hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on the Air Force budget was held  Witnesses included Michael Donley, Secretary of the Air Force, and General Mark Welsh, Air Force Chief of Staff  Members of the committee questioned them on Defense Secretary Hagel's review of the decision by Lt  Gen  Craig Franklin to dismiss Lt  Col  James Wilkerson's sexual assault conviction  May 14, 2013 – H Res  213 , a resolution to establish the "Special Committee on Sexual Assault and Abuse in the Armed Forces" was introduced  A "Dear Colleague" memorandum urged support of this legislation referencing Gen  Martin Dempsey's denouncement of military sexual assault as a "crisis" and the need for Congress to address this problem in a "deeper, more comprehensive manner " This Special Committee would have included 19 members appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader, as well as chairman and ranking members of the committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform  May 14, 2013 – H R  1960 , a bill to authorize appropriations for FY2014 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, was introduced  The FY2014 NDAA addressed the issue of sexual assault in the military by establishing minimum sentencing guidelines for any service members found guilty of sexual assault as well as other provisions  May 15, 2013 – H R  1986 , Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Deployment Act, was introduced  This bill would have provided for the assignment of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners-Adult/Adolescent to brigades and equivalent units of the Armed Forces  May 15, 2013 – H R  2002 , Combating Military Sexual Assault Act of 2013, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services  This bill was related to S  871 , and would have provided any sexual assault victim with a special military lawyer who would assist them throughout the process, prohibit sexual contact between instructors and trainees during and within 30 days of completion of basic training or its equivalent, and ensure that sexual assault response coordinators (SARCs) are available to help members of the National Guard and Reserve  May 16, 2013 – H R  2016 , Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013, was introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed Services  This bill would have required "a commanding officer who receives a report of a sexual-related offense involving a member in such officer's chain of command to act immediately upon such report by way of referral to the appropriate criminal investigative office or service " This bill was related to S  538 , Military Sexual Assault Prevention Act of 2013, and S  967 , Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013  May 16, 2013 – S  967 , Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services  This bill would have required a commanding officer who receives a report of a sex-related offense involving a member in such officer's chain of command to act immediately upon such report by way of referral to the appropriate criminal investigative office or service  May 21, 2013 – S  992 , a bill to provide for offices on sexual assault prevention and response under the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, to require reports on additional offices and selection of sexual assault prevention and response personnel, and for other purposes  This bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services  May 22, 2013 – A House panel passed a number of changes in sexual assault prevention programs that limited commander discretion in reducing or dismissing rape and assault charges and expanded support services for victims  The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel approved the personnel issues as part of H R  1960 , the FY2014 NDAA bill  May 22, 2013 – The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense held a hearing on the Army's FY 2014 Budget Request  Witnesses included Secretary of the Army, John McHugh and Chief of Staff of the Army, General Raymond T  Odierno  Army Secretary McHugh announced at this hearing that the service will soon require soldiers being considered for sexual assault prevention jobs to undergo behavioral-health evaluations as a way of screening out potential sex offenders from these high-profile positions  This was in response to a senator's question about the criteria for sexual assault prevention jobs  McHugh said that service record and availability are the only criteria commanders are using to fill these jobs since sexual-assault prevention positions do not fall under any military occupational specialty and lack career incentives  May 23, 2013 – S  1032 , Better Enforcement for Sexual Assault Free Environments Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services  This bill would amend Title 10, United States Code, to make certain improvements in the Uniform Code of Military Justice related to sex-related offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces  June 4, 2013 – The uniformed chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard appeared before a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Military Personnel  These military leaders acknowledged that despite a "zero tolerance" for sexual abuse, they had neglected the "epidemic" in the ranks by not always monitoring subordinate commanders  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen  Martin Dempsey pointed to competing demands and pressures of fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as a justification for lack of adequate monitoring  The Service Chiefs voiced support for legislative changes that would take tougher action against offenders and provide more support for victims of military sexual assault  They opposed a legislative proposal that would remove unit commanders' legal power to oversee major criminal cases and transfer that authority to uniformed prosecutors  The Army Chief of Staff, Gen  Ray Odierno, noted that taking away commanders' authority in matters of military justice would adversely impact discipline and that "we cannot, however, simply 'prosecute' our way out of this problem  At its heart, sexual assault is a discipline issue that requires a culture change " June 4, 2013 – S  1092 was introduced, read twice, and referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee  This bill would have amended Title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault  June 6, 2013 –would allow victims of sexual assault to apply for a permanent change The House Armed Services Committee passed H R  1960 , the NDAA for FY2014, by a vote of 59-2  According to the Committee's Fact Sheet, "the FY14 NDAA of station or unit transfer, while authorizing the Secretary of Defense to inform commanders of their authority to remove or temporarily reassign service members who are the alleged perpetrators of sexual assault  It also requires the provision of victims' counsels, qualified and specially trained lawyers in each of the services, to be made available to provide legal assistance to the victims of sex-related offenses  The FY14 NDAA adds rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct to the protected communications of service members with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General " June 14, 2013 – The House passed H R  1960 , the NDAA for FY2014 by a vote of 315 to 108 (Roll no  244)  This bill includes a provision protecting victims of sexual assault in the Armed Forces as protected communications under military whistle-blower laws, to shield victims against retaliatory actions  The measure seeks to encourage more victims to report assaults, rape and other forms of sexual misconduct  June 17, 2013 – H R  2397 , "Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014," was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Appropriations  It was reported as an original measure, H Rept  113-113   Lawmakers wrote in this committee report that they were "outraged by the pervasive problem of sexual assault in the Armed Forces  Sexual assault is not just an issue in the military; it is an epidemic  To address it, the Committee believes that there must be a culture change at every level of the military, from the most senior leadership to the most junior ranks " Included was a measure that would provide $182 million for the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) and for an expansion of a victim's counseling program  For FY2013, the programs received $95 million  The bill included $25 million that was not requested by the administration in a transfer account to expand assistance across the Defense Department  June 20, 2013 – S  1197 , NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014, was introduced in the Senate  This bill would have authorized "appropriations for fiscal year 2014 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 referred to the Committee on Armed Services  The original measure was reported to the Senate in Report No  113-44 and placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No  91)  Included in this bill was Title V—Military Personnel Policy, Subtitle E—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Military Justice  June 27, 2013 – H R  1864 , a bill "To amend Title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault," was agreed to/passed in the House, 423-0 (Roll no  294)  July 18, 2013 – Army Gen  Martin E  Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Navy Adm  James A  Winnefeld Jr , the vice chairman, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee said that commanders should retain responsibility for prosecuting service members accused of sexual assault, and taking that authority away could harm good order and discipline  July 2 2 , 2013 – H R  2777 , Stop Pay for Violent Offenders Act, was introduced "to amend Title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to suspend the pay and allowances of a member of the Armed Forces who is held in confinement pending trial by court-martial or by civil authority for any sex-related offense or capital offense " July 24, 2013 – H Amdt  408 to H R  2397 , an amendment to provide funds to identify individuals who were separated from the military on the grounds of a disorder subsequent to reporting a sexual assault and, if appropriate, correcting their record  This amendment (A065) was agreed to by voice vote  July 24, 2013 – H R  2397 , "Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014," was passed/agreed to in House, 315 - 109 (Roll no  414)  October 22, 2013 – H R  3304 , the NDAA for FY2014, was introduced in the House  As introduced, the bill would have provided for a defense counsel interview of victim of an alleged sex-related offense in presence of trial counsel, counsel for the victim, or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate, prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by individuals who have been convicted of certain sexual offenses, Coast Guard regulations regarding request for permanent change of station or unit transfer by victim of sexual assault, temporary administrative reassignment or removal of an active duty member accused of committing a sexual assault, Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault, compliance tracking of commanding officers in conducting organizational climate assessments for purposes of preventing and responding to sexual assaults, advancement of submittal deadline for report of independent panel on assessment of military response systems to sexual assault, retention of certain forms on sexual assault, timely access to Sexual Assault Response Coordinators by the National Guard and Reserves, and qualifications and selection of Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response personnel and required availability of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners  It also would establish commanding officer actions regarding sexual assault reports, an eight-day incident reporting requirement in response to unrestricted report of sexual assault in which the victim is a member of the Armed Forces, and curricula that addresses the prevention of sexual assault at the military service academies  December 26, 2013 – H R  3304 , the NDAA for FY2014 became P L  113-66   As enacted, the bill included more than two dozen provisions to address an epidemic of sexual assault in the military in Title XVII—Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Related Reforms, Subtitle A—Reform of Uniform Code of Military Justice  February 26, 2014 – Dr  Karen S  Guice, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, and other Defense Department officials testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel subcommittee on the relationship between military sexual assault survivors and the subsequent development of suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder  April 9, 2014 – H R  4435 , the Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, was introduced in the House  The bill would have applied Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 ( P L  113-66 ; 127 Stat  950) to the military service academies, consulted with victims of sexual assault regarding victims' preference for prosecution of offense by court-martial or civilian court, created a confidential review of characterization of terms of discharge for victims of sexual offenses, revised requirements relating to DOD policy on retention of evidence in a sexual assault case to allow return of personal property upon completion of related proceedings, required the DOD Inspector General to review separation of members who made unrestricted reports of sexual assault, and would have created a deadline for submission of report containing results of review of Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity role in sexual harassment cases  Prior to passing in the House, the House Armed Services Committee rejected an amendment from Congresswoman Speier that would have removed the military chain of command from decisions to prosecute sexual assault cases and other major crimes, except offenses that are unique to the military  She offered an alternative proposal, which would have only removed commanding officers' prosecutorial discretion for instances of sexual assault, that was also rejected by a 28-34 vote  It was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders  Calendar No  425  June 2, 2014 — S  2410 , the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, was introduced in the Senate  It was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders  Calendar No  402  The bill included measures on military justice such as enhancing sexual assault prevention and response, the application of P L  113-66 , Title XVII to military academies, and the collaboration between the Departments of Justice and Defense  December 19 , 2014 — H R  3979 , the Carl Levin and Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, was signed as P L  113-291   Subtitle D—Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Prevention and Response addressed the following: modification of DOD policy on retention of evidence in a sexual assault cases to permit return of personal property upon completion of related proceedings; requirements relating to Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner; analysis and assessment of disposition of most serious offenses; a plan for limited use of certain information on sexual assaults in restricted reports by military criminal investigative organizations; the establishment of a Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; confidential review of the terms of discharge of sexual assault survivors; deadline for submission of report containing results of review of Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity role in sexual harassment cases; and applied Title XVII of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014 ( P L  113-66 ; 127 Stat  950) to the military service academies  January 13, 2015 — S  178 , the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 was introduced in the Senate  Title V of this bill "Military Sex Offender Reporting" stipulates that the Secretary of Defense shall provide the Attorney General information about sex offenders in the military to be included in the National Sex Offender Registry and the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website  It became P L  114-22 on May 29, 2015  February 3, 2015 — H R  677 , American Heroes COLA Act of 2015, was introduced in the House, passed on February 9, and the next day was received in the Senate, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs  Section 6 proposed that veterans whose claims were being reviewed again in relation to a previously denied claim relating to military sexual trauma be given priority, among other claims  February 12, 2015 — H R  956 , the Military Track, Register and Alert Communities Act of 2015 (Military TRAC Act) was introduced in the House and referred to the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Military Personnel on November 23  This bill intended to require DOD to maintain a sex offender registry of individuals convicted of certain sex offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of other military offenses appropriate for sex offender registration purposes  April 13, 2015 — H R  1735 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, was introduced in the House  Subtitle D addressed military justice, including sexual assault and domestic violence prevention and response  April 24, 2015 — H R  2029 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 was introduced in the House and later became P L  114-113   Section 8057 specified that "$25,000,000 shall be for continued implementation and expansion of the Sexual Assault Special Victims' Counsel Program " May 14, 2015 — S  1356 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 was introduced in the Senate and later became P L  114-92 on November 25, 2015  Subtitle D "Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Prevention and Response" amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice, authorized Special Victims' Counsel for civilian DOD employees, required the DOD to develop a policy to standardize the training for Special Victims' Counsel, required the establishment of Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces within 90 days, required the development of a plan to improve prevention and response to sexual assaults of male members of the Armed Forces, required the establishment of a strategy to prevent retaliation against Armed Forces members who report or intervene on behalf of sexual assault victims, and authorized the President to modify Rule 304(c) of the Military Rules of Evidence to conform to the rules governing the admissibility of the corroboration of admissions and confessions in the trial of criminal cases in the U S  district courts  June 11, 2015 — S  1558 , Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016, was introduced in the Senate  The bill would have required specified O&M funds to be used for continued implementation and expansion of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program  June 11, 2015 — S  1567 , a bill to amend Title 10, United States Code, to provide for a review of the characterization or terms of discharge from the Armed Forces of individuals with mental health disorders alleged to affect terms of discharge, was introduced in the Senate  The bill proposed to address medical evidence reviews for former members applying for relief from the terms of their discharge due to military sexual trauma among other conditions  June 11, 2015 — S Amdt  1578 to S Amdt  1463 in H R  1735 , National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, was proposed in the Senate and later considered and defeated on June 16  This bill was intended to reform procedures for determinations to proceed to trial by court-martial for certain offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice  It did not achieve 60 votes in the Senate by Yea-Nay Vote  The final vote was 50 - 49  April 12, 2016 — H R  4909 , the NDAA for FY2017, was introduced in the House where it passed on May 18  On May 26, it was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders  Calendar No  502  April 18, 2016 — H R  4991 , the Prevent Retaliation and Open up Transparency to Expand Care for Troops (PROTECT) Act of 2016, was introduced in the House and later referred to the House Armed Services' Subcommittee on Military Personnel  The bill intended to amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to establish the offense of retaliation with provisions that would permit any person intent on retaliating against anyone for reporting or planning to report a criminal offense to be punished as a court-martial may direct  May 18, 2016 — S  2943 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, was introduced in the Senate and became P L  114-328 on December 23  Subtitle D specified requirements for the review by a discharge review board of claims by former members asserting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual trauma  Subtitle E "Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters" required an annual report on sexual assault and response efforts, required Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to establish evaluation metrics and best practices in the prevention of and response to retaliation, and modified the definition of sexual harassment for the purposes of investigations of complaints of harassment by commanding officers  Title XXXV "Maritime Matters" established requirements for policies and training regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention and response at the U S  Merchant Marine Academy and required the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation to submit a report to Congress about the sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention and response program at the U S  Merchant Marine Academy  Title LIV "Court-Martial Jurisdiction" specified the sexual offenses over which general courts-martial have exclusive jurisdiction  Title LX "Punitive Articles" created a new section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addressing accountability for sexual misconduct committed by recruiters and trainers during the various phases within the recruiting and basic military training environments, revised the definition of ''sexual act'' with respect to the offenses of rape and sexual assault  May 19, 2016 — H R  5293 , Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, was introduced in the House, passed on June 16, received in the Senate the next day, where it received a motion to proceed to consideration  The bill would have required O&M funds to be used for continued implementation and expansion of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program  May 26, 2016 — S  3000 , Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, was introduced in the Senate and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders  Calendar No  500  The Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Department of Defense held several hearings prior from February-April  The bill would have required specified O&M funds to be used for continued implementation and expansion of the SAPR Program  DOD Directive No  6495 01  "Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program," January 23, 2012, Incorporating Change 3, April 11, 2017, at http://www esd whs mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/649501p pdf DOD Directive No  6495 02  "Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures," March 28, 2013, Incorporating Change 3, May 24, 2017, at https://www esd whs mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/649502p pdf DOD Inspector General (IG)  E valuation of the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations Sexual Assault Investigations, DODIG-2013-091, July 9, 2013, 104 p   at http://www dodig mil/reports html/Article/1118941/evaluation-of-the-military-criminal-investigative-organizations-sexual-assault/ Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) at https://www sapr mil/ Includes the full text of DOD Annual Reports, FY2004 - FY2016, and reports on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the U S  Military Service Academies, Academic Program Years (APY) 2005-2018  "Final 2014–2015 Academic Program Year Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault at the United States Merchant Marine Academy," Maritime Administration, undetermined date, at https://www marad dot gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Final-2014-2015-SASH-Report pdf "Department of Transportation U S  Merchant Marine Academy Culture Audit, Deliverable 4  Final Report," U S  Merchant Marine Academy, December 2016, at https://cms dot gov/sites/dot gov/files/docs/mission/civil-rights/263966/dot-usmma-report pdf "Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program," United States Coast Guard, LMI, December 2016, at https://media defense gov/2017/Mar/29/2001723560/-1/-1/0/CIM_1754_10E PDF "Preliminary 2015-2016 Academic Year Biennial Survey and Report on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault at the United States Merchant Marine Academy," Maritime Administration, January 12, 2017, at https://www marad dot gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Preliminary-2015-2016-SASH-Report pdf Military Justice: Oversight and Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual Assault Investigations and Adjudications , GAO-11-579, Jun 22, 2011, 42 p  http://www gao gov/products/GAO-11-579 Preventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership Commitment and an Oversight Framework , GAO-11-809, Sep 21, 2011, 47 p  http://www gao gov/assets/590/585344 pdf Prior GAO Work on DOD's Actions to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Assault in the Military , GAO-12-571R, Mar 30, 2012, 40 p  http://www gao gov/assets/590/589780 pdf DOD Has Taken Steps to Meet the Health Needs of Deployed Servicewomen, but Actions Are Needed to Enhance Care for Sexual Assault Victims, GAO-13-182, January 29, 2013, 40 p  http://www gao gov/assets/660/651624 pdf Military Personnel: Actions Needed to Address Sexual Assaults of Male Servicemembers, Report to the Committee on Armed Services , GAO-15-284, March 19, 2015, 86 p  http://www gao gov/products/GAO-15-284 Sexual Assault: Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Prevention Strategy and to Help Ensure It Is Effectively Implemented, GAO-16-61, November 4, 2015, 59 p  http://www gao gov/products/GAO-16-61 DOD and Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Increase Oversight and Management Information on Hazing Incidents Involving Servicemembers, GAO-16-226, Feb 9, 2016, 74 p  http://www gao gov/products/GAO-16-226 The following news sources are listed in chronological order to make it easier to follow the numerous incidents of wide-spread misconduct reported in the media  Military com has ongoing news on military sexual assault at http://www military com/topics/sexual-assault   Montgomery, Nancy  "Johnson Found Guilty of Last Two Counts; Awaits Sentencing " Stars and Stripes , June 13, 2012, at http://www stripes com/news/johnson-found-guilty-of-last-two-counts-awaits-sentencing-1 180204 Carroll, Chris  "Air Force has Identified 31 Alleged Victims in Lackland Sex Abuse Scandal," Stars and Stripes, June 28, 2012, at http://www stripes com/news/air-force-has-identified-31-alleged-victims-in-lackland-sex-abuse-scandal-1 181597 Dao, James  "Instructor for Air Force Is Convicted in Sex Assaults," New York Times , July 20, 2012, at http://www nytimes com/2012/07/21/us/lackland-air-force-base-instructor-guilty-of-sex-assaults html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Blansett, Susan and Hoffman, Michael  "Sexual Assault Cases Flood Military Courts," Military com, August 13, 2012, at http://www military com/daily-news/2012/08/13/sex-assault-cases-flood-military-courts html Risen, James  "Honor Betrayed: Attacked at 19 by an Air Force Trainer, and Speaking Out," New York Times , February 26, 2013, at http://www nytimes com/2013/02/27/us/former-air-force-recruit-speaks-out-about-rape-by-her-sergeant-at-lackland html?pagewanted=all Mulrine, Anne  "Seeking the Sex-Assault Solution," Air Force Magazine , April 2013, at http://www airforcemag com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/April%202013/0413solution aspx "5 Former Lackland Commanders Disciplined," Military com, May 2, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/05/02/5-former-lackland-commanders-disciplined html Kime, Patricia  "Lawmakers Act Fast with New Legislation on Military Sexual Assault " Army Times , May 7, 2013  Shapira, Ian  "July Trial Set for Jeffrey Krusinski, Air Force Officer Accused of Sexual Battery " Washington Post , May 9, 2013, at https://www washingtonpost com/local/july-trial-set-for-air-force-officer-accused-of-sexual-battery/2013/05/09/8a21eb92-b8d9-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story html?utm_term= e0d4951e6573 Steinhauer, Jennifer  "Lawmakers, at White House, Discuss Sex Abuse in Military " New York Times , May 9, 2013, at http://www nytimes com/2013/05/10/us/politics/lawmakers-huddle-at-white-house-on-sex-abuse-in-military html?_r=0 Whitlock, Craig  "Pentagon Grapples with Sex Crimes by Military Recruiters," Washington Post , May 12, 2013, at http://articles washingtonpost com/2013-05-12/world/39210853_1_military-recruiters-sexual-abuse-army-reserve Sisk, Richard  "Assault Prevention NCO Investigated for Sex Crimes " Military com, May 15, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/05/15/assault-prevention-nco-investigated-for-sex-crimes html Whitlock, Craig  "Some in Congress want Changes in Military Law as a Result of Sex Crimes," Washington Post , May 15, 2013, at http://www washingtonpost com/world/national-security/some-in-congress-want-changes-in-military-law-as-result-of-sex-crimes/2013/05/15/672a2a8a-bd8b-11e2-a31d-a41b2414d001_story html Sisk, Richard  "Sex Assault Crisis Pushes Senate to Overhaul UCMJ," Military com, May 16, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/05/16/sex-assault-crisis-pushes-senate-to-overhaul-ucmj html Tilghman, Andrew  "Dempsey: DOD May Have Become 'Too Forgiving' of Sexual Assault," Army Times , May 17, 2013  Brady, Gen  Roger Brady (ret )  "Commentary: Telling Truths about Sexual Assault is Risky," Air Force Times , May  21, 2013  Salcedo, Michele  "Senator: Fire Commanders Allowing Sex Assault," Army Times, May 26, 2013  Tucker, Eric  "More Details Released on Annapolis Sex Assault Investigation: Allegations Made Against Three Football Players," Navy Times , May 30, 2013  Lardner, Richard  "Brass Seeks to Temper Military Justice Overhaul," Associated Press, June 3, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/06/03/brass-seeks-to-temper-military-justice-overhaul html Cassata, Donna and Richard Lardner  "Sexual Assaults Force Changes to Military Justice," Associated Press, June 4, 2013, at http://www military
Report 2: 1 billion in emergency and OCO/GWOT appropriations enacted to date for State/USAID includes major non-war-related programs, such as aid for the 2004 tsunami along Indian Ocean coasts, 2010 earthquake in Haiti, 2013 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and 2015 worldwide outbreak of the Zika virus; as well as diplomatic operations (e g , paying staff, providing security, and building and maintaining embassies)  OCO/GWOT has also funded a variety of foreign aid programs, ranging from the Economic Support Fund to counter-narcotics in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, among other activities in other countries  Figure 8 depicts the emergency or OCO appropriations for foreign affairs activities  Since 2012, when the OCO designation was first used for foreign affairs, more OCO funds have been appropriated than were requested each year, and those have also been authorized to be used in additional countries  Since January 2002, approximately $3 billion of post-9/11 emergency and OCO-designated funding has been provided to the U S  Coast Guard (USCG) for its traditional homeland security missions and for USCG operations in support of U S  Navy activities  This funding has been provided at various times as either an appropriation to the Coast Guard's operating expenses accounts, or as a transfer from Navy accounts to the Coast Guard  Open-source information on the use of those funds has varied  One FY2009 supplemental appropriations request included funding as a transfer, with the intent of funding "Coast Guard operations in support of OIF and OEF, as well as other classified activities " The FY2017 OCO request for annual appropriations for Navy Operations and Maintenance included $163 million for Coast Guard operational support for the deployment of patrol boats to the Northern Arabian Gulf and a port security unit to Guantanamo Bay, among other pay and equipment expenses  The Trump Administration initially requested a total of $89 billion in OCO funding for FY2019  All the funding was requested by DOD  In an amendment to the budget after Congress raised the BCA spending caps as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA 2018; P L  115-123 ), the Administration removed the OCO designation from $20 billion of the funding, in effect, shifting that amount into the DOD base budget request  In a statement on the budget amendment, Mulvaney said the request fixes "long-time budget gimmicks" in which OCO funding has been used for base budget requirements  Beginning in FY2020, "the Administration proposes returning to OCO's original purpose by shifting certain costs funded in OCO to the base budget where they belong," he wrote  Of the revised amount of $69 billion requested for DOD OCO funding in FY2019: $46 3 billion (67%) was for Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS) in Afghanistan and related missions; $13 billion (22%) for Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in Iraq and Syria and related missions; $4 8 billion (9%) for the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) to boost the U S  military presence in eastern Europe to deter Russian military aggression; and $0 9 billion (1%) for security cooperation (see Figure 9 )  The FY2019 OCO budget assumes a total force level (average annual troop strength) of 93,796 personnel  That figure includes: 11,958 primarily in Afghanistan (OFS); 5,765 primarily in Iraq and Syria (OIR); 59,463 for in-theater support; and 16,610 primarily in the continental United States (CONUS) or otherwise mobilized (see Figure 10 )  The number of personnel actually in-country or in-theater at any given time may exceed or fall below those assumed levels  The FY2019 force level assumes an increase of 3,153 personnel (3 5%) from the FY2018 assumed level, all of which is assumed for in-theater support  (For analysis of troop level and budget trends, see the section, " Trends in OCO Funding and Troop Levels ," earlier in this report ) As previously discussed, DOD acknowledges "OCO funding has not declined at the same rate as the in-country troop strength … due to the fixed, and often inelastic, costs of infrastructure, support requirements, and in-theater presence to support contingency operations " The departments lists the following as OCO cost drivers: In-theater support, including infrastructure costs like command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) and base operations for U S  Central Command (CENTCOM) locations; Persistent demand for combat support such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets used to enhance force protection; Equipment reset, which lags troop level changes and procurement of contingency-focused assets like munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles and force protection capabilities that may not be linked directly to in-country operations; and International programs and deterrence activities, which are linked to U S  engagement in contingency operations and support U S  interests but are not directly proportional to U S  troop presence  DOD also breaks down the FY2019 OCO budget request by functional category (see Table 3 )  By this measure, the largest portion of OCO funding was $20 billion for in-theater support, followed by operations and force protection (including the incremental cost of military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries), at $14 7 billion; and unspecified classified programs, at $9 9 billion  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), approximately $47 billion (68%) of the FY2019 OCO budget request consists of enduring activities—that is, "those that would probably continue in the absence of overseas conflicts"—that could be funded in the DOD base budget  CBO associates enduring activities with the following DOD functional categories: in-theater support, classified programs, equipment reset and readiness, European Deterrence Initiative, security cooperation, and joint improvised-threat defeat  Executive Branch budget documents for FY2019 show differing projections for how much OCO would be apportioned over the Future Years Defense Program (also known as the FYDP, pronounced "fiddip," the five-year period from FY2019 through FY2023)  For example, Table 1-11 in DOD's National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2019, citing OMB data, projects five-year OCO funding at $359 billion  However, Table 1-9 of the same document puts the figure at $149 billion after assuming a higher amount of OCO funding shifting into the base budget  According to OMB, the President's initial FY2019 budget request projected increasing caps on defense discretionary base budget authority by $84 billion (15%) to $660 billion in FY2020 and by $87 billion (15%) to $677 billion in FY2021  It also projected defense funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) totaling $73 billion in FY2020 and $66 billion in FY2021  Thus, projected defense discretionary funding would total $733 billion in FY2020 and $743 billion in FY2021  FY2019 DOD budget documents show the same defense discretionary topline for FY2020 and FY2021  But they list an "Outyears Placeholder for OCO" of $20 billion in fiscal years FY2020-FY2023, and an "OCO to Base" amount of $53 billion in FY2020 and $45 8 billion in each year from FY2021-FY2023  The documents do not break down what accounts or activities are included in these amounts  The emergence of any new contingencies or conflicts would likely change DOD assumptions about OCO needs  Congress has appropriated a total of $68 8 billion for DOD OCO funding in FY2019, including the following amounts: $67 9 billion in defense funds provided in the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-245 ), which Congress passed on September 26, 2018; and $921 million in defense funds provided in the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-244 ), which Congress passed on September, 21, 2018  For the Department of State and USAID, as well as the Department of Homeland Security and U S  Coast Guard, FY2019 OCO levels have not yet been determined  They remain at prorated FY2018 levels because of continuing resolutions (CR) to fund certain agencies through December 21, 2018  The FY2019 House and Senate SFOPS bills ( H R  6385 and S  3108 , 115 th Congress) would have appropriated approximately $8 billion in OCO-designated funding for various priorities  The House committee-reported version of the Homeland Security appropriations bill ( H R  6776 , 115 th Congress) would not have appropriated any OCO/GWOT funding for the Coast Guard, while the Senate committee-reported version of the bill ( S  3109 , 115 th Congress) would have appropriated $165 million for OCO/GWOT funding for the Coast Guard  Any decision by the 116 th Congress to change discretionary defense and nondefense spending limits that remain in effect for FY2020 and FY2021 under the Budget Control Act (BCA; P L  112-25 ) could impact future OCO funding levels  Lawmakers may consider the following questions: Will Congress keep the BCA as is and rely on OCO funding that is not subject to the caps to meet agency requirements? Will Congress repeal the BCA and use less OCO funding? Will Congress amend the BCA limits for future years and continue to use OCO funding, as it has in the past? Will Congress significantly reduce DOD and international affairs funding to stay within the BCA caps and not use OCO funding? In a November 2018 report, the National Defense Strategy Commission, a bipartisan panel created by Congress, issued recommendations related to OCO and the BCA  Recommendation No  24 states, "Congress should eliminate the final two years of caps under the BCA " Recommendation 29 states, "To better prepare for major-power competition, Congress should gradually integrate OCO spending back into the base Pentagon budget  This also requires a dollar-for-dollar increase in the BCA spending caps, should they remain in force, so that this transfer does not result in an overall spending cut " Both House and Senate FY2019 committee-reported appropriations bills from the 115 th Congress included about $8 billion in OCO funding for State/USAID  It remains to be seen if the 116 th Congress will pass this OCO level as requested or extend the continuing resolution  Congress could enact legislation to authorize and appropriate a level of base and OCO spending to meet current or revised discretionary defense spending caps in any number of ways  In FY2019 budget documents from OMB and DOD, the Trump Administration projected increasing defense spending in FY2020 and FY2021 beyond the statutory limits of the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P L  112-25 ), but by differing amounts based on differing OCO projections  These figures serve as possible scenarios or options for Congress to consider  According to OMB budget documents, the President's initial FY2019 budget request projected $733 billion in defense discretionary spending in FY2020, including a base budget of $660 billion (which assumes an $84 billion, or 15%, increase in the BCA defense cap—or repeal of the legislation altogether) and an OCO defense budget of $73 billion (see Figure 11 )  According to DOD budget documents, the President's revised FY2019 budget request projected $733 billion in defense discretionary spending in FY2020, including a base budget of $713 billion (which assumes a $137 billion, or 24%, increase in the BCA defense cap—what would be the largest increase to the BCA defense caps yet—or repeal of the legislation altogether) and an OCO budget of $20 billion  Alternatively, assuming no change in the cap and congressional support for the Administration's projected $733 billion topline in FY2020, Congress could keep the BCA defense cap unchanged at $576 billion and designate an additional $157 billion for OCO  According to OMB budget documents, the President's initial FY2019 budget request projected $743 billion in defense discretionary spending in FY2021, including a base budget of $677 billion (which assumes an $87 billion, or 15%, increase in the BCA defense cap—or repeal of the legislation altogether) and an OCO budget of $66 billion (see Figure 11 )  According to DOD budget documents, the President's revised FY2019 budget request projected $743 billion in defense discretionary spending in FY2021, including a base budget of $723 billion (which assumes a $133 billion, or 23%, increase in the BCA defense cap—or repeal of the legislation altogether) and an OCO budget of $20 billion  Alternatively, assuming no change in the cap and congressional support for the Administration's projected $743 billion topline in FY2020, Congress could keep the BCA defense cap unchanged at $590 billion and designate an additional $153 billion for OCO  As previously discussed, these figures would change with different toplines for the national defense budget function (050)  Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the National Defense Strategy Commission have recommended that Congress increase the defense budget between 3% and 5% a year above inflation ("real growth") to meet U S  strategic goals  President Donald Trump has said the discretionary defense spending request would total $700 billion in FY2020, a decrease of 2% in nominal terms from FY2019  Trump said, "We know what the budget—the new budget is for the Defense Department  It will probably be $700 billion " However, some media outlets have since reported that the President intends to request a discretionary defense budget of $750 billion in FY2020  Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Representative Mac Thornberry, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committees in the 116 th Congress, have argued, "Any cut in the defense budget would be a senseless step backward " Thornberry has also said transferring recurring OCO costs into the regular budget "makes sense … it makes for more predictable budgeting, but it's all about what happens on the topline " Representative Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in the 116 th Congress, has said of the defense budget: "I think the number is too high, and it's certainly not going to be there in the future … We've got a debt, we've got a deficit, we've got infrastructure problems, we've got healthcare, education—there's a whole lot that is necessary to make our country safe, secure, and prosperous " Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has talked about a flat topline for national defense: "When you look at the $700 billion, it's not just for one year drop down, [or] a phase, it's a drop and then held constant" over the FYDP  Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer David Norquist, who is also performing the duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, at one time was reportedly preparing two budgets for FY2020—one assuming $733 billion for national defense and another assuming $700 billion  An analyst has noted "returning enduring OCO costs to the base budget, particularly a vast majority of those enduring costs over a short period as DOD has outlined, could significantly complicate an agreement between congressional Democrats and Republicans to increase both the defense and nondefense BCA budget caps for FY2020 and FY2021 " As analyst noted, "OCO has become an even less-defined pot of money … Congress needs to properly question the DOD budget planners on the future of OCO " In a January 2017 report, GAO concluded, "Without a reliable estimate of DOD's enduring OCO costs, decision makers will not have a complete picture of the department's future funding needs or be able to make informed choices and trade-offs in budget formulation and decision making " The department states it has not fully estimated those costs in part because of the BCA  In a response to GAO, DOD wrote, "Developing reliable estimates of enduring OCO costs is an important first step to any future effort to transition enduring OCO costs to the base budget  In the context of such an effort, the Department would consider developing and reporting formal estimates of those costs  However, until there is sufficient relief from the budgetary caps established in the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Department will need OCO to finance counterterrorism operations, in particular [OFS] and [OIR] " In an October 2018 report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated OCO funding for DOD enduring activities—that is, those that would probably continue in the absence of overseas conflicts—totaled more than $50 billion a year (in 2019 dollars) from 2006 to 2018—and are projected to total about $47 billion a year starting in FY2020  This figure appears to be consistent with projections published by DOD  According to the department's FY2019 budget documents, DOD projected $53 billion for "OCO to Base" in FY2020 and $45 8 billion for "OCO to Base" for FY2021 through FY2023  Some analysts have concluded: Uncertainty created by current reliance on OCO, particularly to fund base budget needs, could be detrimental to national security on three levels: (a) by undermining budget controls and contributing thereby to larger deficits, (b) by generating insecurity in the defense workforce and in defense suppliers, and (c) by creating long-term uncertainty in defense planning  The alternative, transitioning longer-term OCO expenses to the base budget, could be achieved through a combination of increased budget caps, targeted cuts in inefficient Defense programs, and increased revenues  For example, a potential enduring activity in the OCO budget is the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI)  It was previously known as the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), an effort that began in June 2014 to increase the number of U S  military personnel and prepositioned equipment in Central and Eastern Europe intended in part to reassure NATO allies after Russia's military seized Crimea  As some analysts have noted, "Because it is in the OCO part of the budget request, EDI funding does not include a projection for how much funding will be allocated in future years, which can create uncertainty in the minds of allies and adversaries alike about the U S  military's commitment to the program " On the other hand, some contend that it is precisely EDI's flexibility that allows the commander of European Command to quickly respond to changing security and posture needs in Europe, and ensure that monies intended for European deterrence will not be redirected to other DOD priorities  In its November 2018 report, the National Defense Strategy Commission quoted the late military strategist Bernard Brodie, who wrote "strategy wears a dollar sign " The panel concluded that relying on OCO funding to increase the defense budget "is not the way to provide adequate and stable resources" for the type of great power competition outlined in the Secretary of Defense's 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), which calls for the United States to bolster its competitive military advantage relative to threats posed by China and Russia: Because of budgetary constraints imposed by the BCA, lawmakers and the Department of Defense have increasingly relied upon the overseas contingency operations (OCO) fund to pay for warfighting operations in the greater Middle East, as well as other activities and initiatives  Yet this approach to resourcing has produced problems and distortions of its own  For one thing, the amount of money devoted to OCO since the BCA was enacted no longer corresponds to warfighting operations in the greater Middle East  Furthermore, such operations are no longer a top priority as articulated in the NDS  Finally, reorienting the military toward high-end competition and conflict will require new capabilities beyond the current program of record  OCO is not the way to provide adequate and stable resources for such a long-term endeavor, given its lack of predictability and the limitations on what OCO funds can be used to buy " Appendix A  Statutes, Guidance, and Regulations The designation of funding as emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) is governed by several statues as well as Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance and the Department of Defense (DOD) Financial Management Regulation (FMR)  The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA) of 1985 BBEDCA, as amended, includes the statutory definitions of emergency and unanticipated as they relate to budget enforcement through sequestration  The act also allows for appropriations to be designated by Congress and the President as emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism   Such appropriations are effectively exempt from the statutory discretionary spending limits  Title 10, United States Code—Armed Forces 10 U S C  101—Definitions Section 101 provides definitions of terms applicable to Title 10  While it does not define overseas contingency operations, it does include a definition of a contingency operations   Administration and Internal Guidance In addition to statutory requirements, the DOD and the Department of State are subject to guidance on OCO spending from the Administration  In October 2006 , under the Bush Administration, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England directed the services to break with long-standing DOD regulatory policies and expand their request for supplemental funding to reflect incremental costs related to the "longer war on terror " There was no specific definition for the "longer war on terror," now one of the core missions of the DOD  In February 2009, at the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued updated budget guidance that required DOD to move some OCO costs back into the base budget  However, within six months of issuing the new criteria, officials waived restrictions related to pay and that would have prohibited end-strength growth  In a letter from OMB to the then-Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Robert Hale, the agency characterized its 2009 criteria as "very successful" for delineating base and OCO spending but stated, "This update clarifies language, eliminates areas of confusion and provides guidance for areas previously unanticipated " GAO subsequently reported that the revised guidance significantly changed the criteria used to build the fiscal year 2010 OCO funding request by: specifying stricter definitions for repair and procurement of equipment; limiting applicability of OCO funds for RDT&E; excluding pay and allowances for end-strength above the level requested in the budget; excluding enduring family support initiatives; and excluding base realignment and closures (BRAC) amounts  OMB again revised its guidance in September 2010 following a number of GAO reports that had concluded DOD reporting on OCO costs was of "questionable reliability," due in part to imprecisely defined financial management regulations related to OCO spending  (as of September 9, 2010) Source: Letter from Steven M  Kosiak, Associate Director for Defense and Foreign Affairs, OMB, to Robert Hale, Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, "Revised War Funding Criteria," September 9, 2010  DOD Financial Management Regulations DOD incorporated the September 2010 OMB criteria for war costs into the Financial Management Regulation  Table 1 includes the general cost categories DOD uses in accounting for costs of contingency operations  Appendix B  Transfer Authorities, Special Purpose Accounts In addition to the supplemental appropriations and emergency or OCO/GWOT designation, the Department of Defense and the Department of State also have the authority to shift funds from one budget account to another in response to operational needs  For DOD, these transfers (sometimes called reprogramings ) are statutorily authorized by 10 U S C  2214—Transfer of funds: procedures and limitations  This authority allows the Secretary of Defense to reallocate funds for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, after receiving written approval from the four congressional defense committees  DOD may also reprogram funds within an account from one activity to another, as long as the general purpose for the use of those funds remains unchanged  Specific limits to transfer or reprogramming authorities have also been added to these general authorities through provisions in annual defense authorization and appropriation acts  The FY2019 defense appropriations bill sets the base budget transfer cap at $4 billion and the OCO transfer cap at $2 billion  The Department of State's OCO transfer authority has been provided in appropriations acts and has specifically authorized the Administration to transfer OCO funds only to other OCO funds within Title VIII SFOPS appropriations, not between OCO and base accounts  The transfer authority is capped, specified by account, and requires regular congressional notification procedures  Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund (OCOTF) The OCOTF was established for DOD in FY1997 as a no year transfer account (meaning amounts are available until expended) in order to provide additional flexibility to meet operational requirements  Transfers from the OCOTF are processed using existing reprogramming procedures  A quarterly report is submitted to the congressional oversight committees, documenting all transfers from the OCOTF to DOD components base budget accounts  Beginning in FY2002, funds to support Southwest Asia, Kosovo, and Bosnia contingency requirements were appropriated directly to DOD components' Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Military Personnel accounts rather than to the OCOTF for later disbursement  FY2014 was the last year the Administration requested a direct appropriation to the OCOTF  Contingency Operations Funded in the DOD Base Budget As first mandated by section 8091 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008 ( P L  110-116 ), Congress has required DOD to provide separate annual budget justification documents detailing the costs of U S  armed forces' participation in all named contingency operations where the total cost of the operation exceeds $100 million or is staffed by more than 1,000 U S  military personnel  Funding for certain DOD contingency operations has been moved to the base budget request, and is no longer designated as emergency or OCO/GWOT requirements  This movement of funding from the OCO request to the base budget request typically occurs as the operational activities of an enduring contingency operation evolve over time and DOD determines that certain elements of the associated military operations have become stable enough to be planned, financed, and executed within the base budget  For example, funding for Operation Noble Eagle, which provides fighter aircraft on 24/7 alert at several U S  military bases, was moved from the GWOT request to the base budget request in 2005  Contingency operations and other activities funded wholly or in part through DOD's base budget have included: NATO Operations in the Balkans   The U S  Army and U S  Air Force provide support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led operations in the Balkans region  Most U S  forces are deployed to Kosovo in support of the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR)  A small number of U S  personnel are deployed to the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Joint Task Force - Bravo   U S  forces support this task force, which operates from Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras and supports joint, combined, and interagency exercises and operations in Central America to counter the influence of transnational organized crime; carry out humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and build military capacity with regional partners and allied nations to promote regional cooperation and security; Operation Juniper Shield  Previously known as Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara (OEF-TS), this operation supports efforts to defeat violent extremist organizations in East Africa  This operation also provides military-to-military engagement with partner African countries, as well as readiness for crisis response and evacuation of U S  military, diplomatic, and civilian personnel; Operation Noble Eagle   This operation funds the continuing efforts to defend the United States from airborne attacks, maintain the sovereignty of the United States airspace, and defend critical U S  facilities from potentially hostile threats or unconventional attacks; Operation Enduring Freedom- Horn of Africa   This operation was established to support efforts to defeat violent extremist organizations in East Africa; provide military-to-military engagement with partner African countries, as well as readiness for crisis response and evacuation of U S  military, diplomatic, and civilian personnel throughout East Africa; Operation Enduring Freedom- Caribbean and Central America   A U S  regional military operation initiated in 2008, under the operational control of Special Operations Command-South, this operation was established to focus on counterterrorism to support DOD's overall military objectives and the larger fight against terrorism  Operation Observant Compass   This operation was established to support the deployment of approximately 100 U S  military personnel assisting the Ugandan People's Defense Force and neighboring partner African countries in countering the Lord's Resistance Army operations  Operation Spartan Shield  This operation was established to support ongoing U S  Central Command missions  Other Congressionally Authorized Funds or Programs Through the OCO authorization and appropriation process, Congress has created numerous funds and programs that are designed to finance specific overseas contingency operations-related activities that do not fit into traditional budgetary accounts  Many of these funds and programs are supplied with amounts that are available until expended—however, authorization for the specified fund or program has an expiration date, thereby requiring further congressional action for reauthorization of affected funds or programs  Congress has also provided increased transfer authority to provide greater flexibility for U S  government activities in situations that are typically unpredictable  Examples of these types of congressionally authorized OCO programs or funds have included: Afghan istan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) and Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund (CTEF)   These funds were established to provide funding and support for the training, equipping, and expansion of selected military and security forces in support of U S  objectives; Counterterrorism Partnership s Fund   This fund was established to provide funding and support to partner nations engaged in counterterrorism and crisis response activities; Command er's Emergency Response Program  This program was established to support infrastructure improvements, such as road repair and construction and enable military commanders on the ground to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction needs by undertaking activities that will immediately aid local populations and assist U S  forces in maintaining security gains; Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IEDs) Defeat Fund   This fund was established to coordinate and focus all counter-IED efforts, including ongoing research and development, throughout DOD  Due to the enduring nature of the threat, DOD began moving associated funding to the base budget in FY2010; Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) Fund   This fund was intended to expedite the procurement and deployment of MRAPs to Iraq and Afghanistan; European Deterrence Initiative (EDI)   Initially the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), this effort was established to provide funding and support to NATO allies and partners to "reassure allies of the U S  commitment to their security and territorial integrity as members of the NATO Alliance, provide near-term flexibility and responsiveness to the evolving concerns of our allies and partners in Europe, especially Central and Eastern Europe, and help increase the capability and readiness of U S  allies and partners;" Global Security Contingency Fund   This fund was established to provide funding for the Department of State and the Department of Defense "to facilitate an interagency approach to confronting security challenges;" Complex Crise s Fund   This fund was established to provide funding through the State Department and USAID "to help prevent crises and promote recovery in post-conflict situations during unforeseen political, social, or economic challenges that threaten regional security;" Migration and Refugee Assistance Fund   This fund was established to provide funding to respond to refugee crises in Africa, the Near East, South and Central Asia, and Europe and Eurasia; and Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative   This initiative was established to provide assistance, including training, equipment, lethal weapons, of a defensive nature; logistics support; supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine  This is an update to a report originally co-authored by [author name scrubbed], former CRS Specialist in Defense Readiness and Infrastructure  It references research previously compiled by [author name scrubbed], former CRS Specialist in U S  Defense Policy and Budget; Christopher Mann, Analyst in Defense Policy and Trade; [author name scrubbed], Analyst in U S  Defense Acquisition Policy; [author name scrubbed], CRS Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process; and [author name scrubbed], CRS Analyst in Public Finance  [author name scrubbed], Research Assistant, helped compile the graphics 

ground_truth: The Department of Defense (DOD) obligates more than $300 billion annually to buy goods and services, and to support research and development. Most of these acquisitions are governed by procurement statutes and regulations found in Title 10 (and parts of other select titles) of the United States Code, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. Under certain circumstances, DOD can enter into an other transaction (OT) agreement instead of a traditional contract. OT agreements are generally exempt from federal procurement laws and regulations. These exemptions grant government officials the flexibility to include, amend, or exclude contract clauses and requirements that are mandatory in traditional procurements (e.g., termination clauses, cost accounting standards, payments, audit requirements, intellectual property, and contract disputes). OT authorities also grant more flexibility to structure agreements in numerous ways, including joint ventures; partnerships; consortia; or multiple agencies joining together to fund an agreement encompassing multiple providers. Other transaction agreements are legally binding contracts; they are referred to as agreements to distinguish them from the traditional procurement contracts governed by the FAR and procurements laws. Other transaction authorities are set forth in two sections of law: 10 U.S.C. 2371—granting authority to use OTs for basic, applied, and advanced research projects. 10 U.S.C. 2371b—granting authority to use OTs for prototype projects and follow-on production. Under this authority, a prototype project can only be conducted if at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participates in the project; all significant participants are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors; at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is provided by nongovernment participants; or the senior procurement acquisition official provides a written justification for using an OT. Follow-on production can only be conducted when the underlying prototype OT was competitively awarded, and the prototype project was successfully completed. OTs have the potential to provide significant benefits to DOD, including attracting nontraditional contractors with promising technological capabilities to work with DOD, establishing a mechanism to pool resources with other entities to facilitate development of, and obtain, state-of-the-art dual-use technologies, and offering a unique mechanism for DOD to invest in, and influence the direction of, technology development. A number of analysts warn that along with the potential benefits come significant risks, including potentially diminished oversight and exemption from laws and regulations designed to protect government and taxpayer interests. In FY2017, DOD obligated $2.1 billion on prototype OT agreements, representing less than 1% of contract obligations for the year. However, the use of OTs is expected to grow at a rapid pace, due in part to recent statutory changes expanding other transaction authorities. A number of analysts and officials have raised concerns that if DOD uses OTs in ways not intended by Congress—or is perceived to abuse the authority—Congress could clamp down on the authority. Generally, DOD lacks authoritative data that can be used to measure and evaluate the use of other transaction authorities.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: The Department of Defense (DOD) obligates more than $300 billion annually to pay for goods and services (including research and development)  Most of these acquisitions are governed by numerous statutes and regulations found in Title 10 of the United States Code, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)  DOD can also enter into certain transactions without triggering most of the standard acquisition statutes and regulations by using other transaction (OT) authorities  In recent years, Congress has expanded these authorities and DOD is increasingly using OTs for research, prototyping, and production  This report examines (1) how OTs work, (2) why they were established, (3) potential benefits and risks of using OTs, and (4) whether there are data available against which to measure their effectiveness  Appendix A provides a legislative history of DOD's other transaction authorities  On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union triggered a space race with the United States when it successfully launched Sputnik I into orbit, becoming the first nation to send a man-made satellite into space  Congress, concerned that the United States was falling behind in space, held a series of hearings on an "emergency" effort to respond to the Soviet launch of Sputnik  At the same time, a bill was introduced in the Senate to create an agency with the means to quickly and efficiently develop a national space program  These efforts led to passage of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Space Act, P L  85-568) in July 1958, which established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)  In an effort to give the new agency "the necessary freedom to carry on research, development, and exploration     to insure the full development of these peaceful and defense uses without unnecessary delay," the Space Act granted NASA broad authority to "enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary" to accomplish its mission of research and exploration (emphasis added)  Congress extended different variations of OT authorities to other select agencies, granting the authority to DOD in the FY1990 & 1991 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, P L  101-189 )  For an analysis of which non-DOD agencies can use OTs and how the authorities differ by agency, see Appendix B   Other transactions are legally binding contracts that are generally exempt from federal procurement laws and regulations such as the Competition in Contracting Act and the Federal Acquisition Regulation  In contrast, traditional procurement contracts must adhere to the procurement rules set forth in statute and regulation  Generally, DOD can use other transaction authorities for three purposes: 1  conduct research, 2  develop prototypes, or 3  contract for follow-on production of a successful prototype project  DOD's other transaction authorities are found in two sections of law: 10 U   S   C   2371 grants DOD the authority to use other transactions to carry out basic, applied, and advanced research projects  DOD regulations treat these projects as financial assistance instruments, not as contracts  10 U   S   C   2371b permits the use of other transactions to conduct prototype projects and follow-on production  OTs can only be used for prototypes if one of the following applies: at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participating in the project; all significant participants are small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors; at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is provided by nongovernment participants; or the senior procurement acquisition official provides in writing an explanation of the exceptional circumstances justifying an OT  Follow-on production can only be conducted when the underlying prototype OT was competitively awarded, and the prototype project was successfully completed  10 U   S   C   2373 , while generally not considered an o ther t ransaction authority , allows DOD to buy certain items and designs for experimental or test purposes without having to adhere to the procurement laws set forth in Chapter 137 of Title 10  OT authorities grant government officials the flexibility to include, amend, or exclude contract clauses and requirements that are mandatory in traditional procurements (e g , termination clauses, payments, audit requirements, intellectual property, and contract disputes)  OTs can be structured in numerous ways, including a direct relationship between a single government agency and a single provider; joint ventures; partnerships; multiple agencies joining together to fund an agreement encompassing multiple providers; or through a consortium  One common application of OTs is to forge an agreement with a consortium  A consortium is an organized group— it can consist of nonprofits, academic institutions, or contractors— focusing on a specific technology area  Generally, a lead entity coordinates and directs a consortium's activities  Consortia have consisted of a handful to as many as 1,000 members  Consortia can act to facilitate multiparty agreements whereby each member is akin to its own co-prime contractor with the government  In such a case, the government articulates the need or problem it is trying to solve, and the various members of the consortium can submit white papers for consideration  In this scenario, OTs can serve as an efficient way for all members to send unsolicited technology suggestions and solutions to solve a defined challenge  Consortia can also be used to develop an ecosystem of entities working together on a project, whereby members of a consortium pool resources and collaborate with DOD  A number of analysts argue that using consortia in this way gives the federal government a unique ability to leverage and pool the technological expertise and innovation of multiple entities in a particular sector, thereby strengthening and advancing a sector of the industrial base that may have defense applications  Seen like this, OTs can be considered a mechanism to promote defense technology and the defense industrial base, with the potential added benefit of advancing the domestic commercial technology base  Some analysts, however, have argued that many of today's consortia do not operate as collaborative organizations, but function more like managed multiple award task order contracts  These analysts argue that DOD should seek to foster more collaboration in consortia  Some analysts have argued that consortia reduce competition, since only members of the consortium under contract can participate in the project or submit white papers for consideration and funding  Others counter that even when an OT is signed with a single consortium, competition could be increased, since all members of the consortium are notified of the opportunity (expanding the pool of potential competitors aware of the opportunity), and the OT will foster internal competition among consortium members  OTs are not procurement contracts and thus are exempt from numerous procurement statutes and regulations, including the statutes in Chapter 137 of Title 10 ( Procurement Generally )  They are, however, bound by standard contract and other select laws and regulations  Examples of laws that do not apply include the Truth in Negotiations Act, Competition in Contracting Act, Cost Accounting Standards, Contract Disputes Act, and select intellectual property statutes such as the Bayh-Dole Act  A number of these laws are aimed at oversight and protecting the interests of taxpayers  While the Competition in Contracting Act does not apply, 10 U S C  2371b requires that research and prototype projects be competed "to the maximum extent practicable " DOD policy mirrors the statutory language, stating "[C]ompetition is a good thing  It helps keep prices low, quality high, and gives the government leverage in negotiations " To the extent that OTs induce nontraditional contractors to work with DOD, OTs can be viewed as promoting competition among (and within) entities that would not normally compete for DOD contracts  However, the lack of explicitly defined competition requirements could result in less competition for certain OTs  OTs are not free from all legislative and regulatory requirements  Generally, statutes and regulations that are not procurement-specific apply, including the Trade Secrets Act, (18 U S C  1905); the Economic Espionage Act (18 U S C  1831-39); elements of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U S C  552); and fiscal and property laws, such as the Anti-deficiency Act (31 U S C  1341); and the Tucker Act (28 U S C  1491)  As can be seen by these citations, many of these statutes are not located in the procurement titles of Title 10 or Title 41  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has held that OTs are not procurement contracts, and therefore it will not review protests of such an award or solicitation  However, GAO will review "a timely protest that an agency is improperly using its other transaction authority " OT contracts can be protested to the Court of Federal Claims, although there is debate as to the extent of the court's jurisdiction  The limited protest jurisdiction of GAO is appealing to many government procurement officials  One senior Air Force official reportedly stated that OTs are "just so much faster and so much more attuned to getting something that we want today and not have to spend a couple of years going through a protest, going through this huge process to get something we wanted two years ago " It generally does not take that long to go through a GAO protest  By statute, GAO must issue an opinion on a protest within 100 days of the protest being filed, and 70% of cases are resolved in less than 60 days  While exempt from GAO bid protests, OTs are not exempt from GAO audits  Generally, OTs that include government payments exceeding $5 million are required to include a clause granting GAO the right to examine the records of any related party  However, this requirement has a number of limitations  Used properly, OTs can provide significant benefits to DOD  Along with the potential benefits come certain risks  Some of the potential benefits to OTs highlighted by analysts and officials include providing a mechanism to pool R&D resources with industry to facilitate development of, and obtain "the latest state-of-the-art, dual use technologies"; attracting nontraditional contractors with promising technological capabilities to work with DOD; lowering costs by eliminating requirements associated with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (i e , costs associated with required reporting and administrative activities) or sharing costs with industry; and "speeding up" the acquisition process  A number of experts argue that OTs provide a unique mechanism for DOD to invest in, and influence the direction of, technology development even when the end result is not directly tied to a military capability  As one observer noted, the real benefit to DOD may be that [t]he R&D has been accomplished and is available to the technical and scientific communities  As a result, a subsequent phase of research can begin or a particular approach can be demonstrated to be of no value  Some argue that OTs have particular import today  Drawing parallels to the space race, these analysts argue that DOD is engaged in a defense technology race  According to the 809 Panel: DoD is now in a period during which the time a particular technology is a dominant force on the battlefield is getting increasingly shorter, disruptive technologies are emerging at a faster pace, and these technologies are more widely dispersed…In a world with rapidly changing technology, time is a valuable resource that must not be taken for granted  It is difficult to predict what capabilities DoD will need 5 to 10 years from now—biotechnology, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, or a new technology area not even known today  It also is unclear on what plane the military will conduct warfare—traditional battlefields, space, cyberspace, or some other domain  The current acquisition system lacks the agility needed to adapt to new paradigms  These analysts argue that OTs and similar rapid acquisition authorities are critical for DOD to compete in such a fast-paced global environment where technology and innovation are no longer driven by DOD, but by industry and foreign competitors  In 1960, the United States accounted for 69% of global R&D, with U S  defense-related R&D alone accounting for more than one-third of global R&D  The federal government funded approximately twice as much R&D as U S  business  However, from 1960 to 2016, the U S  share of global R&D fell to 28%, and the federal government's share of total U S  R&D fell from 65% to 24%, while business's share more than doubled from 33% to 67%  As a result of these global, national, and federal trends, federal defense R&D's share of total global R&D fell to 3 7% in 2016  Given the shift in the global R&D landscape, and the diminishing influence of DOD as a market mover, analysts suggest that the current procurement system is overburdened by regulations and bureaucratic processes that slow the system, increase costs, and dissuade companies from doing business with DOD  In contrast, OTs are viewed as faster, attracting companies that would otherwise forgo working with DOD and promoting broader investment in critical defense capabilities  As one analyst wrote: OTAs are currently the only way to remove the barriers necessary to get these nontraditional sources of innovation to do business with the military  Properly constructed, OTAs help speed up the process, respect a company's IP through negotiation rather than regulatory fiat, and result in contracting under commercial terms and conditions  Congress also appears to have shifted its view on appropriate use of other transactions  In the FY1999 conference report, Congress stated that [OT] authority should only be used in the exceptional cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a normal contract or grant will not allow sufficient access to affordable technologies  By comparison, in the FY2018 NDAA, Congress expanded OT authorities and stated the following: In the execution of science and technology and prototyping programs, the Secretary of Defense shall establish a preference, to be applied in circumstances determined appropriate by the Secretary, for using transactions other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants  Along with the potential benefits come potential risks, including that of diminished oversight and exemption from laws and regulations designed to protect government and taxpayer interests  Some analysts, while acknowledging the important role of OTs, raise concerns over transparency and how these agreements are being employed  As one industry official stated, OTs are a contracting method, not a substitute for good acquisition practices  Discussing a particular OT for cloud services that was protested and ultimately cancelled by DOD, one observer argued The cloud contract provides a teachable moment for procurement reform-minded officials in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill  The problem was not with the OTA mechanism, which remains an essential element of reforming Pentagon procurement  Rather, the problem was with a lack of transparency with how the mechanism was employed  Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, cautioned We have to seriously consider how we are using [OTs]; whether we are using them as intended, whether we are getting the goods and services that we really want and need, whether we are getting them at the best cost and process, and we are using this procurement vehicle as a way to just circumvent the rules and have contractors not have the administration and oversight they need to hold them accountable  I'm just afraid this is going to result in a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse in the future  Congress has expressed repeated concerns that OTs could be used to circumvent congressional intent  In the FY1999 NDAA, the committees emphasized that the authority should only be used in a limited manner  The conference report stated the following: The conferees are especially concerned that such authority not be used to circumvent the appropriate management controls in the standard acquisition and budgeting process  Congress echoed a similar concern in the FY2019 NDAA  According to the House report: The committee also urges the Department to reiterate through established guidelines that OTA is not a means for circumventing appropriate use of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, and that full and open competition should be used to the maximum extent possible to maintain a sense of integrity, fairness, and credibility in the Federal Procurement process  Other transactions are also exempt from many of the socioeconomic policies put in place by Congress to promote public policies, including some Buy America requirements  Some analysts have raised concerns that OTs are a way to circumvent many of the public policies enshrined in the acquisition process  A number of analysts and officials have raised concerns that if DOD uses OTs in ways not intended by Congress—or is perceived to abuse the authority—Congress could clamp down on the authority  Under Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy reportedly stated that the military department is "trying to be very judicious about this authority so we don't lose it " Some analysts argue that Congress is already clamping down on the use of OTs  These analysts point to language in the FY2019 NDAA and FY2019 appropriations legislation ( P L  115-245 ) requiring additional reporting and notification (see Appendix A )  Such notification and reporting requirements, however, are not new; when Congress expanded OT authorities in the past, reporting and notification requirements were commonly included  The reporting requirements may also be a result of congressional frustration with a lack of transparency and data on how DOD uses OTs  DOD lacks authoritative data that can be used to assess OT effectiveness and better understand broader trends associated with these agreements  The most frequently cited source for such data is the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG), which is the primary source for tracking data on contract obligations, including other transactions for prototypes and follow-on production  FPDS-NG is configured to track data on cost-sharing, other transaction award type, and prevalence of nontraditional contractors  Obligations connected to OTs for research are tracked by the Defense Assistance Awards Data System, which is primarily used to track grants and cooperative agreements  This bifurcation of how OT data are tracked makes it more difficult to get a consolidated view of OT data  According to DOD, all OT data will be reported through FPDS-NG starting in late 2019  The procurement data in FPDS-NG are not fully reliable  There are quality issues relating to accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of data  CRS reviewed FPDS-NG data for prototype OT agreements signed or modified between FY2015 and FY2017 and found similar data inconsistencies  DOD officials acknowledge that they do not have sufficiently reliable data upon which to conduct analysis on the use of OTs and are taking steps to try to improve the data  The analyses below reflect CRS's effort to analyze DOD's use of other transaction authority based on the best available data  According to FPDS-NG, in FY2017, DOD obligated $2 1 billion—and received $360 million in cost-share contributions—on prototype other transaction agreements, representing less than 1% of DOD's total FY2017 contract obligations (approximately $320 billion)  Despite the small percentage of obligations, OTs are growing quickly and are expected to continue to grow at a rapid pace  From FY2013 to FY2017, the number of new prototype agreements increased from 12 to 94, an increase of over 650% (see Table 1 )  DOD's Defense Innovation Unit (DIU, formerly known as the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, or DIUx) was involved with approximately half of the prototype agreements executed in 2017  DOD officials have stated their intent to further increase the department's use of OTs  Officials say that this increase is due to Congress expanding the statutory authority  The Army executed more than 66% of the prototype OT agreements between FY2013 and FY2017, often on behalf of other military departments and components (see Table 2 )  Army Contracting Command-New Jersey at Picatinny Arsenal executes many of these agreements  DIU currently uses Picatinny Arsenal to execute all of its other transaction agreements  A number of private sector companies do not pursue federal government contracts because they are unwilling to forfeit intellectual property rights or adhere to some of the procurement regulations  One of the goals of OTs is to expand the defense marketplace by creating a mechanism for access to technologies and services of companies that would not otherwise work with DOD, particularly startups and companies developing innovative technology  As one industry representative stated: Because they are "outside" the FAR, OT agreements do not require such cumbersome oversight and audit requirements such as those imposed by the Truth in Negotiations Act, cost and pricing data or an expensive Cost Accounting System (CAS) qualified financial system  CAS compliant financial systems can cost a company millions of dollars to implement and maintain — and are therefore a significant, if not potentially fatal, barrier to government market entry for startups and small, innovative companies  These requirements tend to reinforce the "legacy advantage" of large traditional contractors, who can afford to hire and staff these requirements with large staffs of accountants and lawyers  A number of nontraditional companies told CRS that they are more likely to work with DOD because of the department's other transaction authorities  Despite these claims, some observers question whether OTs are effectively bringing nontraditional contractors into the defense marketplace  A DOD Inspector General report examining other transactions from FY1994 to FY2001 found that OTs did not attract significant numbers of nontraditional defense contractors to do business with DOD  The report found that of the 209 prototype agreements examined, traditional defense contractors received 95% of the $5 7 billion in funds awarded  A recent analysis of FPDS-NG data by Federal News Network had similar findings  According to the report, from FY2015 to FY2017, while nontraditional defense contractors were awarded most of the new OTs (66% vs  33% for traditional defense contractors), the dollar value of the OTs favored traditional contractors ($20 8 billion vs  $7 4 billion for nontraditional contractors)  Some observers have questioned the accuracy of the data published by Federal News Network  According to Charlie McBride, president of Consortium Management Group (which manages two consortia working with DOD through OTs), 88% of the total dollar value of awards to CMG Group has gone to nontraditional prime contractors, and nontraditional entities have participated in the remaining 12%  This debate highlights the lack of authoritative data on OTs  The currently available data may not accurately reflect the extent to which nontraditional contractors are engaged in OT agreements  FPDS-NG does not collect data regarding subcontractors or consortia composition, making it difficult to determine the nature and extent to which nontraditional defense contractors and entities may be working under OT agreements with DOD directly or as subcontractors  When Congress extended OT authority to DOD, it authorized inserting a clause requiring a person or entity to make payments to DOD as a condition of receiving support under the agreement  Such funds were to be merged into an account dedicated to support DARPA advanced research projects  The intent of this provision was to permit DARPA to "recoup the fruits of such arrangements, when there is a 'dual use' potential for commercial application" and reinvest the funds to develop other technologies  In addition to the recoupment authority, DOD can share costs with other parties under an OT  Using this approach, the amount of each party's share is negotiated and incorporated into the agreement  Congress believed that OTs and cooperative agreements were ideal vehicles for promoting DOD-industry collaboration in developing dual-use technologies  For example, the FY1992 & 1993 NDAA ( P L  102-190 ) authorized DOD to enter into cooperative and other transaction agreements to develop critical dual-use technologies as set forth in the Defense Critical Technologies Plan  According to the Senate report:     the United States tends to underinvest in dual-use technologies  National security requirements alone often do not justify major DOD support, and market prospects alone often appear to be too long-term or high risk to justify US industry carrying the entire development burden     The committee encourages use of cooperative agreements and other transactions in lieu of grants or contracts     The provision would require that at least 50 percent of funding over the life of a partnership derive from non-federal sources but would allow for a smaller industry share at the start  In the 1990s, some DARPA OTs required participants to share costs because the types of work completed generally involved R&D that was mutually beneficial to government needs and industry commercial goals  In certain instances, present-day OTs have cost-sharing requirements that foster collaborative research  Some analysts believe that DOD is not always realizing all the benefits that OTs have to offer, such as sufficiently leveraging private capital or forming true consortia of multiple parties pooling resources  Some of these analysts believe that DOD does not sufficiently use consortia to leverage private investment through the pursuit of collaborative, mutually beneficial, dual-use technologies  Some observers argue that as the legislation on OTs has evolved, the cost-sharing provision for prototype projects has come to create an unfair playing field biased against traditional defense contractors  For prototype projects, traditional contractors generally are required to assume one-third of costs whereas nontraditional defense contractors and small businesses generally do not have to cost share  From a fairness perspective, these observers argue that traditional contractors should not have a mandatory cost share  These observers also point out that some nontraditional defense contractors are companies with billions of dollars of revenue that should not be granted a competitive cost advantage  Putting traditional defense contractors at a competitive disadvantage could deny DOD access to those companies with the most experience working on defense products, potentially depriving the military of access to leading defense-related research and technology  Other observers argue that the cost share as currently structured is appropriate: traditional defense contractors hold a significant competitive edge in their understanding of, and have the systems in place to manage, traditional contracts  In contrast, nontraditional and small businesses, which generally cannot compete with the traditional defense contractors, need the exemption from the cost-share requirement to be able to work with DOD  These observers also argue that traditional contractors are awarded the majority of dollars obligated to OTs, proving how difficult it is for nontraditional suppliers to break into the defense marketplace  Additionally, traditional contractors could avoid the cost-sharing requirement by teaming with a nontraditional contractor  DOD has not effectively tracked data on cost sharing  A 2017 report to Congress indicated that in FY2016 DOD obligated $1 billion for prototype agreements and received $68 million in cost-share contributions  A CRS review found numerous concerns with the data underlying the report, and with DOD's analytical conclusions  See Appendix C for further discussion  A number of analysts and industry officials have raised concerns that DOD could use OTs to avoid competitions, as OTs are exempt from the Competition in Contracting Act  According to statute, follow-on production using other transaction authority can only be awarded if the underlying R&D agreement was competed  In addition, 10 U S C  2371b states that "to the maximum extent practicable" OTs must be competed  Determining whether OTs are being used to circumvent competition requires a two-step analysis: 1  Are OTs competed less often that traditional contracts? 2  Is there a benefit to these OTs being competed? Available FPDS-NG data suggest that DOD is broadly complying with 10 U S C  2371b's competition mandate  Between FY2013 and FY2017, approximately 89% of all new OT prototype agreements were competed in some fashion  Many observers and analysts believe that OT agreements can be executed substantially faster, sometimes in a matter of weeks, compared to the months or years it typically takes to execute traditional contracts  Based in part on this belief, some officials and analysts are touting OTs as a new model for conducting acquisitions and the answer to many of the problems in defense acquisition  These analysts argue that in a world of increasingly fast technology development, DOD acquisitions must go faster or risk being left behind  Many acquisition professionals argue that OT contracts are not inherently faster than traditional contracting; instead, they are executed faster because they are not encumbered by the reviews, protests, and bureaucratic layers that have been overlaid on traditional contracting  According to these officials, OTs take just as long as traditional contracts if the same execution and oversight processes are applied  And because all terms are negotiable, complex negotiations could make OTs take longer to execute than traditional contracts that have required, nonnegotiable conditions  The Other Transactions Guide states The OT award process will not always be faster than the traditional procurement processes and sometimes can be as long or longer  The speed of award is tied to many factors, many of which are internal to the organization  DOD has not tracked data on the relative time it takes to execute OTs vs  traditional contracts, making it impossible to objectively assess these claims  Analysts and officials generally agree that the workforce plays a critical role in determining the success or failure of an acquisition  Because there are fewer predefined requirements, OTs can be more difficult to negotiate than traditional contracts, putting DOD at greater risk of not getting what it wants at a reasonable price  The complexity and difficulty of negotiations is particularly high when there are intellectual property/patent rights issues, as is the case with most OTs  Given these challenges, OTs often require more experienced and capable government representatives to ensure implementation of agreements that are in the government's best interest  Some analysts question the extent to which the workforce is sufficiently trained and equipped to negotiate OTs  In response to this concern, in the FY2018 NDAA, Congress required workforce education and training for OTs, and required DOD to establish a cadre of intellectual property experts to advise, assist, and provide resources to program offices that are developing intellectual property strategies for contracts and agreements (see Appendix A )  DOD officials acknowledge that more training and education is required  Given the complexity of OTs and the limited extent to which they are used, some analysts and industry officials suggested that there may be a benefit to establishing a centralized office within DOD responsible for executing or overseeing all other transaction agreements  Such a structure could help ensure that those members of the acquisition workforce engaged in other transactions are sufficiently experienced, trained, and qualified  A number of analysts have argued that DOD should take steps to improve its use of OTs  Many of these analysts have suggested that data are not consistently and accurately tracked, regulations and guidance on when and how to use OTs are vague or insufficient, and the workforce is not sufficiently prepared to effectively use OTs  A number of officials have acknowledged these shortcomings and DOD is reportedly taking steps to address them  For example, in December 2018, DOD issued an updated Other Transactions Guide , a comprehensive guide containing best practices, case studies, and a clarification of myths related to other transaction authorities  In addition, Defense Acquisition University developed new course materials addressing OTs and is working to expand its offerings of relevant training and classes  However, numerous acquisition officials question whether it is possible, or even desirable, to try to quickly implement training aimed at preparing the thousands of DOD acquisition officials to execute OTs  Some of these officials have suggested it might be appropriate to only allow a limited and vetted number of acquisition professionals to be OT agreements officers  Some argue that OTs are just one "tool in the tool box," appropriate for only specific types of contracts, and should not be used to avoid the statutory and regulatory framework or to try to accelerate the process just for the sake of speed  Others have suggested that OTs should be used to cut through bureaucracy, speed up the acquisition process, avoid regulations and bid protests, and perhaps eventually supplant the regular FAR-based contracting process  Given the benefits and risks associated with OTs, questions for Congress include the following: 1  To what extent and in what circumstances do the potential benefits of OTs in terms of cost, schedule, and added capabilities outweigh concerns over potential fraud, waste, abuse, diminished oversight, and other public policy objectives? 2  Should OT authorities be extended further, curtailed, or maintained? The FY2019 NDAA required DOD to submit a report annually through 2021, summarizing DOD's use of OTs, including organizations involved; number of transactions; amounts of payments; and purpose, description, and status of projects  The NDAA also required the Defense Innovation Unit to submit a report to Congress, to include the number of traditional and nontraditional defense contractors with DOD contracts or other transactions resulting directly from the unit's initiatives  The conference report for the FY2019 defense appropriations bill included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the lack of transparency surrounding the employment of OTA, particularly for follow-on production " The conferees directed DOD to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate appropriations committees listing each active OT, and to include additional information for each agreement  The conferees also directed GAO to review DOD's use of OTs to determine whether the "employment of this authority conforms to applicable statutes and guidelines, to include the identification of any potential conflicts " GAO was also required to report on the extent to which OTs have been used since FY2016  The multitude of reporting requirements, and the questionable reliability of the available data, raise a number of questions that Congress may wish to explore, such as the following: 1  To what extent, if any, should the current reporting requirements be consolidated to create a more streamlined and consistent flow of information to Congress? 2  What specific data does Congress need in these reports to effectively conduct oversight? For example, what percentage of research OTs result in prototype projects and follow-on production? 3  To what extent are the data sufficiently reliable, and will such data be easily retrievable in the future, to allow Congress to conduct effective, timely, and ongoing oversight? If the data are not sufficiently reliable or accessible in the future, what other data collection and tracking methods could Congress mandate to ensure ongoing access to reliable data? 4  How are OTs being used? Where and when in the acquisition lifecycle is the authority being used? To what extent is the requirements process being circumvented when DOD awards an OT follow-on production contract for a major system? One analyst suggested that "no efficiency is lost if only the most able personnel are authorized to procure and administer" OT agreements and further argued that expanding the use of OTs would increase the training costs by expanding the number of people who can "weave complex agreements in a relatively unstructured environment " Congress may consider whether DOD should establish an acquisition innovation lab or center of excellence responsible for overseeing, executing, and approving all OTs across the department  Such a lab or center could be staffed and supported by a cadre of professionals with experience across the acquisition lifecycle who have a willingness and ability to embrace new ideas and rethink existing practices  Alternatively, such labs or centers could be established in the military departments  Having centers in each organization could allow for consideration of the different missions and business approaches of the departments and help educate the workforce on a more systematic basis  Proponents argue that such an office would help ensure that only experienced and capable officials, with the appropriate training, use OT authorities  Such an office could also help protect against layering internal DOD policies and bureaucracies onto OTs by placing OTs outside of the traditional bureaucratic acquisition process  Proponents could further argue that such an office could better propagate best practices and ensure that OTs are used appropriately and are consistent with guidance and legislation  Having a single office responsible for executing or approving all OTs could also help ensure more timely and accurate information, giving Congress more visibility into DOD's use of other transaction authorities  To the extent that a single, high-level official is responsible for managing and overseeing all OTs, Congress might wish to consider repealing or modifying existing statutory approval requirements  If such an office was able to provide timely and accurate information, Congress might also consider some of the current reporting requirements unnecessary, and may choose to repeal some of the reporting requirements  Opponents of such a proposal argue that centralizing OTs would have the opposite effect, increasing bureaucracy by adding yet another office within DOD  Opponents also argue that such an office could make it more time-consuming to get a project underway and may discourage program offices from attempting or suggesting OTs  Some also argue that a single office may not have the resources to execute and approve agreements in a timely manner, and would inhibit spreading expertise on how to execute OT agreements more broadly across the acquisition workforce  Even proponents who might in theory support establishing such an office could raise significant concerns regarding how such an office would function in practice  A number of alternative options could be pursued to address concerns raised by opponents of establishing a centralized office  Some of these alternative options include the following: Granting such an office primary, but not exclusive, authority to execute OTs  For example, agreement officers specifically authorized to do so could execute OTs, with the centralized office conducting a peer review  Under this construct, the office could also be charged with providing information and expertise/consulting services on the use of OTs to program offices contemplating using the authorities  Establishing centers within each military department, with a designated office in OSD serving a coordinating function (with nondelegable approval authority residing in the military department office designated for OTs)  Creating the office as a pilot program for three years, to help DOD manage OTs until such time as the workforce becomes more experienced and proficient in using these agreements  Appendix A  Legislative History Other transaction authority first appeared in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958  Since then, Congress has extended OT authorities to 11 federal agencies and a number of other federal offices (see Appendix B for information on other federal entities with similar authorities)  This appendix traces the legislative history of OT authorities and select related statutes applicable to DOD  To read the full text of the three statutory provisions related to OTs (10 U S C  2371, 2371b, and 2373), see Appendix D   National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (P L  85-568) Creation of Other Transaction Authority On July 29, 1958 President Dwight D  Eisenhower signed into law the National Aeronautics and Space Act (P L  85-568), which established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)  The purpose of the act included the expansion of human knowledge, preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in space science and technology, and pursuing the most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States  Section 203(b)(5) of the Space Act provided NASA the authority (emphasis added) to enter into and perform such contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions as may be necessary in the conduct of its work and on such terms as it may deem appropriate, with any instrumentality of the United States     or with any person, firm, association, corporation, or educational institution  To the maximum extent practicable and consistent with the accomplishments of the purpose of this Act, such contracts, leases, agreements, and other transactions shall be allocated by the Administrator in a manner which will enable small-business concerns to participate equitably and proportionately in the conduct of the work of the Administration  Intellectual Property Rights The Space Act specifically addressed NASA's "property rights in inventions " Section 305 stated that any invention made in the performance of any work under any contract is the exclusive property of the United States "unless the Administrator waives all or any part of the rights " This was true even when the person who created the invention "was not employed or assigned to perform research, development, or exploratory work, but the invention is nevertheless related to the contract" and was made during working hours, or with a contribution of the government  The act granted the Administrator wide latitude to "waive all or any part of the rights of the United States under this section" if doing so was deemed to be in the best interests of the United States  When such rights were waived, NASA retained an irrevocable, nonexclusive, nontransferable royalty-free license by or on behalf of the United States  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1990 & FY1991 ( P L  101-189 ) The FY1990 & FY1991 NDAA granted DARPA temporary authority to enter into "cooperative agreements and other transactions" for the purpose of conducting advanced research projects  The statute clarified that OTs should only be used when "the use of standard contracts or grants is not feasible or appropriate " Congress restricted funding for OTs and cooperative agreements to $25 million of appropriated funds for FY1990 and FY1991, and set the authority to expire on September 30, 1991  Cost Sharing The FY1990 & FY1991 NDAA permitted OTs (or cooperative agreements) to include a clause requiring a person or entity to make payments to DOD as a condition of receiving support under the agreement  Such funds were to be merged into an account dedicated to supporting DARPA advanced research projects using cooperative agreements and other transactions  The act required, to the extent practicable, that funds provided by the government not exceed the total amount provided by the other parties to the project  According to the Senate report, one of the intents of the cost-sharing provision was to permit DARPA to "recoup the fruits of such arrangements, when there is a 'dual use' potential for commercial application" and to reinvest the funds to develop other technologies  Reporting Requirements The FY1990 & FY1991 NDAA required DOD to submit an annual report on the use of OTs and cooperative agreements, to include a description of each agreement and the technologies involved, the potential military and commercial utility of the technology, the reasons a contract or grant was not feasible to support the research, and the amount of payments, if any, received by the federal government under the agreement  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1991 ( P L  101-510 ) Section 244 increased the funds authorized for cooperative agreements and OTs from $25 million to $50 million  However, no such funding was appropriated  Reporting and Notification Requirements The conference report required DOD to submit to Congress a report listing the cooperative agreements and consortia intended to be used in FY1991-1992  The conference report also required DOD to provide the armed services and appropriations committees 30 days' notice prior to DOD signing a cooperative agreement or agreement with a consortia under OT authority  The Senate report focused on consortia as a method to pool resources, share research among numerous participants, and promote critical dual-use technology  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1992 ( P L  102-172 ) Limitations on the Use of OTs Section 8113A of P L  102-172 placed temporary limitations on the use of agreements undertaken pursuant to 10 U S C  2371: Section 8113A limited the use of OTs and cooperative agreements exclusively to DARPA (to the exclusion of the rest of DOD) for FY1992  Section 8113A limited DARPA to obligating or expending no more than $37 5 million in FY1992 for cooperative agreements or OTs undertaken pursuant to 10 U S C  2371  Section 8113A further established that no more than $75 million could be obligated or expended by DARPA in FY1992 for DOD dual-use critical technology partnerships  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1992 & FY1993 ( P L  102-190 ) Expanded Authority Section 826 extended other transaction authority to the military departments, and established separate fund accounts in each department for cost sharing  Section 826 also repealed the sunset for cooperative agreements and OTs, making the authorities permanent  Section 821 authorized DOD to enter into cooperative and other transaction agreements to develop critical dual-use technologies as set forth in the Defense Critical Technologies Plan  According to the Senate report     the United States tends to underinvest in dual-use technologies  National security requirements alone often do not justify major DOD support, and market prospects alone often appear to be too long-term or high risk to justify US industry carrying the entire development burden     The committee encourages use of cooperative agreements and other transactions in lieu of grants or contracts     The provision would require that at least 50 percent of funding over the life of a partnership derive from non-federal sources but would allow for a smaller industry share at the start  The conference report stated that the partnerships should focus on programs that fit into the security needs within DARPA  The conference report also stated that OTs are appropriate for those cases where the "regulations applicable to the allocation of patent and data rights under the procurement statutes may not be appropriate to partnership arrangements in certain cases " National Defense Authorization Act for FY1993 ( P L  102-484 ) Cost Sharing Section 4221 established 10 U S C  2511, which required DOD to establish cooperative arrangements with industry, educational institutions, federal labs, and other entities, to pursue research, development, and application of dual-use technologies  The section authorized DOD to use grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or OTs to create these partnerships, and that the Federal government should not contribute more than 50% of the costs related to projects under this authority  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1994 ( P L  103-160 ) Expanded Authority Section 827 established 10 U S C  2358, which gave the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments the authority to conduct basic, advanced, and applied research through the use of contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, and OTs  Previously, OTs were only authorized for advanced research  Prototype Authorities Section 845 granted DARPA the authority to use OTs for prototype projects directly related to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired by DOD  Section 845 required that "to the maximum extent practicable," prototypes be competitively awarded  This authority was set to terminate after three years  Section 845 remained as a note to 10 U S C  2371 until separately codified as 10 U S C  2371b in the FY2016 NDAA ( P L  114-92 )  Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 ( P L  103-355 ) Section 1301 redesignated the language in 10 U S C  2358 (granting the authority to use OTs) to 10 U S C  2371  Reporting Requirements Section 1301 also required DOD to submit an annual report to the armed services committees, to include a general description of the other transactions, including the technologies involved in the research, the potential military and, if any, commercial utility of such technologies, the reasons for not using a contract or grant to provide support for such research, and the amount of payments, if any, received during the fiscal year pursuant to a clause in the other transactions and to what accounts such payments were credited  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1997 ( P L  104-201 ) Section 203 required that a senior DOD official be designated in OSD, and that the officials' sole responsibility be developing policy related to, and ensuring implementation of, DOD's dual-use technology program  This section authorized DOD to use OTs (as well as contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) for dual-use projects only if the project "is entered into through the use of competitive procedures " Section 743 granted DOD the authority to use OTs to conduct research on Gulf War Syndrome, to determine its relationship to possible exposures of members of the Armed Forces to chemical warfare agents and hazardous materials, and the use of inoculations and new drugs  Expanded Prototype Authorities Section 804 amended Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA by extending to the military departments and officials designated by the Secretary of Defense, the authority to use OTs for certain prototype projects  This authority, originally granted solely to DARPA and set to expire after three years, was given a new termination date of September 30, 1999  Reporting Requirements Section 267 modified elements of the annual report to the armed services committees  National Defense Authorization Act for FY1998 ( P L  105-85 ) Section 832 amended 10 U S C  2371 by clarifying that certain information submitted to DOD (i e  a proposal, business plan, technical information) be protected from disclosure pursuant to 5 U S C  552 for a period of five years  Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for FY1999 ( P L  105-261 ) Section 241 extended the sunset day for the authority to use OTs for prototypes from September 30, 1999, to September 30, 2001  Section 817 amended Section 2371 of Title 10, United States Code, clarifying that information submitted by outside parties in cooperative agreements for basic, applied, and advanced research is protected from disclosure under Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 ( P L  105-262 ) While the enacted FY1999 defense appropriations bill ( P L  105-262 ) did not include legislative language addressing OTs, H Rept  105-591 , which accompanied the House-reported version of H R  4103 , included language expressing the House Appropriations Committee's "serious reservations" regarding the Air Force's then-proposed use of an OT agreement—instead of a contract— to develop the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program  The committee noted that "under [OTs] traditional safeguards which protect the government's interest in large acquisition programs are largely absent," and required the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (now the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment) and the DOD Inspector General to certify to the congressional defense committees that the use of an OT was appropriate for the EELV program, and that "adequate safeguards exist[ed] to protect the government's interest and monitor program performance " National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 ( P L  106-65 ) Section 801 required that for prototypes using OT authorities, DOD ensure that GAO, under its audit authority, have access to records relating to other transaction prototype agreements exceeding $5 million  Section 801 allowed for a waiver to GAO access and exempted entities that over the last year have not entered into an agreement with DOD that provided for audit access by a government entity  According to the Senate report: Senior DOD officials have sought legislation to extend other transaction authority to production contracts  Under current authority, there is some debate about whether GAO has audit access to other transactions  As the size, costs, and complexity of programs being funded using other transactions increases, the committee wants to ensure that the GAO has audit access in relation to the higher levels of spending and added risks  Reporting Requirements The Senate report also addressed reporting requirements and congressional intent to review the use of OTs  The report stated the following: The committee is assessing the utility of other transaction prototype authority  The statement of managers accompanying the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act of 1999 directed the Secretary of Defense to report on the use of this authority to the congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 1999  In addition, both the Department of Defense Inspector General and the General Accounting Office are reviewing the use of other transaction prototype authority and will report to Congress in the coming year  The committee is interested in the extent that new commercial firms are entering the DOD marketplace through the use of other transaction authority, as well as the degree of cost sharing between the government and non-federal government parties  The committee is also interested in any lessons learned from the broad exemptions to federal law provided by other transaction authority  For example, other transactions are exempt from the Competition in Contracting Act, Truth in Negotiations Act, Contract Disputes Act, Antikickback Act of 1986, Procurement Integrity Act, Service Contract Act, Buy American Act, and chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code  Questions have been raised about whether the government's interest is adequately protected in the absence of the applicability of these statutes  Conversely, advocates of the view that the government should take advantage of the flexibility of other transactions have championed proposals to extend other transaction authority to production  The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a new report that updates information in the March 1999 report on the use of other transaction prototype authority to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 ( P L  106-398 ) Limitations on the Use of OTs Section 803 limited the use of OTs for prototype projects to only those circumstances when at least one nontraditional defense contractor significantly participates in the project, one-third of the total cost of the project is paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the federal government, or the senior procurement executive determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify use of an OT  Nontraditional defense contractor was defined as an entity that for a period of one year has not entered into or performed "any contract that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards" or "any other contract in excess of $500,000 to carry out prototype projects or to perform basic, applied, or advanced research projects for a Federal agency, that is subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation '' Section 803 also extended the authority to use OTs for prototypes from September 30, 2001, to September 30, 2004  According to the Senate report, the intent of using OTs for prototypes is to attract companies that typically do not do business with the Department of Defense and encourage cost sharing and experimentation in potentially more efficient ways of doing business with traditional defense contractors  Other transaction authority is an important acquisition tool that can facilitate the incorporation of commercial technology into military weapon systems  In an environment where, in many areas, commercial technology is now more advanced than defense technology, it is imperative that the Department continue to have the flexibility to use innovative contractual instruments that provide access to this technology  There are, however, improvements that can be made in managing and overseeing these contractual arrangements  Section 804 clarified the extent of GAO's access to records in instances where the party in question has only done business with the government in the preceding year through an OT or cooperative agreement  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 ( P L  107-107 ) Expanded Authority—Follow-on Production Section 822 of the FY2002 NDAA granted DOD the authority to award a follow-on production contract for prototype projects when at least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by non-federal government sources  Under this authority, such a follow-on contract could be awarded without competition if the prototype project was successfully completed, the number of units in the production contract does not exceed the number of units specified in the underlying prototype agreement, and the price for each unit does not exceed the price specified in the underlying transaction  Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act, 2002 ( P L  107-117 ) Establishment of Army Venture Capital Initiative (AVCI) Section 8150 designated $25 million of the FY2002 funds made available for Army Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) to be made available to the Secretary of the Army for the purpose of funding a venture capital investment corporation established pursuant to 10 U S C  2371  A 2014 RAND report stated that OT authorities were used only to form the AVCI, and were not used to acquire products or services: "While OT authorities were used to form [AVCI] itself, any volume of the Army's purchase of products and services from [AVCI] companies is conducted under the FAR " National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 ( P L  108-136 ) Expanded Authority Section 847 of the FY2004 NDAA extended the authority to use an OT for developing prototypes to improve weapons or weapon systems currently in use by the Armed Forces  Previously, such authority was restricted to prototypes "directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed" by DOD  Section 847 also established a pilot program for transitioning prototypes to follow-on contracts for production for nontraditional defense contractors  Under the pilot program, such a follow-on contract could be treated as a commercial item or an item developed with both federal and private sector funds (for purposes of negotiating intellectual property rights)  The pilot program was restricted to contracts with nontraditional defense contractors, where the value of the contract does not exceed $50 million (approximately $70 million in FY2018 dollars), and that are firm-fixed price or fixed price with economic adjustment  The pilot program was set to sunset September 30, 2008  Section 1441 authorized any agency that engages in basic, applied, or advanced research and development projects that facilitated defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack to exercise the same general authority given to DOD as found in 10 U S C  2371 (including for prototype projects)  Reporting Requirements Section 1031 sunset the annual reporting requirement for OT after the report covering FY2006 was submitted  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 ( P L  109-163 ) Restricted Authority and Notification Requirements Section 212 of the FY2006 NDAA directed the Army to procure the Future Combat System using contract procedures set forth in part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, in lieu of an OT  Section 823 extended ethics requirements to OT prototype authority and required the congressional defense committees be notified in writing at least 30 days before such authority is exercised  Certification Requirements Section 823 also amended Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA, requiring a written determination by a senior procurement executive for other transaction prototype projects estimated between $20 million and $100 million, and for a written determination by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics for prototype projects that exceed $100 million  According to the Senate report: Section 845 was intended to be used for limited prototype projects, particularly those in which the Department seeks to engage nontraditional defense contractors that may be averse to the requirements imposed by a standard Department procurement contract  For this reason, the statement of managers accompanying the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) states: The conferees continue to believe that the section 845 authority should only be used in the exceptional cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a normal contract or grant will not allow sufficient access to affordable technologies  The conferees are especially concerned that such authority not be used to circumvent the appropriate management controls in the standard acquisition and budgeting process  …  The committee does not believe that the $20 9 billion agreement entered between the Army and the Lead Systems Integrator for the FCS program is consistent with the language and intent of section 845 authority  Section 845 authority is intended to be used for limited prototype projects, particularly those in which the Department of Defense seeks to engage nontraditional defense contractors that may be averse to the requirements imposed by a standard Department contract  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 ( H R  5631 ) Reporting Requirement The FY2007 defense appropriations bill ( P L  109-289 ) did not include language addressing OTs  The conference report ( H Rept  109-676 ) included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the continued use of OTA contracts by the Missile Defense Agency," as such contracts "lack the customary safeguards found under FAR-based contracts for organizational conflict of interest, truth in negotiations and submission of cost and pricing data " The conferees "strongly encourage[d]" the Missile Defense Agency to convert "large development and procurement contracts using OTA to FAR-based contracts," and directed the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the use of OTs, to include the number, value, and justification for the use of such agreements  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 ( P L  110-181 ) Section 823 extended the authority for prototype projects for five more years, from September 30, 2008, to September 30, 2013  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 ( P L  110-417 ) Section 822 required DOD to issue guidance on rights in technical data under non-FAR agreements, including OTs  Section 822 also required that appropriate provisions relating to rights in technical data be included in non-FAR agreements, consistent with policy guidance  This requirements is in statute at 10 U S C  2320 note  Section 824 expanded the scope of the pilot program for transition to follow-on contracts for certain prototype projects to include research projects carried out under 10 U S C  2371  Authority to use the pilot program, set to expire September 30, 2008, was extended to September 30, 2010  Section 874 required OT data be included in the Federal Procurement Data System  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2011 ( P L  111-383 ) Section 866 changed the definition of nontraditional defense contractor, conforming the definition to that found in 10 U S C  2302(9)  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013 ( P L  112-239 ) Section 863 extended the authority for using OTs for prototype projects from September 30, 2013, to September 30, 2018  Carl Levin and Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for FY2015 ( P L  113-291 ) Expanded Authority Section 812 expanded the authority to use OT for prototypes, to include those "directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces " Prior to the FY2015 NDAA, OTs could only be used for prototypes relating to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be developed, or for the improvement of weapons or weapon systems currently in use  Reporting Requirements Section 1071 repealed the reporting requirement language found in 10 U S C  2371, relating to OTs for research projects  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016 ( P L  114-92 ) Until the FY2016 NDAA, the prototyping and follow-on production authority established in Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA (as amended) was found in 10 U S C  2371 note  Section 815 of the FY2016 NDAA simultaneously repealed Section 845 of the FY1994 NDAA and put the repealed language into the newly created 10 U S C  2371b  The FY2016 NDAA also modified 2371b by making the authority permanent  Expanded Authority and Small Business The authorities in Section 2371b were expanded to allow their use when "all significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal government are small businesses or nontraditional contractors" and when the agency determines that using an OT would expand the defense supply base in a manner that could not be accomplished through a contract  Section 815 eased the restriction on follow-on production contracts or transactions  Section 815 amended the definition of a nontraditional defense contractor found in 10 U S C  2302 to be an entity that is not currently performing, and for one year prior to an OT has not performed on any contract or subcontract that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards pursuant to Section 1502 of Title 41, U S C  Section 815 also required DOD to update its guidance to reflect changes in the statute  The conference report stated that Congress believed OTs are an attractive option for firms and organizations that do not usually participate in government contracting due to typical overhead burdens and the "one size fits all" rules governing defense acquisition  The report also stated that OTs could support DOD's effort to access new sources of technological innovation, specifically with Silicon Valley startup firms and small commercial firms  National Defense Authorization Act for FY2018 ( P L  115-91 ) Expanded Authority Section 216 of the FY2018 NDAA authorized nonprofit research institutions to enter into OTs with DOD for prototype projects  Section 862 amended 10 U S C  2358, granting the Secretary of Defense and the military departments the authority to pursue basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects under the OT authorities granted in Sections 2371 and 2371b of Title 10  Workforce Section 802 required DOD to establish a cadre of intellectual property experts to advise, assist, and provide resources to program offices who are developing intellectual property strategies for contracts and agreements  Section 863 required training and education for personnel involved in OTs and other innovative contracting methods  Certification Requirements and Small Business Section 864 adjusted the language of the statute to state that the dollar threshold relates to the specific transaction for a prototype project and not for the value of the entire project  Section 864 defined a transaction for follow-on production to include "all individual prototype sub-projects awarded under the transaction to a consortium of United States industry and academic institutions " Section 864 also increased the dollar thresholds for required approvals and defined the term small business to include small businesses under Section 9 of the Small Business Act to ensure that companies participating in the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs were considered small businesses for the purposes of the cost-sharing requirements  Miscellaneous Section 867 required the Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for OTs in the "execution of science and technology and prototyping programs " Section 1711 required DOD to carry out a pilot program to "assess the feasibility and advisability of increasing the manufacturing capability of the defense industrial base " Pursuant to the pilot, Section 1711 authorized DOD to use OTs to support production capabilities in small and medium-sized manufacturers  John S  McCain National Defense Authorization Act for FY2019 ( P L  115-232 ) Section 211 of the FY2019 NDAA clarified that follow-on production of a prototype or subproject within a consortium may occur if the individual prototype or subproject is complete; all projects associated with the consortium do not need to be completed before follow-on production of a specific prototype  Expanded Authority The FY2019 NDAA authorized the use of OTs to develop enhanced personal protective equipment (Section 226) and to carry out research under the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Defense Program (Section 311)  Reporting Requirements Section 244 required the Defense Innovation Unit to submit a report to Congress, to include the number of traditional and nontraditional defense contractors with DOD contracts or other transactions resulting directly from the unit's initiatives  Section 873 required DOD to submit an annual report through 2021, summarizing DOD's use of OTs, including organizations involved; number of transactions; amounts of payments; and purpose, description, and status of projects  Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-245 ) Reporting Requirements While the enacted FY2019 defense appropriations bill did not include legislative language addressing OTs, the conference report included language expressing the conferees' "[concern] with the lack of transparency surrounding the employment of OTA, particularly for follow-on production " The conferees directed DOD to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate appropriations committees listing each active OT, and to include the following information on each agreement: funding military service or DOD component; major command (if applicable); contracting activity; appropriation title; budget line item; minimum and maximum award value; vendor; obligations and expenditures to date; product service code; period of performance; and indication if the OT agreement included an option for follow-on production (with a description of the scope of anticipated follow-on production)  The conferees also directed GAO to review DOD's use of OTs to determine whether the "employment of this authority conforms to applicable statutes and guidelines, to include the identification of any potential conflicts " GAO was also required to report on the extent to which OTs have been used since FY2016  Notification Requirements The House report to accompany H R  6157 acknowledged OTs as an "important tool to provide flexibility and agility for cutting-edge research and development projects and prototypes " However, the report stated its concern "with the lack of transparency on the use of OTA authority for follow-on production procurements," and directed that no funds could be obligated or expended for a follow-on production contract or a transaction carried out under 10 U S C  2371b, until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense provides the congressional defense committees with a notification of the proposed contract or transaction, to include a justification of why an OT is being used for production  Appendix B  Non-DOD Federal Agencies with Agency-Wide OT or Related Authorities A number of agencies have varying other transaction or similar authorities, as reflected in Table B-1   The table below is not a comprehensive or definitive listing of every federal government entity with OT or related authorities  In some instances, offices, agencies, commissions, and other federal government entities have OT or related authorities that are only associated with certain programs or projects, such as the National Institutes of Health (which has OT authority for such specific activities such as the National Heart, Blood Vessel, Lung, and Blood Diseases and Blood Resources Program [42 U S C  §285b-3] and the Cures Acceleration Network [42 U S C  §287a])  Appendix C  Reliability of Data on Other Transactions All data have imperfections and limitations  FPDS-NG data can be used to identify broad trends and produce rough estimates, or to gather information about specific contracts  Some observers say that despite their shortcomings, FPDS-NG data are substantially more comprehensive than what is available in most other countries in the world  Understanding the limitations of government procurement data—including knowing when, how, and to what extent to rely on data—can help policymakers incorporate FPDS-NG data more effectively into their decisionmaking process  FPDS-NG OT Data Quality and Accuracy Issues Decisionmakers should be cautious when using data from FPDS-NG to develop policy or otherwise draw conclusions, especially with respect to OTs  In some cases, the data themselves may not be reliable  In other instances, a query for particular data may return differing results, depending on the parameters and timing of the analysis  In particular, all DOD data entered into FPDS-NG are subject to a 90-day delay, and updates to "data, including new actions, modifications, and corrections are made on a regular basis," which could result in changes to "data     for current and/or prior fiscal years " Inconsistencies in FPDS-NG Data Within FPDS-NG, two primary collections of obligation data exist: one associated with standard government procurement contracts or modifications to such contracts, and the other associated with prototype OT agreements or modifications to such agreements  FPDS-NG's collection of prototype OT data allows for the input of additional data elements—such as nongovernment dollars associated with cost-share prototype OT agreements—not included in FPDS-NG's collection of standard government procurement contract data  More consequentially, FPDS-NG's prototype OT data include two similar data elements that allow users to identify the fiscal year a prototype OT agreement was signed or modified  One, labeled in the database as "Fiscal Year," appears to allow users entering data into the system to manually assign a fiscal year to a transaction  FPDS-NG users entering data into the system appear to have interpreted this data element in various, conflicting ways  For example, a Department of the Air Force OT agreement was signed in February 2016 for the development of rocket propulsion system prototypes under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program  FPDS-NG records an obligation of $115 million in FY2020 for this agreement  Fiscal law bars DOD from obligating money now for future fiscal years that have not yet occurred  The second, labeled "Contract Fiscal Year," appears to be based on the date the prototype OT agreement was signed or modified  See Table C-1 for a comparison of the "Fiscal Year" and "Contract Fiscal Year" elements for selected new prototype OT agreements signed between FY2013 and FY2017  If a user selects the Fiscal Year data element when attempting to review high-level data on recent trends in the use of prototype OT agreements within DOD—such as the total amount obligated for prototype OT agreements on an annual basis—that user will obtain a substantially different result than if he or she selects the Contract Fiscal Year data element for a similar analysis  See Table C-2 for a comparison of action obligations and nongovernment contributions using the Fiscal Year and Contract Fiscal Year data elements for new prototype OT agreements signed between FY2013 and FY2017  DOD OT Data Analysis Methodological Issues in Congressional Reports A March 2017 report to Congress entitled "An Assessment of Cost-Sharing in Other Transaction Agreements for Prototype Projects," completed by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics indicated that In FY2016, DOD obligated (Note: Two outliers in 2016 excluded) $1 billion in section 2371b awards and received $68 million in cost-share contributions after excluding two significant trend outliers  DOD cited FPDS-NG as the source for its analysis, and defined the "significant trend outliers" excluded as "two $40 million OTAs with total cost-share of $270 million," likely referring to two DARPA prototype OT agreements conducted on a cost-share basis initiated in FY2016  However, a CRS analysis of the same FPDS-NG data identified numerous inconsistencies in DOD's methodological approach  Recreation of DOD Methodology Specifically, DOD appears to have conducted its analysis using the "Fiscal Year" data element referenced in this report's discussion of FPDS-NG OT data quality and accuracy issues, which would attribute some prototype OT activities to the wrong fiscal year for the purposes of comparative trend analysis  DOD also compared two disparate transaction types: the reported "$1 billion in Section 2371b awards" includes all action obligations associated with ongoing prototype OT activities in FY2016, including transactions associated with prototype OT indefinite delivery contracts, while the "$68 million in cost-share contributions" includes only cost-share contributions associated with new prototype OT agreements  If DOD used the "Contract Fiscal Year" data element, excluded the identified "trend outliers," and focused on all action obligations and cost-share contributions associated with ongoing prototype OT activities, it would have found instead that the department obligated $1 4 billion for prototype OT agreements in FY2016, with an additional $313 5 million in cost-share contributions from the private sector  On the other hand, if DOD used the "Contract Fiscal Year" data element, excluded the identified "trend outliers," and focused on only action obligations and cost-share contributions associated with new prototype OT agreements, it would have found instead that the department obligated $400 million for prototype OT agreements in FY2016, with an additional $272 1 million in cost-share contributions from the private sector  Appendix D  Other Transaction Authority Statutes 10 U S C  §2371  Research projects: transactions other than contracts and grants (a) ADDITIONAL FORMS OF TRANSACTIONS AUTHORIZED — The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department may enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) under the authority of this subsection in carrying out basic, applied, and advanced research projects  The authority under this subsection is in addition to the authority provided in Section 2358 of this title to use contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants in carrying out such projects  (b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE — In any exercise of the authority in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall act through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or any other element of the Department of Defense that the Secretary may designate  (c) ADVANCE PAYMENTS — The authority provided under subsection (a) may be exercised without regard to Section 3324 of Title 31  (d) RECOVERY OF FUNDS — (1) A cooperative agreement for performance of basic, applied, or advanced research authorized by Section 2358 of this title and a transaction authorized by subsection (a) may include a clause that requires a person or other entity to make payments to the Department of Defense or any other department or agency of the Federal Government as a condition for receiving support under the agreement or other transaction  (2) The amount of any payment received by the Federal Government pursuant to a requirement imposed under paragraph (1) may be credited, to the extent authorized by the Secretary of Defense, to the appropriate account established under subsection (f)  Amounts so credited shall be merged with other funds in the account and shall be available for the same purposes and the same period for which other funds in such account are available  (e) CONDITIONS — (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that- (A) to the maximum extent practicable, no cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) and no transaction entered into under subsection (a) provides for research that duplicates research being conducted under existing programs carried out by the Department of Defense; and (B) to the extent that the Secretary determines practicable, the funds provided by the Government under a cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction authorized by subsection (a) do not exceed the total amount provided by other parties to the cooperative agreement or other transaction  (2) A cooperative agreement containing a clause under subsection (d) or a transaction authorized by subsection (a) may be used for a research project when the use of a standard contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for such project is not feasible or appropriate  (f) SUPPORT ACCOUNTS — There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury separate accounts for each of the military departments and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for support of research projects and development projects provided for in cooperative agreements containing a clause under subsection (d) and research projects provided for in transactions entered into under subsection (a)  Funds in those accounts shall be available for the payment of such support  (g) EDUCATION AND TRAINING —The Secretary of Defense shall— (1) ensure that management, technical, and contracting personnel of the Department of Defense involved in the award or administration of transactions under this section or other innovative forms of contracting are afforded opportunities for adequate education and training; and (2) establish minimum levels and requirements for continuous and experiential learning for such personnel, including levels and requirements for acquisition certification programs  (h) REGULATIONS — The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section  (i) Protection of Certain Information From Disclosure -(1) Disclosure of information described in paragraph (2) is not required, and may not be compelled, under Section 552 of Title 5 for five years after the date on which the information is received by the Department of Defense  (2)(A) Paragraph (1) applies to information described in subparagraph (B) that is in the records of the Department of Defense if the information was submitted to the Department in a competitive or noncompetitive process having the potential for resulting in an award, to the party submitting the information, of a cooperative agreement for performance of basic, applied, or advanced research authorized by Section 2358 of this title or another transaction authorized by subsection (a)  (B) The information referred to in subparagraph (A) is the following: (i) A proposal, proposal abstract, and supporting documents  (ii) A business plan submitted on a confidential basis  (iii) Technical information submitted on a confidential basis  10 U S C  §2371b  Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects (a) AUTHORITY — (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Secretary of a military department, or any other official designated by the Secretary of Defense may, under the authority of Section 2371 of this title, carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces  (2) The authority of this section- (A) may be exercised for a transaction (for a prototype project) that is expected to cost the Department of Defense in excess of $100,000,000 but not in excess of $500,000,000 (including all options) only upon a written determination by the senior procurement executive for the agency as designated for the purpose of Section 1702(c) of Title 41, or, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the Missile Defense Agency, the director of the agency that- (i) the requirements of subsection (d) will be met; an d (ii) the use of the authority of this section is essential to promoting the success of the prototype project; and (B) may be exercised for a transaction (for a prototype project) that is expected to cost the Department of Defense in excess of $500,000,000 (including all options) only if- (i) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics determines in writing that- (I) the requirements of subsection (d) will be met; an d (II) the use of the authority of this section is essential to meet critical national security objectives; and (ii) the congressional defense committees are notified in writing at least 30 days before such authority is exercised  (3) The authority of a senior procurement executive or director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or Missile Defense Agency under paragraph (2)(A), and the authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics under paragraph (2)(B), may not be delegated  (b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY — (1) Subsections (e)(1)(B) and (e)(2) of such Section 2371 shall not apply to projects carried out under subsection (a)  (2) To the maximum extent practicable, competitive procedures shall be used when entering into agreements to carry out projects under subsection (a)  (c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION — (1) Each agreement entered into by an official referred to in subsection (a) to carry out a project under that subsection that provides for payments in a total amount in excess of $5,000,000 shall include a clause that provides for the Comptroller General, in the discretion of the Comptroller General, to examine the records of any party to the agreement or any entity that participates in the performance of the agreement  (2) The requirement in paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a party or entity, or a subordinate element of a party or entity, that has not entered into any other agreement that provides for audit access by a Government entity in the year prior to the date of the agreement  (3) (A) The right provided to the Comptroller General in a clause of an agreement under paragraph (1) is limited as provided in subparagraph (B) in the case of a party to the agreement, an entity that participates in the performance of the agreement, or a subordinate element of that party or entity if the only agreements or other transactions that the party, entity, or subordinate element entered into with Government entities in the year prior to the date of that agreement are cooperative agreements or transactions that were entered into under this section or Section 2371 of this title  (B) The only records of a party, other entity, or subordinate element referred to in subparagraph (A) that the Comptroller General may examine in the exercise of the right referred to in that subparagraph are records of the same type as the records that the Government has had the right to examine under the audit access clauses of the previous agreements or transactions referred to in such subparagraph that were entered into by that particular party, entity, or subordinate element  (4) The head of the contracting activity that is carrying out the agreement may waive the applicability of the requirement in paragraph (1) to the agreement if the head of the contracting activity determines that it would not be in the public interest to apply the requirement to the agreement  The waiver shall be effective with respect to the agreement only if the head of the contracting activity transmits a notification of the waiver to Congress and the Comptroller General before entering into the agreement  The notification shall include the rationale for the determination  (5) The Comptroller General may not examine records pursuant to a clause included in an agreement under paragraph (1) more than three years after the final payment is made by the United States under the agreement  (d) APPROPRIATE USE OF AUTHORITY — (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no official of an agency enters into a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) for a prototype project under the authority of this section unless one of the following conditions is met: (A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project  (B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U S C  638)) or nontraditional defense contractors  (C) At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than other than the Federal Government  (D) The senior procurement executive for the agency determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify the use of a transaction that provides for innovative business arrangements or structures that would not be feasible or appropriate under a contract, or would provide an opportunity to expand the defense supply base in a manner that would not be practical or feasible under a contract  (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the amounts counted for the purposes of this subsection as being provided, or to be provided, by a party to a transaction with respect to a prototype project that is entered into under this section other than the Federal Government do not include costs that were incurred before the date on which the transaction becomes effective  (B) Costs that were incurred for a prototype project by a party after the beginning of negotiations resulting in a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) with respect to the project before the date on which the transaction becomes effective may be counted for purposes of this subsection as being provided, or to be provided, by the party to the transaction if and to the extent that the official responsible for entering into the transaction determines in writing that- (i) the party incurred the costs in anticipation of entering into the transaction; and (ii) it was appropriate for the party to incur the costs before the transaction became effective in order to ensure the successful implementation of the transaction  (e) Definitions —In this section: (1) The term "nontraditional defense contractor" has the meaning given the term under Section 2302(9) of this title  (2) The term "small business" means a small business concern as defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U S C  632)  (f) FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION CONTRACTS OR TRANSACTIONS — (1) A transaction entered into under this section for a prototype project may provide for the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction to the participants in the transaction  A transaction includes all individual prototype subprojects awarded under the transaction to a consortium of United States industry and academic institutions  (2) A follow-on production contract or transaction provided for in a transaction under paragraph (1) may be awarded to the participants in the transaction without the use of competitive procedures, notwithstanding the requirements of Section 2304 of this title, 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  (3) Contracts and transactions entered into pursuant to this subsection may be awarded using the authority in subsection (a), under the authority of Chapter 137 of this title, or under such procedures, terms, and conditions as the Secretary of Defense may establish by regulation  (g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE PROTOTYPES AND FOLLOW-ON PRODUCTION ITEMS AS GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED EQUIPMENT — An agreement entered into pursuant to the authority of subsection (a) or a follow-on contract or transaction entered into pursuant to the authority of subsection (f) may provide for prototypes or follow-on production items to be provided to another contractor as Government-furnished equipment  (h) APPLICABILITY OF PROCUREMENT ETHICS REQUIREMENTS — An agreement entered into under the authority of this section shall be treated as a Federal agency procurement for the purposes of Chapter 21 of Title 41  10 U S C  §2373  Procurement for experimental purposes (a) AUTHORITY — The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments may each buy ordnance, signal, chemical activity, transportation, energy, medical, space-flight, and aeronautical supplies, including parts and accessories, and designs thereof, that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned considers necessary for experimental or test purposes in the development of the best supplies that are needed for the national defense  (b) PROCEDURES — Purchases under this section may be made inside or outside the United States and by contract or otherwise  Chapter 137 of this title applies only when such purchases are made in quantities greater than necessary for experimentation, technical evaluation, assessment of operational utility, or safety or to provide a residual operational capability 


Report 2: com/daily-news/2013/06/04/sexual-assaults-force-changes-to-military-justice html Zengerle, Patricia  "U S  Lawmakers Act to Limit Military Authority in Sex Assault Cases," Reuters, June 5, 2013, at http://www reuters com/article/2013/06/05/us-usa-military-sexassault-congress-idUSBRE9541IG20130605 Cassata, Donna and Richard Lardner  " House OKs 2-Yr Jail Term for Military Sex Assault ," Associated Press, June 14, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/06/14/house-oks-2-year-jail-term-for-military-sex-assault html Montgomery, Nancy  " After 2 decades of sexual assault in military, no real change in message ," Stars and Stripes , July 7, 2013, at https://www stripes com/news/after-2-decades-of-sexual-assault-in-military-no-real-change-in-message-1 229091 Steinhauer, Jennifer  "Complex Fight in Senate over Curbing Military Sex Assaults," New York Times , June 14, 2013, at http://www nytimes com/2013/06/15/us/politics/in-senate-complex-fight-over-curbing-sexual-military-assaults html?pagewanted=all Dao, James  "In Debate over Military Sexual Assault, Men Are Overlooked Victims," New York Times , June 23, 2013, at http://www nytimes com/2013/06/24/us/in-debate-over-military-sexual-assault-men-are-overlooked-victims html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Sisk, Richard  "Military Tries to Sever Booze, Sex Assault Link," Military com, July 8, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/07/08/military-tries-to-sever-booze-sex-assault-link html Watson, Julie  "Military Works to Change Culture to Combat Rape," Associated Press, July 15, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/07/15/military-works-to-change-culture-to-combat-rape html Olson, Wyatt  "IG Review Finds Deficiencies in Sex Assault Cases," Stars and Stripes, July 16, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/07/16/ig-review-finds-deficiencies-in-sex-assault-cases html Shanker, Thom  "New Support for Military in Sex Cases," New York Times , July 24, 2013, at http://www nytimes com/2013/07/25/us/politics/new-support-for-military-in-sex-cases html Taranto, James  "A Strange Sort of Justice at West Point," The Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2013, at https://www wsj com/articles/a-strange-sort-of-justice-at-west-point-1376453937 Cassata, Donna, "Senator Targets Military Law over Sexual Assault," Associated Press, July 29, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/07/29/senator-targets-military-law-over-sexual-assault html?comp=7000023317843&rank=3 Groer, Annie  " Military brass claim progress in pursuing sexual assault cases ," Washington Post, August 1, 2013, at https://www washingtonpost com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/08/01/military-brass-claim-progress-in-pursing-sexual-assault-cases/?utm_term= 72e55e7e218c Jennifer Koons  "Sexual Assault in the Military: Can the Pentagon stem the rise in incidents?" CQ Researcher , vol  23, no  29 (A ugust 9, 2013 ), p p  693-716   Laird, Lorelei  " Military lawyers confront changes as sexual assault becomes big news ," ABA (American Bar Association) Journal , September 2013, at http://www abajournal com/magazine/article/military_lawyers_confront_changes_as_sexual_assault_becomes_big_news/ Jelinek, Pauline  " Pentagon: Reports of Sexual Assault Up 46 Percent ," Associated Press, November 8, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/11/08/pentagon-reports-of-sexual-assault-up-46-percent html Matthews, Michael F  " The Untold Story of Military Sexual Assault ," The New York Times, November 24, 2013, at http://www nytimes com/2013/11/25/opinion/the-untold-story-of-military-sexual-assault html " Men Sexually Assaulted in the Military Speak Out ," Baltimore Sun, December 20, 2013, at http://www military com/daily-news/2013/12/20/men-sexually-assaulted-in-the-military-speak-out html Kageyama, Yuri and Richard Lardner  "Documents Reveal Chaotic Military Sex-Abuse Record," Associated Press, February 10, 2014, at http://www military com/daily-news/2014/02/10/documents-reveal-chaotic-military-sex-abuse-record html Montgomery, Nancy  "AF Program Rare Bright Spot in Sex Assault Fight," Stars and Stripes , February 27, 2014, at http://www military com/daily-news/2014/02/27/air-force-program-rare-bright-spot-in-sex-assault-fight html Cox, Matthew  "Alcohol Policies Reviewed as Sex Assault Rises," Military com, May 1, 2014, at http://www military com/daily-news/2014/05/01/alcohol-policies-reviewed-as-sex-assault-rises html Burns, Robert  "Army Knocks 2-Star Down to 1-Star Rank," Associated Press, August 27, 2014, at http://www military com/daily-news/2014/08/27/army-knocks-2-star-down-to-1-star-rank html Milham, Matt  "Army: It's Good News That Sexual Assault Reports Are Up," Stars and Stripes , September 26, 2014, at http://www military com/daily-news/2014/09/26/army-its-good-news-that-sexual-assault-reports-are-up html Draper, Robert  The Military's Rough Justice on Sexual Assault," New York Times , November 26, 2014, at https://www nytimes com/2014/11/30/magazine/the-militarys-rough-justice-on-sexual-assault html Sisk, Richard  "Sexual Assault Reports Increase 8%, Pentagon Cites Progress," Military com, December 4, 2014, at http://www military com/daily-news/2014/12/04/sexual-assault-reports-increase-8-pentagon-cites-progress html Baldor, Lolita C  "Male Military Sex Assault Victims Slow to Complain," Associated Press, December 9, 2014, at http://www military com/daily-news/2014/12/09/male-military-sex-assault-victims-slow-to-complain html Roulo, Claudette  "Sexual Assault Rates Decrease at Military Service Academies," DOD News, Defense Media Activity, February 11, 2015, at http://archive defense gov/news/newsarticle aspx?id=128158 Pellerin, Cheryl  "DOD Honors Sexual Assault Response Coordinators," DOD News, April 23, 2015, at https://www defense gov/News/Article/Article/604510/ Rowe, Major Derek  "General courts-martial for sexual assault: How do they work?" Air Force News , April 28, 2015, at http://www af mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/586763/general-courts-martial-for-sexual-assault-how-do-they-work/ Sisk, Richard  "Military Sexual Assault Reports Increased 11 Percent Last Year," Military com, May 1, 2015, at http://www military com/daily-news/2015/05/01/military-sexual-assault-reports-increased-11-percent-last-year html Johnson, Lieutenant General Michelle D , U S  Air Force Academy superintendent; Vice Admiral Walter E  "Ted" Carter Jr , superintendent, U S  Naval Academy; Lieutenant General Robert L  Caslen, superintendent, U S  Military Academy; Rear Admiral James A  Helis, superintendent, U S  Merchant Marine Academy; Rear Admiral Sandra L  Stosz, superintendent, U S  Coast Guard Academy  "Lessons to Share: The five superintendents of federal service academies discuss how their institutions -- which faced scrutiny over sexual assault before many other colleges attracted such attention -- have responded to the issue," Inside Higher Ed, May 7, 2015, at https://www insidehighered com/views/2015/05/07/essay-how-federal-service-academics-prevent-and-punish-sexual-assault Tilghman, Andrew  "Military sexual assault claims: 1 in 20 lead to jail time," Military Times, May 13, 2015, at https://www militarytimes com/2015/05/13/military-sexual-assault-claims-1-in-20-lead-to-jail-time/ Schogol, Jeff  "Defense seeks dismissal of sexual assault case transferred to Washington," Air Force Times, October 17, 2015, at https://www airforcetimes com/news/your-air-force/2015/10/17/defense-seeks-dismissal-of-sexual-assault-case-transferred-to-washington/ Whitlock, Craig  "In the war against sexual assault, the Army keeps shooting itself in the foot," Washington Post, December 19, 2015, at https://www washingtonpost com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/19/in-the-war-against-sexual-assault-the-army-keeps-shooting-itself-in-the-foot/?utm_term= d856136e939b Defense Media Activity  "Defense Department Proposes UCMJ Changes," DOD News, December 28, 2015, at https://www defense gov/News/Article/Article/638108/defense-department-proposes-ucmj-changes/ Losey, Stephen  "USAF launches new strategy to curb sexual assault," Air Force Times, December 30, 2015, at https://www airforcetimes com/news/your-air-force/2015/12/30/usaf-launches-new-strategy-to-curb-sexual-assault/ Kime, Patricia  "Sexual assault reporting rises at U S  service academies," Military Times , January 8, 2016, at https://www militarytimes com/news/your-military/2016/01/08/sexual-assault-reporting-rises-at-u-s-service-academies/ Larter, David B  "Navy sex assault victims may be eligible for early separation," Navy Times, January 20, 2016, at https://www navytimes com/news/your-navy/2016/01/20/navy-sex-assault-victims-may-be-eligible-for-early-separation/ Cox, John Woodrow  "Why sex assault reports have spiked at the Naval Academy, West Point and the Air Force Academy, Washington Post , March 11, 2016, at https://www washingtonpost com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/11/why-sex-assault-reports-have-spiked-at-the-naval-academy-west-point-and-the-air-force-academy/?utm_term= a5e15f2f16f1 Whitlock, Craig, Thomas Gibbons-Neff  "Military bringing more charges against ofﬁcers for sexual assault," Washington Post, March 20, 2016, at https://www stripes com/news/us/military-bringing-more-charges-against-of%EF%AC%81cers-for-sexual-assault-1 400140# WeTFNOFRXUc Lardner, Richard  "Pentagon misled lawmakers on military sexual assault cases," Associated Press , April 18, 2016, at https://apnews com/23aed8a571f64a9d9c81271f0c6ae2fa/pentagon-misled-lawmakers-military-sexual-assault-cases Kheel, Rebecca  "Senators ask Obama to investigate whether Pentagon misled Congress," The Hill, April 19, 2016, at http://thehill com/policy/defense/276832-senators-ask-obama-to-investigate-pentagons-sexual-assault-comments Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs  "Air Force report on sexual assault highlights program's progress," Air Force News , May 05, 2016, at http://www af mil/News/Article-Display/Article/752653/air-force-report-on-sexual-assault-highlights-programs-progress/ Tilghman, Andrew  "Military sex assault: Just 4 percent of complaints result in convictions," Military Times , May 5, 2016, at https://www militarytimes com/veterans/2016/05/05/military-sex-assault-just-4-percent-of-complaints-result-in-convictions/ Montgomery, Nancy  "US Military Court Addresses 'Incapable of Consent' to Sex Issue," Stars and Stripes , May 18, 2016, at http://www military com/daily-news/2016/05/18/us-military-court-addresses-incapable-of-consent-to-sex-issue html Losey, Stephen  "Military must do right by wrongly-discharged sexual assault victims, advocates say," Air Force Times , May 19, 2016, at https://www airforcetimes com/news/your-air-force/2016/05/19/military-must-do-right-by-wrongly-discharged-sexual-assault-victims-advocates-say/ Lyle, Amaani  "DoD Safe Helpline Offers Specialized Support to Sexual Assault Victims," DOD News, July 15, 2016, at https://dod defense gov/News/Article/Article/841166/dod-safe-helpline-offers-specialized-support-to-sexual-assault-victims/ Rein, Lisa  "Merchant Marine Academy under fire for sexual assault allegations," Stars and Stripes, August 12, 2016, at https://www stripes com/news/us/merchant-marine-academy-under-fire-for-sexual-assault-allegations-1 423595 Lyle, Amaani  "DoD Unveils Plan to Broaden Sexual Assault Support to Men," DOD News, Defense Media Activity, December 15, 2016, at https://www defense gov/News/Article/Article/1030795/dod-unveils-plan-to-broaden-sexual-assault-support-to-men/ The following sources are listed in alphabetical order by author  Burgess, Ann W , Donna M  Slattery, and Patricia A  Herlihy  "Military Sexual Trauma: A Silent Syndrome " Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services 51, no  2 (2013): 20-6  D'Ambrosio-Woodward, Tricia  "Military Sexual Assault: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the 2012 Department of Defense Report on Sexual Assault in the Military: What It Tells Us, What It Doesn't Tell Us, and How Inconsistent Statistic Gathering Inhibits Winning the 'Invisible War '" Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society 29, no  2 (2014): 173-211  Farris, Coreen, Terry L  Schell and Terri Tanielian  Physical and Psychological Health Following Military Sexual Assault: Recommendations for Care, Research, and Policy   Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2013  http://www rand org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP382 Firestone, Juanita M , J  M  Miller, and Richard Harris  "Implications for Criminal Justice from the 2002 and 2006 Department of Defense Gender Relations and Sexual Harassment Surveys " American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ 37, no  3 (2012): 432-451  Gibson, Carolyn J , Kristen E  Gray, Jodie G  Katon, Tracy L  Simpson, and Keren Lehavot  "Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, and Physical Victimization during Military Service across Age Cohorts of Women Veterans " Women's Health Issues 26, no  2 (2016): 225-231  Harrell, Margaret C , Laura Werber, Marisa Adelson, Sarah J  Gaillot, Charlotte Lynch and Amanda Pomeroy  A Compendium of Sexual Assault Research   Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2009  http://www rand org/pubs/technical_reports/TR617 Holland, Kathryn, Rabelo, Verónica, and Cortina, Lilia  Sexual Assault Training in the Military: Evaluating Efforts to End the 'Invisible War ' American Journal of Community Psychology 54, no  3/4 (2014): 289-303  Morral, Andrew R , Kristie Gore, and Terry L  Schell  Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U S  Military, Volume 1  Design of the 2014 RAND Military Workplace Study   Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, 2014  https://www rand org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9841 html Morral, Andrew R , Kristie Gore, and Terry L  Schell  Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U S  military: Volume 2  Estimates for Department of Defense Service members from the 2014 RAND Military Workplace Study   Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, 2015  https://www rand org/pubs/research_reports/RR870z2-1 html O'Brien, Carol, Jessica Keith, and Lisa Shoemaker  "Don't Tell: Military Culture and Male Rape " Psychological Services 12, no  4 (2015): 357-365  Stander, Valeria A  and Cynthia J  Thomsen  "Sexual Harassment and Assault in the U S  Military: A Review of Policy and Research Trends " AMSUS Military Medicine (Association of Military Surgeons of the United States) 181, no  1S (2016): 20-27  This chronological list of hearings was compiled from Congress gov and CQ com  U S  Congress, House Armed Services Committee, A Review of Sexual Misconduct by Basic Training Instructors at Lackland Air Force Base , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , January 23, 2013, H A S C  No  113-2 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for 2014 , Part 1, 113th Cong , 1 st sess , February 26, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, Testimony on Sexual Assault in the Military, 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , March 13, 2013, S  Hrg  113-303 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113th Cong , 1 st sess , April 17, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for 2014, Part 2 , 113th Cong , 1 st sess , April 24, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113th Cong , 1 st sess , April 24, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, President Obama's Fiscal 2014 Budget Proposal for the U S  Navy and Marine Corps , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , May 7, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, D epartment of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 and the Future Years Defense Program , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , May 7, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, President Obama's Fiscal 2014 Budget Proposal for the U S  Army , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , May 8, 2013  (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, President Obama's Fiscal 2014 Budget Proposal for the U S  Air Force , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , May 8, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, President Obama's Fiscal 2014 Budget Proposal for the U S  Air Force , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , May 9, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113th Cong , 1 st sess , May 22, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Pending Legislation Regarding Sexual Assaults in the Military , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , June 4, 2013, S  Hrg  113–320 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , June 11, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113th Cong , 1 st sess , June 11, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Women in Service Review s , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , July 24, 2013, H A S C  No  113–50 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress , Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, The Relationships Between Military Sexual Assault, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Suicide, and on Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Treatment and Management of Victims of Sexual Trauma , 113 th Cong , 2 nd sess , February 26, 2014, S  Hrg  113-480 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)   U S  Congress, Armed Services Committee , Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of Defense , 113 th Cong , 2 nd sess , March 6 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, House Armed Services Committee, Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Navy , 113 th Cong , 2 nd sess , March 12 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015, Part 1 , 113 th Cong , 2 nd sess , March 13, 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, House Armed Services Committee , Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force , 113 th Cong  , 2 nd sess , March 14, 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, House Armed Services Committee , Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Army , 113 th Cong , 2 nd sess , March 25 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense , Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015 , 113th Cong , 2 nd sess , March 26 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee , Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015 , Part 2, 113 th Cong , 2 nd sess , April 2, 2014, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense , Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015 , 113th Cong , 2 nd sess , April 2 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, House Armed Services Committee , National Defense Priorities from the Members for the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act , 113 th Cong  , 2 nd sess , April 9 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 , 113th Cong , 2 nd sess , April 9, 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 , 113th Cong , 2 nd sess , April 30, 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense , Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015 , 113th Cong , 2 nd sess , June 18 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee , Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program , Part 1 , 114th Cong , 1 st sess , March 3 , 10 , 12 , 18 , 19, 26, April 4, 30 , 2015 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services , Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program , Part 7 Strategic Forces, 114 th Cong , 1 st sess , March 4, 25, April 15, 22, 29 , 2015 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program , Part 3 Readiness and Management Support, 114 th Cong , 1 st sess , March 11, 25, April 22, 2015 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, The Current State of Readiness of U S  Forces in Review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program , 114 th Cong , 1 st sess , March 25, 2015 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017 and the Future Years Defense Program , Part 1 , 114 th Cong , 2 nd sess , February 11, 23, March 3, 10, 15, 17, April 5, 7, 26, 2016 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016)  U S  Congress, House Armed Services Committee, The Fiscal Year 2017 Na tional Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of Defense , 114 th Cong , 2 nd sess , March 22, 2016 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016)  U S  Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, The Current State of Research, Diagnosis, and Treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury , 114 th Cong , 2 nd sess , April 20, 2016 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 on H R 1960 with Additional and Dissenting Views, 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , H  Rept  113-102 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2014 to Accompany H R  2397 together with Additional Views, 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , H  Rept  113-113 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 to accompany S  1197, 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , S  Rept  113-44 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2014 to accompany S 1429, 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , S  Rept  113-85 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, First Annual Report on the Activities of the Committee on Armed Services for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress , 113 th Cong , 1 st sess , H  Rept  113-309 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to accompany H R 4435, 113 th Cong, 2 nd sess , H  Rept  113-446 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Howard P  "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 supplemental report to accompany H R 4435, 113 th Cong  2 nd sess , H  Rept  113-446 part 2 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to accompany S 2410, 113 th Cong, 2 nd sess , S  Rept  113-176 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2015 to accompany H R 4870, 113 th Cong , 2 nd sess , H  Rept  113-473 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2015 to accompany H R 4870, 113 th Cong , 2 nd sess , S  Rept  113-211 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Armed Service, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to accompany H R 1735, 114 th Cong , 1 st sess , H  Rept  114-102 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015)  U S  Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to accompany S 1376, 114 th Cong , 1 st sess , S  Rept  114-49 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2016 to accompany H R 2685, 114 th Cong , 1 st sess , H  Rept  114-139 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015)  U S  Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2016 to accompany S 1558, 114 th Cong , 1 st sess , S  Rept  114-63 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015)  U S  Congress, House Conference Report, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to accompany H R 1735, 114 th Cong , 1 st sess , H  Rept  114-270 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 on H R 4909, 114 th Cong , 2 nd sess , H  Rept  114-537 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016)  U S  Congress, Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to accompany S 2943, 114 th Cong, 2 nd sess , S  Rept  114-255 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016)  U S  Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2017 to accompany H R 5293, 114 th Cong , 2 nd sess , H  Rept  114-577 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016)  U S  Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2017 to accompany S 3000, 114 th Cong , 2 nd sess , S  Rept  114-263 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016)  U S  Congress, House Conference Report, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to accompany S  2943, 114 th Cong, 2 nd sess , H  Rept  114-840 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016) 

ground_truth: This report focuses on previous activity in Congress regarding high profile incidents of sexual assault in the military during the summer 2013 through 2016. Included are separate sections on the official responses related to these incidents by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Obama Administration, and Congress including legislation during the 113th (2013-2014) Congress and 114th Congress (2015-2016). The last section is a resource guide for sources in this report and related materials on sexual assault and prevention during this period. This report will not be updated and supersedes CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in Congress and Related Resources. For current information regarding Congress and issues on sexual assault in the military, see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for Congressional Oversight, by Kristy N. Kamarck and Barbara Salazar Torreon. For legislative initiatives in the 115th Congress, see CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by Kristy N. Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon and CRS Report R45343, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by Bryce H. P. Mendez et al.